Notices. Notice of availability

52,735 words·~240 min read·/register/2007/07/17/07-3462

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

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses; Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations I. Background Pursuant to section 189a.

(2)of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person. This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from June 21, 2007 to July 3, 2007. The last biweekly notice was published on July 3, 2007 (72 FR 36520). Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not

(1)Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or

(2)create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or

(3)involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this **Federal Register** notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D22, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of written comments received may be examined at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/.* If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements:

(1)The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner;

(2)the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding;

(3)the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and

(4)the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment. A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed by:

(1)First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff;

(2)courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff;

(3)E-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, *HearingDocket@nrc.gov* ; or

(4)facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff at

(301)415-1101, verification number is

(301)415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to

(301)415-3725 or by e-mail to *OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov* . A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the attorney for the licensee. Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii). For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1

(800)397-4209,

(301)415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP), Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County, Minnesota *Date of amendment request:* May 10, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendments would modify the Technical Specifications

(TS)by removing the specific isolation time for the main steam isolation valves from the associated TS Surveillance Requirements

(SRs)and by replacing it with the requirement to verify the valve isolation time is within limits. The changes are consistent with Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)approved Industry/Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)-491, Removal of the Main Steam and Main Feedwater Valve Isolation Time from Technical Specifications, Revision 2. The proposed amendments deviate from TSTF-491 in that the current PINGP TS and associated SRs for the main feedwater isolation valves do not include valve closure times, and thus these changes in TSTF-491 are not applicable to the PINGP TSs and are not adopted. The NRC staff issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the **Federal Register** on October 5, 2006 (71 FR 58884), on possible amendments concerning the consolidation line item improvement process (CLIIP), including a model safety evaluation and a model no significant hazards consideration determination. The NRC staff subsequently issued a notice of availability of the models for referencing in license amendment applications in the **Federal Register** on December 29, 2006 (71 FR 78472) as part of the CLIIP. In its application dated May 10, 2007, the licensee affirmed the applicability of the following determination. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration is presented below: *Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated* The proposed change allows relocating main steam and main feedwater valve isolation times to the Licensee Controlled Document that is referenced in the Bases. The proposed change is described in Technical Specification Task Force

(TSTF)Standard TS Change Traveler TSTF-491 related to relocating the main steam and main feedwater valves isolation times to the Licensee Controlled Document that is referenced in the Bases and replacing the isolation time with the phrase, within limits. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). The proposed changes relocate the main steam and main feedwater isolation valve times to the Licensee Controlled Document that is referenced in the Bases. The requirements to perform the testing of these isolation valves are retained in the TS. Future changes to the Bases or licensee-controlled document will be evaluated pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59, Changes, test and experiments, to ensure that such changes do not result in more than minimal increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, and configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not adversely affect the ability of structures, systems and components

(SSCs)to perform their intended safety function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological consequences of any accident previously evaluated. Further, the proposed changes do not increase the types and the amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released, nor significantly increase individual or cumulative occupation/public radiation exposures. Therefore, the changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated. *Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident From any Previously Evaluated* The proposed changes relocate the main steam and main feedwater valve isolation times to the Licensee Controlled Document that is referenced in the Bases. In addition, the valve isolation times are replaced in the TS with the phrase “within limits.” The changes do not involve a physical altering of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in methods governing normal plant operation. The requirements in the TS continue to require testing of the main steam and main feedwater isolation valves to ensure the proper functioning of these isolation valves. Therefore, the changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. *Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin of Safety* The proposed changes relocate the main steam and main feedwater valve isolation times to the Licensee Controlled Document that is referenced in the Bases. In addition, the valve isolation times are replaced in the TS with the phrase “within limits.” Instituting the proposed changes will continue to ensure the testing of main steam and main feedwater isolation valves. Changes to the Bases or license controlled document are performed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59. This approach provides an effective level of regulatory control and ensures that main steam and feedwater isolation valve testing is conducted such that there is no significant reduction in the margin of safety. The margin of safety provided by the isolation valves is unaffected by the proposed changes since there continue to be TS requirements to ensure the testing of main steam and main feedwater isolation valves. The proposed changes maintain sufficient controls to preserve the current margins of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees 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 requests involve no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Jonathan Rogoff, Esquire, Vice President, Counsel & Secretary, Nuclear Management Company, LLC, 700 First Street, Hudson, WI 54016. *NRC Acting Branch Chief:* Travis L. Tate. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia *Date of amendment request:* October 30, 2006. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification

(TS)Section 5.3.1, Administrative controls, to

(1)Improve administrative flexibility and clarity in the wording of the specification and

(2)replace a specific position title with a generic position title for the senior individual in charge of health physics. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? The proposed change to Technical Specifications Administrative Controls Section 5.3.1 involves the use of a more generic designation for the unit staff position responsible for Health Physics without reducing the level of authority required for that position. The proposed change also allows the flexibility to use an accredited program for qualifying personnel to fill unit staff positions, which represents an acceptable alternative to the qualification requirements for these positions as currently specified in the Technical Specifications. Since the proposed changes are administrative in nature, they do not involve any physical changes to any structures, systems, or components, nor will their performance requirements be altered. The proposed changes also do not affect the operation, maintenance, or testing of the plant. Therefore, the response of the plant to previously analyzed accidents will not be affected. Consequently, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase or any 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 previously evaluated? The proposed changes to the Technical Specifications will have no adverse impact on the overall qualification of the unit staff. The use of a more generic designation for the unit staff position responsible for Health Physics and the alternative use of an accredited program that has been endorsed by the NRC will ensure the educational requirements and power plant experience for each unit staff position are properly satisfied and will continue to fulfill applicable regulatory requirements. Also, since no change is being made to the design, operation, maintenance, or testing of the plant, no new methods of operation or failure modes are introduced by the proposed changes. Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated is not created. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant decrease in the margin of safety? The proposed changes to the Technical Specifications will have no adverse impact on the onsite organizational features necessary to assure safe operation of the plant. Lines of authority for plant operation are unaffected by the proposed changes. Also, the adoption of the more generic designation of the individual responsible for Health Physics will reduce the regulatory burden of having to devote limited resources to process a license amendment whenever a title change for this position is implemented. Accordingly, this reduction in regulatory burden and the option to use an accredited program endorsed by NRC to qualify the unit staff will improve plant efficiency without compromising plant safety. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant decrease in the margin of safety. The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037. *NRC Branch Chief:* Evangelos C. Marinos. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia *Date of amendment request:* June 5 and June 11, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification

(TS)3.1.4, Control Rod Scram Times, using the consolidated line-term improvement process. These changes are based on TS Task Force

(TSTF)change traveler TSTF-460, that has been approved generically for the boiling water reactor

(BWR)Standard TS, NUREG-1433 (BWR/4). The frequency of Surveillance Requirement 3.1.4.2, control rod scram time testing, is revised from “120 days cumulative operation in MODE 1” to “200 days cumulative operation in MODE 1.” The NRC staff issued a notice of availability of a model safety evaluation and model no significant hazards consideration

(NSHC)determination for referencing in license amendment applications in the **Federal Register** on August 23, 2004 (69 FR 51854). The licensee affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC determination in its application and supplement dated June 5 and June 11, 2007. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration is presented below: 1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change extends the frequency for testing control rod scram time testing from every 120 days of cumulative Mode 1 operation to 200 days of cumulative Mode 1 operation. The frequency of surveillance testing is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. The frequency of surveillance testing does not affect the ability to mitigate any accident previously evaluated, as the tested component is still required to be operable. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change extends the frequency for testing control rod scram time testing from every 120 days of cumulative Mode 1 operation to 200 days of cumulative Mode 1 operation. The proposed change does not result in any new or different modes of plant operation. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change extends the frequency for testing control rod scram time testing from every 120 days of cumulative Mode 1 operation to 200 days of cumulative Mode 1 operation. The proposed change continues to test the control rod scram time to ensure the assumptions in the safety analysis are protected. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037. *NRC Branch Chief:* Evangelos C. Marinos. Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281, Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia *Date of amendment request:* June 25, 2007. *Description of amendment request:* The proposed change increases the maximum Technical Specification

(TS)service water

(SW)temperature limit from 95 °F to 100 °F, and revises the TS Figure 3.8-1, which provides allowable containment air partial pressure versus SW temperature. *Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:* As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Operating with increased maximum service water temperature limits does not affect the frequency of accident initiating events. Therefore, the probability of an accident previously analyzed is not increased. Plant systems supported by SW have been evaluated for operation with a service water temperature limit of 100 °F, and it determined that there is no operational impact when operating at the higher SW temperature. Although the service water temperature limit is being increased, the containment will continue to meet its design basis acceptance criteria following a large-break loss of coolant accident as identified in the UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report]. Therefore, there is no increase in the consequences of any accident previously evaluated resulting from operation of Surry Units 1 and 2 with an increased service water temperature limit. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? There are no new failure modes or mechanisms associated with operating Surry Units 1 and 2 with an increased service water temperature limit of 100 °F. As noted above, the increased service water temperature limit does not affect plant operation, since plant systems supported by SW have been evaluated for operation with a SW temperature limit of 100 °F and no operational impact was identified. Therefore, there are no new or different kinds of accidents created by operation of Surry Units 1 and 2 with increased service water temperature limits. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety? The containment analysis acceptance criteria continue to be met when operating with the proposed increased maximum service water temperature limit. Containment integrity will not be challenged and will continue to meet its design basis acceptance criteria following a large break loss of coolant accident. Therefore, the existing margin of safety is not significantly reduced by operation of Surry Units 1 and 2 with increased service water temperature limits. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. *Attorney for licensee:* Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq., Senior Counsel, Dominion Resources Services, Inc., Millstone Power Station, Building 475, 5th Floor, Rope Ferry Road, Rt. 156, Waterford, Connecticut 06385. *NRC Branch Chief:* Evangelos C. Marinos. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing in connection with these actions was published in the **Federal Register** as indicated. Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated. For further details with respect to the action see

(1)The applications for amendment,

(2)the amendment, and

(3)the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1

(800)397-4209,

(301)415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1), Dauphin County, Pennsylvania *Date of application for amendment:* September 15, 2006, as supplemented by letters dated February 26, May 22, and June 5, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revised Technical Specification Section 6.8.5, “Reactor Building Leakage Rate Testing Program,” to allow a one-time deferral of the next Type A, containment integrated leak rate test from “no later than September 2008” to “prior to startup from T1R18 refueling outage. The T1R18 refueling outage will begin no later than November 1, 2009.” *Date of issuance:* June 29, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment No.* 259. *Facility Operating License No. DPR-50.* Amendment revised the license and the technical specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register *:* December 19, 2006 (71 FR 75989). The supplements dated February 26, May 22, and June 5, 2007 provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 29, 2007. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina *Date of application for amendment:* July 17, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* This amendment revises the containment design pressure requirements in Surveillance Requirements 3.6.8 and 5.5.16 due to a revision in the loss-of-coolant accident containment pressure analysis. *Date of issuance:* June 15, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment No.* 215. *Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23* . Amendment revises the technical specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register *:* August 29, 2006 (71 FR 51225). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a safety evaluation dated June 15, 2007. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Duke Power Company LLC, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina *Date of application for amendments:* June 5, 2006 as supplemented April 4, 2007. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revised the Technical Specification

(TS)Section 3.8.1, “AC Sources—Operating,” surveillance requirement

(SR)3.8.1.13. The changes revised TS SR 3.8.1.13 and its associated Bases to state that the SR only verifies that non-emergency diesel generator

(DG)trips are bypassed. The licensee stated that this change is based upon and consistent with Industry Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF), Standard TS Traveler, TSTF-400-A, Revision 1, “Clarify Surveillance Requirement on Bypass of DG Automatic Trips.” *Date of issuance:* June 25, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* 236, 232. *Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81:* Amendments revised the licenses and the technical specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register *:* December 5, 2006 (71 FR 70555). The supplement dated April 4, 2007, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 25, 2007. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Duke Power Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear Station,Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina *Date of application for amendments:* June 5, 2006, as supplemented April 4, 2007. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revised TS 3.8.1, “AC Sources—Operating,” surveillance requirement

(SR)3.8.1.13. The changes revise the SR 3.8.1.13 and its associated Bases to state that the SR only verifies that non-emergency diesel generator

(DG)trips are bypassed. The licensee stated that this change is based upon and consistent with Industry Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF), Standard TS Traveler, TSTF-400-A, Revision 1, “Clarify Surveillance Requirement on Bypass of DG Automatic Trips.” *Date of issuance:* June 25, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* 242, 223. *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17:* Amendments revised the licenses and the technical specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register *:* December 5, 2006 (71 FR 70555). The supplement dated April 4, 2007, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 25, 2007. *No significant hazards consideration comments received:* No. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York *Date of application for amendment:* February 15, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification

(TS)Section 3.10.1, “Inservice Leak and Hydrostatic Testing Operation,” to expand its scope to include provisions for temperature excursions greater than 212 °F as a consequence of inservice leak or hydrostatic testing, and to allow performance of control rod scram time testing and other required testing when initiated in conjunction with the performance of an inservice leak or hydrostatic test, while considering operational conditions to be in Mode 4. The changes are consistent with NRC approved Revision 0 to Technical Specification Task Force

(TSTF)Improved Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-484, “Use of TS 3.10.1 for Scram Time Testing Activities.” *Date of issuance:* June 21, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance, and shall be implemented within 30 days. *Amendment No.:* 288. *Facility Operating License No. DPR-59:* The amendment revised the License and the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register *:* April 10, 2007 (72 FR 17947). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 21, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 2, Pope County, Arkansas *Date of application for amendment:* March 15, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revises the Surveillance Requirement

(SR)4.6.2.1.d to require verification that containment spray nozzles are unobstructed following maintenance that could result in nozzle blockage, in lieu of the current SR of performing the test every 5 years. *Date of issuance:* July 2, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment No.:* 272. *Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-6:* Amendment revised the Technical Specifications/license. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: April 24, 2007 (72 FR 20381). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 2, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois *Date of application for amendment:* June 2, 2006, as supplemented by letters dated August 18, 2006, October 5, 2006, and January 11, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendments revise technical specification to increase the allowable as-found main steam safety valve code safety function lift setpoint tolerance from ±1 percent to ±3 percent to align Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants and reduce the number of non-safety significant Licensee Event Reports written due to TS violations caused by setpoint drifting. *Date of issuance:* June 21, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment Nos.:* 223 and 215. *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25:* The amendments revised the Technical Specifications and License. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: August 15, 2006 (71 FR 46929). The August 18, 2006, October 5, 2006, and January 11, 2007, supplements contained clarifying information and did not change the NRC staff's initial proposed finding of no significant hazards consideration. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 21, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois *Date of application for amendments:* March 16, 2006, as supplemented by letter dated April 6, 2007. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revise allowable values for four reactor core isolation cooling leak detection functions in Technical Specification Table 3.3.6.1-1, “Primary Containment Isolation Instrumentation.” *Date of issuance:* June 29, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days. *Amendment Nos.:* 182/169. *Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-11 and NPF-18:* The amendments revised the Technical Specifications and License. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: August 15, 2006 (71 FR 46929). The April 6, 2007 supplement, contained clarifying information and did not change the NRC staff's initial proposed finding of no significant hazards consideration. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 29, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio *Date of application for amendment:* December 29, 2006. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment modifies the technical specifications requirements for scram discharge volume vent and drain valves. *Date of issuance:* June 22, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days. *Amendment No.:* 145. *Facility Operating License No. NPF-58:* This amendment revised the Technical Specifications and License. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: March 13, 2007 (72 FR 11388). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 22, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. FPL Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa *Date of application for amendment:* July 17, 2006, as supplemented by letter dated March 20, 2007. *Brief description of amendment:* The amendment revises the Technical Specification

(TS)Limiting Condition for Operation

(LCO)3.6.3.1 to eliminate the requirement for the Containment Atmospheric Dilution system, allowing its removal from the Duane Arnold Energy Center. In a letter dated June 1, 2007, the licensee withdrew its request to change LCO 3.6.3.2, “Primary Containment oxygen Concentration,” to lengthen the duration of time for the primary containment to be de-inerted. *Date of issuance:* June 28, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days. *Amendment No.:* 265. *Facility Operating License No. DPR-49:* The amendment revises the Technical Specification. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: November 21, 2006 (71 FR 67395). The supplemental information provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 28, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County, Minnesota *Date of application for amendments:* July 6, 2006, as supplemented by letters dated September 15 and December 26, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments incorporate new Large-Break Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LBLOCA) analyses using the realistic LBLOCA methodology in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved WCAP-16009-P-A, “Realistic Large Break LOCA Evaluation Methodology using Automated Statistical Treatment of Uncertainty Method (ASTRUM)” and revise TS 5.6.5.b to include reference to WCAP-16009-P-A. *Date of issuance:* June 28, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented with the next fuel cycle (Unit 1 Cycle 25) commencing following the Winter 2008 refueling for Unit 1, and implemented within 90 days for Unit 2. *Amendment Nos.:* 179 and 169. *Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60:* Amendments revised the Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: September 12, 2006 (71 FR 53718). The supplemental letters contained clarifying information and did not change the initial no significant hazards consideration determination, and did not expand the scope of the original **Federal Register** notice. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 28, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, California *Date of application for amendments:* December 29, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revised Technical Specification

(TS)Section 5.5.8, “Inservice Testing Program,” in order to update references to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Specifically, the change adopted the administrative, editorial, and clarification TS changes contained in TS Task Force (TSTF)-479, Revision 0, “Changes to Reflect Revision of 10 CFR [Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* ] 50.55a,” and TSTF-497, Revision 0, “Limit Inservice Testing Program SR [Surveillance Requirement] 3.0.2 Application to Frequencies of 2 years or less.” *Date of issuance:* June 25, 2007. *Effective date:* As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* Unit 1-196; Unit 2-197 *Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82:* The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: February 13, 2007 (72 FR 6784). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 25, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. *Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82:* The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: February 13, 2007 (72 FR 6784). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 25, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, California *Date of application for amendments:* December 29, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revise TS 5.5.16, “Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,” to comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4) for components classified as Code Class CC. *Date of issuance:* June 26, 2007. *Effective date:* As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* Unit 1-197; Unit 2-198. *Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82:* The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: February 13, 2007 (72 FR 6785). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 26, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia *Date of application for amendments:* January 30, 2007, as supplemented April 11, 2007. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revised staff position duties and titles in Sections 2 and 5 of the Technical Specifications. *Date of issuance:* June 7, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* 252, 196. *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5:* Amendments revised the licenses and the technical specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: February 13, 2007 (72 FR 6790). The supplement dated April 11, 2007, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 7, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County, Georgia *Date of application for amendments:* January 30, 2007, as supplemented April 11, 2007. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revised staff position duties and titles in Sections 2 and 5 of the Technical Specifications. *Date of issuance:* June 12, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days from the date of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* 148, 128. *Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81:* Amendments revised the licenses and the technical specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: February 13, 2007 (72 FR 6791). The supplement dated April 11, 2007, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 12, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas *Date of amendment request:* March 30, 2006, as supplemented by letters dated October 2, 2006, and February 26, 2007. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendments revise TS 3.3.3.6, “Accident Monitoring Instrumentation,” with respect to the required action for inoperable wide range reactor coolant temperature, wide range steam generator water level, and auxiliary feedwater flow instruments. *Date of issuance:* June 13, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* Unit 1-177; Unit 2-164. *Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80:* The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: June 6, 2006 (71 FR 32608). The supplemental letters dated October 2, 2006, and February 26, 2007, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the **Federal Register** . The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 13, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas *Date of amendment request:* April 4, 2006. *Brief description of amendments:* The amendment request changed the name of one licensee, Texas Genco, LP (Texas Genco), to NRG South Texas LP. The name change results from the purchase of Texas Genco's parent company by NRG Energy, Inc. as approved by the NRC in January 2006. *Date of issuance:* June 29, 2007. *Effective date:* As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance. *Amendment Nos.:* Unit 1-178; Unit 2-165. *Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80:* The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses. *Date of initial notice in* Federal Register: May 9, 2007 (72 FR 26428). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 29, 2007. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this sixth day of July 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Catherine Haney, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7-13537 Filed 7-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Notice of Availability of Model Application Concerning Technical Specification Task Force

(TSTF)Traveler To Provide Actions for One Steam Supply to Turbine Driven AFW/EFW Pump Inoperable Using the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)has prepared a model license amendment request (LAR), model safety evaluation (SE), and model proposed no significant hazards consideration

(NSHC)determination related to changes to Actions in the Standard Technical Specifications

(STS)relating to One Steam Supply to Turbine Driven Auxiliary Feedwater/Emergency Feedwater (AFW/EFW) Pump Inoperable. This change establishes a Completion Time in the Standard Technical Specifications for the Condition where one steam supply to the turbine driven AFW/EFW pump is inoperable concurrent with an inoperable motor driven AFW/EFW train. The purpose of these models is to permit the NRC to efficiently process amendments that propose to adopt the associated changes into plant-specific technical specifications (TS). Licensees of nuclear power reactors to which the models apply can request amendments confirming the applicability of the SE and NSHC determination to their reactors. DATES: The NRC staff issued a **Federal Register** Notice (72 FR 12845, March 19, 2007) which provided a model LAR, model SE, and model NSHC related to one steam supply to turbine driven auxiliary feedwater/emergency feedwater pump inoperable; similarly the NRC staff herein provides the model LAR, a revised model SE, and the model NSHC. The NRC staff can most efficiently consider applications based upon the model LAR, which references the model SE, if the application is submitted within one year of this **Federal Register** Notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Trent L. Wertz, Technical Specifications Branch, Division of Inspection and Regional Support, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Mail Stop O-12H2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone 301-415-1568. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Regulatory Issue Summary 2000-06, “Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process for Adopting Standard Technical Specification Changes for Power Reactors,” was issued on March 20, 2000. The consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP) is intended to improve the efficiency and transparency of NRC licensing processes. This is accomplished by processing proposed changes to the Standard Technical Specifications

(STS)(NUREGs 1430—1434) in a manner that supports subsequent license amendment applications. The CLIIP includes an opportunity for the public to comment on proposed changes to the STS following a preliminary assessment by the NRC staff and finding that the change will likely be offered for adoption by licensees. The CLIIP directs the NRC staff to evaluate any comments received for a proposed change to the STS and to either reconsider the change or proceed with announcing the availability of the change to licensees. Those licensees opting to apply for the subject change to TS are responsible for reviewing the NRC staff's evaluation, referencing the applicable technical justifications, and providing any necessary plant specific information. Each amendment application submitted in response to the notice of availability would be processed and noticed in accordance with applicable rules and NRC procedures. This notice involves establishing a Completion Time in the Limiting Condition for Operation

(LCO)3.7.5 of the STS for the Condition where one steam supply to the turbine driven AFW/EFW pump is inoperable concurrent with an inoperable motor driven AFW/EFW train. This notice also involves two additional changes to the STS that establish specific Conditions and Action requirements:

(1)For when two motor driven AFW/EFW trains are inoperable at the same time and;

(2)for when the turbine driven AFW/EFW train is inoperable either

(a)due solely to one inoperable steam supply, or

(b)due to reasons other than one inoperable steam supply. The changes were proposed by the Technical Specification Task Force

(TSTF)in TSTF Traveler TSTF-412, Revision 3, which is accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* (Accession No. ML070100363). Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC Public Document Room Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Applicability This change is applicable to all pressurized water reactors

(PWRs)designed by Babcock and Wilcox (B&W), Westinghouse, and Combustion Engineering (CE). To efficiently process the incoming license amendment applications, the NRC staff requests that each licensee applying for the changes use the CLIIP to submit a License Amendment Request

(LAR)that conforms to the enclosed Model Application (Enclosure 1). Any deviations from the Model Application should be explained in the licensee's submittal. Significant deviations from the approach, or inclusion of additional changes to the license, will result in staff rejection of the submittal. Instead, licensees desiring significant variations and/or additional changes should submit a LAR that does not claim to adopt TSTF-412. Variations from the approach recommended in this notice may require additional review by the NRC staff and may increase the time and resources needed for the review. Public Notices The staff issued a **Federal Register** Notice (72 FR 12845, March 19, 2007) that requested public comment on the NRC's pending action to establish a Completion Time in the Limiting Condition for Operation

(1)For when two motor driven AFW/EFW trains are inoperable at the same time and;

(2)for when the turbine driven AFW/EFW train is inoperable either

(a)due solely to one inoperable steam supply, or

(b)due to reasons other than one inoperable steam supply. In particular, following an assessment and draft safety evaluation by the NRC staff, the staff sought public comment on proposed changes to the STS, designated TSTF-412 Revision 3. In response to the notice soliciting comments from the interested members of the public about NRC's pending action to establish a Completion Time in the Standard Technical Specifications for the Condition where one steam supply to the turbine driven AFW/EFW pump is inoperable concurrent with an inoperable motor driven AFW/EFW train, the staff received one comment (from a licensee). The comment on the model SE is summarized and discussed below: 1. COMMENT: The first sentence in the third paragraph under “STS 3.7.5, Condition C (as Proposed),” in Section 3.0 of the Proposed Model Safety Evaluation states the following: “The STS typically allows a 72 hour Completion Time for Conditions where the remaining operable equipment is able to mitigate postulated accidents without assuming a concurrent single active failure.” Since there are several TSs in the STS that allow a longer Completion time than 72 hours for conditions where the remaining operable equipment is able to mitigate postulated accidents without assuming a concurrent single active failure (such as seven days in TS 3.5.2, 3.6.6, and 3.7.10 in NUREG-1432), it is recommended that the sentence be changed to the following: “The STS typically allows a 72 hour or longer Completion Time for Conditions where the remaining operable equipment is able to mitigate postulated accidents without assuming a concurrent single active failure.” *Response:* The NRC staff agrees with the comment and has modified the model SE. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of July, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Timothy J. Kobetz, Chief Technical Specifications Branch, Division of Inspection and Regional Support, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. The following example of a license amendment request

(LAR)was prepared by the NRC staff to facilitate the adoption of Technical Specifications Task Force

(TSTF)Traveler TSTF-412, Revision 3 “Provide Actions for One Steam Supply to Turbine Driven AFW/EFW Pump Inoperable.” The model provides the expected level of detail and content for a LAR to adopt TSTF-412, Revision 3. Licensees remain responsible for ensuring that their plant-specific LAR fulfills their administrative requirements as well as NRC regulations. PROPOSED MODEL LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555. SUBJECT: PLANT NAME DOCKET NO. 50- APPLICATION FOR TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION IMPROVEMENT TO REVISE ACTIONS FOR ONE STEAM SUPPLY TO TURBINE DRIVEN AUXILIARY FEEDWATER / EMERGENCY FEEDWATER PUMP INOPERABLE USING THE CONSOLIDATED LINE ITEM IMPROVEMENT PROCESS Gentlemen: In accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.90 of Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* (10 CFR), [LICENSEE] is submitting a request for an amendment to the technical specifications

(TS)for [PLANT NAME, UNIT NOS.]. The proposed amendment establishes Conditions, Required Actions, and Completion Times in the Standard Technical Specifications

(STS)for the Condition where one steam supply to the turbine driven Auxiliary Feedwater/Emergency Feedwater (AFW/EFW) pump is inoperable concurrent with an inoperable motor driven AFW/EFW train. In addition, this amendment establishes changes to the STS that establish specific Actions:

(1)For when two motor driven AFW/EFW trains are inoperable at the same time and;

(2)for when the turbine driven AFW/EFW train is inoperable either

(a)due solely to one inoperable steam supply, or

(b)due to reasons other than one inoperable steam supply. The change is consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specification Task Force

(TSTF)Traveler, TSTF-412, Revision 3, “Provide Actions for One Steam Supply to Turbine Driven AFW/EFW Pump Inoperable.” The availability of this technical specification improvement was announced in the *Federal Register* on [DATE OF NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY] as part of the consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP). Enclosure 1 provides a description of the proposed change and confirmation of applicability. Enclosure 2 provides the existing TS pages marked-up to show the proposed change. Enclosure 3 provides the existing TS Bases pages marked-up to reflect the proposed change. There are no new regulatory commitments associated with this proposed change. [LICENSEE] requests approval of the proposed license amendment by [DATE], with the amendment being implemented [BY DATE OR WITHIN X DAYS]. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.91, a copy of this application, with enclosures, is being provided to the designated [STATE] Official. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that I am authorized by [LICENSEE] to make this request and that the foregoing is true and correct. [Note that request may be notarized in lieu of using this oath or affirmation statement]. If you should have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact [ ]. Sincerely, Name, Title Enclosures: 1. Description and Assessment 2. Proposed Technical Specification Changes 3. Proposed Technical Specification Bases Changes cc: NRR Project Manager Regional Office Resident Inspector State Contact Enclosure 1 to Model License Amendment Request Description and Assessment 1.0 DESCRIPTION The proposed License amendment establish a new Completion Time in Standard Technical Specifications Section [3.7.5] where one steam supply to the turbine driven AFW/EFW pump is inoperable concurrent with an inoperable motor driven AFW/EFW train. This amendment also establishes specific Conditions and Action requirements:

(1)For when two motor driven AFW/EFW trains are inoperable at the same time and;

(2)for when the turbine driven AFW/EFW train is inoperable either

(a)due solely to one inoperable steam supply, or

(b)due to reasons other than one inoperable steam supply. The changes are consistent with NRC approved Industry/Technical Specification Task Force

(TSTF)Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-412, Revision 3, “Provide Actions for One Steam Supply to Turbine Driven AFW/EFW Pump Inoperable.” The availability of this technical specification improvement was announced in the **Federal Register** on [DATE ] ([xx FR xxxxx]) as part of the consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP). 2.0 ASSESSMENT 2.1 Applicability of Published Safety Evaluation [LICENSEE] has reviewed the safety evaluation published on [DATE ] ([xx FR xxxxx]) as part of the CLIIP. This verification included a review of the NRC staff's evaluation as well as the supporting information provided to support TSTF-412, Revision 3. [LICENSEE] has concluded that the justifications presented in the TSTF proposal and the safety evaluation prepared by the NRC staff are applicable to [PLANT, UNIT NOS.] and justify this amendment for the incorporation of the changes to the [PLANT] Technical Specifications. 2.2 Optional Changes and Variations [LICENSEE] is not proposing any variations or deviations from the technical specification changes described in TSTF-412, Revision 3, or the NRC staff's model safety evaluation published in the **Federal Register** on [DATE ] ([xx FR xxxxx]). 3.0 REGULATORY ANALYSIS A description of the proposed change and its relationship to applicable regulatory requirements and guidance was provided in the Notice of Availability published on [DATE] ([xx FR xxxxx]). **[Pre-General Design Criteria plants need to include applicable plant specific regulatory requirements].** 3.1 No Significant Hazards Determination [LICENSEE] has reviewed the proposed no significant hazards consideration determination published on [DATE] as part of the CLIIP. [LICENSEE] has concluded that the proposed determination presented in the notice is applicable to [PLANT] and the determination is hereby incorporated by reference to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 50.91(a). 3.2 Verification and Commitments There are no new regulatory commitments associated with this proposed change. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION [LICENSEE] has reviewed the environmental evaluation included in the model safety evaluation published in the **Federal Register** on [DATE ] ([xx FR xxxxx]) as part of the CLIIP. [LICENSEE] has concluded that the NRC staff's findings presented in that evaluation are applicable to [PLANT] and the evaluation is hereby incorporated by reference for this application. Enclosure 2 to Model License Amendment Request: PROPOSED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES Enclosure 3 to Model License Amendment Request: CHANGES TO TS BASES PAGES PROPOSED MODEL SAFETY EVALUATION U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Consolidated Line Item Improvement Technical Specification Task Force Traveler TSTF-412, Revision 3, Provide Actions for One Steam Supply to the Turbine Driven AFW/EFW Pump Inoperable 1.0 INTRODUCTION By application dated [DATE], [LICENSEE NAME] (the licensee), submitted a request for changes to the [PLANT NAME], Technical Specifications

(TS)(Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. [MLxxxxxxxxx]). The requested changes adopt TSTF-412, Revision 3, “Provide Actions for One Steam Supply to the Turbine Driven AFW/EFW Pump Inoperable.” NRC approval of these changes was announced in the **Federal Register** on [DATE] [xx FR xxxxx]. The requested change would establish a Completion Time for the Condition where one steam supply to the turbine driven AFW/EFW pump is inoperable concurrent with an inoperable motor driven AFW/EFW train and establish specific Conditions and Required Actions:

(1)When two motor driven AFW/EFW trains are inoperable at the same time and;

(2)when the turbine driven AFW/EFW train is inoperable either

(a)due solely to one inoperable steam supply, or

(b)due to reasons other than one inoperable steam supply. These changes were described in a Notice of Availability published in the **Federal Register** on [DATE ] ([xx FR xxxxx]). 2.0 REGULATORY EVALUATION In 10 CFR 50.36, the Commission established its regulatory requirements related to the content of Technical Specifications (TS). Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.36(c), TS are required to include items in the following categories:

(1)Safety limits, limiting safety system settings, and limiting control settings;

(2)limiting conditions for operation (LCOs);

(3)surveillance requirements (SRs);

(4)design features; and

(5)administrative controls. The rule does not specify the particular requirements to be included in a plant's TS. Also, in 10 CFR 50 Appendix A the Commission established regulatory requirements related to Auxiliary Feedwater Systems. General Design Criteria 34 and 44 state that the AFW system is required to assure

(1)the capability to transfer heat loads from the reactor system to a heat sink under both normal operating and accident conditions;

(2)the redundancy of components for performance of the safety function under accident conditions, assuming a single active component failure; and

(3)the capability to isolate components, subsystems, or piping if required to maintain system safety function. 3.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION TS 3.7.5, Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW)/Emergency Feedwater

(EFW)System The AFW/EFW System is designed to automatically supply sufficient water to the steam generator(s) to remove decay heat upon the loss of normal feedwater supply with steam generator pressure at the set point of the Main Steam Safety Valves (MSSVs). Subsequently, the AFW/EFW System supplies sufficient water to cool the unit to Residual Heat Removal

(RHR)System entry conditions, with steam being released through the Atmospheric Dump Valves (ADVs). AFW/EFW Systems typically consist of two motor driven AFW/EFW pumps and one steam turbine driven pump configured into three trains. The capacity of the motor driven and steam driven AFW/EFW pumps can vary by plant. Motor driven pumps typically provide 50% or 100% of the required AFW/EFW flow capacity as assumed in the accident analysis. Motor driven AFW/EFW pumps are typically powered from an independent Class 1E power supply and each pump train typically feeds half of the steam generators, although each pump has the capability to be realigned from the control room to feed other steam generators. The steam turbine driven AFW/EFW pump provides either 100% or 200% of the required capacity to all steam generators. The steam turbine driven pump receives steam from two main steam lines upstream of the main steam isolation valves. Each of the steam feed lines will supply 100% of the requirements of the turbine driven AFW/EFW pump. LCO 3.7.5 Condition A (as proposed) Condition A is modified to refer to the inoperability of a turbine driven AFW/EFW train due to an inoperable steam supply, instead of referring to the inoperability of a turbine driven AFW/EFW pump. This change is being proposed in order to make Condition A train oriented instead of component oriented, consistent with the other Conditions that are included in STS 3.7.5. The train oriented approach is consistent with the preferred approach that is generally reflected in the STS, and therefore the proposed change is considered to be acceptable. STS 3.7.5, Condition C (as proposed) A new Condition C with two possible Required Actions (C.1 OR C.2) is proposed for the turbine driven AFW/EFW train being inoperable due to one inoperable steam supply and one motor driven AFW/EFW train being inoperable at the same time. Required Action C.1 requires restoration of the affected steam supply to operable status within either 24 or 48 hours, depending on the capability of the motor driven AFW/EFW train that remains operable. Alternatively, Required Action C.2 requires restoration of the inoperable motor driven AFW/EFW train within either 24 or 48 hours, again depending on the capability of the motor driven AFW/EFW train that remains operable. New Condition C provides two proposed Completion Times that are dependent upon the capacity of the remaining operable motor driven AFW/EFW train to provide AFW/EFW to the steam generators. A proposed 24 hour Completion Time is applicable to plants that may provide insufficient flow to the steam generators

(SGs)in accordance with accident analyses assumptions if a main steam line break

(MSLB)or feedwater line break

(FLB)were to occur that renders the remaining steam supply to the turbine driven AFW/EFW pump inoperable (a concurrent single failure is not assumed). Insufficient feedwater flow could result, for example, if a single motor driven AFW/EFW train does not have sufficient capacity to satisfy accident analyses assumptions, or if the operable pump is feeding the faulted SG (i.e. the SG that is aligned to the operable steam supply for the turbine driven AFW/EFW pump). [This would typically apply to plants with each AFW/EFW motor driven pump having less than 100% of the required flow.] A proposed 48 hour Completion Time is applicable when the remaining operable motor driven AFW/EFW train is capable of providing sufficient feedwater flow in accordance with accident analyses assumptions. [This would typically apply to plants with each AFW/EFW motor driven pump having greater than or equal to 100% of the required flow.] The STS typically allows a 72 hour or longer Completion Time for Conditions where the remaining operable equipment is able to mitigate postulated accidents without assuming a concurrent single active failure. In this particular case, a 24 hour Completion Time is proposed for the situation where the AFW/EFW system would be able to perform its function for most postulated events, and would only be challenged by a MSLB or FLB that renders the remaining operable steam supply to the turbine driven AFW/EFW pump inoperable. Additionally, depending on the capacity of the operable motor driven AFW/EFW pump, it may be able to mitigate MSLB and FLB accidents during those instances when it is not aligned to the faulted SG. The selection of 24 hours for the Completion Time is based on the remaining operable steam supply to the turbine driven AFW/EFW pump and the continued functionality of the turbine driven AFW/EFW train, the remaining operable motor driven AFW/EFW train, and the low likelihood of an event occurring during this 24 hour period that would challenge the capability of the AFW/EFW system to provide feedwater to the SGs. The proposed Completion Time for this particular situation is consistent with what was approved for Waterford 3 by License Amendment 173 for a similar Condition (ADAMS Accession No. ML012840538), and it is consistent with the STS in that the proposed Completion Time is much less than the 72 hours that is allowed for the situation where accident mitigation capability is maintained. Therefore, the NRC staff agrees that the proposed 24 hour Completion Time is acceptable for this particular situation. A 48 hour Completion Time is proposed for the situation where the remaining operable motor driven AFW/EFW train is able to mitigate postulated accidents in accordance with accident analyses assumptions without assuming a concurrent single active failure. The selection of 48 hours is based on the continued capability of the AFW/EFW system to perform its function, while at the same time recognizing that this Condition represents a higher level of degradation than one inoperable AFW/EFW train which is currently allowed for up to 72 hours by STS 3.7.5. The proposed 48 hour Completion Time represents an appropriate balance between the more severe 24 hour situation discussed in the previous paragraph and the less severe Condition that is afforded a 72 hour Completion Time by the current STS. Therefore, the NRC staff agrees that the proposed 48 hour Completion Time is acceptable for this particular situation. STS 3.7.5, Condition D (as proposed) The current Condition C is renamed as Condition D. This Condition has been modified to incorporate changes brought on by the addition of new Condition C. The first of the two listed Conditions under Condition D has been modified and now applies to the situation where the Required Action and associated Completion Time of Condition A, B, or C are not met. This section of Condition D is modified to also apply to the new Condition C when the Completion Time that is specified for new Condition C is not met. The NRC staff considers this to be appropriate and consistent with existing STS 3.7.5 requirements to place the plant in a mode where the Condition does not apply when the Required Actions are not met. The second listed Condition under Condition D (following the first “OR”) is modified from “Two AFW/EFW trains inoperable in MODE 1, 2, or 3” to “Two AFW/EFW trains inoperable in MODE 1, 2, or 3 for reasons other than Condition C.” This change is necessary to recognize the situation specified by Condition C (as proposed) where one motor driven AFW/EFW train is allowed to be inoperable at the same time that the turbine driven AFW/EFW train is inoperable due to an inoperable steam supply to the pump turbine. Therefore, the NRC staff considers the proposed change to be acceptable. The Required Actions associated with this Condition were renamed from C.1 AND C.2 to D.1 AND D.2 but not otherwise changed. Required Action D.1 requires the plant to be in Mode 3 in 6 hours, and Required Action D.2 requires the plant to be in Mode 4 in 18 hours. This change is purely editorial as no other changes are involved. Therefore, this proposed change is acceptable. STS 3.7.5, Condition E (as proposed) Because current Condition C is renamed as Condition D, current Condition D is renamed as Condition E. This change is purely editorial as no other changes are involved. Therefore, the proposed change is acceptable. STS 3.7.5, Condition F (as proposed) Because current Condition D is renamed as Condition E, current Condition E is renamed as Condition F. This change is purely editorial as no other changes are involved. Therefore, the proposed change is acceptable. 4.0 STATE CONSULTATION In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the [STATE] State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had [(1) no comments or

(2)the following comments—with subsequent disposition by the NRC staff]. 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION The amendment changes a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes surveillance requirements. The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts and no significant change in the types of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been [(1) no public comment on such finding

(2)the following comments with subsequent disposition by the NRC staff ([xx FR xxxxx, DATE]). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment. 6.0 CONCLUSION The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that

(1)there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner,

(2)such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and

(3)the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public. The proposed changes are consistent with NRC practices and policies as generally reflected in the STS and as reflected by applicable precedents that have been approved. Therefore, the NRC staff has determined that the proposed changes to STS 3.7.5 should be approved. MODEL NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION Description of amendment request: The requested change, applicable to all pressurized water reactors

(PWRs)designed by Babcock and Wilcox (B&W), Westinghouse, and Combustion Engineering (CE), would provide changes to the Actions in the Standard Technical Specifications

(STS)relating to One Steam Supply to Turbine Driven Auxiliary Feedwater / Emergency Feedwater (AFW/EFW) Pump Inoperable. The proposed change is described in Technical Specification Task Force

(TSTF)Standard TS Change Traveler TSTF-412, Revision 3, and was described in the Notice of Availability published in the **Federal Register** on [DATE] ([xx FR xxxxx]). Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No The Auxiliary/Emergency Feedwater (AFW/EFW) System is not an initiator of any design basis accident or event, and therefore the proposed changes do not increase the probability of any accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes to address the condition of one or two motor driven AFW/EFW trains inoperable and the turbine driven AFW/EFW train inoperable due to one steam supply inoperable do not change the response of the plant to any accidents. The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, and configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not adversely affect the ability of structures, systems, and components

(SSCs)to perform their intended safety function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of any accident previously evaluated. Further, the proposed changes do not increase the types and amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public radiation exposures. Therefore, the changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any 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 proposed changes do not result in a change in the manner in which the AFW/EFW System provides plant protection. The AFW/EFW System will continue to supply water to the steam generators to remove decay heat and other residual heat by delivering at least the minimum required flow rate to the steam generators. There are no design changes associated with the proposed changes. The changes to the Conditions and Required Actions do not change any existing accident scenarios, nor create any new or different accident scenarios. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant ( *i.e.* , no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition, the changes do not impose any new or different requirements or eliminate any existing requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. The proposed changes are consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice. Therefore, the changes do 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 The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not impacted by these changes. The proposed changes will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis. Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Based on the above, the proposed change involves no significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and accordingly, a finding of no significant hazards consideration is justified. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this th day of , 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. *Project Manager* *Plant Licensing Branch* [ ] *Division of Operating Reactor Licensing* , *Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation* [FR Doc. E7-13845 Filed 7-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Review of a Revised Information Collection; Federal Employees Health Benefits

(FEHB)Open Season Express; Interactive Voice Response

(IVR)System AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of Personnel Management

(OPM)intends to submit to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)a request for review of a revised information collection. The Federal Employees Health Benefits

(FEHB)Open Season Express Interactive Voice Response

(IVR)System and the Open Season Web site, Open Season Online, are used by retirees and survivors. They collect information for changing FEHB enrollments, collecting dependent and other insurance information for self and family enrollments, requesting plan brochures, requesting a change of address, requesting cancellation or suspension of FEHB benefits, asking to make payment to the Office of Personnel Management when the FEHB payment is greater than the monthly annuity amount, or for requesting FEHB plan accreditation and Customer Satisfaction Survey information. Comments are particularly invited on: Whether this information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Office of Personnel Management and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. We receive approximately 215,000 responses per year to the IVR system and the online Web. Each response takes approximately 10 minutes to complete. The annual burden is 35,833 hours. For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on

(202)606-8358, FAX

(202)418-3251 or via e-mail to: *MaryBeth.Smith-Toomey@opm.gov.* Please include a mailing address with your request. DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication. ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to— Ed Foelster, Chief, Methods and Procedures Branch, Operations Support Group, Center for Retirement and Insurance Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 3349, Washington, DC 20415-3540. For Information Regarding Administrative Coordination— Contact: Cyrus S. Benson, Team Leader, Publications Team, RIS Support Services/Support Group,

(202)606-0623. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Tricia Hollis, Chief of Staff. [FR Doc. E7-13760 Filed 7-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-38-P OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection: OPM 1530 AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of Personnel Management

(OPM)intends to submit to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)a request for extension of a currently approved information collection. OPM Form 1530, Report of Medical Examination of Person Electing Survivor Benefit Under the Civil Service Retirement System, is used to collect information regarding an annuitant's health so that OPM can determine whether the insurable interest survivor benefit election can be allowed. Comments are particularly invited on: Whether this information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Office of Personnel Management, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Approximately 500 OPM Form 1530 will be completed annually. We estimate it takes approximately 90 minutes to complete the form. The annual burden is 750 hours. For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on

(202)606-8358, FAX

(202)418-3251 or via e-mail to: *MaryBeth.Smith-Toomey@opm.gov.* Please include a mailing address with your request. DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication. ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to— Pamela S. Israel, Chief, Operations Support Group, Center for Retirement and Insurance Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 3349, Washington, DC 20415-3540. For Information Regarding Administrative Coordination— Contact: Cyrus S. Benson, Team Leader, Publications Team, RIS Support Services/Support Group,

(202)606-0623. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Tricia Hollis, Chief of Staff. [FR Doc. E7-13761 Filed 7-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-38-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549. *Extension:* Rule 19h-1; SEC File No. 270-247; OMB Control No. 3235-0259. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below. • Rule 19h-1 (17 CFR 240.19h-1): SRO notification of admission and/or continuance despite statutory disqualification. Rule 19h-1 (“Rule”) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a *et seq.* ) prescribes the form and content of notices and applications by self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) regarding proposed admissions to, or continuances in, membership, participation or association with a member of any person subject to a statutory disqualification. The Commission uses the information provided in the submissions filed pursuant to Rule 19h-1 to review decisions by SROs to permit the entry into or continuance in the securities business of persons who have committed serious misconduct. The filings submitted pursuant to the Rule also permit inclusion of an application to the Commission for consent to associate with a member of an SRO notwithstanding a Commission order barring such association. The Commission reviews filings made pursuant to the Rule to ascertain whether it is in the public interest to permit the employment in the securities business of persons subject to statutory disqualification. The filings contain information that is essential to the staff's review and ultimate determination on whether an association or employment is in the public interest and consistent with investor protection. It is estimated that approximately 5 respondents will make submissions pursuant to this rule annually and that they each will make 5 responses, for a total burden of 200 hours, based upon past submissions (25 × 8 = 200). The staff estimates that the average number of hours necessary to complete a submission pursuant to Rule 19h-1 is 8 hours. The average cost per hour for completion of a submission is approximately $101. Therefore, the total cost of compliance for the respondents is $20,200. (25 responses × 8 hours per response × $101 per hour). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. General comments regarding the estimated burden hours should be directed to the following persons:

(i)Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or send an e-mail to: *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* and

(ii)R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an e-mail to: *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov* . Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice. Dated: July 9, 2007. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-13746 Filed 7-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549. *Extension:* Rule 6a-4; SEC File No. 270-496; OMB Control No. 3235-0554. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 1 the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below. 1 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* Section 6 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 2 sets out a framework for the registration and regulation of national securities exchanges. Under the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, a futures market may trade security futures products by registering as a national securities exchange. Rule 6a-4 3 sets forth these registration procedures and directs futures markets to submit a notice registration on Form 1-N. Form 1-N calls for information regarding how the futures market operates, its rules and procedures, its criteria for membership, its subsidiaries and affiliates, and the security futures products it intends to trade. Rule 6a-4 also would require entities that have submitted an initial Form 1-N to file:

(1)Amendments to Form 1-N in the event of material changes to the information provided in the initial Form 1-N;

(2)periodic updates of certain information provided in the initial Form 1-N;

(3)certain information that is provided to the futures market's members; and

(4)a monthly report summarizing the futures market's trading of security futures products. The information required to be filed with the Commission pursuant to Rule 6a-4 is designed to enable the Commission to carry out its statutorily mandated oversight functions and to ensure that registered and exempt exchanges continue to be in compliance with the Act. 2 15 U.S.C. 78f. 3 17 CFR 240.6a-4. The respondents to the collection of information are futures markets. The Commission estimates that the total annual burden for all respondents to provide the amendments and periodic updates under Rule 6a-4 would be 105 hours (15 hours/respondent per year x seven respondents) and $10,066 ($1438/response × seven responses/year). The Commission estimates that the total annual burden for the filing of the supplemental information and the monthly reports required under Rule 6a-4 would be 87.5 hours (25 filings/respondent × seven respondents x 0.5 hours/response). The SEC estimates that the total annual cost for all supplemental filings would be $3675 (25 filings/respondent per year × 7 respondents × $21/response). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Comments should be directed to

(ii)R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an e-mail to: *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov* . Comments must be submitted within 30 days of this notice. Dated: July 10, 2007. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-13751 Filed 7-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56037; File Nos. 4-533 and 4-534] Joint Industry Plan; American Stock Exchange LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC, and NYSE Arca, Inc. and Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc., National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., National Stock Exchange, Inc., and Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed National Market System Plans for the Selection and Reservation of Securities Symbols July 10, 2007. I. Introduction Securities symbols are a key element in the operation of a national market system and essential to the dissemination of trade information in a common format. Historically, securities symbols have been assigned under an informal understanding among the listing markets. It has been the practice of the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”) to list securities of companies using one-, two-, or three-character symbols. Other exchanges, including the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”) and regional exchanges, have also listed securities of companies using two- and three-character symbols. Until recently, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (“Nasdaq”) has always listed securities of companies using four- or five-character symbols. 1 Because securities symbols are an important part of a listed company's identity and because there is a limited supply of securities symbols—particularly one-, two-, and three-character symbols—developing a formal process to reserve, select, and allocate symbols among listing markets and their companies would help promote a fair and orderly national market system and prevent investor confusion. 1 *See infra* note 19 and accompanying text. In 1975, Congress directed the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), through its enactment of section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 2 to facilitate the establishment of a national market system to link together the individual markets that trade securities. Congress found that it is in the public interest and appropriate for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets to assure fair competition among exchange markets. 3 Congress directed the Commission to authorize or require self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) to act jointly with respect to matters as to which they share authority in planning, developing, operating, or regulating a national market system. 4 Consistent with the principles of section 11A of the Act, in February 2005, Commission staff asked the listing markets to commence joint discussions to develop a national market system plan for the process of reserving, selecting, and allocating securities ticker symbols. 5 2 15 U.S.C. 78k-1. 3 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C). 4 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(3)(B). 5 *See* Letters from Annette L. Nazareth, then Director of the Division of Market Regulation, Commission, to Amex, Boston Stock Exchange (“BSE”), Chicago Board Options Exchange (“CBOE”), Chicago Stock Exchange (“CHX”), International Stock Exchange (“ISE”), Nasdaq, National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”), National Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NSX”), NYSE, Pacific Exchange (the predecessor to NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”)) and Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx”), dated February 7, 2005. On March 23, 2007, pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS under the Act 6 (“Rule 608”), Amex, NYSE, and NYSE Arca filed with the Commission a proposed plan for the purpose of the selection and reservation of securities symbols (“Three-Characters Plan”). On March 23, 2007, Nasdaq, NASD, NSX, and Phlx also filed with the Commission a proposed plan for the purpose of the selection and reservation of securities symbols (“Five-Characters Plan”). On April 23, 2007, CHX, Nasdaq, NASD, NSX, and Phlx filed a supplement to the Five-Characters Plan. 7 6 17 CFR 242.608. 7 In the Supplement, CHX joined as a party proposing the Five-Characters Plan. In addition, the Supplement contained a revised version of the Five-Characters Plan. The parties to the Five-Characters Plan revised the plan as follows:

(i)Changed the definition of securities for which an SRO must maintain facilities for the quoting and trade reporting of such securities in order to be party to the plan and corresponding changes throughout the plan and

(ii)deleted the statement that new parties to the plan would pay an equal share of all development costs. Although the two plans are identical in many respects, they also differ on several significant matters. The primary difference between the two plans is their scope. The Three-Characters Plan would only cover one-, two-, and three-character symbols; the Five-Characters Plan would cover one-, two-, three-, four-, and five-character symbols. In addition, the plans differ with regard to the number of, and the length of time that, symbols may be reserved, the portability of symbols for issuers that move their listing from one market to another, the allocation of costs relating to the plan, and the process of withdrawing from the plan. Pursuant to Rule 608, the Commission is publishing this notice of, and soliciting comments on, both the Three-Characters Plan and the Five-Characters Plan. Section 11A of the Act grants the Commission broad authority to authorize or require SROs, either by rule or order, to act jointly with respect to planning, developing, operating, or regulating a national market system. 8 Thus, the Commission may establish a single symbol reservation national market system plan by approving either the Three-Characters Plan or the Five-Characters Plan or may approve both the Three-Characters Plan and the Five-Characters Plan, in each case with such changes or subject to such conditions as the Commission may deem necessary or appropriate. 9 In addition, the Commission has authority to require SROs to participate in any approved national market system plan or plans, or otherwise act jointly with respect to matters related to the national market system. 10 8 *See* 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(3). 9 *See* 17 CFR 242.608(b)(2). 10 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(3)(B). The Commission requests comment on whether all SROs that list securities should be required to join any symbol reservation national market system plan approved by the Commission. If commenters believe that SROs that list securities should not be required to join such an approved national market system plan, the Commission requests commenters to address how to preclude duplicative symbols from being selected and reserved, how to resolve disputes about symbols, or how otherwise to address concerns the plans are designed to address. II. Background Pursuant to Rule 601 of Regulation NMS under the Act, 11 all SROs are required to report every trade in listed equity securities 12 and Nasdaq securities 13 made through their facilities, and to make such information public. Each SRO reports every transaction to the ticker tape using the ticker symbol for that security, the volume of the trade, and the price of the trade. Currently, there are three ticker tapes: Tape A reports the stocks that are listed on NYSE, Tape B reports the stocks that are listed on Amex, as well as securities listed on any other national securities exchange (except securities also listed on NYSE and Nasdaq), and Tape C reports the stocks that are listed on Nasdaq. Tapes A and B disseminate market information pursuant to the Consolidated Tape Association Plan (“CTA Plan”), while Tape C disseminates market information pursuant to the Nasdaq Unlisted Trading Privileges Plan (“Nasdaq Plan”). 11 17 CFR 242.601. 12 17 CFR 242.600(b)(34) defines “listed equity security” as “any equity security listed and registered, or admitted to unlisted trading privileges, on a national securities exchange.” 13 17 CFR 242.600(b)(41) defines “Nasdaq security” as “any registered security listed on The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.” The term “ticker symbol” originates from the ticker tape. 14 Instead of reporting trades using the full name of the security, a symbol was used to save time and resources when telegraph operators typed each transaction. 15 The most heavily traded stocks were assigned one-character symbols to speed up communication. 16 As noted earlier, it has been the practice of the NYSE to list companies using one-, two-, and three-character symbols. Other exchanges, including Amex and regional exchanges, have also listed companies using two- and three-character symbols. Until recently, Nasdaq, formerly a facility of the NASD, was the only market that did not list securities with one-, two-, and three-character symbols; instead, Nasdaq had always listed securities with four- and five-character symbols. In November 2005, however, Nasdaq announced its intention to begin listing companies with one-, two-, and three-character symbols. 17 Since that time, Nasdaq has made a series of announcements detailing its plans, and has worked with the industry to test trading systems to ensure the proper functionality for such symbols. 18 In March 2007, Nasdaq filed with the Commission a proposed rule change to allow companies transferring their listings to Nasdaq to retain their three-character symbols. 19 14 The ticker tape started in 1867, when all trades made on an exchange were sent out by telegraph and printed on a piece of paper. Although the process is now automated, the securities industry participants continue to refer to the electronic reporting of information as the “tape.” *See* Hal McIntyre, How the U.S. Securities Industry Works, 194-95 (The Summit Group Press) (2000). 15 *See, e.g.* , Brendan I. Koerner, How Are Ticker Symbols Allotted?, Slate, September 18, 2003, available at: *http://www.slate.com/id/2088587/.* 16 *See id.* 17 *See, e.g.* , Head Trader Alert 2005-133 (November 14, 2005), available at: *http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader/News/2005/headtraderalerts/hta2005-133.stm.* 18 *See* , *e.g.* , Head Trader Alert 2006-144 (September 29, 2006), available at: *http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader/News/2006/headtraderalerts/hta2006-144.stm,* Head Trader Alert 2006-193 (November 16, 2006), available at: *http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader/News/2006/headtraderalerts/hta2006-193.stm* and Head Trader Alert 2006-201 (December 6, 2006), available at: *http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader/News/2006/headtraderalerts/hta2006-201.stm,* Head Trader Alert 2007-008 (January 25, 2007), available at: *http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader/News/2007/headtraderalerts/hta2007-008.stm.* 19 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55563 (March 30, 2007), 72 FR 16391 (April 4, 2007) (SR-NASDAQ-2007-031). *See also* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55519 (March 26, 2007), 72 FR 15737 (April 2, 2007) (SR-NASDAQ-2007-025) (allowing a single company, Delta Financial Corp., to retain its three-character symbol upon transferring its listing from Amex to Nasdaq). As the securities markets have grown over the years, one-, two-, and three-character symbols, traditionally used by the exchanges, have become scarce. There are 26 combinations for one-character symbols, 676 combinations for two-character symbols, and 17,576 combinations for three-character symbols, for a total of 18,278 one-, two-, and three-character symbols. Several factors have also been increasing the demand for one-, two-, and three-character symbols. In recent years, exchanges have begun listing new and innovative products, such as exchange-traded funds, that are also now competing with listed companies for symbols. In addition, Nasdaq has expressed its intention to start using one-, two-, and three-character symbols. 20 Finally, the proliferation of standardized options has decreased the availability of three-character symbols. 21 20 *See supra* notes 17-19. 21 The options exchanges have expressed their intention to shift to a different symbology in 2009. See *http://www.theocc.com/initiatives/symbology/default.jsp.* Concerns about constraints on symbol supply heighten the need to revisit the existing informal symbol reservation system. Currently, the process of designating securities symbols is not done pursuant to a formal national market system plan or agreement, but is conducted informally among the SROs. Each SRO keeps its own records of reserved symbols. If an SRO wishes to reserve a particular symbol, the SRO will first consult its own list of reserved symbols to confirm that the desired symbol has not been reserved by another SRO. Once the listing SRO has verified that a particular symbol is not already reserved according to its own records of reserved symbols, the listing SRO will notify the other SROs that it wishes to reserve such symbol. If no other SRO objects, then the listing SRO has successfully reserved that symbol and each SRO would update its own records of reserved symbols accordingly. While the existing informal reservation system has performed the function of allocating symbols among the listing markets in the past, the weakness in the current system could potentially have significant market consequences as exchanges compete more aggressively for listings and the supply of available symbols becomes more restricted over time. The absence of universal reservation records, for example, could cause confusion about the availability of certain symbols and could lead to disputes between listing markets about the availability of a symbol. Such disputes raise the potential for investor confusion and symbol duplication. Under the existing system, listing markets may reserve an excess amount of symbols indefinitely, which may exacerbate the strain on symbol supply. The fear of symbol supply constraints could even drive listing markets to reserve an excess amount of symbols, either to protect their interests in the event of needing such symbols in the future or to give themselves advantages over their competitors in securing future listings. Moreover, the existing system does not limit the potential for symbol reservations to be used for anti-competitive purposes. For example, a listing market could use the existing symbol reservation system to withhold unused symbols from their competitors, trade reserved symbols only with certain, allied exchanges, or use their power to withhold desired symbols to compel other listing markets not to trade symbols with their direct competitors. Also, the existing system does not universally permit issuers transferring their listings to a new exchange to keep their ticker symbols. For example, the exchange where an issuer listed originally could dispute the new listing exchange's right to use the issuer's ticker symbol, which could disrupt the process of transferring the listing. In addition, issuers with one-, two-, or three-character symbols currently may not transfer their listings to Nasdaq, 22 though they may do so to any other national securities exchange. These weaknesses in the existing informal symbol reservation system could potentially lead to conditions that hamper competition among the listing markets and disrupt the marketplace. 22 *See supra* note 19. III. Description of the Plans The two proposed plans are identical in numerous respects. A brief summary of the most significant aspects of the plans, highlighting their distinctions, is provided below. The full text of the separate plans submitted by the SROs is available on the Commission's Web site at: *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/4-534.pdf* and *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/4-533revised.pdf,* respectively, at the respective SROs, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. A. Preambles The preambles to the plans are nearly identical. 23 The Three-Characters Plan would establish a body composed of the signatory SROs called the International Symbols Reservation Authority. Similarly, the Five-Characters Plan would establish a body composed of the signatory SROs called the Intermarket Symbols Reservation Authority. 24 23 *See* preambles of the proposed plans. 24 International Symbols Reservation Authority and Intermarket Symbols Reservation Authority are referred to herein as “ISRA.” B. Scope of Plans Each of the proposed plans would cover only root symbols, without any suffix or special conditional identifier. 25 25 *See* Section IV(a) of the proposed plans. • The Three-Characters Plan would be the exclusive means of allocating and using symbols of one-, two-, or three-characters in length and would not govern the use of four- or five-character symbols. 26 Specifically, the Three-Characters Plan would cover the allocation of all securities symbols disseminated through the CTA Plan, the Consolidated Quote Plan (“CQ Plan”), the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”), and any market data distribution network maintained by a party 27 to the plan or an affiliate of a party to the plan. 26 *See* Sections I(b) and IV(a) of the Three-Characters Plan. 27 The Commission notes that under Rule 600 of Regulation NMS, SROs who are parties to a national market system plan are referred to as “participants” while the proposed plans refer to such SROs as “parties.” *See* 17 CFR 242.600(b)(53). For purposes of this notice, the term “participants” and “parties” shall have the same meaning. • The Five-Characters Plan would be the means of allocating and using symbols of one-, two-, three-, four-, or five-characters in length. 28 The Five-Characters Plan would cover securities that are NMS securities as currently defined in Rule 600(a)(46) of Regulation NMS 29 and any other equity securities quoted, traded and/or trade reported through an SRO facility. 28 *See* Sections I(b) and IV(a) of the Five-Characters Plan. 29 17 CFR 600(a)(46). The Commission requests comment on whether it would be advisable for it to approve one plan or two plans. For example, commenters views are requested on whether the Commission could approve a plan covering only one-, two-, and three-character symbols and a plan covering one-, two-, three-, four-, and five-character ticker symbols. Would there be any potential inefficiencies and inconsistencies arising from having two plans that would render that situation unworkable or undesirable? Would there be any special benefit derived from having two plans that might justify the additional burden of administering two plans? The Commission also requests comment on whether it is advisable to have a single plan covering one-, two-, three-, four-, and five-character symbols. Would there be any difficulties with having a single plan for the allocation of all symbols? What are the benefits of having only one plan? In addition, the Commission requests comment on how having either a single plan or two plans would assure fair competition among all parties and, in particular, new listing markets. C. Parties to the Plans The proposed plans' provisions regarding qualifications to be a party to the plan are described below: • The Three-Characters Plan would allow an SRO to join the plan if it maintains a market for the listing and trading of securities that are identified by one-, two-, or three-character symbols and that are identified as “eligible” securities for “Network A” or “Network B” as those terms are defined in the CTA Plan. 30 A party would also have to have the actual technical and physical capability through its facilities to immediately quote and report trades in securities using one-, two-, or three-character symbols. In addition, the plan would require, as a condition to becoming a new participant, that an SRO pay a proportionate share of the aggregate development costs, with the result that each party's share of all development costs 31 is approximately the same, and sign a current copy of the plan. 30 *See* Section I(b) and

(c)of the Three-Characters Plan. 31 For additional discussion regarding the plan's provision relating to costs, *see* discussion *infra* Part III(G). • The Five-Characters Plan would allow an SRO to join the plan if it maintains a market for the listing of securities that are identified by one-, two-, three-, four-, or five-character symbols. 32 A party would also have to have the actual technical and physical capability through its facilities to immediately quote and report trades in securities using one-, two-, or three-character symbols, if it seeks to reserve symbols of one-, two-, or three-characters in length, and using four- or five-character symbols, if it seeks to reserve symbols of four- or five-characters in length. In addition, this plan would require, as a condition to becoming a new participant, that an SRO pay a proportionate share of the aggregate development costs, based on the number of symbols it reserves, and sign a current copy of the plan. 33 32 *See* Section I(b) and

(c)of the Five-Characters Plan. 33 For additional discussion regarding the plan's provision relating to costs, *see* discussion *infra* Part III(G). The Commission requests comment on the proposed plans' requirements for SROs to join each plan. In particular, the Commission requests comment on whether it is appropriate to limit, as the Three-Character Plan proposes, participation in the plan to SROs that maintain a market for the listing and trading of eligible securities for Network A and Network B. Would such a requirement impede fair competition? More generally, would the proposed plans' provisions on eligibility assure fair competition among all parties and, in particular, new listing markets? D. Administration of ISRA Section II of each of the plans sets forth the administration of the ISRA. A Policy Committee would administer the ISRA and, unless expressly provided otherwise in the plan, the Policy Committee would make all policy decisions on behalf of the ISRA in furtherance of the functions and objectives of the ISRA under the Act and the plan. Specifically, the Policy Committee would:

(1)Oversee the operation of the Symbol Reservation System; 34

(2)make all determinations pertaining to contracts with parties to the plan and persons who provide goods or services to the ISRA; and

(3)determine all other questions pertaining to the planning, developing, and operating of the ISRA, including those pertaining to budgetary or financial matters. 34 *See* discussion *infra* Part III(F). Both of the proposed plans provide that one voting member and one alternate voting member representing each party would compose the Policy Committee. 35 Each party would have one vote on all matters voted upon by the Policy Committee and actions of the ISRA under each plan would be authorized by a majority vote of the Policy Committee members, subject to Commission approval when required by applicable securities law. 36 Authorized actions under each plan would be binding upon all the parties. However, an aggrieved party may present contrary views to any regulatory body or in any other appropriate forum. 37 35 *See* Section II(c) of the proposed plans. 36 *See* Section II(d) of the proposed plans. 37 *Id.* Both plans also provide that a meeting of the Policy Committee would be held at least annually and that other meetings would be held as determined by the Policy Committee. 38 Each plan also specifies the notice provisions for regular and special meetings, and the organization of the meetings. 38 *See* Section II(e) of the proposed plans. The Commission requests comment on the proposed plans' provisions relating to the administration of the ISRA by the Policy Committee. In particular, the Commission requests comment on the powers of the Policy Committee, as well as whether the committee's decision-making process by majority vote is appropriate. In addition, the Commission requests comment on the appeal procedures for an aggrieved party. Should the plans specify what is meant by the phrase “other appropriate forum”? Do the proposed plans provide enough clarity as to how an aggrieved party could pursue relief under the plans? E. Performance of Functions Section III of each of the proposed plans establishes that the ISRA would delegate the operation of the Symbol Reservation System to an independent third party (the “Processor”) and would enter into contracts with the Processor relating to the operation of the Symbol Reservation System. The Processor would receive reservation requests from the parties and reserve and allocate symbols among the parties in accordance with the terms of the plan. To this end, the Processor would create and maintain a symbol reservation database. 39 39 *See infra* Part III(F)(4) for further discussion. The Commission requests comment on the proposed plans' provisions related to the delegation of the operation of the Symbol Reservation System to a Processor. F. The Symbol Reservation System Section IV of each of the proposed plans sets forth the operating details of the Symbol Reservation System. Here, the plans diverge in key ways. 1. Reservation and Use of Symbols a. Submission of Initial Reservation Requests Each plan would provide that, within a specified time period after the plan's approval, a participant in the plan may submit to the Processor requests for the initial reservation of symbols. 40 Both plans provide that a party may reserve symbols for:

(i)The listing of common stock or any other security, including options;

(ii)the dissemination of a securities index or other index information; or

(iii)any other purpose authorized by a majority vote. In addition, the Five-Characters Plan provides that a party may reserve symbols for the trading of any over-the-counter security. Initial reservation requests may be for perpetual or limited-time reservations, as discussed below. 40 *See* Section IV(b)(1) of the proposed plans. Perpetual Reservations Each of the proposed plans would permit a party to reserve a limited number of symbols in perpetuity (“perpetual reservations”). 41 41 *See* Section IV(b)(1)(A) of the proposed plans. • The Three-Characters Plan provides that NYSE and Amex each could reserve up to 200 symbols as perpetual reservations; other parties to the plan each could reserve up to 40 symbols as perpetual reservations. • The Five-Characters Plan provides that there would be two perpetual reservation lists—one list for one-, two-, and three-character symbols and one list for four- and five-character symbols. Each party to the plan could reserve up to 20 one-, two-, or three-character symbols as perpetual reservations, and up to 20 four- or five-character symbols as perpetual reservations. Both proposed plans provide that a party could not add symbols to its perpetual reservation list after the initial reservation process, except when reserving a symbol for re-use. 42 In addition, both plans would provide that a party that requests perpetual reservations for more symbols than permitted would be required to place its symbols requests in priority ranking. 42 *See* discussion *infra* Part III(F)(3). The Commission requests comment on the plans' proposals to include perpetual reservations lists. Should SROs be permitted to reserve symbols in perpetuity? Commenters are requested to explain why SROs should or should not be permitted to reserve symbols into perpetuity. Would there be any public benefit derived from having perpetual reservations? What impact would allowing perpetual reservations have on competition, particularly for new markets? The Commission also requests commenters' views on the number of symbols an SRO should be permitted to reserve under any such list. Specifically, the Commission requests comment on whether all SROs should be given the same number of perpetual reservations, as proposed under the Five-Characters Plan, or whether it is reasonable to provide certain SROs a greater number of such reservations, as proposed under the Three-Characters Plan. In particular, the Commission requests comment on what basis would be appropriate for certain SROs to receive more perpetual reservations than other SROs. For example, should the primary listing markets receive a greater number of perpetual reservations? Finally, the Commission requests commenters' views on how the proposed provisions on perpetual reservations would affect new listing markets. How would an SRO that joins the plan after the initial reservation process be able to reserve symbols? Would the existence of perpetual reservations present a significant barrier to entry by new listing markets? Would it prevent or reduce competition from new listing markets? Would conducting another initial reservation process for all plan participants upon a new market joining the plan provide a more level playing field for a new entrant? How else could the provisions on perpetual reservations be adjusted to account for new listing markets?

(2)Limited-Time Reservations Under both plans, symbols could also be reserved for 24 months (“limited-time reservations”). 43 43 *See* Section IV(b)(1)(B) of the proposed plans. • The Three-Characters Plan provides that Amex and NYSE each could reserve up to 1,500 symbols as limited-time reservations and NYSE Arca could reserve up to 500 symbols as limited-time reservations. The Three-Characters Plan does not specify the number of limited-time reservations for other parties. Instead, this plan would need to be amended when an additional party joins the plan to specify how many limited-time reservations such party is entitled. • The Five-Characters Plan would provide two limited-time reservation lists—one list for one-, two-, and three-character symbols and one list for four- and five-character symbols. Each party could reserve up to 1,500 symbols under the one-, two-, or three-character limited-time reservations list and up to 1,500 symbols under the four-or five-character limited-time reservations list. Moreover, under the Five-Characters Plan, a party may not make any limited-time reservations with respect to a particular symbol unless the party has a reasonable basis to utilize the symbol within the next 24 months. As with perpetual reservation requests, under both plans, a party that requests limited-time reservations for more symbols than permitted would be required to place its symbols requests in priority ranking. The Commission requests comment on the plans' proposals to include limited-time reservations. Should SROs be permitted to make limited-time reservations? Commenters are requested to explain why SROs should or should not be permitted to reserve symbols for a limited-time. Would there be any public benefit derived from having limited-time reservations? What impact would allowing limited-time reservations have on competition, particularly for new markets? The Commission also requests comment on the requirement for a “reasonable basis” for reserving a symbol, as articulated in the Five-Characters Plan. Specifically, should the plan be more specific as to what would be a “reasonable basis” or who would make such a determination and how? The Commission requests comment on the number of symbols an SRO should be permitted to reserve as limited-time reservations. The Commission also requests comment on the length of time symbols may be reserved as limited-time reservations. Is 24 months an appropriate length of time—should it be shorter or longer? In addition, the Commission requests comment on whether all SROs should receive the same number of limited-time reservations, as provided under the Five-Characters Plan, or whether it is appropriate for certain SROs to receive a greater number of such reservations, as proposed under the Three-Characters Plan. In particular, the Commission requests comment on what basis would be appropriate for certain SROs to receive more limited-time reservations than other SROs. For example, should the primary listing markets receive a greater number of limited-time reservations? Finally, the Commission requests commenters' views on how the proposed provisions on limited-time reservations would affect new listing markets. How would an SRO join the plan after the initial reservation process reserve symbols? Would limited-time reservations prevent or reduce competition from new listing markets and present a significant barrier to entry by new listing markets? Would conducting a new initial reservation process for all plan participants upon a new market joining the plan provide a more level playing field for a new entrant? How else could the provisions on limited-time reservations be adjusted to account for new listing markets? b. Processing of Initial Reservation Requests

(1)Claims to a Legacy Reservation Both plans would permit a party to have priority over other parties in reserving a symbol that it claims was properly reserved under the current informal system (“legacy reservation”), prior to the effective date of the plan. • Under the Three-Characters Plan, if there is only one party that claims such prior reservation of a symbol, such party would have priority over other SROs to retain its reservation of that symbol. 44 Such a symbol would be included on a party's perpetual or limited-time reservation list. 44 *See* Section IV(b)(2) of the Three-Characters Plan. • Under the Five-Characters Plan, if there is only one party that claims such prior reservation of a symbol, such party would have priority over other SROs to retain reservation of that symbol only if the party represents that it has a reasonable basis to believe that it would utilize such symbol within the next six months. 45 Under the Five-Characters Plan, such reservation would not count towards the party's perpetual reservations or limited-time reservations, but instead be reserved as a separate, additional legacy reservation. However, if the party does not use such symbol within the allotted six-month period, it would lose the reservation unless the party requests an extension for an additional six-month period. In requesting such an extension, the party would have to have a reasonable basis to believe that it would utilize such symbol within the additional six-month period. 45 *See* Section IV(b)(2) of the Five-Characters Plan. Both plans would provide the same process for resolving claims by more than one party to a legacy reservation. 46 This process is as follows: First, the Processor would notify all such parties of the conflicting claims. Then the parties would have five business days to reach a mutually acceptable agreement as to which party would be permitted to reserve the symbol. In the absence of an agreement, the Policy Committee would resolve the issue by a majority vote of the parties not claiming the symbol. Where there is no agreement but the Policy Committee is able to determine which party has the earliest proper claim to such symbol, the plans would require it to resolve the disagreement in favor of such party. 46 *See* Section IV(b)(2)(B) of the proposed plans. The Commission requests comment on the proposed plans' processes for recognizing legacy reservations. Should parties have the right to reserve, under the plans, symbols for which they claim to have a legacy reservation? Should a party only be able to retain a legacy reservation if it is able to represent that it has a reasonable basis to believe that it would utilize such symbol within the next six months, as provided under the Five-Characters Plan? If so, the Commission requests comment on the requirement to have “a reasonable basis” for retaining legacy reservations. Specifically, should the plan be more specific as to what would be a “reasonable basis” or who would make such a determination and how? The Commission also requests comment on the proposed process for resolving claims to legacy reservations. Could the requirement of a majority vote for resolving such claims affect fair competition among the parties? How could this process be adjusted to address any competitive concerns? The Commission also requests comment on how decisions to grant extensions of legacy reservations, as proposed under the Five-Characters Plan, would be made. Should the plan be more specific as to who would make a determination that a reasonable basis for an extension exists and how?

(2)Other Initial Reservations Both plans would provide the same process for initial reservations of symbols that have not been properly reserved prior to the effective date of the plan. 47 If only one party seeks to reserve a symbol, then the Processor would reserve such symbol for that party. If multiple parties seek to reserve a symbol, the Processor would reserve the symbol based on a random ordering established by the Policy Committee. If a symbol is not available for reservation, both plans would provide that the Processor would place the requesting party on a wait list. 48 Further, both plans would provide that the Processor would process a party's symbol reservation requests by first reserving symbols up to the party's limit for its perpetual reservations list and then reserving the remaining requested symbols up to the limit for its limited-time reservations. 49 47 *See* Section IV(b)(2)(C)-(E) of the proposed plans. 48 *See* discussion *infra* Part III(F)(2). 49 *See* section IV(b)(2)(F) of the proposed plans. The Commission requests comment on the proposed plans' processes for initial reservation requests. In particular, the Commission requests comment on how the proposed processes would affect new listing markets. Would the proposed processes for initial reservation requests affect competition? Should there be a special initial reservation process for a new listing market that joins the plan? Would a new listing market be adversely affected by the proposed methods of allocating initial reservation requests and its impact on the availability of symbols? How could the proposed plans assure fair competition among all parties and, in particular, new listing markets? How should the random order of priority for reserving a symbol requested by multiple parties be designed? For example, should the order be selected anew for every symbol? Would another assignment methodology be more appropriate or fair? c. Subsequent Reservations Both plans contain substantially identical provisions on reserving symbols after the initial reservation process. 50 Specifically, if a party submits to the Processor a request for a limited-time reservation and the symbol is available, the Processor would reserve such symbol, provided that the party has not already reached its maximum number of allowed limited-time reservations. If it has reached its maximum number of limited-time reservations, the party could surrender a reserved symbol in order to reserve the new symbol. If a symbol requested is not available, the Processor would place the requesting party on the waiting list for such symbol. 50 *See* Section IV(b)(3) of the proposed plans. The Commission requests comment on the proposed plans' provisions for the subsequent reservations of symbols. In particular, the Commission requests comment on whether the proposed provisions assure fair competition among all parties and, in particular, new listing markets. d. Non-Use or Release of Symbols Within Time Period Both plans provide that the Processor would release any limited-time reservation symbols not used within the 24-month time period. 51 A party could also voluntarily release a reserved symbol. In either case, upon the release of a symbol, the Processor would notify the parties on the waiting list, if any, of the symbol's availability. If there is no waiting list or if no party on the waiting list elects to reserve such symbol, the Processor would notify all parties to the plan of the availability of the symbol. If more than one party requests the reservation of such symbol within two business days of the notice, the Processor would assign the symbol to one party and place the other parties on the waiting list pursuant to a random order of priority established by the Policy Committee. 51 *See* Section IV(b)(5) of the proposed plans. The Commission requests comment on the proposed plans' provisions for the non-use or release of symbols. How should the random order of priority for the waiting list be designed? For example, should the order be selected anew for every symbol? Would another assignment methodology be more appropriate or fair? Would the proposed plans' processes for the non-use or release of symbols affect competition? e. Request for Release of a Symbol Both plans would provide the same method for a party to request the release by another party of a reserved symbol. 52 Specifically, if a party has an immediate need to use a symbol that another party has reserved, the requesting party would ask the party that reserved the symbol, and any other parties on the waiting list, whether such parties would be willing to release the reserved symbol. If the parties do not agree to release the symbol, the requesting party would not obtain the reserved symbol. If the parties do agree to release the symbol, the requesting party could include such symbol as one of its limited-time reservations. If the requesting party is already at the maximum number of limited-time reservations, under the Three-Characters Plan, it would have to voluntarily surrender another reserved symbol before reserving the requested symbol. Under the Five-Characters Plan, if the requesting party is already at the maximum number of limited-time reservations, the party could either surrender or re-designate another symbol before reserving the requested symbol. If the requesting party does not use a released symbol within the 24-month period, absent the consent of all parties initially required to be contacted, the reservation and waiting list priority in effect when the requesting party first made its request for the release of the symbol would again be in effect. 52 *See* Section IV(b)(6) of the proposed plans. The Commission requests comment on the proposed plans' processes for releasing symbols. The Commission requests commenters' views on whether a requesting party that is at the maximum number of limited-time reservations should be allowed to either surrender or re-designate another symbol in order to reserve the requested symbol. The Commission notes that the Five-Characters Plan does not define or describe the process of “re-designating” a symbol. The Commission requests comment on whether it is necessary for the plan to describe the process of “re-designation.” The Commission also requests comment on how a symbol could be “re-designated” if a requesting party is at its maximum number of limited-time reservations. Finally, the Commission requests comment on whether the proposed provisions on releasing symbols assure fair competition among all parties and, in particular, new listing markets. 2. Waiting List Both plans would provide substantially identical waiting list processes. 53 Specifically, when one or more parties request to reserve a symbol that another party has reserved, the Processor would place such parties on the waiting list for that symbol. The waiting list would be based on time priority—that is, the earliest request would have precedence. However, if more than one party seeks to use a symbol already in use within either 30 days of the effective date of the plan or two business days of notice of a symbol's availability, the Policy Committee would establish a random order of such parties to determine priority on the waiting list. 53 *See* Section IV(c) of the proposed plans. When a symbol becomes available, the Processor would notify the party with priority on the waiting list. Such party would then have two business days to reserve that symbol; otherwise, the Processor would repeat the process as necessary with all parties on the waiting list, in order of priority. The maximum number of symbols for which a party may be on the waiting list at any time would be 100 symbols. The Commission requests comment on the proposed plans' waiting list provisions. In particular, the Commission requests comment on whether 100 symbols is an appropriate number of symbols for the waiting list. With respect to a party's request to use a symbol already in use either within 30 days of the effective date of the plan or within two business days of notice of a symbol's availability, the Commission requests comment on whether such time periods are appropriate. In addition, the Commission requests comment on whether the proposed provisions for waiting lists assure fair competition among all parties and, in particular, new listing markets. Finally, how should the random order of priority for the waiting list be designed? For example, should the order be selected anew for every symbol? Would another assignment methodology be more appropriate or fair? 3. Reuse of a Symbol and Portability of Symbols in Use The plans propose different approaches to the reuse and portability of symbols. 54 54 *See* Section IV(d) and

(f)of the proposed plans. • The Three-Characters Plan would provide that if a party ceases to use a symbol, 55 such party automatically reserves that symbol, notwithstanding any other limits on the number of reserved symbols under the plan. The Three-Characters Plan would include within an SRO's right to automatically reserve a symbol it ceases to use the situation in which an issuer transfers its listing from one SRO to another. 55 For example, through merger or delisting of the issuer whereby the security is no longer listed. This plan would provide that the SRO from which the issuer delisted its security would have the rights to the symbol for that security, unless it consents to the transfer of the symbol to the new SRO. If the SRO to which the issuer transferred its listing believes there is a compelling business reason why it should have the rights to the symbol (if it is a two-or three-character symbol, but not a one-character symbol), the new SRO may submit to the Processor the determination of which SRO shall have the rights in that symbol. 56 The Processor could only grant the rights in the symbol to the new SRO if the Processor determines that such SRO's business reasons for obtaining such rights substantially outweigh the business needs of the other SRO to that symbol. The Processor's decision would be final and not subject to appeal. 56 The Three-Characters Plan would not permit disputes over one-character symbols to be submitted to the Processor. • The Five-Characters Plan would also provide that if a party ceases to use a symbol, such party automatically reserves that symbol, notwithstanding any other limits on the number of reserved symbols under the plan. However, this plan would provide an exception to this automatic reservation right when an issuer transfers its listing from one SRO to another. In this case, the SRO to which a listing is transferred would have the rights to that issuer's symbol. Both plans provide that a symbol being reused pursuant to such provisions could be reserved as a perpetual reservation if the party has not yet reserved the full number of perpetual reservations available to it. 57 Otherwise, such symbol would be reserved as a limited-time reservation and the additional symbol could exceed the limit of the maximum number of limited-time reservations permitted to a party under the plan. Finally, both plans would provide that a symbol could not be reused by a party to identify a new security unless the party reasonably determines that such use would not cause investor confusion. 57 The plans also provide that a party could move a symbol from its perpetual reservations list to its limited-time reservations list in order to place the symbol being reused on its perpetual reservations list. The Commission requests comment on the proposed plans' provisions relating to the reuse of symbols. In particular, the Commission requests comment on the proposed plans' provisions regarding the portability of a securities symbol to a new listing market when an issuer transfers its listing. When an issuer moves its listing to a new listing market, should either the former listing market or the new listing market retain the right to use the issuer's symbol? How would awarding the rights to the symbol to the former listing market affect competition? How would awarding such rights to the new listing market affect competition? Should there be a process for resolving symbol disputes between the former listing market and the new listing market or should the plans categorically award the rights to the symbol to one market or the other? If the former, the Commission requests comment on the Three-Characters Plan's proposed process for resolving such disputes. Under the Three-Characters Plan, the new listing market may request the transferred symbol if it believes that there is a compelling business reason for the transferred symbol. The Commission requests comment on whether the plan should be more specific as to what would be a “compelling business reason” and how the Processor should assess the various business needs of the two listing markets to make the decision as to who should have the rights to the symbol. Should the business reasons of the two listing markets be the only factor in the Processor's determination? Or should other factors also be considered? If so, what other factors should be considered? Is the Three-Characters Plan's provision that the Processor's decision is final and not subject to appeal fair and reasonable? Or would it be more appropriate to provide the parties with an alternative venue for pursuing relief? Finally, the Commission requests comment on whether single-character symbols should be subject to the same portability provisions as two- and three-character symbols. 4. Database Both plans would provide that the Processor would create and maintain a symbol reservation database. 58 Except as required by applicable law, the Processor would grant access to the database only to the parties and the Commission. The database would show all symbols currently in use and the party using such symbols. 59 In this regard, both plans would require a party to notify the Processor when the party begins using a reserved symbol. In addition, the database would show all symbols reserved on the perpetual reservations and limited-time reservations lists, including the reserving party and the expiration date for limited-time reservations. The database would also show the waiting list and the priority order of the waiting list for each symbol. The Commission requests comment on the proposed plans' provisions related to the database. 58 *See* Section IV(e) of the proposed plans. 59 *See* Section IV(b)(4) of the proposed plans. G. Financial Matters Sections I and V of the plans set forth the manner in which the parties would share the initial development costs, as well as continuing costs. The proposed plans differ significantly in their method of cost allocation. • Under the Three-Characters Plan, the parties would share the initial development costs equally. The Three-Characters Plan would also provide that the continuing costs and expenses of ISRA would be shared equally among the parties at the end of each calendar year. The continuing costs would only be prorated for a party that had not been a party for the entire calendar year. Section I of the Three-Characters Plan would provide that any new party that joins the plan would pay to the existing parties a proportionate share of the aggregate development costs previously paid by such existing parties, with the result that each party's share of all development costs is approximately the same. • Under the Five-Characters Plan, the parties would share the initial development costs pro-rata based on the number of symbols initially reserved by each party. Section V of the Five-Characters Plan would provide that any new party that joins the plan would also be responsible for a pro-rata portion of the initial development costs based upon the number of symbols initially reserved by such new party during the first twelve months of the new party's membership in the plan. The Five-Characters Plan would provide that the continuing costs and expenses of ISRA would be shared among the parties pro-rata based on the number of additional symbols reserved in each calendar year, estimated quarterly. In addition, under the Five-Characters Plan, the Policy Committee may develop alternative cost-allocation methodologies for special non-initial development projects. The Commission requests comment on the proposed plans' provisions relating to financial matters. In particular, should the initial development and continuing costs be allocated by the number of parties, or by the number of reserved symbols of a party? Are there other cost allocation methodologies the Commission should consider? In addition, the Commission requests comment on the proposed plans' effects on new listing markets. Do the proposed plans' provisions on allocation of costs assure fair competition among all parties and, in particular, new listing markets? Would new listing markets be adversely affected by either formula for allocating initial development costs? The Commission also requests comment on whether the proposed plans should address the scenario of a former party who later wishes to rejoin the plan. Specifically, should such an entity be viewed as a new party who would be required to pay a share of the initial development costs according to the prescribed formula for new parties? H. Confidentiality Section VI of both plans would provide that the Processor would maintain all information received from the parties in strictest confidence and that the only information that the Processor would make available to the parties is the symbol reservation database. The Three-Characters Plan would also specifically provide that the Processor would make available to the parties any notices or other information specifically called for by the plan. Both plans would provide that the Processor would not make the symbol reservation database available to any person except the Commission or the parties, unless otherwise required by applicable law. The Commission requests comment on the proposed plans' provisions with respect to the Processor's responsibility to keep information confidential. I. Term of Plan Withdrawal—Non-transferability of Rights Under the Plan Section VII of both plans would establish the method for a party to withdraw from the plan. Specifically, to withdraw from the plan, a party would be required to provide at least six months prior written notice to the other parties. The withdrawing party would remain liable for its proportionate share of costs and expenses during the time it was a party to the plan, but would have no further obligations after the withdrawal. The Three-Characters Plan specifically states that withdrawal by a party would not result in any rebate or adjustment in the initial development costs paid, or payable, at the time of termination. The Commission requests comment on the proposed plans' provisions related to withdrawal. If a party withdraws from the plan, to what extent should that party be responsible for costs paid or payable at the time of its termination from the plan? Should a party that lists securities be permitted to withdraw from the plan? The Commission requests comment on whether it should require all listing markets to join any approved national market system plan for the selection and reservation of securities symbols. In addition, under both plans, an SRO would cease to be a party to the plan when it ceases to maintain a facility for the quoting and trade reporting of securities transactions or ceases to use symbols subject to the plan. 60 An SRO could continue to be a party of the plan upon the agreement of the remaining parties. To be approved as a continuing party, the Three-Characters Plan would require the unanimous vote of the remaining parties, while the Five-Characters Plan would require a majority vote. 60 *See* Section I(d) of the proposed plans. The Commission requests comment on whether a vote is appropriate to allow an SRO that no longer maintains a facility for quoting or trade reporting of securities transactions or ceases to use symbols subject to the plan to remain a party to the plan. If so, the Commission requests comment on whether a unanimous or majority vote is appropriate. In particular, the Commission requests comment on how the requirement of either a majority vote, as proposed by the Five-Characters Plan, or unanimous vote, as proposed by the Three-Characters Plan, would affect competition among the listing markets. Finally, both plans would provide that the right of a party to participate in the Symbol Reservation System under the plan is not transferable without the consent of the other parties. 61 However, if a party is subject to a merger, combination, or other reorganization or the sale of all or substantially all of its assets, including its registration as an SRO, both plans would provide that the surviving entity would automatically become subject to the plan and could use the Symbol Reservation System. 61 *See* Section VII of the proposed plans. The Commission requests comment on the proposed plans' provisions for the transfer of a party's rights under the plans. The Three-Characters Plan would subject the transferability provision to section I(d) of the plan. Section I(d) of the Three-Characters Plan states that an SRO that is a party to the plan would cease to be a party at such time as it ceases to maintain a facility for the quoting and trade reporting of securities or ceases to use symbols subject to the plan, unless such SRO asks to continue as a party and the other parties to the plan, by a unanimous vote, approve such SRO to continue as a party. Would the proposed plans' provisions for the transfer of a party's rights affect competition? The Commission requests comment on this cross-reference to Section I(d), and notes that such cross-reference is not proposed in the Five-Characters Plan. J. Amendments to the Plan Section VIII of both plans would provide that the plan may be amended from time to time when authorized by the affirmative vote of all the parties, subject to any required approval of the Commission. The Commission notes that SROs proposing an amendment to a national market system plan must file such amendment with the Commission under Rule 608 of Regulation NMS. 62 The Commission requests comment on the proposed unanimity requirement for amending the plans. Would a majority or super-majority vote be more appropriate? 62 The Commission may also propose amendments to any effective national market system plan. *See* 17 CFR 242.608(d)(2). K. Implementation of the Plans Both plans anticipate that the plan would be implemented upon the Commission's approval. 63 63 Section IV in each plan provides that each party's initial symbol reservation requests would be due to the Processor within 30 days of Commission approval. L. Development and Implementation Phases Parties to the Three-Characters Plan contemplate that the development and implementation phase would take place according to a timetable agreed to by the parties and the Processor. Parties to the Five-Characters Plan would determine the development and implementation phase at a later time. The Commission requests comment on whether the plans should specify the timetable for implementation. If so, what would be an appropriate timetable? In addition, the Commission requests comment on whether the plans should address the interim period when the symbol reservation system is not yet implemented and the parties are operating under the existing informal reservation system. M. Impact on Competition Parties to both plans do not believe that their plan would impose any burden on competition. Parties to the Five-Characters Plan believe that the plan would promote competition among exchanges by:

(1)Providing all exchanges equal ability to use all symbols,

(2)preserving full portability of symbols, and

(3)allowing all exchanges equal ability to reserve symbols subject to equal application of reasonable time limits. In addition to the questions above, the Commission requests comment on whether the proposed plans have adequately addressed the impact that they might have on competition. If not, what issues have not been adequately addressed? N. Written Understanding or Agreements Relating to Interpretation of or Participation in Plan Parties to both plans state that they do not have any written understanding or agreement relating to the interpretation of, or participation in, their plan. O. Operation of Facility Contemplated by the Plan Parties to both plans state that they do not intend to operate a “facility” as that term is defined under the Act. 64 64 *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(2). P. Terms and Conditions of Access Section I of each of the plans contains a provision for the admission of new participants, under which any SRO that meets the eligibility standards of the plan may become a party thereto by signing a current copy of the plan and paying to the other parties a share of the aggregate development costs previously paid by such parties to the Processor. The Commission requests comment on the proposed plans' provision with respect to new participants. In particular, the Commission requests commenters' view on whether the provisions set forth fair terms for access for all parties and, in particular, new listing markets. Q. Method and Frequency of Processor Evaluation Parties to the Three-Characters Plan contemplate that they would evaluate the Processor on a periodic basis, with a formal evaluation timetable, after they have selected the Processor. Parties to the Five-Characters Plan would determine the method and frequency of the evaluation of the Processor at a later time. R. Dispute Resolution Generally, parties to the Three-Characters Plan would seek to resolve disputes by means of negotiation and discussion among their ISRA Policy Committee representatives; parties to the Five-Characters Plan would seek to resolve disputes by communication among parties. Except in the specific instances noted below, both plans do not provide for a specific mechanism for the resolution of disputes arising under the plan but acknowledge that all parties retain the right to present their views on issues relating to the plan and their rights in the appropriate forum. There are two instances in which the proposed plans provide mechanisms for dispute resolution. Under Section IV(b)(2)(B) of each of the plans, the Policy Committee would resolve disputes related to the initial reservation requests. Under Section IV(f) of the Three-Characters Plan, the Processor would resolve disputes with respect to which SRO would retain the rights to the symbol when an issuer moves its listing to a new SRO. The Commission requests comment on the proposed plans' provisions on dispute resolution. Specifically, the Commission requests commenters' view whether the proposed plans should prescribe the appropriate forums that aggrieved parties may seek to present their views. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed plans are consistent with the Act. The Commission invites comments on whether the foregoing assures fair competition among all parties, including new listing markets. 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 Numbers 4-533 and 4-534 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 Numbers 4-533 and 4-534. The file numbers 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/nms.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed plans that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed plans between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Numbers 4-533 and 4-534 and should be submitted on or before August 16, 2007. By the Commission. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-13693 Filed 7-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of July 16, 2007: A Closed Meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 at 2 p.m. Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be present. The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), (8), (9)(B), and

(10)and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), (8), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting. Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session, and determined that no earlier notice thereof was possible. The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, July 17, 2007 will be: Formal orders of investigations; Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature; Resolution of litigation claims; Regulatory matter regarding financial institution; An adjudicatory matter; and Other matters related to enforcement proceedings. At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the Secretary at

(202)551-5400. Dated: July 11, 2007. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-13811 Filed 7-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56046; File No. SR-Amex-2007-62] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Short Term Option Series Pilot Program July 11, 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 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 is proposing to extend its Short Term Option Series pilot program (“Pilot Program”) for an additional year, through July 12, 2008. 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 On July 12, 2006, the Commission approved a one-year extension of the Pilot Program, which was initially approved on July 12, 2005. 5 The Exchange is now proposing to extend the Pilot Program for an additional year, through July 12, 2008. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Releases No. 54131 (July 12, 2006), 71 FR 40760 (July 18, 2006) (File No. SR-Amex-2006-66) and 52014 (July 12, 2005), 70 FR 41244 (July 18, 2005) (File No. SR-Amex-2005-35). The Exchange believes that Short Term Option Series 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. At the same time, the Exchange is cognizant of the need to be cautious in introducing a product that can increase the number of outstanding strike prices. In order to respond to potential customer demand and to remain competitive, the Exchange proposes to extend the Pilot Program for another year. In its original proposal to establish the Pilot Program, the Exchange stated that if it were to propose an extension of the program, the Exchange would submit a Pilot Program report (“Report”) that would provide analysis of the Pilot Program covering the entire period during which the Pilot Program was in effect. Since the Exchange did not list any Short Term Option Series during this past year of the Pilot Program, there is no data available to prepare the Report at this time, and the Exchange has not submitted a Report with this proposal to extend the Pilot Program. The Exchange notes that it possesses the adequate systems capacity to trade any Short Term Option Series, should any be listed in the future. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6 of the Act 6 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 7 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that continuing the Pilot Program for Short Term Option Series can stimulate customer interest in options and provide 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. 6 15 U.S.C. 78f. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change 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 8 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. 9 The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the operative delay to permit the Pilot Program extension to become operative prior to the 30th day after filing. 10 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 9 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 10 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. 11 Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal operative upon filing. 12 11 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). 12 As set forth in the Exchange's original filing proposing 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:

(1)Data and written analysis on the open interest and trading volume in the classes for which Short Term 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* Form 19b-4 for File No. SR-Amex-2005-35, filed March 23, 2005. 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-2007-62 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-2007-62. 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-2007-62 and should be submitted on or before August 7, 2007. 13 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-13809 Filed 7-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56047; File No. SR-ISE-2007-54] Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Short Term Option Series Pilot Program July 11, 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 amend its rules to extend the Short Term Option Series Pilot Program (“Pilot Program”) for an additional year. 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 On July 12, 2005, the Commission approved the Pilot Program, which allows ISE to list and trade Short Term Option Series. 5 Under the terms of the Pilot Program, the Exchange can select up to five options classes on which Short Term Option Series may be opened on any Short Term Option Opening Date, as that term is defined in ISE Rules 504 and 2009. The Exchange is also allowed to list Short Term Option Series on any option class that is selected by other securities exchanges that employ a similar Pilot Program under their respective rules. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52012 (July 12, 2005), 70 FR 41246 (July 18, 2005) (File No. SR-ISE-2005-17). The Pilot Program is currently set to expire on July 12, 2007. 6 The purpose of this proposed rule change is to extend the Pilot Program for an additional year, through July 12, 2008. The Exchange believes that Short Term Option Series provides 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. While ISE has not listed any Short Term Option Series during the Pilot Program, there has been investor interest in trading short-term options at the Chicago Board Options Exchange. For competitive reasons and in order to have the ability to respond to customer interest in Short Term Option Series, the Exchange proposes the continuation of the Pilot Program at ISE. 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54117 (July 10, 2006), 71 FR 40564 (July 17, 2006) (File No. SR-ISE-2006-37). In the original proposal to establish the Pilot Program, the Exchange stated that if it were to propose an extension or an expansion of the Pilot Program, the Exchange would submit, along with any filing proposing such amendments to the Pilot Program, a report (“Pilot Program Report”) that would provide an analysis of the Pilot Program covering the entire period during which the Pilot Program was in effect. Since the Exchange did not list any Short Term Option Series during the preceding year of the Pilot Program, there is no data available to compile such a report at this time. Therefore, the Exchange is not submitting a Pilot Program Report with this proposal. Finally, the Exchange represents that it has the necessary systems capacity to support the listing of Short Term Option Series, should it determine to do so in the future. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that Short Term Option Series increase the variety of listed options available to investors and provide investors with a valuable tool to manage risk exposure, minimize capital outlays, and be more responsive to the timing of events affecting the securities that underlie options contracts. For these reasons, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act. 7 Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of section 6(b)(5) of the Act 8 that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, 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. 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 operative 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 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 Exchange's original filing proposing 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:

(1)Data and written analysis on the open interest and trading volume in the classes for which Short Term 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* Form 19b-4 for File No. SR-ISE-2005-17, filed March 7, 2005. 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-2007-54 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-2007-54. 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-2007-54 and should be submitted on or before August 7, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 14 14 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-13810 Filed 7-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56044; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2007-024] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto To Provide Additional Transparency To How Nasdaq Applies Its Public Interest Authority July 11, 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 March 16, 2007, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by Nasdaq. On June 26, 2007, Nasdaq filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 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 the Substance of the Proposed Rule Change Nasdaq proposes to modify Nasdaq IM-4300 to provide additional transparency to how Nasdaq applies its public interest authority. Nasdaq will implement the proposed rule upon approval. The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets. 3 3 Changes are marked to the rule text that appears in the electronic manual of Nasdaq found at *http://www.complinet.com/nasdaq.* IM-4300. Use of Discretionary Authority In order to further issuers' understanding of Rule 4300, Nasdaq is adopting this Interpretive Material as a non-exclusive description of the circumstances in which the Rule is generally invoked. Nasdaq may use its authority under Rule 4300 to deny initial or continued listing to an issuer when an individual with a history of regulatory misconduct is associated with the issuer. Such individuals are typically an officer, director, substantial security holder (as defined in Rule 4350(i)(5)), or consultant to the issuer. In making this determination, Nasdaq [shall] *will* consider a variety of factors, including: [the severity of the violation; whether it involved fraud or dishonesty; whether it was securities-related; whether the investing public was involved; when the violation occurred; how the individual has been employed since the violation; whether there are continuing sanctions against the individual; whether the individual made restitution; whether the issuer has taken effective remedial action; and the totality of the individual's relationship to the issuer.] • *The nature and severity of the conduct, taken in conjunction with the length of time since the conduct occurred;* • *whether the conduct involved fraud or dishonesty;* • *whether the conduct was securities-related;* • *whether the investing public was involved;* • *how the individual has been employed since the violative conduct;* • *whether there are continuing sanctions (either criminal or civil) against the individual;* • *whether the individual made restitution;* • *whether the issuer has taken effective remedial action; and* • *the totality of the individual's relationship to the issuer, giving consideration to:* ○ the individual's current or proposed position; ○ o the individual's current or proposed scope of authority; ○ the extent to which the individual has responsibility for financial accounting or reporting; and ○ the individual's equity interest. Based on this review, Nasdaq may determine that the regulatory history rises to the level of a public interest concern, but may also consider whether remedial measures proposed by the issuer, if taken, would allay that concern. Examples of such remedial measures could include any or all of the following, as appropriate: • The individual's resignation from officer and director positions, and/or other employment with the company; • divestiture of stock holdings; • terminations of contractual arrangements between the issuer and the individual; or • the establishment of a voting trust surrounding the individual's shares. Nasdaq staff is willing to discuss with issuers, on a case-by-case basis, what remedial measures may be appropriate to address public interest concerns, and for how long such remedial measures would be required. Alternatively, Nasdaq may conclude that a public interest concern is so serious that no remedial measure would be sufficient to alleviate it. In the event that Nasdaq staff [makes such a determination] denies initial or continued listing based on such public interest considerations, the issuer may seek review of that determination through the procedures set forth in the Rule 4800 Series. On consideration of such appeal, a listing qualifications panel comprised of persons independent of Nasdaq may accept, reject or modify the staff's recommendations by imposing conditions. Nasdaq may also use its discretionary authority, for example, when an issuer files for protection under any provision of the federal bankruptcy laws or comparable foreign laws, when an issuer's independent accountants issue a disclaimer opinion on financial statements required to be audited, or when financial statements do not contain a required certification. In addition, pursuant to its discretionary authority, Nasdaq [shall] *will* review the issuer's past corporate governance activities. This review may include activities taking place while the issuer is listed on Nasdaq or an exchange that imposes corporate governance requirements, as well as activities taking place after a formerly listed issuer is no longer listed on Nasdaq or such an exchange. Based on such review, and in accordance with the Rule 4800 Series, Nasdaq may take any appropriate action, including placing restrictions on or additional requirements for listing, or denying listing of a security, if Nasdaq determines that there have been violations or evasions of such corporate governance standards. Such determinations [shall] *will* be made on a case-by-case basis as necessary to protect investors and the public interest. Although Nasdaq has broad discretion under Rule 4300 to impose additional or more stringent criteria, the Rule does not provide a basis for Nasdaq to grant exemptions or exceptions from the enumerated criteria for initial or continued listing, which may be granted solely pursuant to rules explicitly providing such authority. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose Nasdaq proposes to modify Nasdaq IM-4300 to provide additional transparency to how Nasdaq applies its public interest authority. Specifically, Nasdaq proposes to clarify certain of the factors contained in this interpretive material to better guide companies. Nasdaq also proposes to change the formatting of portions of the text to enhance their readability and to add new language highlighting Nasdaq staff's willingness to discuss these concerns, and possible remedial measures, with companies. Nasdaq does not consider these changes to be substantive in nature. 2. Statutory Basis Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of section 6 of the Act, 4 in general, and with section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 5 in particular, in that the proposal is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change clarifies how Nasdaq applies its public interest authority. 4 15 U.S.C. 78f. 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition Nasdaq 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. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period

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

(ii)as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will: A. By order approve such proposed rule change, or B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-NASDAQ-2007-024 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-NASDAQ-2007-024. 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 Nasdaq. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2007-024 and should be submitted on or before August 7, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 6 6 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-13808 Filed 7-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56039; File No. SR-NASD-2007-021] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Definition of Public Arbitrator July 10, 2007. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on March 12, 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 prepared by NASD. 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 NASD Dispute Resolution proposes to amend the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes (“Customer Code”), and the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes (“Industry Code”) to amend the definition of public arbitrator to add an annual revenue limitation. The text of the proposed rule change is available at NASD, *http://www.nasd.com,* 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, NASD 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. 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 has taken numerous steps in recent years to ensure the integrity and neutrality of its arbitrator roster by addressing classification of arbitrators. For example, in August 2003, NASD proposed changes to Rules 10308 and 10312 of the Code of Arbitration Procedure (“Code”) to modify the definitions of public and non-public arbitrators to further prevent individuals with significant ties to the securities industry from serving as public arbitrators. 3 The 2003 proposal: 3 In July 2002, the SEC retained Professor Michael Perino to assess the adequacy of arbitrator disclosure requirements at NASD and at the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). Professor Perino's report (Perino Report) concluded that undisclosed conflicts of interest were not a significant problem in arbitrations sponsored by self-regulatory organizations (SROs), such as NASD and the NYSE. However, the Perino Report recommended several amendments to SRO arbitrator classification and disclosure rules that might “provide additional assurance to investors that arbitrations are in fact neutral and fair.” This proposal implemented the recommendations of the Perino Report and made several other related changes to the definitions of public and non-public arbitrators that were consistent with the Perino Report recommendations. The Perino Report is available at *http://www.sec.gov/pdf/arbconflict.pdf.* • Increased from three years to five years the period for transitioning from a non-public to public arbitrator after leaving the securities industry. • Clarified that the term “retired” from the industry includes anyone who spent a substantial part of his or her career in the industry. • Prohibited anyone who has been associated with the industry for at least 20 years from ever becoming a public arbitrator, regardless of how long ago the association ended. • Excluded from the public arbitrator roster attorneys, accountants, or other professionals whose firms have derived 10 percent or more of their annual revenue in the previous two years from clients involved in securities-related activities. The proposal was approved by the SEC on April 16, 2004, and became effective on July 19, 2004. 4 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 49573 (April 16, 2004), 69 FR 21871 (April 22, 2004) (SR-NASD-2003-95) (approval order). The changes were announced in Notice to Members 04-49 (June 2004). On July 22, 2005, NASD proposed a further amendment to Rule 10308 of the Code relating to arbitrator classification to prevent individuals with certain indirect ties to the securities industry from serving as public arbitrators. Specifically, NASD proposed to amend the definition of public arbitrator to exclude individuals who work for, or are officers or directors of, an entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, a broker/dealer, or who have a spouse or immediate family member who works for, or is an officer or director of, an entity that is in such a control relationship with a broker/dealer. NASD also proposed to amend Rule 10308 to clarify that individuals registered through broker-dealers may not be public arbitrators, even if they are employed by a non-broker-dealer (such as a bank). This rule filing was approved by the SEC on October 16, 2006, and became effective on January 15, 2007. 5 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 54607 (Oct. 16, 2006), 71 FR 62026 (Oct. 20, 2006) (SR-NASD-2005-094) (approval order). The changes were announced in Notice to Members 06-64 (November 2006). Finally, during the time that the above changes were being made, NASD also had pending at the Commission a 2003 proposal to amend the Code to reorganize the rules into the Customer Code, the Industry Code, and a separate code for mediation. The final provisions of this proposal were approved by the Commission on January 24, 2007, and became effective on April 16, 2007. 6 Several of the substantive changes to the Customer and Industry Codes will affect the classification of arbitrators 7 and how they are selected for panels. 8 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 51856 (June 15, 2005), 70 FR 36442 (June 23, 2005) (SR- NASD-2003-158) (notice); See Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 51857 (June 15, 2005), 70 FR 36430 (June 23, 2005) (SR-NASD-2004-011) (notice); and *See* Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 51855 (June 15, 2005), 70 FR 36440 (June 23, 2005) (SR-NASD-2004-013) (notice). The changes were announced in Notice to Members 07-07 (February 2007). 7 NASD believes the new Codes have improved the arbitrator selection process by creating and maintaining a new roster of arbitrators who are qualified to serve as chairpersons. The chair roster will consist of more experienced arbitrators available on NASD's public arbitrator roster for all investor cases and for certain intra-industry cases. For other industry cases, the Code also creates a chair roster of experienced non-public arbitrators. *See* Rules 12400(b) and

(c)of the Customer Code and Rules 13400(b) and

(c)of Industry Code. 8 The new Codes also change how arbitrator lists are generated and how arbitrators are selected for a panel. *See* Rules 12403 and 12404 of the Customer Code and Rules 13403 and 13404 of the Industry Code. Despite these many initiatives amending the arbitrator classification rules, some users of the forum continue to voice concerns about individuals serving as public arbitrators when they have business relationships with entities that derive income from broker-dealers. The concern is that, for example, an arbitrator classified as public might work for a very large law firm that derived less than 10% of its annual revenue from broker-dealer clients, but still receives a large dollar amount of such revenue. The concern focused primarily on the law firm's defense of action (in arbitration or litigation) by customers of broker-dealers, and not on representing broker-dealers in underwriting or other activities. Therefore, those concerned with the amount of annual revenue recommended that there be an annual dollar limitation of $50,000 on revenue from broker-dealers relating to customer disputes with a brokerage firm or associated person concerning an investment account. NASD supports these recommendations and is, therefore, proposing to amend the definition of public arbitrator in Rule 12100(u) of the Customer Code and Rule 13100(u) of the Industry Code to add a provision that would prevent an attorney, accountant, or other professional from being classified as a public arbitrator, if the person's firm derived $50,000 or more in annual revenue in the past two years from professional services rendered to any persons or entities listed in Rule 12100(p)(1) of the Customer Code or Rule 13100(p)(1) of the Industry Code relating to any customer disputes concerning an investment account or transaction, including but not limited to, law firm fees, accounting firm fees, and consulting fees. 9 9 Rule 12100(p) defines “non-public arbitrator.” Paragraph

(1)of the rule states, in relevant part, that the term “non-public arbitrator” means a person who is otherwise qualified to serve as an arbitrator and is or, within the past five years, was:

(A)Associated with, including registered through, a broker or a dealer (including a government securities broker or dealer or a municipal securities dealer);

(B)registered under the Commodity Exchange Act;

(C)a member of a commodities exchange or a registered futures association; or

(D)associated with a person or firm registered under the Commodity Exchange Act. Rule 13100(p) is the same as Rule 12100(p). NASD believes the proposed amendment, in conjunction with the existing 10 percent revenue limitation, 10 will further improve NASD's public arbitrator roster by ensuring that arbitrators whose firms receive a significant amount of compensation from any persons or entities associated with or engaged in the securities, commodities, or futures business are removed from the public roster. 11 10 *See* supra note 4. Under the July 2004 amendments, a public arbitrator cannot be “an attorney, accountant, or other professional whose firm derived 10 percent or more of its annual revenue in the past 2 years from any persons or entities listed in Rules 12100(p)(1) and 13100(p)(1) of the new Codes.” 11 NASD will survey its public arbitrators to determine which arbitrators will be removed from the roster for appointment to new cases upon the effective date of the proposed rule. 2. Statutory Basis NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, which requires, among other things, that the Association's rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. NASD believes that the proposed rule change will enhance investor confidence in the fairness and neutrality of NASD's arbitration forum, by providing further assurance to parties that persons who have a relationship with those who receive a significant amount of compensation from the securities industry are not able to serve as public arbitrators in NASD arbitrations. 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, as amended. 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. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period

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

(1)Data and written analysis on the open interest and trading volume in the classes for which Quarterly Options 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 on 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 the Commission in assessing the operation of the Pilot Program. The Exchange plans to submit the Report in connection with a proposal that will extend the Pilot Program until July 10, 2008. This proposal and Report will be filed with the Commission at the conclusion of the proposed two-week extension. The Exchange also proposes at this time to add a provision to Rule 5.19(a) regarding the limitations on the number of strikes the Exchange may list for Quarterly Options Series based on an underlying index. These changes mirror provisions previously submitted by the Chicago Board Options Exchange (“CBOE”) and approved by the Commission. 7 The Exchange proposes to:

(1)Limit the number of strike prices that the Exchange may initially open for Quarterly Options Series to five strike prices above and five 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 process 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 the same class. These changes are based on CBOE Rule 24.9 and are shown in Exhibit 5 to the proposed rule change on Form 19b-4 filed with the Commission. 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54762 (November 16, 2006), 71 FR 67663 (November 22, 2006) (File No. SR-CBOE-2006-93). Finally, NYSE Arca represents that the Exchange has the necessary system capacity to support any additional series listed as part of the Pilot Program. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the continuation of the Quarterly Options Series Pilot Program will stimulate customer interest in options by creating greater trading opportunities and flexibility in investment choices. The Exchange further believes that continuation of the Pilot Program will provide the ability to more closely tailor investment strategies and provide a valuable hedging tool for investors. For these reasons, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder and, in particular, the requirements of section 6(b) of the Act. 8 Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with of section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 9 which requires that the rules of an exchange be 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. 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 operative 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 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. The Commission, in deciding to waive the operative delay in order to allow the Pilot Program to continue uninterrupted for the proposed two-week extension, has relied on the Exchange's representation that it will submit the Report as required by the Pilot Program on or before the expiration of the extension period ( *i.e.* , July 24, 2007). 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 Exchange's original filing proposing 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:

(1)Data and written analysis on the open interest and trading volume in the classes for which Quarterly Options 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* Form 19b-4 for File No. SR-PCX-2005-32, filed March 16, 2005. 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-NYSEArca-2007-67 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2007-67. 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-NYSEArca-2007-67 and should be submitted on or August 7, 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. E7-13748 Filed 7-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56041; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2007-43] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the iShares COMEX Gold Trust July 11, 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 May 11, 2007, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the “Exchange”), through its wholly-owned subsidiary, NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (“NYSE Arca Equities”), 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. This order provides notice of the proposed rule change and approves the proposed rule change on an accelerated basis. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares (“Shares”) of the iShares ® 3 COMEX ® 4 Gold Trust (“Trust”) pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.nyse.com* . 3 “iShares” is a registered trademark of Barclays Global Investors, N.A. 4 “COMEX” is a registered service mark of Commodity Exchange, Inc., a subsidiary of the New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. (“NYMEX”). COMEX is operated by Commodity Exchange, Inc. and the Tokyo Commodity Exchange. Open outcry trading of gold futures on COMEX is conducted from 8:20 a.m. Eastern Time (“ET”) until 1:30 p.m. ET, and electronic trading of such gold futures is conducted from 6 p.m. ET until 5:15 p.m. ET via the CME Globex ® trading platform, Sunday through Friday. Thus, except for brief breaks (45 minutes) to switch between open outcry and electronic trading in the evening and the morning, gold futures trade almost 24 hours per day, five business days per week. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item III below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose Pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201, which permits the trading of Commodity-Based Trust Shares 5 either by listing or pursuant to unlisted trading privileges (“UTP”), the Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares. The Shares are currently listed on the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”), 6 and the Exchange currently trades the Shares pursuant to UTP. 7 The Exchange represents that the Shares satisfy the requirements of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201 and thereby qualify for listing on the Exchange. 5 As defined in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201(c)(1), “Commodity-Based Trust Shares” are securities that:

(1)Are issued by a trust that holds a specified commodity deposited with the trust;

(2)are issued by such trust in a specified aggregate minimum number in return for a deposit of a quantity of the underlying commodity; and

(3)when aggregated in the same specified minimum number, may be redeemed at a holder's request by such trust which would deliver to the redeeming holder the quantity of the underlying commodity. 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51058 (January 19, 2005), 70 FR 3749 (January 26, 2005) (SR-Amex-2004-38) (granting approval to list and trade the Shares on Amex). *See also* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50792 (December 3, 2004), 69 FR 71446 (December 9, 2004) (SR-Amex-2004-38) (providing notice of Amex's proposal to list and trade the Shares) (“Amex Notice”). 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51067 (January 21, 2005), 70 FR 3952 (January 27, 2005) (SR-PCX-2004-132) (approving NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201 and the trading of the Shares pursuant to UTP) (“UTP Order”). The Shares represent beneficial ownership interests in the net assets of the Trust, which holds gold bullion. The objective of the Trust is for the value of the Shares to reflect, at any given time, the price of gold owned by the Trust at that time, less the Trust's expenses and liabilities. The Trust is not actively managed and does not engage in any activities designed to obtain a profit from, or to ameliorate losses caused by, changes in the price of gold. The Trust is neither an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 nor a commodity pool for purposes of the Commodity Exchange Act. 8 Barclays Global Investors International Inc., a Delaware corporation and a subsidiary of Barclays Bank PLC, is the sponsor of the Trust (“Sponsor”). The Shares are not obligations of, and are not guaranteed by, the Sponsor or any of its respective subsidiaries or affiliates. 8 The Exchange states that the Trust does not trade in gold futures contracts. The Trust takes delivery of physical gold that complies with certain gold delivery rules. Because the Trust does not trade in gold futures contracts on any futures exchange, the Trust is not regulated as a commodity pool, and is not operated by a commodity pool operator. A detailed discussion of the gold market, including the over-the-counter gold market and the gold futures exchanges, gold market regulation, COMEX gold futures contracts, the process for creations and redemptions of the Shares, certificates evidencing the Shares, and Trust distributions, among others, can be found in the Amex Notice and in the Trust Prospectus. 9 9 *See supra* note 6; *see also* iShares COMEX Gold Trust Prospectus dated March 1, 2007 (Registration Statement No. 333-140874) (“Prospectus”). E-mail from Timothy J. Malinowski, Director, NYSE Group, Inc., to Edward Cho, Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, dated July 11, 2007 (confirming that additional information on the gold markets, the Trust, and the Shares can be found in the Amex Notice and the Prospectus, as supplemented). The Web site for the Trust at *http://www.ishares.com* , which is publicly accessible at no charge, contains the following information about the Shares:

(a)The prior business day's net asset value (“NAV”) per Share; 10

(b)Basket Gold Amount; 11

(c)the reported Share closing price;

(d)the present day's Indicative Basket Gold Amount; 12

(e)the mid-point of the bid-ask price in relation to the NAV as of the time the NAV is calculated (“Bid-Ask Price”); 13

(f)calculation of the premium or discount of such price against such NAV;

(g)data in chart form displaying the frequency distribution of discounts and premiums of the Bid-Ask Price against the NAV, within appropriate ranges for each of the four previous calendar quarters;

(h)the Prospectus; and

(i)other applicable quantitative information, such as expense ratios, trading volumes, and the total return of the Shares. The Exchange also provides a hyperlink on its Web site to the Trust's Web site. 10 The Exchange states that it would obtain a representation from the Trust, prior to listing, that the NAV per Share would be calculated daily and made available to all market participants at the same time. 11 The “Basket Gold Amount” is the corresponding amount of gold, measured in fine ounces, to be exchanged for an issuance of a basket of 50,000 Shares (each such basket, a “Basket”), for the purpose of creating and redeeming the Shares. 12 The “Indicative Basket Gold Amount” is the indicative amount of gold to be deposited for issuance of the Shares that Authorized Participants can use. Because the creation/redemption process is based entirely on the physical delivery of gold (and does not contemplate a cash component), the actual number of fine ounces required for the Indicative Basket Gold Amount would not change intra-day, even though the value of the Indicative Basket Gold Amount may change based on the market price of gold. 13 The Bid-Ask Price of Shares is determined using the highest bid and lowest offer as of the time of calculation of the NAV. The Exchange would make available, through the facilities of the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”), quotation information including the last sale price for the Shares, the daily trading volume, closing prices, and the NAV for the Shares from the previous day. In addition, the Exchange or a major market data vendor would disseminate each day through the facilities of the CTA the number of Shares outstanding and the Indicative Trust Value (“ITV”) on a per-Share basis at least every 15 seconds 14 from 9:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. ET. 15 The ITV is calculated based on the estimated amount of gold required for creations and redemptions on any particular day ( *e.g.* , the Indicative Basket Gold Amount) and a price of gold derived from the most recently reported trade price in the active gold futures contract. The prices reported for the active contract month are adjusted based on the prior day's spread differential between settlement values for that contract and the spot month contract. In the event that the spot month contract is also the active contract, the last sale price for the active contract is not adjusted. 16 14 E-mail from Timothy J. Malinowski, Director, NYSE Group, Inc., to Edward Cho, Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, dated July 9, 2007 (confirming the updated ITV would be disseminated at least every 15 seconds). 15 The Exchange states that the ITV will not reflect changes to the price of gold between the close of trading at COMEX, which is typically 1:30 p.m. ET, and the open of trading on the NYMEX ACCESS market at 2 p.m. ET. While the market for the gold futures is open for trading, the ITV can be expected to closely approximate the value per Share of the Indicative Basket Gold Amount. The ITV on a per-Share basis disseminated during the hours from 9:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. ET should not be viewed as a real-time update of the NAV, which is calculated only once a day. E-mail from Timothy J. Malinowski, Director, NYSE Group, Inc., to Edward Cho, Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, dated July 9, 2007. *See also* UTP Order, 70 FR at 3956. 16 E-mail from Timothy J. Malinowski, Director, NYSE Group, Inc., to Edward Cho, Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, dated July 9, 2007 (confirming the ITV calculation methodology). *See also* UTP Order, 70 FR at 3956 n.33. Shortly after 4 p.m. ET each business day, the Trustee, 17 the Exchange, and the Sponsor would disseminate the NAV for the Shares, the Basket Gold Amount (for orders placed during the day), and the Indicative Basket Gold Amount (for use by Authorized Participants 18 contemplating placing orders the following business day). The Basket Gold Amount, the Indicative Basket Gold Amount, and the NAV are communicated by the Trustee to all Authorized Participants via facsimile or e-mail and are available on the Trust's Web site. 17 The Bank of New York serves as the Trustee and is responsible for the day-to-day administration of the Trust, including processing orders for the creation and redemption of Shares, coordinating the receipt and delivery of gold transferred to, or by, the Trust in connection with each creation and redemption of Shares, calculating the NAV and the adjusted NAV of the Trust on each business day, and selling the Trust's gold as needed to cover the Trust's expenses. 18 An “Authorized Participant” is a person who, at the time of submitting to the Trustee an order to create or redeem one of more Baskets,

(1)is a registered broker-dealer,

(2)is a Depository Trust Company participant or an indirect participant, and

(3)has in effect a valid authorized participant agreement. The Exchange states that information on gold prices and gold markets is available on public Internet Web sites and through professional and subscription services. In most instances, real-time information is available only for a fee, and information available free-of-charge is subject to delay (typically 20 minutes). The Exchange also states that investors may obtain on a 24-hour basis gold pricing information based on the spot price for a troy ounce of gold from various financial information service providers, such as Reuters and Bloomberg. Reuters and Bloomberg provide at no charge on their Web sites delayed information regarding the spot price of gold and last sale prices of gold futures, as well as information about news and developments in the gold market. Reuters and Bloomberg also offer a professional service to subscribers for a fee that provides information on gold prices directly from market participants. In addition, an organization named EBS provides an electronic trading platform to institutions such as bullion banks and dealers for the trading of spot gold, as well as a feed of live streaming prices to Reuters and Moneyline Telerate subscribers. The Exchange further represents that complete real-time data for gold futures and options prices traded on COMEX is available by subscription from Reuters and Bloomberg. The closing price and settlement prices of the COMEX gold futures contracts are publicly available from NYMEX at *http://www.nymex.com* , automated quotation systems, published or other public sources, or on-line information services such as Bloomberg or Reuters. NYMEX also provides delayed futures and options information on current and past trading sessions and market news free of charge on its Web site. The Exchange states that the Shares are subject to the criteria for initial and continued listing of Commodity-Based Trust Shares under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201. As indicated above, the Shares are currently trading on the Exchange pursuant to UTP. A minimum of 100,000 Shares would be required to be outstanding when the Shares are listed. This minimum number of Shares required to be outstanding is comparable to requirements that have been applied to previously listed series of exchange-traded funds. The Exchange believes that the proposed minimum number of Shares outstanding at the start of trading is sufficient to provide market liquidity. In addition, the Exchange represents that the Trust is required to comply with Rule 10A-3 under the Act 19 for the initial and continued listing of the Shares. 19 17 CFR 240.10A-3. The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. The trading hours for the Shares on the Exchange are the same as those set forth in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34 (Opening, Core, and Late Trading Sessions, 4 a.m. ET to 8 p.m. ET). 20 20 The Exchange states that, while the Shares would trade on the Exchange until 8 p.m. ET, liquidity in the over-the-counter market for gold generally decreases after 1:30 p.m. ET when daily trading at COMEX and other world gold trading centers ends. Trading spreads and the resulting premium or discount on the Shares may widen as a result of reduced liquidity in the over-the-counter gold market. The Exchange does not believe that the Shares would trade at a material discount or premium to the value of the underlying gold held by the Trust because of arbitrage opportunities. With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares. Trading may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. These reasons may include

(1)the extent to which trading is not occurring in the underlying COMEX gold futures contract, or

(2)whether other unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present. In addition, trading in the Shares could be halted pursuant to the Exchange's “circuit breaker” rule 21 or by the halt or suspension of trading of the underlying gold. The Exchange further notes that, if the ITV or the value of the underlying gold is not being calculated or widely disseminated as required, the Exchange may halt trading during the day in which the interruption to the calculation or wide dissemination of the ITV or the value of the underlying gold occurs. If the interruption to the calculation or wide dissemination of the ITV or the value of the underlying gold persists past the trading day in which it occurred, the Exchange would halt trading no later than the beginning of the trading day following the interruption. 21 *See* NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.12 (Trading Halts Due to Extraordinary Market Volatility). The Exchange intends to utilize its existing surveillance procedures applicable to derivative products to monitor trading in the Shares. The Exchange represents that these procedures are adequate to properly monitor Exchange trading of the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules. The Exchange may also obtain information via the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”) from other exchanges that are members or affiliate members of ISG. In addition, the Exchange has an information sharing agreement in place with NYMEX for the purpose of providing information in connection with trading in or related to gold futures contracts traded on COMEX. Furthermore, the Exchange states that the Shares are subject to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201(g)-(i), which set forth certain restrictions on ETP Holders 22 acting as registered market makers in the Shares to facilitate surveillance. The Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees. 22 An ETP Holder is a registered broker or dealer that has been issued an Equity Trading Permit

(ETP)by NYSE Arca Equities. Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its ETP Holders in an Information Bulletin (“Bulletin”) of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Bulletin will discuss the following:

(a)Description of the Shares;

(b)the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Opening and Late Trading Sessions when an updated ITV will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; 23

(c)the procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Baskets (and that Shares are not individually redeemable);

(d)NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a), which imposes a duty of due diligence on its ETP Holders to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Shares;

(e)how information regarding the ITV is disseminated;

(f)the requirement that ETP Holders deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and

(g)other relevant trading information. In addition, the Bulletin will reference that the Trust is subject to various fees and expenses, the number of ounces of gold required to create a Basket or to be delivered upon redemption of a Basket would gradually decrease over time because the Shares comprising a Basket would represent a decreasing amount of gold due to the sale of the Trust's gold to pay Trust expenses, and that there is no regulated source of last-sale information regarding physical gold. The Bulletin will also disclose that the NAV for the Shares will be calculated after 4 p.m. ET each trading day, based on the COMEX daily settlement value, which is disseminated shortly after 1:30 p.m. ET each trading day and discuss any exemptive, no-action, and/or interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act. 24 23 E-mail from Timothy J. Malinowski, Director, NYSE Group, Inc., to Edward Cho, Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, dated July 9, 2007 (confirming that such risks will be disclosed in the Bulletin). 24 The Exchange represents that the Commission has granted exemptions from, or interpretive or no-action advice regarding, Section 11(d)(1) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78k(d)(1)), Rules 10a-1 (17 CFR 240.10a-1) and 11d1-2 (17 CFR 240.11d1-2), Rule 200(g) of Regulation SHO (17 CFR 242.200(g)), and Rules 101 and 102 of Regulation M (17 CFR 242.101 and 17 CFR 242.102) under the Act, in respect of trading of the Shares. *See* Letter from James A. Brigagliano, Assistant Director, Office of Trading Practices, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, to David Yeres, Esq., Clifford Chance U.S. LLP, dated January 27, 2005. *See also* Letter from Brian A. Bussey, Assistant Chief Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, to David Yeres, Esq., Clifford Chance U.S. LLP, dated December 12, 2005. 2. Statutory Basis The proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 25 in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 26 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. 25 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 26 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 result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change. III. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-NYSEArca-2007-43 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2007-43. 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 offices of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2007-43 and should be submitted on or before August 7, 2007. IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of the Proposed Rule Change After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 27 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 28 which requires that an exchange have rules designed, among other things, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Commission notes that it previously approved the original listing and trading of the Shares on Amex, and the instant proposal is substantively identical to the previous Amex proposal. 29 27 In approving this rule change, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 28 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 29 *See supra* note 6. The Commission further believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act, 30 which sets forth Congress' finding that it is in the public interest and appropriate for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets to assure the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors of information with respect to quotations for and transactions in securities. The Exchange would make available, through the facilities of the CTA, quotation and last sale price information for the Shares, the daily trading volume, closing prices, and the NAV for the Shares from the previous day. In addition, the Exchange or a major market data vendor would disseminate each day through the facilities of the CTA the number of Shares outstanding and the ITV on a per-Share basis at least every 15 seconds from 9:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. ET. The Web site for the Trust contains information related to the NAV, including the Bid-Ask Price, the Basket Gold Amount, the Indicative Basket Gold Amount, calculation information and data related to the premium or discount of the Bid-Ask Price against the NAV, the Prospectus, and other applicable quantitative information, including trading volume data, total return of the Shares, expense ratios, and reported Share closing prices. Shortly after 4 p.m. ET each business day, the Trustee, the Exchange, and the Sponsor would disseminate the NAV for the Shares, the Basket Gold Amount, and the Indicative Basket Gold Amount. Information on gold prices and gold markets is available on public Web sites and through professional subscription services, and investors may obtain on a 24-hour basis gold pricing information based on the spot price for a troy ounce of gold from various financial information service providers. Closing and settlement prices of gold futures contracts traded on COMEX are publicly available from NYMEX's Web site, automated quotation systems, published or other public sources, or on-line information services such as Bloomberg or Reuters. NYMEX also provides delayed futures and options information on current and past trading sessions and market news free of charge. 30 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C)(iii). Furthermore, the Commission believes that the proposal to list and trade the Shares is reasonably designed to promote fair disclosure of information that may be necessary to price the Shares appropriately. The Commission notes that the Exchange will obtain a representation from the Trust, prior to listing, that the NAV per Share would be calculated daily and made available to all market participants at the same time. 31 In addition, NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201(i) provides that, in connection with trading in an underlying physical commodity, related commodity futures or options on commodity futures, or any other related commodity derivative, including Commodity-Based Trust Shares, an ETP Holder acting as a Market Maker (as defined in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 1.1(u)) in the Shares is restricted from using any material non-public information received from any person associated with such ETP Holder who is trading such underlying physical commodity, related commodity futures or options on commodity futures, or other related commodity derivatives. 31 *See supra* note 10. The Commission also believes that the Exchange's trading halt rules are reasonably designed to prevent trading in the Shares when transparency is impaired. NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201(e)(2) provides that, when the Exchange is the listing market, if the value of the underlying commodity or ITV is no longer calculated or available on at least a 15-second delayed basis, the Exchange would consider suspending trading in the Shares. The Exchange further represents that if the interruption to the calculation or wide dissemination of the value of the underlying gold or ITV persists past the trading day in which it occurred, the Exchange would halt trading no later than the beginning of the trading day following the interruption. NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201(e)(2) also provides that the Exchange may seek to delist the Shares in the event the value of the underlying gold or ITV is no longer calculated or available as required. The Commission further believes that the trading rules and procedures to which the Shares will be subject pursuant to this proposal are consistent with the Act. The Exchange has represented that any securities listed pursuant to this proposal will be deemed equity securities, and subject to existing Exchange rules governing the trading of equity securities. In support of this proposal, the Exchange has made the following representations:

(1)The Exchange's surveillance procedures are adequate to address any concerns associated with the trading of the Shares.

(2)The Exchange would inform its members in an Information Bulletin of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares, including risks inherent with trading the Shares during the Opening and Late Trading Sessions when the updated ITV is not calculated and disseminated and suitability recommendation requirements.

(3)The Exchange would require its members to deliver a prospectus or product description to investors purchasing Shares prior to or concurrently with a transaction in such Shares and will note this prospectus delivery requirement in the Information Bulletin. This approval order is conditioned on the Exchange's adherence to these representations. The Commission finds good cause for approving this proposal before the thirtieth day after the publication of notice thereof in the **Federal Register** . As noted above, the Commission previously approved the original listing and trading of the Shares on Amex and the trading of the Shares pursuant to UTP on the Exchange. 32 The Commission presently is not aware of any regulatory issue that should cause it to revisit those findings or would preclude the listing and trading of the Shares on the Exchange. Accelerating approval of this proposed rule change would allow the Shares to be listed on the Exchange without undue delay and continuously traded without interruption, to the benefit of investors. 32 *See supra* notes 6 and 7. V. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 33 that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2007-43) be, and it hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis. 33 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 34 34 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-13749 Filed 7-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56042; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2007-45] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change To Trade Units of the United States Natural Gas Fund, LP Pursuant to Unlisted Trading Privileges July 11, 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 May 15, 2007, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the “Exchange”), through its wholly-owned subsidiary, NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (“NYSE Arca Equities”), 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. This order provides notice of the proposed rule change and approves the proposed rule change on an accelerated basis. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange, through NYSE Arca Equities, proposes to trade partnership units (“Units”) of the United States Natural Gas Fund, LP (“USNG” or “Partnership”) pursuant to unlisted trading privileges (“UTP”). The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.nyse.com.* II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item III below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.300, which permits the trading of Partnership Units either by listing or pursuant to UTP, 3 the Exchange proposes to trade pursuant to UTP the Units of the Partnership. Each Unit represents ownership of a fractional undivided beneficial interest in the net assets of USNG. 4 The Commission has approved the listing and trading of the Units on the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”). 5 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53875 (May 25, 2006), 71 FR 32164 (June 2, 2006) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-11) (approving NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.300 and the trading of Partnership Units of the United States Oil Fund, LP pursuant to UTP). 4 USNG is a commodity pool that issues Units that would be purchased and sold on the Exchange. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55632 (April 13, 2007), 72 FR 19987 (April 20, 2007) (SR-Amex-2006-112) (granting approval to list and trade the Units on Amex); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55372 (February 28, 2007), 72 FR 10267 (March 7, 2007) (SR-Amex-2006-112) (providing notice of Amex's proposal to list and trade the Units) (“Amex Notice”). The net assets of USNG consist of investments in futures contracts based on natural gas, crude oil, heating oil, gasoline, and other petroleum-based fuels traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (“NYMEX”), Intercontinental Exchange (“ICE Futures”), or other U.S. and foreign exchanges (such futures contracts collectively referred to herein as “Futures Contracts”). USNG may also invest in other natural-gas-related investments such as cash-settled options on Futures Contracts; forward contracts for natural gas; over-the-counter instruments that are based on the price of natural gas, oil, and other petroleum-based fuels; Futures Contracts; and indices based on the foregoing (collectively referred to herein as “Other Natural Gas Related Investments,” and together with Futures Contracts, “Natural Gas Interests”). A detailed discussion of the natural gas, crude oil, heating oil, and gasoline markets; futures regulation and the regulation of USNG; investment strategy; creations and redemptions of baskets of Units; and calculation methodology of the net asset value (“NAV”) for the Units, among others, can be found in the Amex Notice. 6 6 *See id.* The Web site for Amex at *http://www.amex.com,* which is publicly accessible at no charge, contains the following information:

(1)The prior business day's NAV and the reported closing price;

(2)the mid-point of the bid-ask price in relation to the NAV as of the time the NAV is calculated (“Bid-Ask Price”); 7

(3)calculation of the premium or discount of such price against such NAV;

(4)data in chart form displaying the frequency distribution of discounts and premiums of the Bid-Ask Price against the NAV, within appropriate ranges for each of the four previous calendar quarters;

(5)the prospectus and the most recent periodic reports filed with the Commission or required by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; and

(6)other applicable quantitative information. 7 The Bid-Ask Price of Units is determined using the highest bid and lowest offer as of the time of calculation of the NAV. The NAV for USNG is calculated and disseminated daily. 8 Amex disseminates for USNG on a daily basis through the facilities of the Consolidated Tape Association (CTA/CQ High Speed Lines) information with respect to the Indicative Partnership Value (as discussed below), recent NAV, Units outstanding, the Basket Amount, 9 and the Deposit Amount. 10 Amex also makes available on its Web site daily Unit trading volume and closing prices. 8 *See* Amex Notice, 72 FR at 10273 n.18 (confirming that a representation would be obtained from USNG that its NAV per Unit will be calculated daily and made available to all market participants at the same time). 9 A “Basket Amount” is the amount equal to the NAV per Unit, times 100,000 Units (each such aggregation of Units, a “Basket”) calculated for the purpose of issuing Baskets to Authorized Purchasers. *See* Amex Notice, 72 FR at 10271. An “Authorized Purchaser” is a person, who, at the time of submitting an order to create or redeem Units, is

(1)A registered broker-dealer or other market participant, such as a bank or other financial institution, that is exempt from broker-dealer registration,

(2)a Depository Trust Company participant, and

(3)a party to a valid Authorized Purchaser agreement. *See id.* 10 The “Deposit Amount” is the amount transferred from a purchaser to the Administrator for the purpose of purchasing a Basket of Units. *See* Amex Notice, 72 FR at 10272. The “Administrator” is Brown Brothers Harriman & Co., performing or supervising the performance of services necessary for the operation and administration of USNG. *See* Amex Notice, 72 FR at 10269. To provide updated information relating to USNG for use by investors, professionals, and persons wishing to create or redeem the Units, Amex disseminates through the facilities of the Consolidated Tape Association an updated Indicative Partnership Value (“Indicative Partnership Value”). The Indicative Partnership Value is disseminated on a per-Unit basis at least every 15 seconds during the regular trading hours of 9:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Eastern Time (“ET”). The Indicative Partnership Value is calculated based on the Cash 11 required for creations and redemptions ( *i.e.* , NAV per limit × 100,000 Units) and adjusted to reflect the price changes of the Benchmark Futures Contract. 12 11 “Cash” includes short-term obligations of the United States, cash equivalents, and cash. 12 The “Benchmark Futures Contract,” which is used to measure changes in percentage terms of a Unit's NAV, is the natural gas futures contract traded on NYMEX reflecting the price and change in price of natural gas delivered at the Henry Hub, Louisiana. The Indicative Partnership Value does not reflect price changes to the price of the Benchmark Futures Contract between the close of open-outcry trading of such contract on NYMEX at 2:30 p.m. ET and the open of trading on the NYMEX ACCESS market at 3:15 p.m. ET. 13 The Indicative Partnership Value after 3:15 p.m. ET will reflect changes to the Benchmark Futures Contract as provided for through NYMEX ACCESS. The value of a Unit may accordingly be influenced by non-concurrent trading hours between the NYSE Arca Marketplace and NYMEX. While the Units will trade on the NYSE Arca Marketplace in accordance with NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34 (4 a.m. to 8 p.m. ET), the Benchmark Futures Contract will trade, in open-outcry, on NYMEX from 10 a.m. to 2:30 pm ET and NYMEX ACCESS from 3:15 p.m. through the following morning 9:30 a.m. ET. 13 NYMEX ACCESS®, an electronic trading system, is open for price discovery on the Benchmark Futures Contract each Monday through Thursday at 3:15 p.m. ET through the following morning at 9:30 a.m. ET, and from 7 p.m. Sunday night until Monday morning 9:30 a.m. ET. While NYMEX is open for trading, the Indicative Partnership Value can be expected to closely approximate the value per Unit of the Basket Amount. However, during trading hours when the Futures Contracts have ceased trading, spreads and resulting premiums or discounts may widen, and therefore, increase the difference between the price of the Units and the NAV of the Units. The Indicative Partnership Value on a per-Unit basis disseminated from 9:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. ET should not be viewed as a real-time update of the NAV, which is calculated only once a day. The Exchange represents that it will cease trading the Units of USNG if:

(1)The original listing market stops trading the Units; or

(b)the original listing market delists the Units. Additionally, the Exchange may cease trading the Units if such other event shall occur or condition exists which, in the opinion of the Exchange, makes further dealings on the Exchange inadvisable. 14 UTP trading in the Units is also governed by the trading halts provisions of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34 relating to temporary interruptions in the calculation or wide dissemination of the Indicative Partnership Value or the value of the Benchmark Futures Contract. 15 14 With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Units. These may include

(1)the extent to which trading is not occurring in the underlying Futures Contracts, or

(2)whether other unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present. In addition, trading in the Units could be halted pursuant to the Exchange's “circuit breaker” rule or by the halt or suspension of trading of the underlying securities. *See* NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.12 (Trading Halts Due to Extraordinary Market Volatility). 15 The Exchange states that NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34(a) literally addresses temporary interruptions in the calculation or wide dissemination of the Indicative Intra-Day Value and the value of an underlying index. The Units, however, do not have an underlying index, but have an underlying Benchmark Futures Contract. Therefore, the Exchange represents that the provisions in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34(a) that address interruptions in the calculation or wide dissemination of the value of an underlying index shall also apply, in this case, to interruptions in the calculation or wide dissemination of the value of the underlying Benchmark Futures Contract. *See infra* The Exchange deems the Units to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Units subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. Units will trade on the NYSE Arca Marketplace from 4 a.m. ET until 8 p.m. ET in accordance with NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34 (Opening, Core, and Late Trading Sessions). The Exchange states that it has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Units during all trading sessions. The Exchange intends to utilize its existing surveillance procedures applicable to derivative products to monitor trading in the Units. The Exchange represents that these procedures are adequate to properly monitor Exchange trading of the Units in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules. The Exchange may also obtain information via the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”) from other exchanges who are members or affiliate members of ISG. In addition, the Exchange has information sharing agreements in place with NYMEX and ICE Futures for the purpose of providing information in connection with trading in or related to futures contracts traded on NYMEX and ICE Futures, respectively. To the extent that USNG invests in Natural Gas Interests traded on other exchanges, the Exchange will seek to enter into information sharing agreements with those particular exchanges. In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees. Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its ETP Holders 16 in an Information Bulletin (“Bulletin”) of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Units. Specifically, the Bulletin will discuss the following:

(1)The risks involved in trading the Units during the Opening and Late Trading Sessions when an updated Indicative Partnership Value will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; 17

(2)the procedures for purchases and redemptions of Units in Baskets (and that Units are not individually redeemable);

(3)NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a), which imposes a duty of due diligence on its ETP Holders to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Units;

(4)how and when information regarding the Indicative Partnership Value and NAV is disseminated;

(5)the requirement that ETP Holders deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Units prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and

(6)other relevant trading information. In addition, the Bulletin will reference that the Partnership is subject to various fees and expenses and that there is no regulated source of last-sale information regarding physical commodities. The Bulletin will also discuss any exemptive, no-action, and/or interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act. 16 16 An ETP Holder is a registered broker or dealer that has been issued an Equity Trading Permit

(ETP)by NYSE Arca Equities. 17 E-mail from Timothy J. Malinowski, Director, NYSE Group, Inc., to Edward Cho, Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, dated July 9, 2007 (confirming that such risks will be disclosed in the Bulletin). 2. Statutory Basis The proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 18 in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 19 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. In addition, the proposal is consistent with Rule 12f-5 under the Act 20 because the Exchange deems the Units to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Units subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. 18 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 19 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 20 17 CFR 240.12f-5. B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change. III. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-NYSEArca-2007-45 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2007-45. 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 offices of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2007-45 and should be submitted on or before August 7, 2007. IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of the Proposed Rule Change After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 21 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 22 which requires that an exchange have rules designed, among other things, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Commission believes that this proposal should benefit investors by increasing competition among markets that trade the Units. 21 In approving this rule change, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 22 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). In addition, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 12(f) of the Act, 23 which permits an exchange to trade, pursuant to UTP, a security that is listed and registered on another exchange. 24 The Commission notes that it previously approved the original listing and trading of the Units on Amex. 25 The Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with Rule 12f-5 under the Act, 26 which provides that an exchange shall not extend UTP to a security unless the exchange has in effect a rule or rules providing for transactions in the class or type of security to which the exchange extends UTP. The Exchange has represented that it meets this requirement because it deems the Units to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Units subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. The Commission notes that it previously approved for trading on the Exchange pursuant to UTP Partnership Units issued by the United States Oil Fund, LP, which are similar to the Units issued by USNG. 27 23 15 U.S.C. 78 *l* (f). 24 Section 12(a) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78 *l* (a), generally prohibits a broker-dealer from trading a security on a national securities exchange unless the security is registered on that exchange pursuant to Section 12 of the Act. Section 12(f) of the Act excludes from this restriction trading in any security to which an exchange “extends UTP.” When an exchange extends UTP to a security, it allows its members to trade the security as if it were listed and registered on the exchange even though it is not so listed and registered. 25 *See supra* note 5. 26 17 CFR 240.12f-5. 27 *See supra* note 3. The Commission further believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act, 28 which sets forth Congress' finding that it is in the public interest and appropriate for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets to assure the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors of information with respect to quotations for and transactions in securities. Quotations for and last-sale information regarding the Units will be disseminated through the Consolidated Quotation System and the Consolidated Tape Association, respectively. 29 In addition, Amex disseminates a variety of information through the facilities of the Consolidated Tape Association including the Indicative Partnership Value on a per-Unit basis at least every 15 seconds during regular Amex trading hours, the number of Units outstanding, the Basket Amount, and the Deposit Amount. Daily closing and settlement prices for the NYMEX-traded Futures Contracts held by USNG, delayed futures information on current and past trading sessions, and market news are publicly available on the NYMEX Web site. Quotations and last-sale information for the Futures Contracts are widely disseminated through a variety of market data vendors worldwide, including Bloomberg and Reuters. Amex's Web site contains information related to the NAV, including the Bid-Ask Price, calculation information and other data of the premium or discount of the Bid-Ask Price against the NAV, the prospectus and other periodically-filed reports, trading volume data, Unit closing prices, and other applicable quantitative information. Finally, USNG's Web site discloses on each business day that Amex is open for trading the total portfolio composition of USNG, including the name, value, type, and characteristics of the Natural Gas Interests and Cash held. 28 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C)(iii). 29 E-mail from Timothy J. Malinowski, Director, NYSE Group, Inc., to Edward Cho, Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, dated July 9, 2007 (confirming the method of dissemination of quotations and last-sale information regarding the Units). The Commission also believes that the Exchange's trading halt rules are reasonably designed to prevent trading in the Shares when transparency is impaired. Existing NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34(a)(4), which will apply to the trading of the Units, provides that, if the Benchmark Futures Contract or Indicative Partnership Value is no longer calculated or disseminated as required

(a)during the Opening Session (4 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. ET), the Exchange may continue to trade the Units for the remainder of the Opening Session;

(b)during the Core Trading Session (9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET), the Exchange must halt trading in the Units; and

(c)during the Late Trading Session (4 p.m. to 8 p.m. ET), the Exchange may continue trading in the Units only if the original listing market traded such Units until the close of its regular trading session without halt. 30 If the Benchmark Futures Contract or Indicative Partnership Value continues not to be calculated or disseminated as of the next business day's Opening Session, the Exchange will not commence trading in the Units in such Opening Session. 31 30 *See supra* note 15 and accompanying text. 31 The Exchange may resume trading in the Units only if the calculation and dissemination of the Benchmark Futures Contract or Indicative Partnership Value resumes, or trading in the Units resumes in the original listing market. *See* NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34(a)(4)(C)(2). The Commission notes that, if the Units should be delisted by the listing exchange, the Exchange would no longer have authority to trade the Units pursuant to this order. In support of this proposal, the Exchange has made the following representations:

(1)The Exchange's surveillance procedures are adequate to address any concerns associated with the trading of the Units on a UTP basis.

(2)The Exchange would inform its members in an Information Bulletin of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Units, including risks inherent with trading the Units during the Opening and Late Trading Sessions when the updated Indicative Partnership Value is not calculated and disseminated and suitability recommendation requirements.

(3)The Exchange would require its members to deliver a prospectus or product description to investors purchasing Units prior to or concurrently with a transaction in such Units and will note this prospectus delivery requirement in the Information Bulletin. This approval order is conditioned on the Exchange's adherence to these representations. The Commission finds good cause for approving this proposal before the thirtieth day after the publication of notice thereof in the **Federal Register** . As noted above, the Commission previously approved the original listing and trading of the Units on Amex and the trading of Partnership Units issued by the United States Oil Fund, LP, which are similar to the Partnership Units issued by the Partnership, pursuant to UTP on the Exchange. The Commission presently is not aware of any regulatory issue that should cause it to revisit those findings or would preclude the trading of the Units on the Exchange pursuant to UTP. Accelerating approval of this proposal should benefit investors by creating, without undue delay, additional competition in the market for such Units. V. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 32 that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2007-45) be, and it hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis. 32 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 33 33 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-13750 Filed 7-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56049; File No. SR-Phlx-2007-20] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto Adopting Generic Listing Standards for Exchange-Traded Funds Based on International or Global Indexes or Indexes Described in Exchange Rules Previously Approved by the Commission as Underlying Benchmarks for Derivative Securities July 11, 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 March 9, 2007, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by Phlx. On June 18, 2007, Phlx filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposal. This order provides notice of the proposal, as amended, and approves the proposal on an accelerated basis. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change Phlx proposes to revise its listing standards, adopted pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e), 3 in Phlx Rule 803 to include generic listing standards for Trust Shares and Index Fund Shares (“IFSs”) (which together with Trust Shares are referred to as “exchange-traded funds” or “ETFs”) that are based on international or global indexes, or on indexes described in exchange rules that have been previously approved by the Commission for the trading of ETFs or other specified index-based securities. 3 17 CFR 240.19b-4(e). The text of the proposed rule change is available at Phlx, from the Commission's Public Reference Room, and on Phlx's Web site ( *http://www.Phlx.com* ). II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, Phlx included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item III below. Phlx has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The purpose of the proposed rule change is to provide for the more efficient and timely listing and trading of ETFs. This proposal would enable the Exchange to list and trade ETFs pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act 4 if each of the conditions set forth in Phlx Rules 803(i) and ( *l* ) is satisfied. Rule 19b-4(e) provides that the listing and trading of a new derivative securities product by a self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) shall not be deemed a proposed rule change, pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of Rule 19b-4, 5 if the Commission has approved, pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act, the trading rules, procedures, and listing standards for the product class that would include the new derivatives securities product, and the SRO has a surveillance program for the product class. 6 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(e). 5 17 CFR 240.19b-4(c)(1). 6 When relying on Rule 19b-4(e), the SRO must submit Form 19b-4(e) to the Commission within five business days after it begins trading the new derivative securities products. *See* 17 CFR 240.19b-4(e)(2)(ii). Background Currently, Phlx Rule 803(i) provides standards for listing Trust Shares on Phlx. A Trust Share is a security based on a unit investment trust registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“1940 Act”), 7 which holds the securities that comprise an index or portfolio underlying a series of Trust Shares. Phlx Rule 803( *l* ) provides standards for listing IFSs, which are securities issued by an open-end management investment company registered under the 1940 Act ( *i.e.* , an open-end mutual fund) based on a portfolio of stocks that seeks to provide investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance of a specified foreign or domestic stock index. 7 15 U.S.C. 80a. Pursuant to Phlx Rule 803(i), Trust Shares that are eligible for listing on the Exchange must be issued in a specified aggregate minimum number in return for a deposit of specified securities and/or a cash amount. When aggregated in the same specified minimum number, the Trust Shares must be redeemable from the Trust for the securities and/or cash. Pursuant to Phlx Rule 803( *l* ), IFSs that are eligible for listing on the Exchange must be issued in a specified aggregate minimum number in return for a deposit of specified securities and/or a cash amount, with a value equal to the next determined net asset value (“NAV”). When aggregated in the same specified minimum number, IFSs must be redeemable by the issuer for the securities and/or cash, with a value equal to the next determined NAV. The NAV is calculated once a day after the close of the regular trading day. 8 8 *See* e-mail from John Dayton, Director and Counsel, Phlx, to Natasha Cowen, Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation (“Division”), Commission, dated July 6, 2007. To meet the investment objective of providing investment returns that correspond to the price and the dividend and yield performance of the underlying index, an ETF may use a “replication” strategy or a “representative sampling” strategy with respect to the ETF portfolio. 9 An ETF using a replication strategy will invest in each stock of the underlying index in about the same proportion as that stock is represented in the index itself. An ETF using a representative sampling strategy will generally invest in a significant number but not all of the component securities of the underlying index, and will hold stocks that, in the aggregate, are intended to approximate the full index in terms of key characteristics, such as price/earnings ratio, earnings growth, and dividend yield. 9 In either case, an ETF, by its terms, may be considered invested in the securities of the underlying index to the extent the ETF invests in sponsored American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”), Global Depositary Receipts (“GDRs”), or European Depositary Receipts (“EDRs”) that trade on exchanges with last-sale reporting representing securities in the underlying index. In addition, an ETF portfolio may be adjusted in accordance with changes in the composition of the underlying index or to maintain compliance with requirements applicable to a regulated investment company under the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”). Generic Listing Standards for Exchange-Traded Funds The Commission has previously approved generic listing standards for ETFs based on indexes that consist of stocks listed on U.S. exchanges. 10 In general, the proposed criteria for the underlying component securities in the international and global indexes are similar to those for the domestic indexes, but with modifications for the issues and risks associated with non-U.S. securities. 10 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43717 (December 13, 2000), 65 FR 80976 (December 22, 2000) (SR-Phlx-00-54) (approving Phlx Rule 803(i), which sets forth the rules related to the listing and trading of Trust Shares); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43912 (January 31, 2001), 66 FR 9401 (February 7, 2001) (SR-Phlx-00-91) (approving Phlx Rule 803( *l* ), which sets forth the rules including generic listing standards for the listing and trading of Index Fund Shares under Phlx Rule 803( *l* )). In addition, the Commission has previously approved generic listing standards of exchanges governing the listing and trading of ETFs based on indexes composed of non-U.S. Component Stocks as well as indexes based on both non-U.S. Component Stocks and U.S. Component Stocks. 11 The Commission has also approved generic listing standards for index-based derivative securities products based on indexes described in exchange rules that have been previously approved by the Commission under Section 19(b)(2) of the Act for the trading of ETFs or other index-based securities, on the condition that all of the standards set forth in those orders, including surveillance sharing agreements, continue to be satisfied. 12 11 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55621 (April 12, 2007), 72 FR 19571 (April 18, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-86); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55269 (February 9, 2007), 72 FR 7490 (February 15, 2007) (SR-NASDAQ-2006-50); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55113 (January 17, 2007), 72 FR 3179 (January 24, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2006-101). 12 *See, e.g.* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51563 (April 15, 2005) 70 FR 21257 (April 25, 2005) (SR-Amex-2005-001); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52204 (August 3, 2005), 70 FR 46559 (August 10, 2005) (SR-PCX-2005-63). The Exchange believes that adopting generic listing standards and applying Rule 19b-4(e) should fulfill the intended objective of that rule by allowing those ETFs that satisfy the proposed generic listing standards to commence trading, without the need for a public comment period and Commission approval. The proposed rules have the potential to reduce the time frame for bringing ETFs to market, thereby reducing the burdens on issuers and other market participants. The failure of a particular ETF to comply with the proposed generic listing standards under Rule 19b-4(e) would not, however, preclude the Exchange from submitting a separate filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) requesting Commission approval to list and trade a particular ETF. Proposed Listing and Trading Requirements ETFs that are listed pursuant to the proposed generic listing standards or that are traded pursuant to UTP would be traded, in all other respects, under the Exchange's existing trading rules and procedures that apply to ETFs and would be covered under Exchange's surveillance program for ETFs. 13 13 *See* Phlx Rule 803(i)(11)(i) and ( *l* )(6)(I). To list a Trust Share or IFS pursuant to the proposed generic listing standards for international and global indexes, the index underlying the Trust Share or IFS must satisfy all the conditions contained in proposed Phlx Rules 803(i)(11)(b) or ( *l* )(6)(B). As with the existing generic standards for ETFs based on domestic indexes, these generic listing standards are intended to ensure that stocks with substantial market capitalization and trading volume account for a substantial portion of the weight of an index or portfolio. While the standards in this proposal are based on the standards contained in the current generic listing standards for ETFs based on domestic indexes, they have been adapted as appropriate to apply to international and global indexes. As proposed, Phlx Rule 803(i)(1)(iii) and

(iv)and Phlx Rule 803( *l* )(2)(C) and

(D)would be revised to include definitions of “U.S. Component Stock” and “Non-U.S. Component Stock.” These new definitions would provide the basis for the standards for indexes with either domestic or international stocks, or a combination of both. A “Non-U.S. Component Stock” would mean an equity security that is not registered under Section 12(b) or 12(g) of the Act, 14 and that is issued by an entity that

(1)is not organized, domiciled, or incorporated in the United States; and

(2)is an operating company (including a real estate investment trust

(REIT)or income trust, but excluding an investment trust, unit trust, mutual fund, or derivative). This definition is designed to create a category of component stocks that are issued by companies that are not based in the United States, are not subject to oversight through Commission registration, and would include sponsored GDRs and EDRs. A “U.S. Component Stock” would mean an equity security that is registered under Section 12(b) or 12(g) of the Act or an ADR the underlying equity security of which is registered under Section 12(b) or 12(g) of the Act. An ADR with an underlying equity security that is registered pursuant to the Act is considered a U.S. Component Stock because the issuer of that security is subject to Commission jurisdiction and must comply with Commission rules. 14 15 U.S.C. 78 *l*

(b)or (g). The Exchange proposes that, to list a Trust Share or an IFS based on an international or global index or portfolio pursuant to the generic listing standards, such index or portfolio must meet the following criteria: • Component stocks that in the aggregate account for at least 90% of the weight of the index or portfolio each must have a minimum market value of at least $100 million (Phlx Rules 803(i)(11)(b)(i) and ( *l* )(6)(B)(I)); • Component stocks representing at least 90% of the weight of the index or portfolio each must have a minimum worldwide monthly trading volume during each of the last six months of at least 250,000 shares (Phlx Rules 803(i)(11)(b)(ii) and ( *l* )(6)(B)(II)); • The most heavily weighted component stock may not exceed 25% of the weight of the index or portfolio and the five most heavily weighted component stocks may not exceed 60% of the weight of the index or portfolio (Phlx Rules 803(i)(11)(b)(iii) and ( *l* )(6)(B)(III)); • The index or portfolio shall include a minimum of 20 component stocks (Phlx Rules 803(i)(11)(b)(iv) and ( *l* )(6)(B)(IV)); and • Each U.S. Component Stock must be listed on a national securities exchange and be an NMS stock as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS under the Act, and each Non-U.S. Component Stock must be listed on an exchange that has last-sale reporting (Phlx Rules 803(i)(11)(b)(v) and ( *l* )(6)(B)(V)). The Exchange believes that these proposed standards are reasonable for international and global indexes, and, when applied in conjunction with the other listing requirements, would result in the listing and trading on the Exchange of ETFs that are sufficiently broad-based in scope and not readily susceptible to manipulation. The Exchange also believes that the proposed standards would result in ETFs that are adequately diversified in weighting for any single security or small group of securities to significantly reduce concerns that trading in an ETF based on an international or global index could become a surrogate for the trading of securities not registered in the United States. The Exchange further notes that, while these standards are similar to those for indexes that include only U.S. Component Stocks, they differ in certain important respects and are generally more restrictive, reflecting greater concerns over portfolio diversification with respect to ETFs investing in components that are not individually registered with the Commission. First, in the proposed standards, component stocks that in the aggregate account for at least 90% of the weight of the index or portfolio each shall have a minimum market value of at least $100 million, compared to a minimum market value of at least $75 million for indexes with only U.S. Component Stocks. (Market value is calculated by multiplying the total shares outstanding by the price per share of the component stock.) Second, in the proposed standards, the most heavily weighted component stock cannot exceed 25% of the weight of the index or portfolio, in contrast to a 30% standard for an index or portfolio comprised of only U.S. Component Stocks. Third, in the proposed standards, the five most heavily weighted component stocks shall not exceed 60% of the weight of the index or portfolio, compared to a 65% standard for indexes comprised of only U.S. Component Stocks. Fourth, the minimum number of stocks in the proposed standards is 20, in contrast to a minimum of 13 in the standards for an index or portfolio with only U.S. Component Stocks. Finally, the proposed standards require that each Non-U.S. Component Stock included in the index or portfolio be listed and traded on an exchange that has last-sale reporting. The Exchange also proposes new Phlx Rules 803(i)(11)(e) and ( *l* )(6)(E) to require that the index value for an ETF listed pursuant to the proposed standards for international and global indexes be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 60 seconds during the time when the ETF shares trade on the Exchange. If the index value does not change during some or all of the period when trading is occurring on the Exchange, the last official calculated index value must remain available throughout Exchange trading hours. In contrast, the index value for an ETF listed pursuant to the existing standards for domestic indexes must be disseminated at least every 15 seconds during the trading day. This modification reflects limitations, in some instances, on the frequency of intra-day trading information with respect to Non-U.S. Component Stocks and that, in many cases, trading hours for overseas markets overlap only in part, or not at all, with Exchange trading hours. In addition, proposed Phlx Rules 803(i)(11)(e) and ( *l* )(6)(E) would define the term “Intraday Indicative Value” (“IIV”) as the estimate of the value of a share of each ETF that is updated at least every 15 seconds during the Core Session 15 and during any Pre Market Session 16 for the ETF. Phlx also proposes to clarify in these rules that the IIV would be updated at least every 15 seconds during the Core Session on Phlx's XLE equities trading platform and during any Pre Market Session on XLE for the ETF to reflect changes in the exchange rate between the U.S. dollar and the currency in which any component stock is denominated. If the IIV does not change during some or all of the period when trading is occurring on XLE because the underlying components of an index or portfolio are not trading, then the last official calculated IIV must remain available throughout XLE's trading hours. 15 The Core Session on XLE shall take place for each security from 9:30 a.m. until 4 p.m., except for specified ETFs, for which it shall last until 4:15 p.m. *See* Phlx Rule 101 Supplementary Material .02(2). 16 The Pre Market Session on XLE begins at 8 a.m. and concludes at the commencement of the Core Session. *See* Phlx Rule 101 Supplementary Material .02(1). As set forth in proposed Phlx Rules 803(i)(11)(l) and ( *l* )(6)(H), Phlx may designate an ETF for trading during XLE's Pre Market Session and/or the Post Market Session 17 as long as the index value and IIV dissemination requirements of proposed Phlx Rules 803(i)(11)(e) and ( *l* )(6)(E) are met. If there is no overlap with the trading hours of the primary market trading the underlying components of an ETF, Phlx may designate the ETF for the Pre Market Session as long as the last official calculated IIV remains available. 18 Although the IIV does not need to be calculated during XLE's current Post Market Session, the last official calculated IIV must also remain available during such post-market trading session. 17 The Post Market Session on XLE shall begin following the conclusion of the Core Session and conclude at 6 p.m. *See* Phlx Rule 101 Supplementary Material .02(3). 18 *See* Phlx Rule 803(i)(11)(l) and ( *l* )(6)(H). The Exchange is also proposing to add provisions, proposed Phlx Rules 803(i)(11)(k) and ( *l* )(6)(K), regarding the creation and redemption process for ETFs and compliance with federal securities laws for ETFs listed pursuant to the new generic listing standards. These new provisions would require that the statutory prospectus or the application for exemption from provisions of the 1940 Act for the ETF state that the ETF must comply with the federal securities laws in accepting securities for deposits and satisfying redemptions with redemption securities, including that the securities accepted for deposits and the securities used to satisfy redemption requests are sold in transactions that would be exempt from registration under the Securities Act of 1933. 19 19 15 U.S.C. 77a *et seq.* The Commission has approved generic listing standards providing for the listing, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e), of derivative securities products based on indexes described in rules previously approved by the Commission under Section 19(b)(2) of the Act. 20 The Exchange would include in its proposed generic listing standards indexes described in exchange rules that have been approved by the Commission in connection with the listing of options, ETFs, index-linked exchangeable notes, or index-linked securities. The Exchange believes that the application of this standard to ETFs is appropriate because the underlying index would have been subject to detailed and specific Commission review in the context of the approval of listing of those other derivatives. This new generic standard would be limited to stock indexes and would require that each component stock be either:

(1)A U.S. Component Stock that is listed on a national securities exchange and is an NMS Stock as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS; or

(2)a Non-U.S. Component Stock that is listed and traded on an exchange that has last-sale reporting. 20 *See supra* note 12. The Exchange also proposes to include additional continued listing standards relating to ETFs. The Exchange proposes to adopt Phlx Rules 803(i)(5)(D) and ( *l* )(5)(D) to formalize in the rules existing best practices for providing equal access to material information about the value of ETFs. Prior to approving an ETF for listing, the Exchange would obtain a representation from the ETF issuer that the NAV per share would be calculated daily and made available to all market participants at the same time. The Exchange would commence delisting proceedings for an ETF if the value of the index or portfolio of securities on which the ETF is based is no longer calculated or disseminated. Phlx's proposed amendments to Phlx Rule 136 would expand the application of the trading halt provisions of Rule 136(c) and

(d)from index-linked securities to a broader range of derivative securities products listed or traded on Phlx on a UTP basis. Current Phlx Rule 136, among other things, sets out the trading halt rules for a Derivative Securities Product 21 in the event that there is a temporary interruption in the calculation and dissemination of the index value or the IIV. Phlx Rule 136(c) sets forth the trading halt requirement when Phlx is the primary listing market while Phlx Rule 136(d) sets forth the trading halt requirement when Phlx is trading an ETF pursuant to UTP. The proposed amendments to Phlx Rule 136(e) would expand the definition of a Derivative Securities Product to include Trust Shares, IFSs, and other derivative securities, thus applying Phlx trading halt rules to such securities if there is a temporary interruption in the calculation and dissemination of the index value or the IIV. Phlx is also proposing to clarify and expand the definition of “Required Value” to include the Indicative Optimized Portfolio Value, which is used in connection with certain derivative securities products, and other comparable values. 22 21 Current Phlx Rule 136 defines a “Derivative Securities Product” as “a series of Index-Linked Securities.” 22 Phone conversation between John Dayton, Director and Counsel, Phlx, with Natasha Cowen, Special Counsel, Division, Commission, on July 10, 2007 (clarifying the implications of proposed changes to Rule 136). The Exchange proposes to amend Phlx Rule 803 to stipulate that, as provided by Commission Rule 12f-5, 23 the Exchange may extend UTP to any security, such as an ETF, for which the Exchange has in effect rules providing for transactions in such class or type of security. Provisions of Phlx Rule 803 that govern trading hours and surveillance procedures, and that relate to information circulars and prospectus delivery, also would apply to securities traded on a UTP basis (as do applicable proposed trading halt provision of Phlx Rule 136). The Exchange would not, however, apply quantitative listing standards to securities traded on a UTP basis. Accordingly, introductory language in Phlx Rules 803(i)(11) and ( *l* )(6) that could be read to require unlisted securities to meet Phlx's quantitative listing standards for Trust Shares or IFSs in order to trade on a UTP basis is being deleted. 23 17 CFR 240.12f-5. The Exchange is proposing other minor and clarifying changes to Phlx Rules 803(i) and ( *l* ). Phlx proposed to amend Rules 803(i)(11)(d)(ii)-(iii) and ( *l* )(6)(D)(II)-(III) to make sure that an entity that advises an index provider or calculator and related entities has in place procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding the index underlying the ETF. Phlx Rules 803(i)(11)(g) and ( *l* )(6)(G) would be amended to clarify that the trading increments for ETFs are set in Phlx Rule 125. Phlx Rule 803( *l* )(6)(H) would be amended and Phlx Rule 803(i)(11)(l) would be added to, among other things, clarify that the trading hours for ETFs are set in Phlx Rule 101. Phlx Rule 803( *l* )(6)(A)(III), which sets forth one of the listing requirements for a series of IFSs that are based on U.S. Component Stocks, would be amended to change the maximum weighting requirement for the most heavily weighted component stock of the underlying index from 25% to 30%. 24 Phlx Rule 803( *l* )(3) would be amended to harmonize its provisions with those in Phlx Rule 803( *l* )(7). 24 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 44532 (July 10, 2001), 66 FR 37078 (July 16, 2001) (SR-Amex-2001-25). The Exchange represents that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of Trust Shares and IFSs that would be listed pursuant to the proposed listing standards or traded on a UTP basis. Specifically, Phlx will rely on its existing surveillance procedures governing equities, options, and ETFs. The Exchange states that it will closely monitor activity in ETFs to identify and deter any potential improper trading activity in ETFs. In addition, the Exchange has a general policy prohibiting the dissemination of material, non-public information by its employees. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, 25 in general, and with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 26 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 25 15 U.S.C. 78f. 26 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would 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. III. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-Phlx-2007-20 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-2007-20. 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 Phlx. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2007-20 and should be submitted on or before August 7, 2007. IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of the Proposed Rule Change After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 27 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 28 in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, 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. 27 In approving this rule change, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 28 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). Currently, the Exchange must file a proposed rule change with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act 29 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder 30 to list and trade any ETF based on an index comprised of foreign securities. The Exchange also must file a proposed rule change to list and trade ETFs based on indexes or portfolios described in rule changes that have previously been approved by the Commission as underlying benchmarks for derivative securities. However, Rule 19b-4(e) provides that the listing and trading of a new derivative securities product by an SRO will not be deemed a proposed rule change pursuant to Rule 19b-4(c)(1) if the Commission has approved, pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act, the SRO's trading rules, procedures, and listing standards for the product class that would include the new derivative securities product, and the SRO has a surveillance program for the product class. Phlx's proposed rules for the listing and trading of ETFs pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) based on

(1)certain indexes with components that include foreign securities or

(2)indexes or portfolios described in exchange rules that have been previously approved by the Commission as underlying benchmarks for derivative securities, fulfill these requirements. Use of Rule 19b-4(e) by the Exchange to list and trade such ETFs should promote competition, reduce burdens on issuers and other market participants, and make such ETFs available to investors more quickly. 31 29 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 30 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 31 The Commission notes, however, that the failure of a particular ETF to meet these generic listing standards would not preclude the Exchange from submitting a separate proposed rule change to list and trade the ETF. The Commission previously has approved generic listing standards for other exchanges that are substantially similar to those proposed here by the Exchange. 32 This proposal does not appear to raise any novel regulatory issues. Therefore, the Commission finds that Phlx's proposal is consistent with the Act on the same basis that it approved the other exchange's generic listing standards for ETFs based on international or global indexes or on indexes or portfolios described in exchange rules that have been previously approved by the Commission as underlying benchmarks for derivative securities. 32 *See, e.g.* , Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55269 (February 9, 2007), 72 FR 19571 (February 15, 2007) (SR-NASDAQ-2006-50); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55621 (April 12, 2007), 72 FR 19571 (April 18, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-86); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55113 (January 17, 2007), 72 FR 3179 (January 24, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2006-101); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54739 (November 9, 2006), 71 FR 66993 (November 17, 2007) (SR-Amex-2006-78). Proposed Phlx Rules 803(i)(11)(b) and ( *l* )(6)(B) establish standards for the composition of indexes and portfolios underlying ETFs. These requirements are designed, among other things, to require that components of an index or portfolio underlying an ETF are adequately capitalized and sufficiently liquid, and that no one security dominates the index. The Commission believes that, taken together, these standards are reasonably designed to ensure that securities with substantial market capitalization and trading volume account for a substantial portion of any underlying index or portfolio, and that when applied in conjunction with the other applicable listing requirements will permit the listing and trading of only ETFs that are sufficiently broad-based in scope to minimize potential manipulation. The Commission further believes that the proposed listing standards are reasonably designed to preclude Phlx from listing and trading ETFs that might be used as surrogate for trading in unregistered securities. The requirement that each component security underlying an ETF be an NMS Stock (in the case of a U.S. Component Stock) or listed on an exchange and subject to last-sale reporting (in the case of a Non-U.S. Component Stock) also should contribute to the transparency of the market for these ETFs. The proposed generic listing standards will permit the Exchange to list and trade an ETF if the Commission has previously approved an SRO rule change that contemplates listing and trading a derivative product based on the same underlying index. Phlx would be able to rely on that earlier approval order, provided that:

(1)The securities comprising the underlying index consist of U.S. Component Stocks or Non-U.S. Component Stocks; and

(2)Phlx complies with the commitments undertaken by the other SRO set forth in the prior order, including any surveillance-sharing arrangements with a foreign market. The Commission believes that Phlx's proposal is consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act, 33 which sets forth Congress' finding that it is in the public interest and appropriate for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets to assure the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors of information with respect to quotations for and transactions in securities. Phlx's proposal requires the value of the index or portfolio underlying an ETF based on a global or international index to be disseminated at least once every 60 seconds during the time when the ETF shares trade on the Exchange. 34 Phlx has represented that, if an underlying index or portfolio value is no longer calculated or available, it would commence delisting proceedings for the associated ETF. 33 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C)(iii). 34 *See* Phlx Rules 803(i)(11)(e) and ( *l* )(6)(E). In the underlying components of an index or portfolio are not trading and the index or portfolio value is therefore static, the last official calculated index or portfolio value must continue to be disseminated during the time that the ETF trades on the Exchange. In addition, an IIV, which represents an estimate of the value of a share of each ETF, must be updated and disseminated at least once every 15 seconds during Phlx XLE's Core Session. If the underlying components are trading during the same hours as the XLE's Pre Market Session, Phlx may not trade the ETF unless an updated IIV is being calculated and disseminated. The IIV must reflect changes in the exchange rate between the U.S. dollar and the currency in which any index or portfolio component stock is denominated. When there is no overlap with the trading hours of the primary market or markets trading the underlying components of an ETF, Phlx may trade such ETF during the Pre Market Session, as long as the last official calculated IIV remains available. 35 In those instances, the IIV will not reflect changes associated with the exchange rate. Although the IIV is not calculated during XLE's current Post Market Session, the last official calculated IIV must also remain available during such post-market trading session. 35 *See* Phlx Rule 803(i)(11)(l) and ( *l* )(6)(H). The Commission believes the proposal is reasonably designed to preclude trading of ETFs when transparency is impaired. Existing Phlx Rule 136 sets out the trading halt rules for Derivative Securities Products in the event that there is a temporary interruption in the calculation and dissemination of the index value or the IIV. In the proposed rule change, Phlx would amend its definition of a “Derivative Securities Product” and thereby extend Rule 136 to a broader range of derivative securities products that currently trade on the Exchange, including Trust Shares and IFSs. This proposed rule change is designed to ensure that similar derivative securities products are treated consistently and that the same trading halt rules apply when there is a temporary disruption in the dissemination of the IIV and index value. In addition, in the proposed rule change, Phlx would clarify that the trading halt rules apply when values that are comparable to the IIV, such as the Indicative Optimized Portfolio Value, are not disseminated as required. The Commission believes that it is reasonable and consistent with the Act for Phlx to apply consistent trading halt rules to similar derivative securities products. The Commission believes that the proposed rules are reasonably designed to promote fair disclosure of information that may be necessary to price an ETF appropriately. These generic listing standards provide that the issuer of an ETF must represent that it will calculate the NAV and make it available daily to all market participants at the same time. 36 Phlx proposed to amend Rules 803(i)(11)(d)(ii)-(iii) and ( *l* )(6)(D)(II)-(III) to make sure that an entity that advises an index provider or calculator and related entities has in place procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding the index underlying the ETF. 36 *See* proposed Phlx Rules 803(i)(5)(D) and ( *l* )(5)(D). In approving this proposal, the Commission relied on Phlx's representation that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Trust Shares and IFSs listed pursuant to the proposed new listing standards or traded on a UTP basis. This approval is conditioned on the continuing accuracy of that representation. Acceleration The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change, as amended, prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of the notice of filing thereof in the **Federal Register** . The Commission notes that Phlx's proposal is substantially similar to other proposals that have been approved by the Commission. 37 The Commission does not believe that Phlx's proposal raises any novel regulatory issues and, therefore, that good cause exists for approving the filing before the conclusion of a notice-and-comment period. Accelerated approval of the proposal will expedite the listing and trading of additional ETFs by Phlx, subject to consistent and reasonable standards. Therefore, the Commission finds good cause, consistent with Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 38 to approve the proposed rule change, as amended, on an accelerated basis. 37 *See supra* note 32. 38 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). V. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 39 that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2007-20), as amended, be, and it hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis. 39 *Id* . 40 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 40 J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-13807 Filed 7-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #10919 and #10920] Texas Disaster Number TX-00254 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Amendment 1. SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Texas (FEMA-1709-DR), dated 06/29/2007. *Incident:* Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding. *Incident Period:* 06/16/2007 and continuing. *Effective Date:* 07/06/2007. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 08/28/2007. *EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:* 03/31/2008. 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 Texas, dated 06/29/2007 is hereby amended to re-establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 06/16/2007 and continuing. 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. E7-13768 Filed 7-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration # 10919 and # 10920] Texas Disaster Number TX-00254 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Amendment 2. SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Texas (FEMA-1709-DR), dated 06/29/2007. *Incident:* Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding. *Incident Period:* 06/16/2007 and continuing. *Effective Date:* 07/10/2007. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 08/28/2007. *EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:* 03/31/2008. 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 Presidential disaster declaration for the State of Texas, dated 06/29/2007 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:* Archer, Bell, Burnet, Eastland, Hood, Parker, Starr, Victoria, Webb, Wichita, Williamson. *Contiguous Counties:* Texas: Bastrop, Baylor, Blanco, Brooks, Brown, Calhoun, Callahan, Clay, Comanche, Dewitt, Dimmit, Duval, Erath, Falls, Goliad, Hidalgo, Jack, Jackson, Jim Hogg, La Salle, Lavaca, Lee, Llano, Maverick, Mcmullen, Milam, Palo Pinto, Refugio, Shackelford, Somervell, Stephens, Throckmorton, Travis, Wilbarger, Young, Zapata. Oklahoma: Cotton, Tillman. 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. E7-13799 Filed 7-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5868] Notice of Declaration of Foreign Countries as Reciprocating Countries for the Enforcement of Family Support (Maintenance) Obligations This notice amends and supplements Department of State Public Notice 4819, 69 FR 59980-81 (October 6, 2004). Section 459A of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 659A) authorizes the Secretary of State with the concurrence of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to declare foreign countries or their political subdivisions to be reciprocating countries for the purpose of the enforcement of family support obligations if the country has established or has undertaken to establish procedures for the establishment and enforcement of duties of support for residents of the United States. These procedures must be in substantial conformity with the standards set forth in the statute. The statutory standards are: Establishment of child support orders, including the establishment of paternity if necessary to establish the order; enforcement of child support orders, including collection and distribution of payments under such orders; cost-free services (including administrative and legal services), as well as paternity testing; and the designation of an agency as Central Authority to facilitate enforcement. Once such a declaration is made, support agencies in jurisdictions of the United States participating in the program established by Title IV-D of the Social Security Act (the IV-D program) must provide enforcement services under that program to such reciprocating countries as if the request for service came from a U.S. State. The declaration authorized by the statute may be made “in the form of an international agreement, in connection with an international agreement or corresponding foreign declaration, or on a unilateral basis.” The Secretary of State has authorized either the Legal Adviser or the Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs to make such a declaration after consultation with the other. As of this date, the following countries (or Canadian provinces or territories) have been designated foreign reciprocating countries: Country Effective date Australia May 21, 2001. El Salvador June 21, 2007. Czech Republic May 3, 2000. Hungary Jan. 22, 2007. Ireland Sept. 10, 1997. Netherlands May 1, 2002. Norway June 10, 2002. Poland June 14, 1999. Portugal Mar. 17, 2001. Slovak Republic Feb. 1, 1998. Switzerland Sept. 30, 2004. Canadian Provinces or Territories: Alberta Sept. 4, 2002. British Columbia Dec. 15, 1999. Manitoba July 11, 2000. New Brunswick Feb. 1, 2004. Northwest Territories Feb. 7, 2004. Nunavut Jan. 20, 2004. Newfoundland/Labrador Aug. 7, 2002. Nova Scotia Dec. 18, 1998. Ontario Aug. 7, 2002. Saskatchewan Jan. 24, 2007. Yukon May 22, 2007. Information Each of these countries (or Canadian provinces or territories) has designated a Central Authority to facilitate enforcement and ensure compliance with the standards of the statute. Information relating to the designated Central Authorities, and the procedures for processing requests may be obtained by contacting the United States Central Authority for International Child Support, Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., 4-East, Washington, DC 20447; phone

(202)401-5566, fax

(202)401-5539, e-mail: *ocseinternational@acf.hhs.gov.* As of this date, reciprocity agreements have been signed, but are not yet in effect, with Costa Rica and Finland. Questions regarding this notice, the status of negotiations, declarations and agreements may be obtained by contacting Mary Helen Carlson at the Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for Private International Law, Suite 203 South Building, 2430 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037-2851; phone

(202)776-8420, fax

(202)776-8482, e-mail: *carlsonmh@state.gov.* The law also permits individual states of the United States to establish or continue existing reciprocating arrangements with foreign countries when there has been no Federal declaration. Many states have such arrangements with additional countries not yet the subject of a Federal declaration. Information as to these arrangements may be obtained from the individual State IV-D Agency. Dated: July 11, 2007. Mary Helen Carlson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser for Private International Law, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-13815 Filed 7-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-08-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Public Notice for Waiver of Aeronautical Land-Use Assurance; North Vernon Municipal Airport; North Vernon, 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 area is a 224-acre parcel of vacant land located west of the airport. The land is presently subject to a farm lease. The land was acquired via quitclaim deed dated February 13, 1948, recorded February 27, 1948, in Jennings County, Deed Record No. 78, Page No. 634-636. There are no impacts to the airport by allowing the airport to lease the property. The land is not needed for aeronautical use, and will be sub-let to various future developers as an industrial airpark. Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the disposal of the subject airport property nor a determination of eligibility for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA. The disposition of the 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 16, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents reflecting this FAA action may be reviewed at 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL, 60018, or at North Vernon Municipal Airport, North Vernon, Indiana. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bobb Beauchamp, Environmental Program Manager, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL, 60018. Telephone Number 847-294-7364/FAX Number 847-294-7046. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Following is a legal description of the property: A parcel of land situated in Sections 15 and 22, Township 7 North, Range 8 East, Center Township, Jennings County, Indiana, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the point of the intersection of the east right-of-way line of the C.C.C. and St. L. Railroad and east and west centerline of said Section 15 also being the point of beginning of the Quitclaim Deed in the Jennings County Deed Record 78 page 634 to 636; thence North 89 degrees, 26 minutes, 06 seconds East, 2134.3 feet to a point on the centerline of Jennings County Road 20 West to a point on the south line of said Quitclaim Deed; thence westerly on and along said south line of said Quitclaim Deed to the west line of said Quitclaim Deed; thence north 11 degrees, 27 minutes, 46 seconds east, 5496.27 feet to the point of beginning containing 282 acres more or less. *Except:* A part of Section 15 Township 7 North, Range 8 East, Center Township, Jennings County, Indiana, and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the point of the intersection of the east right-of-way line of the C.C.C. & St. L. Railroad and east and west centerline of said Section 15 also being the point of beginning of the Quitclaim Deed in the Jennings County Deed Record 78 page 634 to 636; thence north 89 degrees, 26 minutes, 06 seconds east, 2134.3 feet to the point of beginning on the centerline of Jennings County Road 20 West; thence southerly on and along the centerline of Jennings County Road 20 West to a point being 700 feet abeam the extended centerline of Runway 15-33 at the North Vernon Municipal Airport; thence northwesterly on and along a line parallel to and 700 feet abeam the extended centerline of Runway 15-33 at the North Vernon Municipal Airport to a point on the east and west centerline of said Section 15; thence on and along said east and west centerline of said Section 15 to the point of beginning containing 13 acres more or less. *Except:* A part of Section 22, Township 7 North, Range 8 East, Center Township, Jennings County, Indiana, and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the point of the intersection of the east right-of-way line of the C.C.C. & St. L. Railroad and east and west centerline of said Section 15 also being the point of beginning of the Quitclaim Deed in the Jennings County Deed Record 78 page 634 to 636, thence north 89 degrees, 26 minutes, 06 seconds East, 2134.3 feet to a point on the centerline of Jennings County Road 20 West; thence southerly on and along the centerline of Jennings County Road 20 West to the point of beginning being 1000 feet abeam of the extended centerline of Runway 5-23 at the North Vernon Municipal Airport; thence continuing southerly on and along the centerline of Jennings County Road 20 West to a point on the south line of said Quitclaim Deed; thence westerly on and along said south line of said Quitclaim Deed to a point also being 1000 feet abeam the extended centerline of Runway 5-23 at the North Vernon Municipal Airport; thence northeasterly on and along a line parallel to and 1000 feet abeam the extended centerline of Runway 5-23 at the North Vernon Municipal Airport to the point of beginning containing 45 acres more or less. Together containing 224 acres more or less, subject to all liens, encumbrances, easements, limitations, and restrictions of record. Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois, on May 1, 2007. James G. Keefer Manager, Chicago Airports District Office, FAA, Great Lakes Region. [FR Doc. 07-3462 Filed 7-16-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 26

Traces to 26 documents

CFR