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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-07-13 · NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION · Notices

Notices. Issuance of environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact for license amendment

23,422 words·~106 min read·/register/2007/07/13/07-3405

A 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 [Docket No. 50-259] Tennessee Valley Authority; Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 1; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or NRC) is considering issuance of an amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-33 issued to the Tennessee Valley Authority (the licensee) for operation of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, located in Limestone County, Alabama.
The proposed amendment would allow deletion of License Condition 2.G.(2) regarding the performance of power uprate large transient testing. In addition, it was requested that this proposed amendment be handled as an exigent request consistent with Title 10 to the *Code of Federal Regulations* (10 CFR), § 50.91(a)(6). The Commission has reviewed this request and determined that the circumstances presented by the licensee do not support an exigent review and abbreviated public comment period.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations. The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves 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. 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. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The requested licensing action would eliminate the current license condition schedule requirement to perform a full power turbine generator load reject transient test. No other changes are proposed. This proposed licensing action will not affect any system, structure, or component designed for the mitigation of previously analyzed events. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve an increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The requested licensing action would eliminate the current schedule requirement to perform a full power turbine generator load reject transient test. No other changes are proposed. Therefore, the proposed TS change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? *Response:* No. Performance of the full power load reject transient test is not necessary to ensure acceptable plant operation at the high thermal power level. Simple, integrated system tests have been performed, and a turbine trip from a high power and a main steam isolation valve transient test from full power have been experienced. In addition, other testing has been performed which demonstrated the satisfactory performance of individual components and subsytems. Thus, the proposed elimination of the load reject transient test will not significantly reduce any 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. 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. 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 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of requests for 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 O1F21, 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 by the above date, 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 requestors/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify 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 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 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 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, 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. 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(c)(1)(i)-(viii). 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 General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated June 25, 2007, and supplemental letter dated July 3, 2007, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, File Public Area O1-F21, 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/adams.html.* Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of July 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Eva A. Brown, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7-13611 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 030-09415] Notice of Environmental Assessment Related to the Issuance of a License Amendment to Byproduct Material License No. 24-15595-01, for Unrestricted Release of a Former Facility for Aptuit, Inc., Kansas City, MO AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact for license amendment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter J. Lee, Ph.D., CHP, Health Physicist, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region III, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2443 Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois 60532; telephone:
(630)829-9870; fax number:
(630)515-1259; or by e-mail at *pjl2@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is considering the issuance of an amendment to NRC Byproduct Materials License No. 24-15595-01, which is held by Aptuit, Inc. (licensee). The amendment would authorize the unrestricted release of the licensee's Building L, which is located at 10245 Hickman Mills Drive, Kansas City, Missouri (the facility). The licensee ceased all use of licensed radioactive materials in the facility. The licensee will continue using licensed materials in other facilities under its license. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment in support of this action in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. Based on the Environmental Assessment, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. The amendment to Aptuit, Inc.'s license will be issued following the publication of this Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. I. Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Action The proposed action would approve Aptuit, Inc.'s request to amend its license and release the facility for unrestricted use in accordance with 10 CFR part 20, Subpart E. The proposed action is in accordance with Aptuit, Inc.'s request to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)to amend its NRC Byproduct Material License by letters dated January 5, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML070080417), and May 2, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML071230265). Aptuit, Inc. was first licensed to use byproduct materials on May 23, 1973. The licensee is authorized to use byproduct materials for research and development as defined in 10 CFR 30.4. The primary isotopes used in the facility were hydrogen-3 and carbon-14. On October 1, 2006, Aptuit, Inc. completed removal of licensed radioactive material from the facility. The licensee conducted surveys of the facility and provided this information to the NRC to demonstrate that the radiological condition of the facility is consistent with radiological criteria for unrestricted use in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E. No radiological remediation activities are required to complete the proposed action. Need for the Proposed Action The licensee is requesting this license amendment because it has discontinued licensed activities in the facility. The NRC is fulfilling its responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act to make a decision on the proposed action for decommissioning that ensures that residual radioactivity is reduced to a level that is protective of the public health and safety and the environment, and allows the facility to be released for unrestricted use. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC staff reviewed the information provided and surveys performed by the licensee to demonstrate that the release of the facility is consistent with the radiological criteria for unrestricted use specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. Based on its review, the staff determined that there were no radiological impacts associated with the proposed action because no radiological remediation activities were required to complete the proposed action, and that the radiological criteria for unrestricted use in § 20.1402 have been met. Based on its review, the staff determined that the radiological environmental impacts from the proposed action for the Building L facility are bounded by the “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities” (NUREG-1496). Additionally, no non-radiological or cumulative impacts were identified. Therefore, the NRC has determined that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Alternatives to the Proposed Action The only alternative to the proposed action is to take no action. Under the no-action alternative, the licensee's facility would remain under an NRC license and would not be released for unrestricted use. Denial of the license amendment request would result in no change to current conditions at the Building L facility. The no-action alternative is not acceptable because it is inconsistent with 10 CFR 30.36, which requires licensees who have ceased licensed activities in a particular building to begin decommissioning activities or submit a decommissioning plan, which upon approval, will be used to conduct decommissioning activities. This alternative would impose an unnecessary regulatory burden in controlling access to the former Building L facility, and limit potential benefits from the future use of the facility. Conclusion The NRC staff concluded that the proposed action is consistent with the NRC's unrestricted release criteria specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. Because the proposed action will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred alternative. Agencies and Persons Consulted The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action will not affect listed species or critical habitats. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Likewise, the NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is not a type of activity that has potential to cause effect on historic properties. Therefore, consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is not required. The NRC consulted with Mr. Keith Henke, Planner, Division of Community and Public Health, Office of Emergency Coordination, Department of Health and Senior Services. Mr. Henke was provided the draft EA for comment on June 27, 2007. Mr. Henke responded to the NRC by e-mail on July 2, 2007, indicating that the State had no additional comments for the Aptiut, Inc. NRC Environmental Assessment for the release of the licensee's Building L. II. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the EA in support of the proposed license amendment to release the facility for unrestricted use, the NRC has determined that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Thus, the NRC has not prepared an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. III. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at: *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room
(PDR)Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to: *pdr@nrc.gov.* The documents and ADAMS accession numbers related to this notice are: 1. Pam Barton, Aptuit, Inc., letter to Kevin Null, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, January 5, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML070080417). 2. Pam Barton, Aptuit, Inc., letter to Mike McCann, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, May 2, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML071230265). 3. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs,” NUREG-1748, August 2003. 4. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities,” NUREG-1496, August 1994. 5. NRC, NUREG-1757, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,” Volumes 1-3, September 2003. Documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at Lisle, Illinois, this 3rd day of July 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Patrick L. Louden, Chief, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region III. [FR Doc. E7-13685 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Public Availability of Fiscal Year 2006 Agency Inventories Under the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act AGENCY: Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President. ACTION: Notice of Public Availability of Agency Inventory of Activities That Are Not Inherently Governmental and of Activities That Are Inherently Governmental. SUMMARY: The Federal Activities Inventory Reform
(FAIR)Act, Public Law 105-270, requires agencies to develop inventories each year of activities performed by their employees that are not inherently governmental—i.e., inventories of commercial activities. The FAIR Act further requires OMB to review the inventories in consultation with the agencies and publish a notice of public availability in the **Federal Register** after the consultation process is completed. In accordance with the FAIR Act, OMB is publishing this notice to announce the availability of inventories from the agencies listed below. These inventories identify both commercial activities and activities that are inherently governmental. This is the second release of the FAIR Act inventories for FY 2006. Interested parties who disagree with the agency's initial judgment may challenge the inclusion or the omission of an activity on the list of activities that are not inherently governmental within 30 working days and, if not satisfied with this review, may appeal to a higher level within the agency. The Office of Federal Procurement Policy has made available a FAIR Act User's Guide through its Internet site: *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/procurement/fair-index.html.* This User's Guide will help interested parties review FY 2006 FAIR Act inventories. Rob Portman, Director, Office of Management and Budget. Attachment—Second Fair Act Release FY 2006 Department of Agriculture Ms. Ava Lee,
(202)720-1179, *http://www.usda.gov/ocfo.* Department of Agriculture OIG Mr. Rod DeSmet,
(202)720-6979, *http://www.usda.gov/oig/rptsbulletins.htm.* Department of Homeland Security Mr. David Childs,
(202)447-5266, *http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/editorial/editorial_0504.xml.* Department of State Ms. Valerie Dumas,
(703)516-1506, *http://www.state.gov.* Department of Veterans Affairs Ms. Julie Plush,
(202)273-5048, *http://www.va.gov/op3/.* Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Mr. Jeffrey Smith,
(202)663-4200, *http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/plan/.* Federal Election Commission Ms. Tina VanBrakle,
(202)694-1006, *http://www.fec.gov/pages/fair.shtml.* Federal Maritime Commission Mr. Bruce Dombrowski,
(202)523-5800, *http://www.fmc.gov/reading/FairActSubmissionIntro.asp.* General Services Administration Mr. Paul Boyle,
(202)501-0324, *http://www.gsa.gov.* Merit Systems Protection Board Mr. Wade Douglas,
(202)653-6772 x1118, *http://www.mspb.gov.* Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. Mary Lynn Scott,
(301)415-7305, *http://www.nrc.gov/who-we-are/contracting.html.* Nuclear Regulatory Commission OIG Mr. David Lee,
(301)415-5930, *http://www.nrc.gov/insp-gen/fairact-inventory.html.* Office of Personnel Management Mr. Ronald C. Flom,
(202)606-3207, *http://www.opm.gov/procure/fairactinventory/.* Office of the U.S. Trade Representative Ms. Susan Buck,
(202)395-9412, *http://www.ustr.gov.* Smithsonian Institution Ms. Alice Maroni,
(202)275-2020, *http://www.si.edu.* [FR Doc. E7-13562 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3110-01-P PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION Required Interest Rate Assumption for Determining Variable-Rate Premium for Single-Employer Plans; Interest on Late Premium Payments; Interest on Underpayments and Overpayments of Single-Employer Plan Termination Liability and Multiemployer Withdrawal Liability; Interest Assumptions for Multiemployer Plan Valuations Following Mass Withdrawal AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. ACTION: Notice of interest rates and assumptions. SUMMARY: This notice informs the public of the interest rates and assumptions to be used under certain Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation regulations. These rates and assumptions are published elsewhere (or can be derived from rates published elsewhere), but are collected and published in this notice for the convenience of the public. Interest rates are also published on the PBGC's Web site ( *http://www.pbgc.gov* ). DATES: The required interest rate for determining the variable-rate premium under part 4006 applies to premium payment years beginning in July 2007. The interest assumptions for performing multiemployer plan valuations following mass withdrawal under part 4281 apply to valuation dates occurring in August 2007. The interest rates for late premium payments under part 4007 and for underpayments and overpayments of single-employer plan termination liability under part 4062 and multiemployer withdrawal liability under part 4219 apply to interest accruing during the third quarter (July through September) of 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine B. Klion, Manager, Regulatory and Policy Division, Legislative and Regulatory Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005, 202-326-4024. (TTY/TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4024.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Variable-Rate Premiums Section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iii)(II) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and 4006.4(b)(1) of the PBGC's regulation on Premium Rates (29 CFR part 4006) prescribe use of an assumed interest rate (the “required interest rate”) in determining a single-employer plan's variable-rate premium. Pursuant to the Pension Protection Act of 2006, for premium payment years beginning in 2006 or 2007, the required interest rate is the “applicable percentage” of the annual rate of interest determined by the Secretary of the Treasury on amounts invested conservatively in long-term investment grade corporate bonds for the month preceding the beginning of the plan year for which premiums are being paid (the “premium payment year”). On February 2, 2007 (at 72 FR 4955), the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS)published final regulations containing updated mortality tables for determining current liability under section 412(l)(7) of the Code and section 302(d)(7) of ERISA for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2007. As a result, in accordance with section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iii)(II) of ERISA, the “applicable percentage” to be used in determining the required interest rate for plan years beginning in 2007 is 100 percent. The required interest rate to be used in determining variable-rate premiums for premium payment years beginning in July 2007 is 6.32 percent ( *i.e.,* 100 percent of the 6.32 percent composite corporate bond rate for June 2007 as determined by the Treasury). The following table lists the required interest rates to be used in determining variable-rate premiums for premium payment years beginning between August 2006 and July 2007. For premium payment years beginning in: The required interest rate is: August 2006 5.36 September 2006 5.19 October 2006 5.06 November 2006 5.05 December 2006 4.90 January 2007 5.75 February 2007 5.89 March 2007 5.85 April 2007 5.84 May 2007 5.98 June 2007 6.01 July 2007 6.32 Late Premium Payments; Underpayments and Overpayments of Single-Employer Plan Termination Liability Section 4007(b) of ERISA and § 4007.7(a) of the PBGC's regulation on Payment of Premiums (29 CFR part 4007) require the payment of interest on late premium payments at the rate established under section 6601 of the Internal Revenue Code. Similarly, 4062.7 of the PBGC's regulation on Liability for Termination of Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4062) requires that interest be charged or credited at the section 6601 rate on underpayments and overpayments of employer liability under section 4062 of ERISA. The section 6601 rate is established periodically (currently quarterly) by the Internal Revenue Service. The rate applicable to the third quarter (July through September) of 2007, as announced by the IRS, is 8 percent. The following table lists the late payment interest rates for premiums and employer liability for the specified time periods: From Through Interest rate (percent) 7/1/01 12/31/01 7 1/1/02 12/31/02 6 1/1/03 9/30/03 5 10/1/03 3/31/04 4 4/1/04 6/30/04 5 7/1/04 9/30/04 4 10/1/04 3/31/05 5 4/1/05 9/30/05 6 10/1/05 6/30/06 7 7/1/06 9/30/07 8 Underpayments and Overpayments of Multiemployer Withdrawal Liability Section 4219.32(b) of the PBGC's regulation on Notice, Collection, and Redetermination of Withdrawal Liability (29 CFR part 4219) specifies the rate at which a multiemployer plan is to charge or credit interest on underpayments and overpayments of withdrawal liability under section 4219 of ERISA unless an applicable plan provision provides otherwise. For interest accruing during any calendar quarter, the specified rate is the average quoted prime rate on short-term commercial loans for the fifteenth day (or the next business day if the fifteenth day is not a business day) of the month preceding the beginning of the quarter, as reported by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in Statistical Release H.15 (“Selected Interest Rates”). The rate for the third quarter (July through September) of 2007 ( *i.e.* , the rate reported for June 15, 2007) is 8.25 percent. The following table lists the withdrawal liability underpayment and overpayment interest rates for the specified time periods: From Through Interest rate (percent) 7/1/01 9/30/01 7.00 10/1/01 12/31/01 6.50 1/1/02 12/31/02 4.75 1/1/03 9/30/03 4.25 10/1/03 9/30/04 4.00 10/1/04 12/31/04 4.50 1/1/05 3/31/05 5.25 4/1/05 6/30/05 5.50 7/1/05 9/30/05 6.00 10/1/05 12/31/05 6.50 1/1/06 3/31/06 7.25 4/1/06 6/30/06 7.50 7/1/06 9/30/06 8.00 10/1/06 9/30/07 8.25 Multiemployer Plan Valuations Following Mass Withdrawal The PBGC's regulation on Duties of Plan Sponsor Following Mass Withdrawal (29 CFR part 4281) prescribes the use of interest assumptions under the PBGC's regulation on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4044). The interest assumptions applicable to valuation dates in August 2007 under part 4044 are contained in an amendment to part 4044 published elsewhere in today's **Federal Register** . Tables showing the assumptions applicable to prior periods are codified in appendix B to 29 CFR part 4044. Issued in Washington, DC, on this 9th day of July 2007. Vincent K. Snowbarger, Deputy Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. [FR Doc. E7-13595 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7709-01-P RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review, Request for Comments SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad Retirement Board
(RRB)is forwarding an Information Collection Request
(ICR)to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for the following collection of information: 3220-0136, Public Service Pension Questionnaires. Review and approval by OIRA ensures that we impose appropriate paperwork burdens. The RRB invites comments on the proposed collection of information to determine
(1)the practical utility of the collection;
(2)the accuracy of the estimated burden of the collection;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information that is the subject of collection; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments to RRB or OIRA must contain the OMB control number of the ICR. For proper consideration of your comments, it is best if RRB and OIRA receive them within 30 days of publication date. Public Law 95-216 amended the Social Security Act of 1977 by providing, in part, that spouse or survivor benefits may be reduced when the beneficiary is in receipt of a pension based on employment with a Federal, State, or local governmental unit. Initially, the reduction was equal to the full amount of the government pension. Public Law 98-21 changed the reduction to two-thirds of the amount of the government pension. Public Law 108-203 amended the Social Security Act by changing the requirement for exemption to public service offset, that Federal Insurance Contributions Act
(FICA)taxes be deducted from the public service wages for the last 60 months of public service employment, rather than just the last day of public service employment. Sections 4(a)(1) and 4(f)(1) of the Railroad Retirement Act
(RRA)provides that a spouse or survivor annuity should be equal in amount to what the annuitant would receive if entitled to a like benefit from the Social Security Administration. Therefore, the public service pension
(PSP)provisions apply to RRA annuities. RRB Regulations pertaining to the collection of evidence relating to public service pensions or worker's compensation paid to spouse or survivor applicants or annuitants are found in 20 CFR 219.64c. The RRB utilizes Form G-208, Public Service Pension Questionnaire, and Form G-212, Public Service Monitoring Questionnaire, to obtain information used to determine whether an annuity reduction is in order. The RRB proposes no changes to Form G-208. Non-burden impacting editorial and formatting changes are proposed to Form G-212. The RRB estimates the completion time for RRB Form G-208 at 16 minutes and G-212 at 15 minutes. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. If a respondent fails to complete the form(s), the RRB may be unable to pay them benefits. One response is required from a respondent. *Previous Requests for Comments:* The RRB has already published the initial 60-day notice (72 FR 14628 on March 28, 2007) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That request elicited no comments. Information Collection Request
(ICR)*Title:* Public Service Pension Questionnaires. *OMB Control Number:* 3220-0136 *Form(s) submitted:* G-208, Public Service Pension Questionnaire; G-212, Public Service Monitoring Questionnaire. *Type of request:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Affected public:* Individuals or households. *Abstract:* A spouse or survivor annuity under the Railroad Retirement Act may be subjected to a reduction for a public service pension. The questionnaires obtain information needed to determine if the reduction applies and the amount of such reduction. *Changes Proposed:* The RRB proposes no changes to Form G-208 and minor, non-burden impacting editorial changes to Form G-212. *The burden estimate for the ICR is as follows:* *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 1,170. *Total annual responses:* 1,170. *Total annual reporting hours:* 294. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS: Copies of the forms and supporting documents can be obtained from Charles Mierzwa, the agency clearance officer (312-751-3363) or *Charles.Mierzwa@rrb.gov* . Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60611-2092 or *Ronald.Hodapp@rrb.gov* and to the OMB Desk Officer for the RRB, at the Office of Management and Budget, Room 10230, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. Charles Mierzwa, Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-13689 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7905-01-P RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review, Request for Comments SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad Retirement Board
(RRB)is forwarding an Information Collection Request
(ICR)to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for the following collection of information: 3220-0196, Investigation of Claim for Possible Days of Employment. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and approval by OIRA ensures that we impose appropriate paperwork burdens. The RRB invites comments on the collection of information to determine
(1)the practical utility of the collection;
(2)the accuracy of the estimated burden of the collection;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information that is the subject of collection; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments to RRB or OIRA must contain the OMB control number of the ICR. For proper consideration of your comments, it is best if RRB and OIRA receive them within 30 days of publication date. Under Section 1(k) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA), unemployment and sickness benefits are not payable for any day with respect to which remuneration is payable or accrues to the claimant. Also Section 4(a-1) of the RUIA provides that unemployment or sickness benefits are not payable for any day the claimant receives the same benefits under any law other than the RUIA. Under Railroad Retirement Board
(RRB)regulations, 20 CFR 322.4(a), a claimant's certification or statement on an RRB provided claim form that he or she did not work on any day claimed and did not receive income such as vacation pay or pay for time lost shall constitute sufficient evidence unless there is conflicting evidence. Further, under 20 CFR 322.4(b), when there is a question raised as to whether or not remuneration is payable or has accrued to a claimant with respect to a claimed day or days, investigation shall be made with a view to obtaining information sufficient for a finding. The RRB utilizes Form ID-5S(SUP), Report of Cases for Which All Days Were Claimed During a Month Credited Per an Adjustment Report, to collect information about compensation credited to an employee during a period when the employee claimed either unemployment or sickness benefits from a railroad employer. The request is generated as a result of a computer match that compares data which is maintained in the RRB's RUIA Benefit Payment file with data maintained in the RRB's records of service. The ID-5S(SUP) is generated annually when the computer match indicates that an employee(s) of the railroad employer was paid unemployment or sickness benefits for every day in one or more months for which creditable compensation was adjusted due to the receipt of a report of creditable compensation adjustment (RRB FORM BA-4, OMB Approved 3220-0008) from their railroad employer. The computer generated Form ID-5S(SUP) includes pertinent identifying information, the BA-4 adjustment process date and the claimed months in question. Space is provided on the report for the employer's use in supplying the information requested in the computer generated transmittal letter, Form ID-5S, which accompanies the report. To our knowledge no other agency uses forms similar to Form ID-5S(SUP). Completion is voluntary. One response is requested of each respondent. The RRB estimates that 80 responses are received annually and that the estimated completion time is 10 minutes for each response. The RRB proposes non-burden impacting editorial changes to Form ID-5S(SUP) and Form ID-5S. *Previous Requests for Comments:* The RRB has already published the initial 60-day notice (72 FR 8206-8207 on February 23, 2007) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That request elicited no comments. Information Collection Request Details
(ICR)*Title:* Investigation of Claim for Possible Days of Employment. *OMB Control Number:* 3220-0196. *Form(s) submitted:* ID-5S(SUP). *Type of request:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Affected public:* Business or other for-profit. *Abstract:* Under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, unemployment or sickness benefits are not payable for any day in which remuneration is payable or accrues to the claimant. The collection obtains information about compensation credited to an employee during a period when the employee claimed unemployment or sickness benefits from their railroad employer. *Changes Proposed:* The RRB proposes minor editorial and formatting changes to Form ID-5S(SUP) and its accompanying transmittal letter Form ID-5S. The burden estimate for the ICR is as follows: *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 80. *Total annual responses:* 80. *Total annual reporting hours:* 13. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS: Copies of the forms and supporting documents can be obtained from Charles Mierzwa, the agency clearance officer (312-751-3363) or *Charles.Mierzwa@rrb.gov* . Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60611-2092 or *Ronald.Hodapp@rrb.gov* and to the OMB Desk Officer for the RRB, at the Office of Management and Budget, Room 10230, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. Charles Mierzwa, Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-13690 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7905-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56032; File No. SR-Amex-2007-66] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Extend the Quarterly Options Series Pilot Program July 9, 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 June 28, 2007, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Exchange” or “Amex”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated this proposal as non-controversial under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange seeks a one-year extension of the pilot program allowing the listing and trading of options series that expire at the close of business on the last business day of a calendar quarter (“Pilot Program”). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site ( *http://www.amex.com* ), at the Exchange's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Pilot Program, which began in July 2006, allows the Amex to list and trade options series that expire at the close of business on the last business day of a calendar quarter (“Quarterly Options Series”). 5 The Exchange is proposing to extend the Pilot Program from July 10, 2007, through and including July 10, 2008. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54137 (July 12, 2006), 71 FR 41283 (July 20, 2006) (“Pilot Program Release”). The Exchange also proposes to incorporate certain changes to its rules regarding Quarterly Options Series as recently filed by the other options Exchanges and approved by the Commission. 6 In this regard, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 903C, Series of Stock Index Options, to provide that the strike price of each Quarterly Options Series will be fixed at a price per share, with at least two, but not more than five, strike prices above, and two, but not more than five, strike prices below the value of the underlying security at the time that a Quarterly Options Series is opened for trading on the Exchange. The Exchange further proposes to eliminate the restriction that it may only list strike prices for a Quarterly Options Series based on an underlying index that are within $5 from the closing price of the underlying index on the preceding day. In place of this restriction, the Exchange proposes to include language in Rule 903C that would allow the Exchange to open additional strike prices of a Quarterly Options Series that are above (below) the value of the underlying index, provided that the total number of strike prices above (below) the value of the underlying index, including the additional strike prices, is no greater than five. The Exchange believes that so limiting the number of Quarterly Options Series based on an underlying index that may be opened ensures that the addition of the new series through this Pilot Program would have only a negligible impact on the Exchange's and Option Price Reporting Authority's (“OPRA”) quoting capacity. The opening of any new Quarterly Options Series shall not affect the series of options of the same class previously opened. 6 *See* Exchange Act Release No. 54762 (November 16, 2006), 71 FR 67663 (November 22, 2006) (SR-CBOE-2006-93) (Order approving proposed rule change); *see also* Exchange Act Release No. 55301 (February 15, 2007), 72 FR 8238 (February 23, 2007) (SR-Phlx-2007-08) (Notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed rule change). The Pilot Program report (“Report”), which is attached as Exhibit 3 to the Form 19b-4 filed with the Commission, provides data regarding the Pilot Program as required in the Pilot Program Release. Under the terms of the Pilot Program, the Exchange may select five
(5)option classes on which Quarterly Options Series may be opened on any Quarterly Options Opening Date. Also under the terms of the Pilot Program, the Exchange may list Quarterly Options Series on any option class that is selected by another securities exchange with a similar Pilot Program under its rules. As noted in the Report, the five classes which the Exchange is currently trading were all selected by another securities exchange. The Exchange has not selected any additional classes of quarterly options for the Pilot at this time. As the data in the Report indicates, the Amex volume trends in Quarterly Options as compared to all options in the Pilot securities shows higher utilization rates throughout the year. Specifically, for the last 3 months of the Pilot, from March to May 2007, the five
(5)option classes selected by the Amex for Quarterly Options accounted for 10.4% of total options volume, as compared to 3.8% for the first three months. Furthermore, a look at open interest reveals that, on average, Quarterly Options account for 13.4% of total open interest in the Pilot Program classes. The open interest in Quarterly Options has generally trended higher during the time period evaluated. In January 2007, open interest in Quarterly Options totaled 1,620,610, a figure which grew to 3,574,263 in May. These numbers give further proof of increased investor use of the Quarterly Options. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that an extension of the Pilot Program for one-year through July 10, 2008, is warranted in order to satisfy the institutional demand for such options and to provide additional flexibility as well as an additional risk management tool to investors. The Exchange notes that it possesses adequate systems capacity to support the trading of Quarterly Options Series. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 7 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 8 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one that:
(1)Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(2)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and
(3)does not become operative for 30 days from the date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 9 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. 10 The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the operative delay to permit the Pilot Program extension to become effective prior to the 30th day after filing. 11 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 10 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 11 As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days before doing so. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it will allow the benefits of the Pilot Program to continue without interruption. 12 Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal operative upon filing. 13 12 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 13 As set forth in the Pilot Program Release, if the Exchange were to propose an extension, an expansion, or permanent approval of the Pilot Program, the Exchange would submit, along with any filing proposing such amendments to the program, a report that would provide an analysis of the Pilot Program covering the entire period during which the Pilot Program was in effect. The report would include, at a minimum:
(1)Data and written analysis on the open interest and trading volume in the classes for which Quarterly Option Series were opened;
(2)an assessment of the appropriateness of the option classes selected for the Pilot Program;
(3)an assessment of the impact of the Pilot Program on the capacity of the Exchange, OPRA, and market data vendors (to the extent data from market data vendors is available);
(4)any capacity problems or other problems that arose during the operation of the Pilot Program and how the Exchange addressed such problems;
(5)any complaints that the Exchange received during the operation of the Pilot Program and how the Exchange addressed them; and
(6)any additional information that would assist in assessing the operation of the Pilot Program. The report must be submitted to the Commission at least sixty
(60)days prior to the expiration date of the Pilot Program. *See* Pilot Program Release, *supra* note 5. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File No. SR-Amex-2007-66 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2007-66. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the 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, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. 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-2007-66 and should be submitted on or before August 3, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 14 14 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-13598 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56026; File No. SR-CBOE-2007-72] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Exchange Fees July 6, 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 June 29, 2007, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change CBOE proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to:
(i)Adopt a surcharge fee for transactions in options on the CBOE Volatility Index (“VIX”); and
(ii)clarify the assessment of the Sales Value Fee. The text of the proposed rule change is available at: *http://www.cboe.org/legal,* the Exchange's principal office, and the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose VIX Options Surcharge Fee The Exchange proposes to adopt a $0.04 per contract surcharge fee on all non-public-customer transactions in VIX options to help the Exchange recoup license fees the Exchange pays to Standard and Poor's for its license to trade the VIX product. The proposed surcharge fee is identical to the surcharge fee currently assessed on non-public-customer transactions in options on the S&P 100 Index (“OEX” and “XEO”) and options on the S&P 500 Index (“SPX”). The Exchange intends to implement this fee on July 2, 2007. Sales Value Fee Section 6 of the CBOE Fees Schedule describes the Sales Value Fee and how the fee is assessed. The Sales Value Fee is defined as the fee assessed by CBOE to each member for sales of securities on CBOE with respect to which CBOE is obligated to pay a fee to the Commission under Section 31 of the Act. 3 Section 6 of the CBOE Fees Schedule also applies to trading on the CBOE Stock Exchange, LLC (“CBSX”). 3 15 U.S.C. 78ee. The Sales Value Fee is applied not only to sales executed on CBOE and CBSX, but also to sell orders that originate at CBSX and are routed to other trading centers pursuant to CBOE Rule 52.10 (Order Routing to Other Trading Centers). Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend section 6 of the Fees Schedule to clarify that the Sales Value Fee is also assessed by CBOE to each member for orders to sell securities that originate at CBSX and are routed to and executed on another trading center. The Exchange has entered into an arrangement with the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) whereby NSCC will collect the Sales Value Fee (among other fees) with respect to non-options sales on behalf of CBSX from CBSX members through their clearing firms and remit the fees to CBSX. The Exchange proposes to amend section 6 of the Fees Schedule to reflect this new fee collection procedure. 4 4 Prior to Regulation NMS, the Sales Value Fee was assessed by CBOE to each CBSX member for orders to sell securities that originated at CBSX and were routed via the Intermarket Trading System (“ITS”) to, and executed on, another exchange. Pursuant to arrangements between CBOE and other ITS participant exchanges, CBOE paid to the exchange on which the covered sale occurred the Sales Value Fee collected by CBOE from the CBSX member that originated the sell order. In the current Regulation NMS environment, CBOE now routes orders to other trading centers via a private linkage pursuant to an agreement between CBSX and a third-party technology provider (“Routing Firm”). CBSX's Routing Firm is assessed a fee by an away trading center for covered sales resulting from sell orders originating on CBSX and routed to and executed by the Routing Firm on that trading center. CBOE collects the Sales Value Fee from the CBSX member that originated the sell order but instead of passing the fee to an away exchange, CBOE now passes the fee to the Routing Firm to reimburse the Routing Firm for the fee it paid to the away trading center. *See* E-mail from Jamie Galvan, Assistant Secretary, CBOE, to David Michehl, Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission dated July 6, 2007. 2. Statutory Basis The proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act, 5 in general, and furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(4) of the Act, 6 in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among CBOE members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others No written comments were 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 Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 8 because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange. Accordingly, the proposal will take effect upon filing with the Commission. 7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 8 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to: *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-CBOE-2007-72 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-CBOE-2007-72. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of CBOE. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2007-72 and should be submitted on or before August 3, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 9 9 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-13592 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56031; File No. SR-ISE-2007-53] Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Extend the Quarterly Options Series Pilot Program July 9, 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 June 27, 2007, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (“Exchange” or “ISE”) 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 Exchange has designated this proposal as non-controversial under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange is proposing to extend, until July 10, 2008, its quarterly options pilot program (“Pilot Program”). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site ( *http://www.ise.com* ), at the Exchange's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange is proposing to extend, until July 10, 2008, an ISE pilot program (“Pilot Program”) to list options series that would expire at the close of business on the last business day of a calendar quarter (“Quarterly Options Series”). 5 The Pilot Program is currently set to expire on July 10, 2007. Under the Pilot Program, the Exchange is allowed to open Quarterly Options Series on up to five
(5)currently listed options classes that are either index options or options on ETFs. The Exchange also is allowed to list Quarterly Options Series on any options class that is selected by other securities exchanges that employ a similar pilot program under their respective rules. The Exchange has selected the following five options classes to participate in the Pilot Program: the Standard & Poor's Depositary Receipts® (SPY); Nasdaq-100® Shares (QQQQ); Diamonds® Trust Series 1 (DIA); iShares Russell 2000® Index Fund (IWM); and Select Sector SPDR®—Energy (XLE). The ISE believes the Pilot Program has been successful and well received by its members and the investing public. Thus, the ISE proposes to extend the Pilot Program until July 10, 2008. 5 *See* Exchange Act Release No. 54113 (July 7, 2006), 71 FR 39694 (July 13, 2006) (File No. SR-ISE-2006-24) (“Approval Order”). In support of this proposed rule change, and as required by the Approval Order, the Exchange is submitting to the Commission a report (“Pilot Program Report”), attached as Exhibit 3 to the Form 19b-4 filed with the Commission, detailing the Exchange's experience with the Pilot Program. Specifically, the Pilot Program Report contains data and written analysis regarding the five options classes included in the Quarterly Options Pilot Program for the period from July 10, 2006 through December 29, 2006. The Exchange believes there is sufficient investor interest and demand to extend the Pilot Program for another year. The Exchange further believes that the Pilot Program has provided investors with a flexible and valuable tool to manage risk exposure, minimize capital outlays, and the ability to more closely tailor their investment strategies and decisions to the movement of the underlying security. Finally, the Exchange has not detected any material proliferation of illiquid options series resulting from the introduction of the Pilot Program. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rule 2009, Supplementary Material .02 to:
(1)Limit the number of strike prices that the Exchange may initially open for Quarterly Options Series to five strike prices above or below the value of the underlying index;
(2)clarify that the Exchange may open for trading additional Quarterly Options Series of the same class when the Exchange deems such action necessary to maintain an orderly market or meet customer demand, provided that the additional series priced above (below) the value of the underlying index do not cause there to be more than five strike prices above (below) the value of the underlying index; and
(3)clarify that the opening of any new Quarterly Options Series will not affect the previously opened series of options of the same class. 6 6 The Commission recently approved a similar change to the rules of the Chicago Board Options Exchange and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange. *See* Securities Exchange Act Releases No. 54762 (November 16, 2006), 71 FR 67663 (November 22, 2006) (Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of File No. SR-CBOE-2006-93) and 55301 (February 15, 2007), 72 FR 8238 (February 23, 2007) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of File No. SR-Phlx-2007-08). Finally, the Exchange represents that it has the necessary systems capacity to support new options series that result from the continued listing and trading of Quarterly Options Series. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 7 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 8 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 for a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that extension of the Pilot Program will result in a continuing benefit to investors, by allowing them to more closely tailor their investment decisions, and will allow the Exchange to further study investor interest in quarterly options. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received from Members, Participants or Others The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one that:
(1)Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(2)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and
(3)does not become operative for 30 days from the date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 9 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. 10 The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the operative delay to permit the Pilot Program extension to become effective prior to the 30th day after filing. 11 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 10 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 11 As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days before doing so. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it will allow the benefits of the Pilot Program to continue without interruption. 12 Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal operative upon filing. 13 12 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 13 As set forth in the Approval Order, if the Exchange were to propose an extension, an expansion, or permanent approval of the Pilot Program, the Exchange would submit, along with any filing proposing such amendments to the program, a report that would provide an analysis of the Pilot Program covering the entire period during which the Pilot Program was in effect. The report would include, at a minimum:
(1)Data and written analysis on the open interest and trading volume in the classes for which Quarterly Option Series were opened;
(2)an assessment of the appropriateness of the option classes selected for the Pilot Program;
(3)an assessment of the impact of the Pilot Program on the capacity of the Exchange, OPRA, and market data vendors (to the extent data from market data vendors is available);
(4)any capacity problems or other problems that arose during the operation of the Pilot Program and how the Exchange addressed such problems;
(5)any complaints that the Exchange received during the operation of the Pilot Program and how the Exchange addressed them; and
(6)any additional information that would assist in assessing the operation of the Pilot Program. The report must be submitted to the Commission at least sixty
(60)days prior to the expiration date of the Pilot Program. *See* Approval Order, *supra* note 5. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File No. SR-ISE-2007-53 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-ISE-2007-53. 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, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. 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-ISE-2007-53 and should be submitted on or before August 3, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 14 Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. 14 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). [FR Doc. E7-13601 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56028; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2007-031] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Three-Characters Ticker Symbols July 9, 2007. I. Introduction On March 29, 2007, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to allow an issuer with a three-character ticker symbol that transfers its listing to Nasdaq from another listing market to continue using its three-character ticker symbol on Nasdaq. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on April 4, 2007. 3 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55563 (March 30, 2007), 72 FR 16391. The Commission received 24 comment letters on the proposal. 4 On May 1, 2007, Nasdaq filed a response to the comment letters. 5 This order approves the proposed rule change. 4 *See* letters from Edward J. Resch, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, State Street Corporation, dated May 21, 2007 (“State Street Letter”); Larry A. Mizel, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, M.D.C. Holdings, Inc. (“MDC Letter”), dated May 17, 2007; Jack R. Hartung, Chief Finance and Development Officer, Chipotle Mexican Grill, dated May 15, 2007 (“Chipotle Letter”); Carol R. Kaufman, Sr. Vice President Legal Affairs, The Cooper Companies, Inc., dated May 14, 2007 (“Cooper Companies Letter”); Farooq Kathwari, Chairman, President and CEO, Ethan Allen Interiors, Inc., dated May 9, 2007 (“Ethan Allen Letter”); James J. Angel, Associate Professor of Finance, McDonough School of Business, Georgetown University, dated May 9, 2007 (“Angel Letter”); Jack Sennott, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Darwin Professional Underwriters, Inc., dated May 8, 2007 (“Darwin Letter”); Bart J. Ward, Chief Executive Officer, Ward & Company, dated May 8, 2007 (“Ward Letter”); Craig D. Mallick, Corporate Secretary, United States Steel Corporation, dated May 4, 2007 (“United States Steel Letter”); Michael Tenenbaum, Trustee, Strategic Technologies Employees Pension Fund Trust, dated May 2, 2007 (“Strategic Technologies Letter”); Carrie E. Dwyer, General Counsel and Executive Vice President Corporate Oversight, The Charles Schwab Corporation (“Schwab”), dated April 27, 2007 (“Schwab Letter”); Mary Yeager, Assistant Secretary, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”), dated April 25, 2007 (“NYSE Letter”); Patrick J. Healy, Issuer Advisory Group, dated April 24, 2007 (“Issuer Advisory Group Letter”); Neal L. Wolkoff, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”), dated April 16, 2007 (“Amex Letter”); Eric W. Nodiff, Sr. V.P. and General Counsel, Cantel Medical Corp., dated April 9, 2007 (“Cantel Medical Letter”); Dave Patch, dated April 6, 2007 (“Patch Letter”); Steve S. Fishman, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Big Lots, Inc., dated April 4, 2007 (“Big Lots Letter”); David M. Brain, President and CEO, Entertainment Properties Trust, dated April 3, 2007 (“Entertainment Properties Trust Letter”); Cathy Burzik, President and Chief Executive Officer, Kinetic Concepts, Inc., dated March 30, 2007 (“Kinetic Concepts Letter”); Edward W. Moore, Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary, RPM International Inc., dated March 29, 2007 (“RPM Letter”); Leo Liebowitz, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Getty Realty Corp., dated March 29, 2007 (“Getty Realty Letter”); Timothy J. O'Donovan, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Wolverine World Wide, Inc., dated March 28, 2007 (“Wolverine World Wide Letter”); Jason Korstange, SVP, Director of Corporate Communications, TCF Financial Corporation, dated March 28, 2007 (“TCF Financial Letter”); and Edward F. Tancer, Vice President & General Counsel, FPL Group, Inc., dated March 28, 2007 (“FPL Group Letter”). 5 *See* letter from Joan C. Conley, Senior Vice President and Corporate Secretary, Nasdaq, to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Commission, dated May 1, 2007 (“Nasdaq Response Letter”). II. Description of the Proposal Historically, it has been the practice of NYSE, Amex, and the regional exchanges to list securities using three-character ticker symbols, and of Nasdaq to list securities using four- and five-character symbols. 6 Nasdaq recently submitted a proposed rule change to begin listing Delta Financial Corp., a security that transferred its listing from Amex, while retaining its three-character symbol (“DFC”). 7 6 It has also been the practice of NYSE, Amex, and the regional exchanges to list securities using two-character ticker symbols. In addition, NYSE lists securities with one-character ticker symbols. 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55519 (March 26, 2007), 72 FR 15737 (April 2, 2007) (SR-NASDAQ-2007-025). Nasdaq now proposes to allow any issuer with a three-character ticker symbol that transfers its listing to Nasdaq from another domestic listing market to continue using its three-character ticker symbol on Nasdaq. III. Summary of Comments Four commenters expressed support for Nasdaq's proposal; 8 the remaining 20 commenters, including 16 issuers listed on NYSE, objected to Nasdaq listing transferred securities with their three-character ticker symbols. 9 8 *See* Angel Letter, Schwab Letter, Issuer Advisory Group Letter, and Patch Letter. 9 *See* State Street Letter, MDC Letter, Chipotle Letter, Cooper Companies Letter, Ethan Allen Letter, Darwin Letter, Ward Letter, United States Steel Letter, Strategic Technologies Letter, NYSE Letter, Amex Letter, Cantel Medical Letter, Big Lots Letter, Entertainment Properties Trust Letter, Kinetic Concepts Letter, RPM Letter, Getty Realty Letter, Wolverine World Wide Letter, TCF Financial Letter, and FPL Group Letter. The commenters objecting to the proposal generally argued that the proposal would violate the long- standing practice of allowing only NYSE-listed securities to use three-character ticker symbols, 10 cause confusion in the marketplace, 11 and circumvent the ongoing efforts of self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) to develop a national market system plan for the selection and reservation of securities ticker symbols. 12 In addition, two commenters argued that the proposal could cause a shortage of one-, two-, or three-character ticker symbols. 13 10 *Id.* 11 *See* Ward Letter, NYSE Letter, Amex Letter, Big Lots Letter, and Wolverine World Wide Letter. 12 *See* Ward Letter, NYSE Letter, Amex Letter, and RPM Letter. 13 *See* NYSE Letter and Amex Letter. The Amex Letter, among other comment letters, expressed views on Nasdaq listing one- and two-character ticker symbols; however, this proposed rule change relates only to the transfer of three-character ticker symbol listings. In support of the proposal, some commenters asserted that the proposal would enhance competition among markets and reduce the potential for investor confusion. 14 In its letter, Nasdaq responded to the commenters, stating that it believed that many of the commenters opposing the proposal misunderstood its proposal and the current use of symbols by the securities markets, and reiterated its belief that the proposal would reduce investor confusion and promote competition among exchanges. 15 14 *See* Angel Letter, Schwab Letter, and Issuer Advisory Group Letter. 15 *See* Nasdaq Response Letter. IV. Discussion After a careful review of the proposed rule change, the comment letters, and the Nasdaq Response Letter, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 16 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 17 which requires that the rules of a national securities exchange be 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, and Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, 18 which requires that the rules of an exchange not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the Act. 16 In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 17 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 18 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8). A. Competition Among the Listing Markets The Commission notes that national securities exchanges often allow issuers to retain the ticker symbols that identify their securities when such issuers transfer their listings to another exchange, other than Nasdaq. 19 This proposal would allow Nasdaq to participate in this existing practice, along with all other national securities exchanges, for issuers with three-character ticker symbols. 20 19 *See,* *e.g.* , Darwin Professional Underwriters (on April 18, 2007, moved from NYSE Arca to NYSE and retaining its symbol DR) and Yamana Gold Inc. (on January 12, 2007, moved from Amex to NYSE and retaining its symbol AUY). 20 Some of the commenters expressed views on Nasdaq listing one- and two-character ticker symbols; however, these considerations are beyond the scope of this proposed rule change, which covers only the transfer of three-character ticker symbols. Nasdaq and the commenters supporting the proposal asserted that the proposed rule change would allow publicly-listed issuers to choose their marketplace based on objective factors such as trading quality, costs, and branding, and not based on symbol portability. 21 Currently, an issuer deciding whether to transfer its listing to Nasdaq must consider, among other factors, the fact that it would need to change its ticker symbol. For example, the Schwab Letter stated that, when it considered transferring its listing to Nasdaq, the prospect of changing its symbol was a negative factor in its analysis regarding whether to transfer its listing. Schwab noted that the change in its ticker symbol, resulting from the transferring of its listing to Nasdaq, necessitated operational and systems changes at Schwab and industry-wide at other financial services firms and required the expenditure of other resources to inform its investors of that change. 21 *See* Issuer Advisory Group Letter and Nasdaq Response Letter. The Commission notes that when an issuer is seeking to transfer its listing to an exchange other than Nasdaq, such issuer's analysis is not typically encumbered by considerations of changing its symbol and the attending administrative and other costs associated with that process. The proposed rule change would eliminate the considerations associated with changing its ticker symbol from the decision by an issuer identified by a three-character symbol to transfer its listing to Nasdaq. 22 Thus, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change, by allowing issuers to retain their three-character ticker symbols upon transferring their listings to Nasdaq, would remove a burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act and would thereby enhance competition between Nasdaq and the other exchanges in the business of providing a listing venue. 22 Of course, an issuer could request a new ticker symbol if it so desired. B. Investor Confusion The Commission also believes that allowing an issuer to retain the three-character ticker symbol that identifies its security upon transferring its listing to Nasdaq does not increase, and may reduce, the potential for confusion in the marketplace by an issuer changing its ticker symbol. Commenters supporting the proposal asserted that changing an issuer's ticker symbol often results in investor confusion and costly investment mistakes. 23 In its letter, Schwab stated that its ticker symbol change required it to expend time and resources to combat the confusion that the change would have caused among its individual stockholders who had come to identify it with its three-character symbol. The Commission notes that issuers transferring their listings to exchanges other than Nasdaq typically avoid such confusion by retaining their ticker symbols. 24 23 *See* Angel Letter, Issuer Advisory Group Letter, and Schwab Letter. 24 The Nasdaq Response Letter stated that, of the 200 issuers transfers of existing three-character symbols since August 2001, all but one of those issuers have retained their symbols upon their transfer to a new exchange. The commenters objecting to the proposal, however, asserted that the proposed rule change, for various reasons, would cause confusion in the marketplace. The majority of such commenters argued that three-character ticker symbols are a hallmark of NYSE-listed securities 25 and that, consequently, expanding the use of three-character ticker symbols to Nasdaq-listed securities would result in investor confusion. 26 The Commission notes, however, that all of the exchanges, except Nasdaq, 27 may list securities using three-character ticker symbols. 28 Unlike one-character symbols, three-character symbols are not associated by investors with any one market. The Commission also notes that the transfer of securities listings with three-character ticker symbols typically occur among other exchanges without any discernable confusion or disruption to the marketplace. 29 25 Based on this premise, these commenters also argued that three-character ticker symbols signal NYSE's high qualitative listing standards and that allowing Nasdaq to list securities with three-character ticker symbols would blur the distinction between NYSE-listed and other exchange-listed securities and diminish the branding of NYSE-listed securities. 26 *See* Strategic Technologies Letter, NYSE Letter, Cantel Medical Letter, Big Lots Letter, Kinetic Concepts Letter, RPM Letter, Getty Realty Letter, Wolverine World Wide Letter, TCF Financial Letter, and FPL Group Letter. 27 With the exception of the transfer of the DFC listing, Nasdaq currently only lists securities of companies using four- or five-character symbols. *See supra* note 7 and accompanying text. 28 For example, as noted in the Angel Letter, the NAIC Growth Fund lists on the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. with the ticker symbol “GRF”. 29 Nasdaq has also represented that its recent listing of DFC occurred without any trading problems. The Amex Letter tacitly agreed with this view, but argued that the lack of trading problems associated with DFC is not the best proxy for other companies that may transfer their listings to Nasdaq because it believed that DFC is a microcap company. The Nasdaq Response Letter, however, disputed this argument and the Amex Letter's labeling of DFC as a “microcap company,” citing the fact that DFC has a market capitalization of over $230 million, a figure that it contends is nearly triple the $67 million market capitalization of the median Amex issuer. Another commenter asserted that three-character symbols are exclusive indicators of securities trading on NYSE's and Amex's specialist-based markets, and that it would cause confusion if such symbols were used on Nasdaq's dealer market. 30 However, as the Commission noted above, exchanges other than NYSE and Amex may list securities with three-character symbols. 31 30 *See* Amex Letter. 31 For example, NYSE Arca lists three-character symbols. *See also* supra note 27. C. National Market System Plan Process Some of the commenters have expressed concern that the proposed rule change would disrupt or circumvent ongoing efforts by the SROs to develop a national market system plan. 32 The Commission recently received two proposed national market system plans for the selection and reservation of ticker symbols submitted by two separate groups of SROs. 33 The Commission is currently considering these plans and intends to publish the proposed plans for public comment. 34 The Commission believes that its approval of the proposed rule change is independent of its consideration of these plans. The Commission under Rule 608(b)(2) may declare effective any national market system plan or plans for the selection and reservation of ticker symbols that is consistent with the requirements of the Act. Participants in any such plan would be required to comply with its requirements, which could necessitate changes to SRO rules. 35 32 *See* Ward Letter, NYSE Letter, Amex Letter, and RPM Letter. 33 *See* Proposed NMS Plan for the Selection and Reservation of Securities Symbols by the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., Nasdaq, National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., National Stock Exchange, Inc. and Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (available at *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/4-533revised.pdf* ) and Proposed NMS Plan for the Selection and Reservation of Securities Symbols by Amex, NYSE and NYSE Arca (available at *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/4-534.pdf* ). 34 *See* Press Release, Commission, SEC Announces Process for Proposals on Securities ‘Ticker’ Symbols (April 5, 2007) (available at *http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2007/2007-63.htm* ). 35 *See* 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(3) and 17 CFR 242.608(b) and (c). The NYSE Letter referenced a “Symbol Reservation Plan,” which it stated has operated to allocate and reserve symbols for over 30 years. The Commission notes, however, that no such plan has been approved by the Commission. D. Symbol Shortage Two commenters argued that the proposal could create a shortage of available three-character ticker symbols. 36 Nasdaq's proposal, however, would only permit it to list securities with three-character ticker symbols when such issuer transfers its listing from another exchange; the proposal would not permit Nasdaq to list new securities with three-character ticker symbols. The Commission, therefore, does not believe Nasdaq's proposal would have a negative impact on the availability of three-character ticker symbols. 36 *See* NYSE Letter and Amex Letter. V. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 37 that the proposed rule change (SR-NASDAQ-2007-031) be, and hereby is, approved. 37 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). By the Commission. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-13578 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56029; File No. SR-NASD-2007-038] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Amend the Customer and the Industry Codes of Arbitration Procedure To Clarify NASD's Jurisdiction Concerning Members of Other Self-Regulatory Organizations July 9, 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 June 13, 2007 the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”), through its wholly owned subsidiary, NASD Dispute Resolution, Inc. (“NASD Dispute Resolution”) 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 NASD Dispute Resolution. NASD has designated the proposed rule change as constituting a stated policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning, administration, or enforcement of an existing rule of the self-regulatory organization under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this filing by 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)(i). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change NASD Dispute Resolution is proposing to amend NASD Rules 12100 and 13100 of the NASD Codes of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes (“Customer Code”) and for Industry Disputes (“Industry Code”) (together, the “Codes”) to clarify that, for purposes of the Codes, the term “member” includes any broker or dealer admitted to membership in a self-regulatory organization that, with NASD consent, has required its members to arbitrate pursuant to the Codes and/or to be treated as members of NASD for purposes of the Codes. Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language is in italics. Customer Code 12100. Definitions Unless otherwise defined in the Code, terms used in the Code and interpretive material, if defined in the NASD By-Laws, shall have the meaning as defined in the NASD By-Laws. Paragraphs
(a)through
(n)unchanged.
(o)Member For purposes of the Code, the term “member” means any broker or dealer admitted to membership in NASD, whether or not the membership has been terminated or cancelled *; and any broker or dealer admitted to membership in a self-regulatory organization that, with NASD consent, has required its members to arbitrate pursuant to the Code and/or to be treated as members of NASD for purposes of the Code, whether or not the membership has been terminated or cancelled* . Remainder unchanged. Industry Code 13100. Definitions Unless otherwise defined in the Code, terms used in the Code and interpretive material, if defined in the NASD By-Laws, shall have the meaning as defined in the NASD By-Laws. Paragraphs
(a)through
(n)unchanged.
(o)Member For purposes of the Code, the term “member” means any broker or dealer admitted to membership in NASD, whether or not the membership has been terminated or cancelled *; and any broker or dealer admitted to membership in a self-regulatory organization that, with NASD consent, has required its members to arbitrate pursuant to the Code and/or to be treated as members of NASD for purposes of the Code, whether or not the membership has been terminated or cancelled* . Remainder unchanged. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, NASD included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. NASD has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections (A), (B), and
(C)below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
(A)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose NASD is amending Rule 12100(o) of its Customer Code and Rule 13100(o) of its Industry Code to clarify that, for purposes of the Codes, the term “member” includes any broker or dealer admitted to membership in a self-regulatory organization that, with NASD consent, has required its members to arbitrate pursuant to the Codes and/or to be treated as members of NASD for purposes of the Codes. Such members would, like NASD members, be treated as members whether or not their membership has been terminated or cancelled. The proposed rule change will codify current practice under which NASD has assumed, by agreement, the arbitration and mediation functions of several self-regulatory organizations that closed their dispute resolution forums. 5 5 The Codes apply not only to NASD members and their associated persons, but also to members and associated persons of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”), the Philadelphia Stock Exchange (“Phlx”), the American Stock Exchange (“Amex”), International Securities Exchange (“ISE”), and The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”), pursuant to agreements under which members of those self-regulatory organizations for which the NASD administers the arbitration process will be treated as “members” of the NASD for purposes of the Codes. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 39378 (Dec. 1, 1997), 62 FR 64417 (Dec. 5, 1997) (SR-MSRB-97-4) (MSRB approval order); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40517 (Oct. 1, 1998), 63 FR 54177 (Oct. 8, 1998) (SR-Phlx-98-28) (Phlx approval order); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40622 (Oct. 30, 1998), 63 FR 59819 (Nov. 5, 1998) (SR-Amex-98-32) (Amex approval order); Securities Exchange Act Release 45094 (Nov. 21, 2001), 66 FR 60230 (Dec. 3, 2001) (File No. SR-ISE-00-17) (ISE approval order); and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53128 (Jan. 13, 2006), 71 FR 3550 (Jan. 23, 2006) (File No. 10-131) (Nasdaq approval order). *See also* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55818 (May 25, 2007), 72 FR 30898 (June 4, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-048) (the New York Stock Exchange LLC's proposed rule change to provide guidance regarding new and pending arbitrations in light of the consolidation of NYSE Regulation's arbitration department with that of NASD Dispute Resolution.). 2. Statutory Basis NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, 6 which requires, among other things, that NASD's rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of the Act noted above because it will make explicit NASD's jurisdiction with respect to members of other self-regulatory organizations that, with NASD consent, have required their members to arbitrate pursuant to the Codes and/or to be treated as members of NASD for purposes of the Codes. The proposed rule change also will clarify that one set of arbitration rules and administration procedures will apply to these other self-regulatory organizations. 6 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
(B)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition NASD does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
(C)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received from Members, Participants, or Others Written comments were neither solicited nor received by NASD. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act and subparagraph (f)(1) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder, because it constitutes a stated policy, practice or interpretation with respect to the meaning, administration, or enforcement of an existing rule. 7 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 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1). 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-NASD-2007-038 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2007-038. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of NASD. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2007-038 and should be submitted on or before August 3, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 8 Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. 8 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). [FR Doc. E7-13599 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56024; File No. SR-NYSE-2007-61] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Rule 97, Limitation on Members' Trading Because of Block Positioning July 6, 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 July 6, 2007, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” 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 Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as a “non-controversial” rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Rule 97 to permit members or member organizations that hold long positions as a result of block transactions with customers to send proprietary buy intermarket sweep orders (“ISOs”) in the course of facilitating another customer's buy or sell order. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the NYSE's Web site ( *http://www.nyse.com* ), at the NYSE, 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. 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 NYSE Rule 97 in order to permit member organizations that hold long positions as a result of a block transaction with a customer to execute proprietary ISOs on a plus tick during the last 20 minutes of the trading day if they are required under Regulation NMS 5 to send a buy ISO in the course of facilitating another customer's buy or sell order during that time period. 5 17 CFR 242.600 *et seq.* NYSE Rule 97 governs block facilitation transactions by NYSE member organizations on behalf of customers. The rule states that if, as a result of facilitating one or more customer sell order(s) in a stock during the trading day, a member organization ends up holding a long position in the stock in a proprietary account, then during the last 20 minutes of trading, the member organization is prohibited from buying such stock as principal on a “plus tick” if the transaction would take place at a price above the lowest price at which it acquired the long position. The Exchange states that the underlying purpose of Rule 97 was to address concerns that a member firm might engage in manipulative practices by attempting to “mark-up” the price of a stock to enable the position acquired in the course of block positioning to be liquidated at a profit, or to maintain the market at the price at which the position was acquired. Under Regulation NMS, member organizations may not trade through a protected quotation in another market, but may satisfy their obligation to the protected order by sending ISOs to the protected market at the same time that they send orders to the inferior-priced market. Depending on the size of the block that is being facilitated and the size of the protected quotes, block customers may—pursuant to Rules 600(b)(30)(ii) and 611(b)(6) of Regulation NMS 6 —decline to take and process better priced executions that result from the sending of the ISO orders. This may occur, for example, where the ISO amounts are de minimis in relation to the size of the block being facilitated. In those situations, the firm would be required—based on the customer's instructions—to print the block at the inferior price and send the ISOs, which would be marked and booked as principal (rather than as agent). 6 17 CFR 242.600(b)(30)(ii) and 17 CFR 242.611(b)(6). The aforementioned may result in a conflict between NYSE Rule 97 and Regulation NMS. That is, if, during the last 20 minutes of trading, a member organization facilitates a customer order that trades through protected bids or offers, and in compliance with Rules 600(b)(30)(ii) and 611(b)(6) of Regulation NMS, the member firm simultaneously routes proprietary ISOs to execute against the full displayed size of any protected quotation in that security (“ISO facilitation”), the ISO facilitation could violate Rule 97 if the ISO orders would trade on a plus tick at a price above the lowest facilitation price. In essence, the implementation of Regulation NMS requires firms to choose between violating Regulation NMS or violating Rule 97. To resolve this potential conflict, the Exchange proposes adding an exemption to Rule 97 so that when facilitating a customer order that would otherwise require the firm to either violate Rule 97 or trade through protected quotations, member organizations can comply with their Regulation NMS obligations without also violating Rule 97. 7 This exemption would be available only when:
(1)The firm has acquired a proprietary position as a result of a previous block facilitation for a customer;
(2)the facilitation trade during the last 20 minutes of trading would cause the firm to trade through a better priced offer on another market, such that the firm is obligated by Rule 611 of Regulation NMS to send proprietary ISOs when it facilitates the customer's order;
(3)the customer has declined better-priced ISO executions; and
(4)the better-priced offers in away markets are such that NYSE Rule 97 would prohibit the firm from sending a proprietary buy order. In such cases, the firm would be permitted to send the proprietary buy ISOs, provided that the ISOs were limited in quantity to the aggregate size of better priced protected quotations in other markets. For purposes of this amendment, the Exchange further proposes adopting the definitions of Regulation NMS in connection with the terms “protected quotation” and “intermarket sweep order.” 8 The Exchange notes that the firm would still be subject to the anti-manipulation provisions of the NYSE and Commission rules and regulations. 7 A similar issue arises under NYSE Rule 92, which can also conflict with Regulation NMS Rule 611. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56017 (July 5, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-21). 8 *See* 17 CFR 242.600(b)(58) and (30). The Exchange believes that the exemption is appropriate in view of the pending compliance date for Regulation NMS and the fact that a firm's intention in these situations is not to manipulate the market or to mark up its long position, but rather to facilitate a legitimate customer order. Under these circumstances, the Exchange believes that the amendment is in the public interest, since it would facilitate Regulation NMS compliance. 2. Statutory Basis The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) 9 that an Exchange have rules that are designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others The rule proposal was developed in response to concerns expressed by certain member organizations and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (“SIFMA”), an industry organization that represents the interests of more than 650 securities firms, banks and asset managers. During the drafting of the rule filing and proposed rule, SIFMA, on behalf of its members, submitted materials for the NYSE's consideration in connection with the relief requested. The Exchange has incorporated these comments into the final rule proposal, but the Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the final proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the proposed rule change:
(i)Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii)does not become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 10 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 11 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 11 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). Pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act, the Exchange is required to give the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied the five-day pre-filing requirement. A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act 12 normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 13 permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it would facilitate member compliance with their respective intermarket sweep order routing obligations under Rule 611 of Regulation NMS. 14 For these reasons, the Commission designates that the proposed rule change become operative immediately. 15 12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 13 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). 14 17 CFR 242.611(b)(6). 15 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml);* or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-NYSE-2007-61 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-61. 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, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-61 and should be submitted on or before August 3, 2007. 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. E7-13593 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56030; File No. SR-Phlx-2007-42] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Quarterly Options Series Pilot Program July 9, 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 June 27, 2007, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange” or “Phlx”) 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 Exchange has designated this proposal as non-controversial under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend its Rules 1012 (Series of Options Open for Trading) and 1101A (Terms of Option Contracts) in order to extend for a period of about one year an Exchange pilot program (the “Phlx Pilot”) to permit the listing and trading of options series that may be opened for trading on any business day and that expire at the close of business on the last business day of a calendar quarter (“Quarterly Options” or “Quarterly Options Series”). The Phlx Pilot continues through July 24, 2007. 5 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55301 (February 15, 2007), 72 FR 8238 (February 23, 2007) (File No. SR-Phlx-2007-08) (“Pilot Program Release”). The American Stock Exchange LLC, Chicago Board Options Exchange, the International Stock Exchange, Inc., and NYSE Arca, Inc. (f/k/a the Pacific Stock Exchange, Inc.) have similar Quarterly Options pilot programs that likewise continue through July 2007. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room, and at the Exchange's Web site at *http://www.Phlx.com/exchange/phlx-rule-fil.html.* II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose In February 2007, the Exchange filed a proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness that allows the listing and trading of Quarterly Options on the Exchange under the Phlx Pilot. 6 The Exchange now proposes to extend the Phlx Pilot for a period of about one year so that the Exchange can continue to list and trade Quarterly Options, within the parameters specified in its Rules 1012 and 1101A, through July 10, 2008. The terms of the Phlx Pilot will remain unchanged. 6 *See id.* In the Pilot Program Release, the Commission indicated that if the Exchange seeks extension, expansion, or permanent approval of the Phlx Pilot, it must submit a Phlx Pilot Report (the “Report”). 7 In connection with this proposed rule change, the Exchange has submitted a Report covering the period February 21, 2007, through April 30, 2007. The Report reviews the Exchange's experience with the Phlx Pilot and clearly supports the Exchange's belief that extension of the Phlx Pilot is proper. Among other things, the Report shows the strength and efficacy of the Phlx Pilot on the Exchange as reflected by the strong volume of Quarterly Options traded on Phlx since the pilot's inception in February 2007. The Report establishes that the Phlx Pilot has not created, and in the future should not create, capacity problems for the Exchange or the OPRA (Options Price Reporting Authority) system. Moreover, the Exchange represents that it has the necessary systems capacity to support new options series that will result from the introduction of Quarterly Options Series. 7 *See* Pilot Program Release, *supra* note 5. The Pilot Program Release indicates that the Report must include, at a minimum:
(1)Data and written analysis on the open interest and trading volume in the classes for which Quarterly Option Series were opened;
(2)an assessment of the appropriateness of the options classes selected for the Phlx Pilot;
(3)an assessment of the impact of the Phlx Pilot on the capacity of the Exchange, OPRA, and on market data vendors (to the extent data from market data vendors is available);
(4)any capacity problems or other problems that arose during the operation of the Phlx Pilot and how the Exchange addressed such problems;
(5)any complaints that the Exchange received during the operation of the Phlx Pilot and how the Exchange addressed them; and
(6)any additional information that would assist in assessing the operation of the Phlx Pilot. The Exchange believes that extending the Phlx Pilot would continue to provide investors with a flexible and valuable tool to manage risk exposure, minimize capital outlays, and be more responsive to the timing of events affecting the securities that underlie option contracts. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 8 in general and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 9 in particular in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, 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. The Exchange believes that the proposal would achieve this by allowing continued listing of Quarterly Options, thereby stimulating customer interest in such options and creating greater trading opportunities and flexibility and providing customers with the ability to more closely tailor their investment strategies. 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one that:
(1)Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(2)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and
(3)does not become operative for 30 days from the date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 10 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. 11 The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the operative delay to permit the Pilot Program extension to become effective prior to the 30th day after filing. 12 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 11 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 12 As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days before doing so. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it will allow the benefits of the Pilot Program to continue without interruption. 13 Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal operative upon filing. 14 13 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 14 As set forth in the Commission's original release providing notice of the Pilot Program, if the Exchange were to propose an extension, an expansion, or permanent approval of the Pilot Program, the Exchange would submit, along with any filing proposing such amendments to the program, a report that would provide an analysis of the Pilot Program covering the entire period during which the Pilot Program was in effect. The report would include, at a minimum, the information set forth in note 7, *supra* . The report must be submitted to the Commission at least sixty
(60)days prior to the expiration date of the Pilot Program. *See* Pilot Program Release, *supra* note 5. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File No. SR-Phlx-2007-42 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2007-42. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. 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-Phlx-2007-42 and should be submitted on or before August 3, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 15 15 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-13600 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration # 10921 and # 10922] California Disaster # CA-00056 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of CALIFORNIA dated 07/05/2007. *Incident:* Angora Fire. *Incident Period:* 06/24/2007 and Continuing. *Effective Date:* 07/05/2007. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 09/04/2007. *Economic Injury
(EIDL)Loan Application Deadline Date:* 04/07/2008. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:* El Dorado. *Contiguous Counties:* California: Alpine, Amador, Placer, Sacramento. Nevada: Douglas. *The Interest Rates are:* Percent Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere: 5.750. Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere: 2.875. Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere: 8.000. Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere: 4.000. Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere: 5.250. Businesses And Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere: 4.000. The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 109215 and for economic injury is 109220. The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are California, Nevada. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Dated: July 5, 2007. Steven Preston, Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-13674 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #10866 and #10867] Kansas Disaster Number KS-00018 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Amendment 8. SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Kansas (FEMA-1699-DR), dated 05/06/2007. *Incident:* Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding. *Incident Period:* 05/04/2007 through 05/18/2007. *Effective Date:* 06/30/2007. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 08/06/2007. *EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:* 02/06/2008. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of KANSAS, dated 05/06/2007 is hereby amended to extend the deadline for filing applications for physical damages as a result of this disaster to 08/06/2007. All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-13647 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #10923 and #10924] Kansas Disaster #KS-00022 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Kansas ( FEMA-1711-DR), dated 07/05/2007. *Incident:* Severe Storms and Flooding. *Incident Period:* 06/26/2007 and continuing. *Effective Date:* 07/05/2007. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 09/04/2007. *Economic Injury
(EIDL)Loan Application Deadline Date:* 04/07/2008. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 07/05/2007, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans):* Elk, Miami, Montgomery, Neosho, and Wilson. *Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only):* Kansas: Allen, Anderson, Bourbon, Butler, Chautauqua, Cowley, Crawford, Douglas, Franklin, Greenwood, Johnson, Labette, Linn, and Woodson. Missouri: Bates, and Cass. Oklahoma: Nowata, and Washington. *The Interest Rates Are:* Percent *For Physical Damage:* Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere 5.750 Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere 2.875 Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere 8.000 Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere 5.250 Businesses And Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 *For Economic Injury:* Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 109236 and for economic injury is 109240. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-13668 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #10926] Kansas Disaster #KS-00021 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of KANSAS (FEMA-1711-DR), dated 07/02/2007. *Incident:* Severe Storms and Flooding. *Incident Period:* 06/26/2007 and Continuing. *Effective Date:* 07/02/2007. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 08/31/2007. ADDRESSES: Submit Completed Loan Applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 07/02/2007, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: Primary Counties: Allen, Anderson, Bourbon, Butler, Chautauqua, Cherokee, Coffey, Cowley, Elk, Franklin, Linn, Miami, Montgomery, Neosho, Osage, Wilson, Woodson. *The Interest Rates are:* Percent Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere: 5.250. Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere: 4.000. The Number Assigned to this Disaster for Physical Damage is 10926. (Catalog Of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-13671 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #10893] Nebraska Disaster Number NE-00013 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Amendment 1. SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Nebraska (FEMA-1706-DR), dated 06/06/2007. *Incident:* Severe Storms, Flooding, and Tornadoes. *Incident Period:* 05/04/2007 through 05/19/2007. *Effective Date:* 07/06/2007. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 08/06/2007. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to:U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of NEBRASKA, dated 06/06/2007, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster. *Primary Counties:* Thomas. All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-13666 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #10925] New York Disaster #NY-00046 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of New York (FEMA-1710-DR), dated 07/02/2007. *Incident:* Severe Storms and Flooding. *Incident Period:* 06/19/2007. *Effective Date:* 07/02/2007. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 08/31/2007. ADDRESSES: Submit Completed Loan Applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 07/02/2007, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:* Delaware, Sullivan. *The Interest Rates are:* Percent Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere 5.250 Businesses And Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 10925. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-13673 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #10927 and #10928] Oklahoma Disaster #OK-00012 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Oklahoma (FEMA-1712-DR), dated 07/07/2007. *Incident:* Severe Storms, Flooding, and Tornadoes. *Incident Period:* 06/10/2007 and continuing. *Effective Date:* 07/07/2007. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 09/05/2007. *Economic Injury
(EIDL)Loan Application Deadline Date:* 04/07/2008. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road,Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 07/07/2007, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans): Ottawa, and Washington. Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only): Oklahoma: Craig, Delaware, Nowata, Osage, Rogers, and Tulsa. Kansas: Chautauqua, Cherokee, and Montgomery. Missouri: McDonald, and Newton. *The Interest Rates Are:* Percent *For Physical Damage:* Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere 5.750 Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere 2.875 Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere 8.000 Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere 5.250 Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 *For Economic Injury:* Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 109276 and for economic injury is 109280. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-13669 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Region IV North Florida District Advisory Council Public Meeting Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Appendix 2 of Title 5, United States Code, Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the U.S. Small Business Administration
(SBA)North Florida District Advisory Council will host a pubic meeting on Thursday, July 26, 2007 at 12 p.m. EST. The meeting will be held at the Banco Popular located at 2 South Orange Avenue, 6th Floor, Orlando, FL 32801. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the status for FY 2007 SBA loan reports and goals, and will include a presentation (speaker TBD) as well as matters of the SBA. Anyone wishing to make an oral presentation to the Board must contact Wilfredo J. Gonzalez, District Director, in writing by letter or fax no later than Thursday, July 19, 2007, in order to be placed on the agenda. Wilfredo J. Gonzalez, District Director,U.S. Small Business Administration, 7825 Baymeadows Way; Suite 100B, Jacksonville, FL 32256,
(904)443-1900 or FAX
(904)443-1980. Matthew Teague, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-13648 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Delegation of Authority 303] Delegation by Henrietta Fore to Richard Greene of Foreign Assistance Authorities Normally Vested in the Director of Foreign Assistance By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of State, including Section 1 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2651a), and delegated to me by the Secretary of State in Delegation of Authority 301 and Delegation of Authority 293-1, I hereby delegate to Richard Greene, Acting Deputy Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance, to the extent authorized by law, all authorities and functions vested in me in Delegation of Authority 293-1, as well as all authorities and functions vested in me in future iterations of that delegation. This delegation of authority shall expire upon the designation of an individual to serve as the Director of Foreign Assistance. Notwithstanding this delegation of authority, I may exercise any function or authority delegated by this Delegation. This delegation of authority shall be published in the **Federal Register** . Dated: June 27, 2007. Henrietta H. Fore, Acting Director of Foreign Assistance, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-13658 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-35-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Public Notice for waiver of Aeronautical Land-Use Assurance; Evansville Regional Airport, Evansville, IN AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice of intent of waiver with respect to land. SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)is considering a proposal to change a portion of the airport from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use and to authorize the lease of the airport property. The 97.10-acre parcel is located in the northeast quadrant of the airport. Currently, the land is not being used for aeronautical purposes. The land was acquired under FAA FAAP Project Nos. 9-12-023-C309 and FAAP 9-12-023-C510. There are no adverse impacts to the airport by allowing the airport to lease the property; and the associated fair market rental income will significantly increase the airport's available operational budget. Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the lease of the subject airport property nor a determination of eligibility for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA. The disposition of proceeds from the lease of the airport property will be in accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue, published in the **Federal Register** on February 16, 1999. In accordance with section 47107(h) of title 49, United States Code, this notice is required to be published in the **Federal Register** 30 days before modifying the land-use assurance that requires the property to be used for an aeronautical purpose. DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments on the Sponsor's request must be delivered or mailed to: Sandra A. Lyman, Airports Engineer, 2300 East Devon, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra A. Lyman, Airports Engineer, 2300 East Devon, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018. Telephone Number
(847)294-7525, FAX Number
(847)294-7046. Documents reflecting this FAA action may be reviewed at this same location or at Evansville Regional Airport, Evansville, Indiana. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Following is a legal description of the property located in Evansville, Vanderburgh County, Indiana, and described as follows: Part of Section 34, Township 6 South, Range 10 West, Vanderburgh County, Indiana, described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Section 34; thence North 01 degree 11 minutes 26 seconds East 2139.92 feet along the East line of said Section; thence parallel with the South line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section, North 88 degrees 39 minutes 44 seconds West 1548.55 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence South 05 degrees 08 minutes 47 seconds West 373.72 feet; thence southerly 363.64 feet along an arc to the right and having a radius of 1415.11 feet and subtended by a long chord having a bearing of South 12 degrees 43 minutes 01 seconds West and a length of 362.64 feet; thence southwesterly 1209.36 feet along an arc to the right having a radius of 1258.00 feet and subtended by a long chord having a bearing of South 44 degrees 20 minutes 55 seconds West and a length of 1163.32 feet; thence South 83 degrees 59 minutes 51 seconds West 164.75 feet; thence westerly 195.17 feet along an arc to the right having a radius of 735.92 feet and subtended by a long chord having a bearing of South 85 degrees 34 minutes 56 seconds West and a length of 194.60 feet; thence North 89 degrees 35 minutes 37 seconds West 26.71 feet; thence South 89 degrees 37 minutes 03 seconds West 331.65 feet; thence South 86 degrees 11 minutes 09 seconds West 61.41 feet; thence South 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West 263.76 feet; thence South 88 degrees 21 minutes 05 seconds West 226.14 feet; thence easterly and northeasterly 39.71 feet along a non-tangent arc to the left having a radius of 32.00 feet and subtended by a long chord having a bearing of North 49 degrees 46 minutes 49 seconds East and a length of 37.21 feet; thence North 11 degrees 33 minutes 06 seconds East 228.77 feet; thence North 17 degrees 22 minutes 34 seconds East 100.72 feet; thence North 10 degrees 32 minutes 00 seconds East 108.51 feet; thence northerly and northeasterly 285.63 feet along an arc to the right having a radius of 524.54 feet and subtended by a long chord having a bearing of North 26 degrees 29 minutes 04 seconds East and a length of 282.11 feet; thence North 38 degrees 21 minutes 06 seconds East 9.70 feet; thence South 85 degrees 44 minutes 50 seconds West 695.25 feet; thence North 01 degrees 30 minutes 26 seconds East 103.96 feet; thence North 38 degrees 21 minutes 19 seconds East 1741.56 feet; thence South 51 degrees 38 minutes 54 seconds East 357.14 feet; thence North 38 degrees 21 minutes 06 seconds East 1064.81 feet; thence South 51 degrees 38 minutes 54 seconds East 154.09 feet; thence South 04 degrees 13 minutes 04 seconds East 388.74 feet; thence North 86 degrees 33 minutes 33 seconds East 173.86 feet; thence South 04 degrees 19 minutes 52 seconds East 16.94 feet; thence southerly 174.71 feet along an arc to the left having a radius of 349.60 feet and subtended by a long chord having a bearing of South 18 degrees 38 minutes 53 seconds East and a length of 172.90 feet; thence South 31 degrees 27 minutes 19 seconds East 344.16 feet; thence southeasterly and southerly 201.70 feet along an arc to the right having a radius of 330.00 feet and subtended by a long chord having a bearing of South 13 degrees 56 minutes 42 seconds East and a length of 198.58 feet to the point of beginning, and containing 97.10 acres, more or less. Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois on June 29, 2007. Jack Delaney, Acting Manager, Chicago Airports District Office, FAA, Great Lakes Region. [FR Doc. 07-3405 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 21
Traces to 21 documents
15 references not yet in our index
  • 10 CFR 2
  • 10 CFR 51
  • 10 CFR 20
  • Pub. L. 105-270
  • 29 CFR 4006
  • 29 CFR 4007
  • 29 CFR 4062
  • 29 CFR 4219
  • 29 CFR 4281
  • 29 CFR 4044
  • Pub. L. 95-216
  • Pub. L. 98-21
  • Pub. L. 108-203
  • 17 CFR 240.19
  • Pub. L. 92-463
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Issuance of environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact for license amendment
C.F.R.§ 50.92
C.F.R.§ 50.91
C.F.R.§ 2.309
C.F.R.§ 30.4
C.F.R.§ 20.1402
C.F.R.§ 30.36
C.F.R.§ 219.64
U.S.C.§ 3506
C.F.R.§ 322.4
Cite10 CFR 2
Cite10 CFR 51
Cite10 CFR 20
Cites 36 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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