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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-11-15 · Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention · Notices

Notices. Notice of meeting

30,442 words·~138 min read·/register/2007/11/15/07-5645·

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

BILLING CODE 4410-01-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention [OJP (OJJDP) Docket No. 1474] Meeting of the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention AGENCY: Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Council) is announcing its December 7, 2007 meeting. DATES: Friday, December 7, 2007, 9 a.m. to 11 a.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP), 810 7th Street, NW., 3rd floor, Washington, DC 20531. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robin Delany-Shabazz, Designated Federal Official, by telephone at 202-307-9963 [ **Note:** This is not a toll-free telephone number], or by e-mail at *Robin.Delany-Shabazz@usdoj.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, established pursuant to Section 3(2)A of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C.
App. 2) will meet to carry out its advisory functions under Section 206 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002, 42 U.S.C. 5601, *et seq.* Documents such as meeting announcements, agendas, minutes, and interim and final reports will be available on the Council's Web page at *http://www.JuvenileCouncil.gov* . (You may also verify the status of the meeting at that web address.) Although designated agency representatives may attend, the Council membership is composed of the Attorney General (Chair), the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Vice Chair), the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service, and the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Up to nine additional members are appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Senate Majority Leader, and the President of the United States. Meeting Agenda The agenda for this meeting will include:
(a)Briefing on federal efforts to address disproportionality in the juvenile justice and child welfare systems;
(b)an update on federal coordination in the Gulf Coast region and on other Council Partnership Projects; and
(c)applicable legislative and program updates; announcements and other business. The meeting is open to the public. Registration For security purposes, members of the public who wish to attend the meeting must pre-register online at *http://www.juvenilecouncil.gov/meetings.html* . Should problems arise with web registration, call Daryel Dunston at 240-221-4343 or send a request to register for the December 7, 2007 Council meeting to Mr. Dunston. Include name, title, organization or other affiliation, full address and phone, fax and e-mail information and send to his attention either by fax at: 301-945-4295 or by e-mail to *ddunston@edjassociates.com* . Register no later than Friday, November 30, 2007. [ **Note:** These are not toll-free telephone numbers.] Additional identification documents may be required. Space is limited. Note: Photo identification will be required for admission to the meeting. Written Comments Interested parties may submit written comments by Friday, November 30, 2007, to Robin Delany-Shabazz, Designated Federal Official for the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, at *Robin.Delany-Shabazz@usdoj.gov* . The Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention expects that the public statements presented will not repeat previously submitted statements. Written questions and comments from the public may be invited at this meeting. Dated: November 8, 2007. Michele DeKonty, Chief of Staff. [FR Doc. E7-22301 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-18-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-62,331; TA-W-62,331A] Ansonia Copper and Brass, Inc., Ansonia, CT; and Ansonia Copper & Brass, Inc., Waterbury, CT; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on October 19, 2007 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Ansonia Copper & Brass, Inc., Ansonia, Connecticut (TA-W-62,331) and Ansonia Copper & Brass, Inc., Waterbury, Connecticut (TA-W-62,331A). The subject firm workers are under existing certifications (TA-W-58,222 and TA-W-58,222A) that expire on December 7, 2007. The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Further investigation in this case would serve no purpose. Signed at Washington, DC, this 6th day of November, 2007. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-22323 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-62,248] ArvinMeritor, Gabriel Ride Control Division, Including On-Site Leased Workers of Pinnacle Staffing, Chickasha, OK; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on October 11, 2007, applicable to workers of ArvinMeritor, Gabriel Ride Control Division, Chickasha, Oklahoma. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on October 26, 2007 (72 FR 60910). At the request of a company official, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in the production of chrome rods. New information shows that leased workers of Pinnacle Staffing were employed on-site at the Chickasha, Oklahoma location of ArvinMeritor, Gabriel Ride Control Division. The Department has determined that these leased workers were engaged in on-site activities related to the production of chrome goods at ArvinMeritor, Gabriel Ride Control Division, Chickasha, Oklahoma. Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include leased workers of Pinnacle Staffing working on-site at the Chickasha, Oklahoma location of the subject firm. The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers employed at ArvinMeritor, Gabriel Ride Control Division, Chickasha, Oklahoma who were adversely-impacted by a shift in production of chrome rods to Mexico. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-62,248 is hereby issued as follows: All workers of ArvinMeritor, Gabriel Ride Control Division, including on-site leased workers of Pinnacle Staffing, Chickasha, Oklahoma, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after October 3, 2006, through October 11, 2009, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed at Washington, DC, this 7th day of November 2007. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-22322 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-62,176] First American Title Insurance Company: Eagle Production Center; Flint, MI; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application dated October 16, 2007, a worker requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of First American Title Insurance Company, Eagle Production Center, Flint, Michigan (subject firm) to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA)and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). The negative determination was issued on October 9, 2007, and the Department's Notice of negative determination was published in the **Federal Register** on October 26, 2007 (72 FR 60910). The worker-filed TAA/ATAA petition was denied because the subject firm does not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222(a)(2) of the Act. Workers at the subject firm are engaged in title insurance operations which entail the examining of chain of title for residential and commercial properties, writing title commitments and policies, interacting with customers and providing customer service, and abstracting. Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c), administrative reconsideration may be granted if:
(1)It appears on the basis of facts not previously considered that the determination complained of was erroneous;
(2)It appears that the determination complained of was based on a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or
(3)In the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the decision. The request for reconsideration alleges that the subject workers produce an “end product.” These products include search packages (abstracts of land title and copies of documents identifying a chain of title and encumbrances to the property); property reports (copies of documents covering the customers' interests such as easements and mortgages); title commitments (a document that indicates a commitment to issue title insurance and provides a complete history of the property); and title policies (a compilation of documents that is delivered to and paid for by the customer). The request for reconsideration also states that the “assemblage and distribution of the product(s)” is being shifted to India and the Philippines. It is the Department's policy that the subject firm must produce an article domestically. The Department's policy is supported by current regulation. 29 CFR 90.11(c)(7) requires that the petition include a “description of the articles produced by the workers' firm or appropriate subdivision, the production or sales of which are adversely affected by increased imports, and a description of the imported articles concerned. If available, the petition should also include information concerning the method of manufacture, end uses, and wholesale or retail value of the domestic articles produced and the United States tariff provision under which the imported articles are classified.” In order to determine whether the subject firm is a manufacturing firm, the Department consulted the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Web site. The NAICS identifies the primary activity of the company, which is useful in understanding what a firm does for its customers, which, in turn, aids in determining whether a firm produces an article or provides services for its customers. According to the NAICS, the subject firm is a “Direct Title Insurance Carrier.” This industry includes “establishments primarily engaged in initially underwriting * * * insurance policies to protect the owners of real estate or real estate creditors against loss sustained by reason of any title defect to real property.” After careful review of the request for reconsideration and previously-submitted information, the Department determines that the subject firm is a service firm and not a manufacturing firm. As a corollary, the Department determines that there was no shift of production abroad. While the Department has discretion to issue regulations and guidance on the operation of the TAA program, the Department cannot expand the program to include workers that Congress did not intend to cover, such as service workers. In 2002, while amending the Trade Act, the Senate explained the purpose and history of TAA: Since it began, TAA for workers has covered mostly manufacturing workers, with a substantial portion of program participants being steel and automobile workers in the mid- to late-1970s to early 1980s, and light industry and apparel workers in the mid- to late-1990s. In fiscal years 1995 through 1999, the estimated number of workers covered by certifications under the two TAA for workers programs averaged 167,000 annually, reaching a high of about 228,000 in 1999, despite a falling overall unemployment rate. During the same period, approximately 784 firms were certified under the TAA for firms program. Participating firms represent a broad array of *industries producing manufactured products* , including auto parts, agricultural equipment, electronics, jewelry, circuit boards, and textiles, as well as some producers of agricultural and forestry products. S. Rep. 107-134, S. Rep. No. 134, 107th Cong., 2nd Sess. 2002, 2002 WL 221903 (February 4, 2002) (emphasis added). Clearly, the language suggests that the focus of TAA is the manufacture of marketable goods. Congress has recognized the difference between manufacturers and service firms and that an amendment to the Trade Act is needed to cover workers in service firms. It has recently rejected at least two attempts to amend the Trade Act to expand TAA coverage to service firms. It did not pass the “Trade Adjustment Assistance Equity for Service Workers Act of 2005” or the “Fair Wage, Competition, and Investment Act of 2005.” Most recently, Senator Baucus introduced the “Trade and Globalization Adjustment Assistance Act of 2007” which provides for an expansion of coverage to workers in a “service sector firm” when there are increased imports of services like or directly competitive with articles produced or services provided in the United States, or a shift in provision of like or directly competitive articles or services to a foreign country, and Congressman Rangel introduced a similar bill in the House of Representatives that was discussed in late October 2007. Until Congress amends the Trade Act to cover service workers, the worker group seeking TAA certification (or on whose behalf certification is being sought) must work for a firm or appropriate subdivision that produces an article and there must be a relationship between the workers' work and the article produced by the workers' firm or appropriate subdivision that produces an article domestically. After careful review of the request for reconsideration and previously submitted materials, the Department determines that there is no new information that supports a finding that Section 222(a)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974 was satisfied and that there was no mistake or misinterpretation of the facts or the law. Conclusion After review of the application and investigative findings, I conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied. Signed at Washington, DC this 6th day of November 2007. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-22321 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers (TA-W) number and alternative trade adjustment assistance
(ATAA)by (TA-W) number issued during the period of *October 29 through November 2, 2007.* In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of section 222(a) of the Act must be met. I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied: A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; B. The sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely; and C. Increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following must be satisfied: A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; B. There has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision; and C. One of the following must be satisfied: 1. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States; 2. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles to a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; or 3. There has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or subdivision. Also, in order for an affirmative determination to be made for secondarily affected workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of section 222(b) of the Act must be met.
(1)Significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2)The workers' firm (or subdivision) is a supplier or downstream producer to a firm (or subdivision) that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance benefits and such supply or production is related to the article that was the basis for such certification; and
(3)Either—
(A)The workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied for the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph
(2)accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or
(B)A loss or business by the workers' firm with the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph
(2)contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation. In order for the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
(ATAA)for older workers, the group eligibility requirements of Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act must be met. 1. Whether a significant number of workers in the workers' firm are 50 years of age or older. 2. Whether the workers in the workers' firm possess skills that are not easily transferable. 3. The competitive conditions within the workers' industry (i.e., conditions within the industry are adverse). Affirmative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination. The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) of the Trade Act have been met. *None* . The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-W-62,251; Precept Medical Products, Inc., Childersburg, AL: October 3, 2006.* *TA-W-62,291; Compumedics USA Ltd, El Paso, TX: October 10, 2006.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met. *None.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of section 222(b) (downstream producer for a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA based on increased imports from or a shift in production to Mexico or Canada) of the Trade Act have been met. *None.* Affirmative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination. The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-W-62,128; Weiman/Preview, A Division of Interlude Furniture LLC, Christiansburg, VA: September 5, 2006.* *TA-W-62,191; Kurdziel Iron of Rothbury, Inc., On-Site Leased Workers of Employment Giant Formerly Know as Select Employment, Rothbury, MI: September 20, 2006.* *TA-W-62,238; Cramco, Inc., On-Site Leased Workers from Express Personnel Services, Philadelphia, PA: September 28, 2006.* *TA-W-62,241; Blyth Homescents International, A Subsidiary of Blyth, Inc./Elkin Mfg. Distribution, Leased Workers of Mega For, Elkin, NC: September 24, 2006.* *TA-W-62,304; EBI, dba Biomet Trauma Spine Bracing etc., Biomet Bracing Division, Marlow, OK: October 12, 2006.* *TA-W-62,335; Krizman International, Inc., Mishawaka, IN: October 18, 2006.* *TA-W-62,305; Kimball Electronics Hibbing, A Subsidiary of Kimball Electronics Mfg., Hibbing, MN: October 15, 2006.* *TA-W-62,313; Stanley Furniture Company, Inc., Martinsville Division, Martinsville, VA: October 15, 2006.* *TA-W-62,313A; Stanley Furniture Company, Inc., Stanleytown Division, Stanleytown, VA: October 15, 2006.* *TA-W-62,050; GAF Materials Corporation, Erie, PA: August 27, 2009.* *TA-W-62,091; Plastech Engineering Products, Inc., Core Engineering Department, Auburn Hills, MI: August 28, 2006.* *TA-W-62,233; Burke Hosiery Mills, Inc., Hickory, NC: September 27, 2006.* *TA-W-62,221; T.P. Corporation, Duryea, PA: November 10, 2007.* *TA-W-62,239; Menzies Southern Hosiery Mills, Also known as Southern Hosiery Mills, Inc., Hickory, NC: October 2, 2006.* *TA-W-62,270; San Francisco City Lights, Inc., San Francisco, CA: October 5, 2006.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production) and section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-W-61,870; Goodrich Corporation, Landing Gears Division, Cleveland, OH: July 23, 2006.* *TA-W-62,120; Nifco America Corp., On-Site Lease Workers from Dawson and I-Force, Canal Winchester, OH: September 6, 2006.* *TA-W-62,156; Hypercom Corporation, Headquarters Division, Phoenix, AZ: September 14, 2006.* *TA-W-62,226; ConAgra Foods, Edina, MN: September 28, 2006.* *TA-W-62,314; Motorola Inc., On-Site Leased Workers of Manpower, Schaumburg, IL: December 10, 2007.* *TA-W-62,354; GDX North America, Inc., GDX Automotive, Wabash, Indiana Division, Wabash, IN: October 22, 2006.* *TA-W-62,212; Eastman Kodak Company, WW Thermal Media Flow Division, On-Site Leased Workers From Datrose, Adecco, Rochester, NY: September 18, 2006.* *TA-W-62,294; Allstar Pro LLC, Division of Linear LLC, On-Site Leased Workers From Bernard, Downingtown, PA: October 10, 2006.* *TA-W-62,332; H.L. Operating Corporation, d/b/a Hartmann, Inc., Workers Wages are Under Hartmann, On-Site Leased Workers From Chase Staffing, Lebanon, TN: October 19, 2006.* *TA-W-62,344; Black and Decker Industrial Products Group, A Subsidiary of Black and Decker Inc., Router Bits Division, Jackson, TN: October 22, 2006.* *TA-W-62,348; Madison Industries, Inc., Sumter, SC: October 16, 2006.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) and section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-W-62,318; R.L. Stowe Mills, Inc., Stowe Spinning Division, Belmont, NC: October 16, 2006.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of section 222(b) (downstream producer for a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA based on increased imports from or a shift in production to Mexico or Canada) and section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *None.* Negative Determinations for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In the following cases, it has been determined that the requirements of 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) have not been met for the reasons specified. The Department has determined that criterion
(1)of section 246 has not been met. The firm does not have a significant number of workers 50 years of age or older. *TA-W-62,251; Precept Medical Products, Inc., Childersburg, AL.* *TA-W-62,291; Compumedics USA Ltd, El Paso, TX.* The Department has determined that criterion
(2)of section 246 has not been met. Workers at the firm possess skills that are easily transferable. *None.* The Department has determined that criterion
(3)of section 246 has not been met. Competition conditions within the workers' industry are not adverse. *None.* Negative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified. Because the workers of the firm are not eligible to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA. The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.A.) and (a)(2)(B)(II.A.) (employment decline) have not been met. *TA-W-62,243; Electric Mobility Corporation, Sewell, NJ.* *TA-W-62,374; VF Jeanswear Limited Partnership, Service Support Center, Greensboro, NC.* The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.B.) (Sales or production, or both, did not decline) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met. *None.* The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met. *TA-W-61,854; General Automatic Machine Products Co., North Adams, MI.* *TA-W-61,889; Flint Group, Sheetfed Division, Holland, MI.* *TA-W-61,917; Millennium Specialty Chemicals, Inc., Baltimore, MD.* *TA-W-62,093; Riverside Uniform Rentals, Inc., A Division of Riverside Mfg. Company, Prichard, WV.* *TA-W-62,184; Mark Eyelet, Inc., On-Site Leased Workers of Jaci Carrol Staffing, Watertown, CT.* *TA-W-62,184A; Ozzi II, Inc. (dba OC Eyelet), On-Site Leased Workers of Jaci Carrol Staffing, Watertown, CT.* *TA-W-62,213; J.P. Price Lumber Company, Monticello, AR.* *TA-W-61,922; Urban Industries, Inc., Bulk Bag Division, Galion, OH.* *TA-W-62,220; Agrium U.S. Inc., Kenai Nitrogen Operation, Kenai, AK.* The workers' firm does not produce an article as required for certification under section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. *TA-W-62,315; Idaho Lottery Commission, Boise, ID.* *TA-W-62,363; Tweel Home Furnishings, Rock Hill, SC.* The investigation revealed that criteria of Section 222(b)(2) has not been met. The workers' firm (or subdivision) is not a supplier to or a downstream producer for a firm whose workers were certified eligible to apply for TAA. *None.* I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of *October 29 through November 2, 2007.* Copies of these determinations are available for inspection in Room C-5311, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 during normal business hours or will be mailed to persons who write to the above address. Dated: November 8, 2007. Ralph DiBattista, Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-22319 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-60,055; TA-W-60,055A] Swift Textiles, d/b/a/ Swift Galey, Midland, GA, Including an Employee of Swift Textiles, d/b/a/ Swift Galley, Midland, GA Located in Garland, TX; Amended Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration on December 6, 2006, applicable to workers of Swift Textiles, d/b/a/ Swift Galey, Midland, Georgia. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on December 12, 2006 (71 FR 74562-74563). At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. New information shows that a worker separation has occurred involving an employee of the Midland, Georgia facility of Swift Textiles, d/b/a/ Swift Galey located in Garland, Texas. Mr. Gamalief Lotez provided sales support services for the production of denim fabric that is produced at the Midland, Georgia location of the subject firm. Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include an employee of the Midland, Georgia facility of Swift Textiles, d/b/a/ Swift Galey, located in Garland, Texas. The intent of the Department's revised determination is to include all workers of Swift Textiles, d/b/a/ Swift Galey, Midland, Georgia who were adversely affected as secondary workers. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-60,055 is hereby issued as follows: All workers of Swift Textile, d/b/a/ Swift Galey, Midland, Georgia (TA-W-60,055), including an employee in support of Swift Textile, d/b/a/ Swift Galey, Midland, Georgia located in Garland, Texas (TA-W-60,055A), who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after September 11, 2005, through December 6, 2008, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed at Washington, DC this 7th day of November 2007. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-22320 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Investigations Regarding Certifications of Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221(a) of the Act. The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved. The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than November 26, 2007. Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than November 26, 2007. The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room C-5311, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Signed at Washington, DC, this 6th day of November 2007. Ralph DiBattista, Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. Appendix [TAA petitions instituted between 10/29/07 and 11/2/07] TA-W Subject firm (petitioners) Location Date of institution Date of petition 62369 TEVA (State) Miami, FL 10/29/07 10/25/07 62370 Tietex International
(Comp)Spartanburg, SC 10/29/07 10/29/07 62371 Leach and Garner Company (State) North Attleboro, MA 10/29/07 10/25/07 62372 Tree Island Fastener
(Comp)Ferndale, WA 10/29/07 10/22/07 62373 Mahle
(Comp)Holland, MI 10/29/07 10/24/07 62374 VF Jeanswear Limited Partnership
(Comp)Greensboro, NC 10/29/07 10/26/07 62375 International Legwear Group
(Comp)Athens, TN 10/29/07 10/26/07 62376 Georgia-Pacific
(Wkrs)Los Angeles, CA 10/29/07 10/26/07 62377 First Choice Distribution
(Comp)Des Moines, IA 10/29/07 10/26/07 62378 Concentra Health Solutions
(Comp)Charlotte, NC 10/29/07 10/22/07 62379 Federal Mogul Ignition Company
(Comp)Burlington, IA 10/30/07 10/15/07 62380 Weyerhaeuser Aberdeen Log Sorting Yard
(Comp)Aberdeen, WA 10/30/07 10/22/07 62381 3M Eau Claire
(Comp)Eau Claire, WI 10/30/07 10/30/07 62382 Milsco Manufacturing Company
(Comp)Milwaukee, WI 10/30/07 10/25/07 62383 Japser C. Fashion, Inc.
(Wkrs)New York, NY 10/30/07 10/15/07 62384 Energy Conversion Systems
(Comp)Dunn, NC 10/30/07 10/29/07 62385 Windstream Communications
(Wkrs)Lincoln, NE 10/30/07 10/29/07 62386 USR Optonix, Inc.
(Comp)Washington, NJ 10/30/07 10/29/07 62387 SAF Holland
(Wkrs)Warrenton, MO 10/30/07 10/22/07 62388 Dresser Rand Company
(IUE)Painted Post, NY 10/30/07 10/23/07 62389 Peer Foods Group, Inc.
(Wkrs)Chicago, IL 10/30/07 10/15/07 62390 Techline USA (Union) Waunakee, WI 10/31/07 10/29/07 62391 MultiLayer Coating Technologies, LLC
(Wkrs)New Bedford, MA 10/31/07 10/29/07 62392 GE Zenith Controls
(Comp)Bonham, TX 10/31/07 10/30/07 62393 American Axle and Manufacturing, Inc.
(Comp)Buffalo, NY 10/31/07 10/18/07 62394 TI Automotive Systems (State) Warren, MI 11/01/07 10/30/07 62395 MegTec Systems (Union) Depere, WI 11/01/07 10/31/07 62396 Atrum-Brighton (Magna International)
(UAW)Brighton, MI 11/01/07 10/30/07 62397 Clariant Corporation
(Comp)Charlotte, NC 11/02/07 11/01/07 62398 Federal-Mogul
(Comp)Michigan City, IN 11/02/07 11/01/07 62399 Wausau Paper
(Comp)Groveton, NH 11/02/07 10/31/07 62400 Janesville Acoustic
(UAW)Grand Rapids, MN 11/02/07 11/01/07 62401 Victor Forstmann, Inc.
(Comp)East Dublin, GA 11/02/07 10/31/07 62402 Alma Products
(Wkrs)Alma, MI 11/02/07 10/25/07 62403 Quality Industrial Services
(Wkrs)Madisonville, KY 11/02/07 10/26/07 62404 Motor Wheel Commercial Vehicle Systems
(Wkrs)Berea, KY 11/02/07 10/28/07 [FR Doc. E7-22318 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Request for Certification of Compliance—Rural Industrialization Loan and Grant Program AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Labor. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Employment and Training Administration is issuing this notice to announce the receipt of a “Certification of Non-Relocation and Market and Capacity Information Report” (Form 4279-2) for the following: *Applicant/Location:* Prima Bella Produce, Inc/Brawley, California. *Principal Product/Purpose:* The loan, guarantee, or grant application is to make tenant improvements to an existing facility and to purchase new and used packing line equipment. The NAICS industry code for this enterprise is: 115114 Postharvest Crop Activities (except Cotton Ginning). DATES: All interested parties may submit comments in writing no later than November 29, 2007. Copies of adverse comments received will be forwarded to the applicant noted above. ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this notice to Anthony D. Dais, U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room S-4231, Washington, DC 20210; or e-mail *Dais.Anthony@dol.gov* ; or transmit via fax 202-693-3015 (this is not a toll-free number). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony D. Dais, at telephone number
(202)693-2784 (this is not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 188 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1972, as established under 29 CFR part 75, authorizes the United States Department of Agriculture to make or guarantee loans or grants to finance industrial and business activities in rural areas. The Secretary of Labor must review the application for financial assistance for the purpose of certifying to the Secretary of Agriculture that the assistance is not calculated, or likely, to result in:
(a)A transfer of any employment or business activity from one area to another by the loan applicant's business operation; or,
(b)An increase in the production of goods, materials, services, or facilities in an area where there is not sufficient demand to employ the efficient capacity of existing competitive enterprises unless the financial assistance will not have an adverse impact on existing competitive enterprises in the area. The Employment and Training Administration within the Department of Labor is responsible for the review and certification process. Comments should address the two bases for certification and, if possible, provide data to assist in the analysis of these issues. Signed at Washington, DC November 8, 2007. Gay M. Gilbert, Administrator, Office of Workforce Investment, Employment and Training Administration. [FR Doc. E7-22325 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration [Docket No. OSHA-2007-0011] Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health (FACOSH) AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor. ACTION: Appointment of new members. SUMMARY: On September 28, 2007, the Secretary of Labor appointed six new members to the Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health (FACOSH). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Diane Brayden, Director, OSHA, Office of Federal Agency Programs, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 3622, Washington, DC 20210; telephone
(202)693-2122; fax
(202)693-1685; e-mail *ofap@dol.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FACOSH is authorized to advise the Secretary of Labor on all matters relating to the occupational safety and health of Federal employees (Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 668), 5 U.S.C. 7902, Executive Order 13446). This includes providing advice on how to reduce and keep to a minimum the number of injuries and illnesses in the Federal workforce and how to encourage the establishment and maintenance of effective occupational safety and health programs in each Federal department and agency. FACOSH consists of 16 members, divided equally between representatives of Federal agencies and labor organizations representing Federal employees. FACOSH members serve three-year terms. *FACOSH Member Appointments:* OSHA published a request for FACOSH nominations in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 7467-7468 (3/2/2007)), and received nominations for seventeen individuals. On September 28, 2007, the Secretary of Labor appointed the following five individuals to serve three-year terms ending in June 2010: • Mr. Ralph E. Dudley, Tennessee Valley Authority, • Ms. Kathleen J.H. Wheeler, U.S. Department of the Interior, • Ms. Colleen M. Kelley, National Treasury Employees Union, • Mr. William D. “Chico” McGill, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and • Mr. Chester G. Wheeler, Jr., Seafarers International Union. In addition, the Secretary of Labor appointed Mr. Paul Hutter, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, to fill the remainder of a term that expires in June 2009. *Authority and Signature:* Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice under the authority granted by section 19 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 668), 5 U.S.C. 7902, section 1(c) of Executive Order 13446, the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007 (72 FR 31160). Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of November, 2007. Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. [FR Doc. E7-22310 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)Review; Comment Request AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment. SUMMARY: The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 1. *Type of submission, new, revision, or extension:* New collection. 2. *The title of the information collection:* NRC Survey of Public Response to Emergencies. 3. *The form number if applicable:* N/A. 4. *How often the collection is required:* This is a one-time collection. 5. *Who will be required or asked to report:* Members of the public that reside within the 10-mile Emergency Planning Zones
(EPZs)of nuclear power plants. 6. *An estimate of the number of annual responses:* 920 (each respondent will answer one survey). 7. *The estimated number of annual respondents:* This is a one-time collection of 800 completed surveys. 8. *An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request:* 210 hours ((800 completed surveys × .25 hours per response = 200 hours) + (120 uncompleted surveys × .083 hours per response = 10 hours)). 9. *An indication of whether Section 3507(d), Public Law 104-13 applies:* N/A. 10. *Abstract:* As part of the NRC's effort to review and improve emergency response program areas, the NRC intends to conduct a telephone survey to assess public reaction to existing protective action strategies, new protective action strategies, and the effectiveness in which these strategies are conveyed to the public. The survey will produce statistical descriptions of likely public reaction to and acceptance of various protective action strategies. The targets for the telephone survey are randomly selected members of the public that reside within the 10-mile EPZs around nuclear power plants. This is a nationwide survey of the public residing within EPZs. The response to the surveys will be used by the NRC in the development of enhancements to its guidance for nuclear power plant protective action recommendations and the means by which this information is disseminated. The survey will also improve the understanding of other areas related to protective action implementation, such as the extent of shadow evacuations and the expected usage of congregate care facilities. A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site: *http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html.* The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice. Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer listed below by December 17, 2007. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date. Nathan J. Frey, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-XXXX), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Comments can also be e-mailed to *Nathan J. Frey@omb.eop.gov* or submitted by telephone at
(202)395-7345. The NRC Clearance Officer is Margaret A. Janney, 301-415-7245. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of November, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Margaret A. Janney, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services. [FR Doc. E7-22334 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 150-00043 General License Pursuant to 10 CFR 150.20 EA-06-259; EA-07-230] In the Matter of Universal Testing, LLC, Clearfield, UT; Confirmatory Order (Effective Immediately) Universal Testing, LLC (Universal Testing) is the holder of a general license pursuant to 10 CFR 150.20 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission). This general license was granted to Universal Testing at various times during calendar years 2005, 2006, and 2007. II An NRC inspection was conducted at your Clearfield, Utah, facility on April 4, 2006. Following that inspection, an investigation was initiated on May 8, 2006, by the NRC Office of Investigations
(OI)in order to determine whether a radiographer employed by Universal Testing willfully violated NRC regulations. Based on the results of the NRC inspection and OI investigation, the NRC determined that a violation of NRC requirements occurred. The violation involved a failure to secure an industrial radiography exposure device containing licensed material as required by 10 CFR 20.1801 and 10 CFR 20.1802. The NRC also determined that the violation resulted from willful actions on the part of the radiographer involved. III In a letter dated February 23, 2007, the NRC issued a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty—$6,500 for the violation. In the February 23, 2007, letter, the NRC offered Universal Testing the opportunity to request Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR)with the NRC in an attempt to resolve issues associated with these violations. In response to the February 23, 2007, letter, Universal Testing requested ADR to resolve the matter with the NRC. ADR is a process in which a neutral mediator, with no decision-making authority, assists the NRC and Universal Testing to resolve any differences regarding the matter. An ADR session was conducted between Universal Testing and the NRC in Arlington, Texas, on July 25, 2007. During that ADR session, an Agreement in Principle was reached. The elements of the agreement consisted of the following: 1. Universal Testing will add one additional qualified person to conduct additional field audits of its radiographers. Universal Testing will conduct at least one unannounced field audit in NRC jurisdiction on each job where that job lasts more than 3 consecutive weeks. 2. For a period of 1-year from the date of this Confirmatory Order, Universal Testing will notify the NRC the same day that it accepts any contract to perform a job in NRC jurisdiction. 3. Within 30 days from the date of this Confirmatory Order, Universal Testing will develop and implement a disciplinary program with a graded approach for infractions. This disciplinary program will consider minor infractions up to willful failures to follow the rules. The disciplinary program will emphasize individual responsibility for radiation safety and radioactive material security, and will encourage reporting safety and security concerns. The disciplinary program will include a requirement that at least one individual who is in possession of a radiography camera be capable of responding to a security alarm. 4. Universal Testing will develop, maintain, and implement a procedure for employees who are in possession of licensed material and who are away from the office, to notify company owners or managers of their location every evening. The intent of the notification is for the company to actively maintain knowledge of where licensed material is located every evening. Universal Testing will develop this procedure within 60 days of the date of this order. This procedure will include a requirement for reporting of safety and security concerns. The procedure will also include actions the company will take to find licensed material when it has not arrived at its expected location. 5. Within 1-year from the date of this Confirmatory Order, Universal Testing will discuss with the Non-Destructive Testing Manager's Association (NDTMA) the possibility of an industry-based program to share information about radiography employees. The concept would be for this industry-based program to assist radiography companies to determine the trustworthiness and reliability of individuals applying for employment. 6. Not later than 1-year from the date of this Confirmatory Order, Universal Testing will discuss with NDTMA the possibility of submitting an article or making a presentation to the membership. The article or presentation will address the conditions of this Confirmatory Order and the value it adds to overall safe and effective operations. Alternatively, Universal Testing will propose to make a presentation to the local Salt Lake City Chapter of the ASNT on the same subject. Not later than 11 months from the date of this Confirmatory Order, a draft of the proposed article or presentation will be provided to the NRC Region IV office (in advance of the submittal) for review, comment, and concurrence. 7. Universal Testing has expressed its intent to continue seeking radiography business in NRC's jurisdiction. 8. If Universal Testing applies for an NRC license, Universal Testing will request that the conditions of this Confirmatory Order be incorporated into its license. 9. The above provisions would not apply to any existing NRC licensee that may purchase Universal Testing, LLC. Universal Testing will promptly notify NRC Region IV if any existing NRC licensee agrees to purchase Universal Testing. 10. In recognition of the extensive corrective actions, the NRC agrees to reduce the civil penalty originally proposed to $500. Some of the above conditions are clarified as indicated below. On October 29, 2007, Universal Testing consented to issuing this Order with the commitments, as described in Section IV below. Universal Testing further agreed that this Order is to be affective upon issuance and that it has waived its right to a hearing. Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 2.205, 10 CFR parts 20, 34, 150, and in part 71 that references 49 CFR 177, *it is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that:* 1. Within 30 days from the date of this Confirmatory Order, Universal Testing, LLC must pay the reduced civil penalty of $500 in accordance with NUREG/BR-0254 and submit to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, a statement indicating when and by what method payment was made. 2. Universal Testing will add one additional qualified person to conduct additional field audits of its radiographers. Universal Testing will conduct at least one unannounced field audit in NRC jurisdiction on each job where that job lasts more than 3 consecutive weeks. 3. For a period of one year from the date of this Confirmatory Order, Universal Testing will notify the NRC the same day that it accepts any contract to perform a job in NRC jurisdiction. 4. Within 60 days of the date of this Order, Universal Testing will develop, maintain, and implement a procedure that contains the following requirements.
(A)On occasions in which individuals are traveling away from the office, at least one individual who is in possession of a radiography camera shall be capable of responding to a security alarm 24 hours a day.
(B)Employees who are traveling away from the office shall contact company managers every evening and provide company managers with the physical location of the employee and the radiography camera in order for the company to actively maintain knowledge of where licensed material is located.
(C)The procedure will specify the actions company managers will take to locate licensed material when it has not arrived at its expected location and/or when an individual fails to make the required evening contact.
(D)The procedure will require employees to report safety and security concerns. 5. Within 30 days from the date of this Confirmatory Order, Universal Testing will develop, maintain, and implement a disciplinary program with a graded approach for infractions. This disciplinary program will consider minor infractions up to willful failures to follow the rules. The disciplinary program will emphasize individual responsibility for radiation safety and radioactive material security, and will encourage reporting safety and security concerns. The disciplinary program will consider the company's disciplinary actions for situations discussed in Item 4 above. 6. Within 1-year from the date of this Confirmatory Order, Universal Testing will discuss with the Non-Destructive Testing Manager's Association (NDTMA) the possibility of an industry-based program to share information about radiography employees. The concept would be for this industry-based program to assist radiography companies to determine the trustworthiness and reliability of individuals applying for employment. 7. Not later than 1-year from the date of this Confirmatory Order, Universal Testing will discuss with NDTMA the possibility of submitting an article or making a presentation to the membership. The article or presentation will address the conditions of this Confirmatory Order and the value it adds to overall safe and effective operations. Alternatively, Universal Testing will propose to make a presentation to the local Salt Lake City Chapter of the American Society of Non-destructive Testing
(ASNT)on the same subject. Not later than 11 months from the date of this Confirmatory Order, a draft of the proposed article or presentation will be provided to the NRC Region IV office (in advance of the submittal) for review, comment, and concurrence. 8. If Universal Testing applies for an NRC license, Universal Testing will request that the conditions of this Confirmatory Order be incorporated into its license. 9. The above provisions do not apply to any existing NRC licensee that may purchase Universal Testing, LLC. Universal Testing will promptly notify NRC Region IV if any existing NRC licensee agrees to purchase Universal Testing. The Regional Administrator, NRC Region IV, may relax or rescind, in writing, any of the above conditions upon a showing by Universal Testing, LLC of good cause. Any person adversely affected by this Confirmatory Order, other than Universal Testing, may request a hearing within 20 days of its issuance. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. Any request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region IV, 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, Texas 76011, and to Universal Testing, LLC, 393 South Main, Clearfield, Utah 84015. Because of the possible disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail to *hearingdocket@nrc.gov* and also to the Office of the General Counsel either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to *OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov* . If such a person requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309
(d)and (f). If a hearing is requested by a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Confirmatory Order should be sustained. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section IV above shall be final 20 days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section IV shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this order. Dated this 6th day of November, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Leonard D. Wert, Acting Regional Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-22389 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 72-26] Notice of Issuance of Addendum to the Supplement to the Environmental Assessment for the Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of Issuance. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is issuing an Addendum to the supplement to the Environmental Assessment
(EA)for the Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). NRC issued the EA and initial Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for this action on October 24, 2003, and subsequently issued a license for the Diablo Canyon ISFSI to the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), on March 22, 2004. The license authorizes PG&E to receive, possess, store, and transfer spent nuclear fuel and associated radioactive materials resulting from the operation of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant in an ISFSI at the site for a term of 20 years. On August 30, 2007, NRC issued a supplement to the EA and final FONSI, in response to the June 2, 2006, decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, *San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace* v. *NRC* , 449 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2006). The supplement to the EA addressed the environmental impacts from potential terrorist acts against the Diablo Canyon ISFSI. The Addendum lists six documents to be added to the list of references provided in the supplement to the EA. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James R. Hall, Senior Project Manager, Licensing Branch, Division of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation, Mail Stop EBB-3D-02M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. *Telephone:*
(301)492-3319; *e-mail: jrh@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 21, 2001, PG&E submitted an application to NRC, requesting a site-specific license to build and operate an ISFSI, to be located on the site of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, in San Luis Obispo County, California. The NRC staff issued an EA and FONSI for this action on October 24, 2003, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, and in conformance with the applicable requirements of 10 CFR part 51. On March 22, 2004, the NRC staff issued Materials License No. SNM-2511 to PG&E, pursuant to 10 CFR part 72, authorizing PG&E to receive, possess, store, and transfer spent nuclear fuel and associated radioactive materials resulting from the operation of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant in an ISFSI at the site for a term of 20 years. Subsequently, the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace and other parties filed suit in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, asking that NRC be required to consider terrorist acts in its environmental review associated with this licensing action. In its decision of June 2, 2006, *San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace* v. *NRC* , 449 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2006), the Ninth Circuit held that NRC could not categorically refuse to consider the consequences of a terrorist attack under NEPA and remanded the case to NRC. In response to the Ninth Circuit decision, the Commission directed the NRC staff to prepare a revised EA, addressing the likelihood of a terrorist attack at the Diablo Canyon ISFSI site and the potential consequences of such an attack. On May 29, 2007, the NRC staff issued a preliminary supplement to the EA and draft FONSI to address the environmental impacts from potential terrorist acts against the Diablo Canyon ISFSI. On August 30, 2007, NRC issued the final supplement to the EA and final FONSI for this action. NRC summarized the comments received and responded to those comments in the final supplement to the EA, which also included a list of 14 references. Subsequent to the issuance of the final supplement, the staff determined that certain other documents concerning NRC's generic security assessments should also be included in the list of references. These 6 documents are listed in the Addendum. Documents related to this action, including the May 29, 2007, preliminary supplement to the EA and draft FONSI; the August 30, 2007, EA supplement and final FONSI; the October 24, 2003, EA; and the Diablo Canyon ISFSI license and supporting documentation, are available electronically, at NRC's Electronic Reading Room, at: *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* From this site, you can access NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession number for the final EA supplement and final FONSI is ML072400511, and the accession number for the Addendum is ML073040434. For the preliminary supplement to the EA and draft FONSI, the accession number is ML071280256. The ADAMS accession number for the October 24, 2003, EA is ML032970337; and for the ISFSI license and related documents, the accession number is ML040780107. If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact NRC's Public Document Room
(PDR)Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at NRC's PDR, O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents, for a fee. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of November, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Robert A. Nelson, Chief, Licensing Branch, Division of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E7-22349 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION Required Interest Rate Assumption for Determining Variable-Rate Premium for Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Multiemployer Plan Valuations Following Mass Withdrawal AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. ACTION: Notice of interest rates and assumptions. SUMMARY: This notice informs the public of the interest rates and assumptions to be used under certain Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation regulations. These rates and assumptions are published elsewhere (or can be derived from rates published elsewhere), but are collected and published in this notice for the convenience of the public. Interest rates are also published on the PBGC's Web site ( *http://www.pbgc.gov* ). DATES: The required interest rate for determining the variable-rate premium under part 4006 applies to premium payment years beginning in November 2007. The interest assumptions for performing multiemployer plan valuations following mass withdrawal under part 4281 apply to valuation dates occurring in December 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine B. Klion, Manager, Regulatory and Policy Division, Legislative and Regulatory Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005, 202-326-4024. (TTY/TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4024.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Variable-Rate Premiums Section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iii)(II) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and § 4006.4(b)(1) of the PBGC's regulation on Premium Rates (29 CFR part 4006) prescribe use of an assumed interest rate (the “required interest rate”) in determining a single-employer plan's variable-rate premium. Pursuant to the Pension Protection Act of 2006, for premium payment years beginning in 2006 or 2007, the required interest rate is the “applicable percentage” of the annual rate of interest determined by the Secretary of the Treasury on amounts invested conservatively in long-term investment grade corporate bonds for the month preceding the beginning of the plan year for which premiums are being paid (the “premium payment year”). On February 2, 2007 (at 72 FR 4955), the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS)published final regulations containing updated mortality tables for determining current liability under section 412(l)(7) of the Code and section 302(d)(7) of ERISA for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2007. As a result, in accordance with section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iii)(II) of ERISA, the “applicable percentage” to be used in determining the required interest rate for plan years beginning in 2007 is 100 percent. The required interest rate to be used in determining variable-rate premiums for premium payment years beginning in November 2007 is 6.14 percent ( *i.e.* , 100 percent of the 6.14 percent composite corporate bond rate for October 2007 as determined by the Treasury). The following table lists the required interest rates to be used in determining variable-rate premiums for premium payment years beginning between December 2006 and November 2007. For premium payment years beginning in: The required interest rate is: December 2006 4.90 January 2007 5.75 February 2007 5.89 March 2007 5.85 April 2007 5.84 May 2007 5.98 June 2007 6.01 July 2007 6.32 August 2007 6.33 September 2007 6.33 October 2007 6.23 November 2007 6.14 Multiemployer Plan Valuations Following Mass Withdrawal The PBGC's regulation on Duties of Plan Sponsor Following Mass Withdrawal (29 CFR part 4281) prescribes the use of interest assumptions under the PBGC's regulation on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4044). The interest assumptions applicable to valuation dates in December 2007 under part 4044 are contained in an amendment to part 4044 published elsewhere in today's **Federal Register** . Tables showing the assumptions applicable to prior periods are codified in appendix B to 29 CFR part 4044. Issued in Washington, DC, on this 8th day of November 2007. Vincent K. Snowbarger, Deputy Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. [FR Doc. E7-22327 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7709-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. IC-28045; 812-12984] BTOP50 Managed Futures Fund and Asset Alliance Advisors, Inc.; Notice of Application November 8, 2007. AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”). ACTION: Notice of application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from sections 18(c) and 18(i) of the Act. Summary of Application: Applicants request an order to permit certain registered closed-end management investment companies to issue multiple classes of shares. Applicants: BTOP50 Managed Futures Fund (“Trust”) and Asset Alliance Advisors, Inc. (“Advisor”). Filing Dates: The application was filed on June 9, 2003 and amended on December 9, 2003 and November 6, 2007. Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on December 3, 2007, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary. ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants, 800 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia Kim Gilmer, Branch Chief, or Nadya B. Roytblat, Assistant Director, at
(202)551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the Commission's Public Reference Desk, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-0102 (tel. 202-551-5850). Applicants' Representations 1. The Trust is a closed-end management investment company registered under the Act and organized as a Delaware statutory trust. After the completion of its initial offering, the Trust expects to continuously offer its shares to the public pursuant to rule 415 under the Securities Act of 1933 at net asset value plus any applicable sales charge. The Advisor is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and serves as investment adviser to the Trust. Applicants request that the requested relief also extend to any other registered closed-end management investment companies that continuously offer their shares that now or in the future are advised by the Advisor, or any entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Adviser (such investment companies, together with the Trust, the “Funds”). 1 1 Any Fund relying on this relief in the future will comply with the terms and conditions of the application. The Trust is the only investment company that currently intends to rely on the requested order. 2. The shares of the Trust will not be listed on any national stock exchange and the Trust will not arrange for the quotation of its shares on any over-the-counter market. The Trust does not expect that any secondary market will develop for its shares. The Trust intends to make monthly repurchase offers for up to 15% of its outstanding shares at net asset value, up to a maximum of 25% in any three consecutive months, pursuant to rule 13e-4 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 3. The Funds seek the flexibility to be structured as multiple class funds.The Trust intends to initially offer a single class of shares (“Class A Shares”) without a service fee or an early withdrawal charge (“EWC”). If the requested relief is granted, the Trust may also offer Class B, C, D and E shares with an annual service fee of 2%, 1.5%, 1% and .5% of net asset value, respectively. Class B, C, D and E shares also will be subject to an EWC of 2%, 1.5%. 1% and .5% of the purchase price, which will decline over approximately a 12-month period. The Funds will not waive, schedule a variation in or eliminate any EWCs established for a particular class of shares. The Funds may in the future offer additional classes of shares and/or another sales charge structure. 4. Applicants represent that any asset-based service and distribution fees will comply with the provisions of rule 2830(d) of the Conduct Rules of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”). Applicants also represent that each Fund will disclose in its prospectus, the fees, expenses and other characteristics of each class of shares offered for sale by the prospectus as is required for open-end multiple class funds under Form N-1A. As is required for open-end funds, each Fund will disclose its expenses in shareholder reports, and disclose any arrangements that result in breakpoints in or elimination of sales loads in its prospectus. 2 Each Fund and principal underwriter of Fund shares will also comply with any requirements that may be adopted by the Commission regarding disclosure at the point of sale and in transaction confirmations about the costs and conflicts of interest arising out of the distribution of open-end investment company shares, and regarding prospectus disclosure of sales loads and revenue sharing arrangements as if those requirements applied to the Fund and the principal underwriter of the Fund's shares. 3 2 *See* Shareholder Reports and Quarterly Portfolio Disclosure of Registered Management Investment Companies, Investment Company Act Release No. 26372 (Feb. 27, 2004) (adopting release) (requiring open-end investment companies to disclose fund expenses in shareholder reports); and Disclosure of Breakpoint Discounts by Mutual Funds, Investment Company Act Release No. 26464 (June 7, 2004) (adopting release) (requiring open-end investment companies to provide prospectus disclosure of certain sales load information). 3 Confirmation Requirements and Point of Sale Disclosure Requirements for Transactions in Certain Mutual Funds and Other Securities, and Other Confirmation Requirement Amendments, and Amendments to the Registration Form for Mutual Funds, Investment Company Act Release Nos. 26341 (Jan. 29, 2004) (proposing release) and 26778 (Feb. 28, 2005) (re-opening the comment period for the proposed rules and requesting additional comments). 5. The Trust will allocate all expenses incurred by it among the various classes of shares based on the net assets of the Trust attributable to each class, except that the net asset value and expenses of each class will reflect the expenses associated with the service and/or distribution plan of the class and any other incremental expenses of that class. Expenses of the Trust allocated to a particular class of shares will be borne on a pro rata basis by each outstanding share of that class. Applicants state that each Fund will comply with the provisions of rule 18f-3 under the Act as if that rule applied to the Funds. The Funds will not offer exchange privileges. Applicants' Legal Analysis 1. Section 18(c) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that a closed-end investment company may not issue or sell any senior security if, immediately thereafter, the company has outstanding more than one class of senior security. Applicants state that the creation of multiple classes of shares of the Funds may be prohibited by section 18(c). 2. Section 18(i) of the Act provides that each share of stock issued by a registered management investment company will be a voting stock and have equal voting rights with every other outstanding voting stock. Applicants state that permitting multiple classes of shares of the Funds may violate section 18(i) of the Act because each class would be entitled to exclusive voting rights with respect to matters solely related to that class. 3. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security or transaction or any class or classes of persons, securities or transactions from any provision of the Act, or from any rule under the Act, if and to the extent such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants request an exemption under section 6(c) from sections 18(c) and 18(i) to permit the Funds to issue multiple classes of shares. 4. Applicants submit that the proposed allocation of expenses and voting rights among multiple classes is equitable and will not discriminate against any group of shareholders. Applicants submit that the proposed arrangements would permit a Fund to facilitate the distribution of its shares and provide investors with a broader choice of shareholder services. Applicants assert that the proposed closed-end investment company multiple class structure does not raise the concerns underlying section 18 of the Act to any greater degree than open-end investment companies' multiple class structures that are permitted by rule 18f-3 under the Act. Applicants state that each Fund will comply with the provisions of rule 18f-3 as if it were an open-end investment company. 5. Applicants also state that because the Funds, like open-end investment companies, will continuously offer their shares and offer investors a variety of distribution channels and service fees, they will comply with rule 12b-1 and 6c-10 under the Act as if those rules applied to the Funds. Applicants' Condition Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following condition: Each Fund relying on the order will comply with the provisions of rules 6c-10, 12b-1 and 18f-3 under the Act, as amended from time to time, as if those rules applied to closed-end management investment companies, and will comply with NASD Conduct Rule 2830(d), as amended from time to time, as if that rule applied to all closed-end management investment companies. For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-22204 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Investment Company Act Release No. 28046; 813-350] Tower 21st Century Fund LLC, et al.; Notice of Application November 8, 2007. AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”). ACTION: Notice of application for an order under sections 6(b) and 6(e) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) exempting applicants from all provisions of the Act, except section 9 and sections 36 through 53, and the rules and regulations under the Act. With respect to sections 17 and 30 of the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder, and rule 38a-1 under the Act, the exemption is limited as set forth in the application. Summary of Application: Applicants request an order to exempt certain investment vehicles formed for the benefit of partners and key eligible current and former employees of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP (“Sonnenschein” or the “Firm”) and certain of its affiliates from certain provisions of the Act. Each such entity will be an “employees” securities company” within the meaning of section 2(a)(13) of the Act. Applicants: Tower 21st Century Fund LLC (the “Investment Fund”) and Sonnenschein. Filing Dates: The application was filed on July 2, 2002, and amended on December 30, 2003, July 7, 2004, March 12, 2007 and November 7, 2007. Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on December 3, 2007, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary. ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. Applicants, c/o Paul J. Miller, Esq., Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP, 7800 Sears Tower, Chicago, Illinois 60611. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaea F. Hahn, Senior Counsel, at
(202)551-6870, or Nadya B. Roytblat, Assistant Director, at
(202)551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-0102 (tel. 202-551-5850). Applicants' Representations 1. Sonnenschein is a law firm organized as a Delaware limited liability partnership. The Firm and its “affiliates,” as defined in rule 12b-2 under the Securities Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), are referred to collectively as the “Sonnenschein Group” and individually as a “Sonnenschein Entity.” 2. The Investment Fund is a Delaware limited liability company. The applicants may in the future offer additional pooled investment vehicles identical in all material respects (other than form of organization, investment objective and strategy) to the Investment Fund (each, an “Additional Fund”) (together, the Investment Fund and the Additional Fund are referred to as the “Funds”). The applicants anticipate that each Additional Fund will also be structured as a limited liability company, although an Additional Fund could be structured, either domestically or, or for tax purposes, offshore, as a general partnership, limited partnership, corporation or other business organization formed as an “employees' securities company” within the meaning of section 2(a)(13) of the Act. Each Fund will operate as a non-diversified, closed-end management investment company. The Funds will be established to enable the Partners (as defined below) and certain employees of the Sonnenschein Group to participate in certain investment opportunities that come to the attention of the Sonnenschein Group. Participation as investors in the Funds will allow the Eligible Investors (as defined below) to diversify their investments and to have the opportunity to participate in investments that might not otherwise be available to them or that might be beyond their individual means. 3. The Funds will each be managed by an investment committee (“Investment Committee”), each member of which shall be a Partner of the Firm. The Firm will initially appoint the members (each, a “Manager” of the Fund) of each Investment Committee and vacancies thereafter will be filled by vote of the remaining Managers. The Managers or any person involved in the operation of the Funds will register as an investment adviser if required under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, or the rules under that Act. 4. Interests in the Funds (“Interests”) will be offered without registration in reliance on section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) or Regulation D under the Securities Act, or any successor rule. Interests will be offered solely to Sonnenschein Entities or persons (each an “Eligible Investor”) who, at the time of the offer, are either “Eligible Employees” or “Qualified Investment Vehicles”. “Eligible Employees” are
(a)equity, non-equity, special and retired partners and any other category of partners of the Firm (“Partners”),
(b)current and former lawyers who are of counsel to the Firm, and
(c)certain current and former key employees of the Firm involved in the Firm's non-legal business activities including its administrative, finance and accounting, and marketing activities, who in each case meet the standards of an “accredited investor” set forth in rule 501(a)(5) or rule 501(a)(6) of Regulation D under the Securities Act. 1 A “Qualified Investment Vehicle” is a trust or other entity the sole beneficiaries of which are an Eligible Employee, or one or more of his or her “Immediate Family Members” (parent, spouse, child, brother or sister, spouse of child and any step or adoptive relationship) or as to which the Eligible Employee is settlor or the principal decision maker and the primary beneficiaries of which are one or more of his or her Immediate Family Members, which trust or other entity meets the standards of an “accredited investor” set forth in rule 501(a) of Regulation D under the Securities Act. 2 Prior to offering Interests to an individual, the Investment Committee must reasonably believe that the individual is a sophisticated investor capable of understanding and evaluating the risks of participating in the Fund without the benefit of regulatory safeguards. Each investor in a Fund shall be a “Member” of such Fund. 1 Any such former Partners, of counsel or employees will maintain a sufficiently close nexus with the Firm so as to preserve the community of interest between the Eligible Employee and the Firm. 2 The inclusion of entities controlled by an Eligible Employee in the definition of Eligible Investor is intended to enable Eligible Employees and their Immediate Family Members to make investments in the Funds through private investment vehicles for the purpose of personal and family investment and estate planning objectives. Eligible Employees will exercise investment discretion and control over these investment vehicles, thereby creating a close nexus between the Firm and these investment vehicles. 5. Each Eligible Investor will receive a copy of the Fund's organizational documents and the Application prior to his or her investment in such Fund. Each Fund will send its Members annual reports as soon as practicable after the end of each fiscal year. The annual report of a Fund will not contain financial statements of the Fund, since these would not provide useful information to Members because each Member will generally have differing interest in the Fund's various investments made since he or she became a Member, and will not have an economic interest in the holdings of the Fund on a consolidated basis. In addition, as soon as practicable after the end of each fiscal year, the Funds will send a report to each Member setting forth such tax information as shall be necessary for the preparation by the Member of his or her federal and state tax returns. 6. A Member will be permitted to transfer his or her Interests only to a Qualified Investment Vehicle or to an Eligible Employee as permitted by the Investment Committee in its sole discretion, or on death, by will, trust or otherwise in accordance with the laws of descent and distribution, or to another Member. 3 Capital contributions made to a Fund by its Members will be placed in a liquid capital account (“LCA”) to the credit of the contributor, pending the purchase price for an investment. Interests in the LCA may be repurchased upon request by Members, in whole or in part, by notice to the Investment Committee. Interests in separate accounts for investments may be repurchased only with the agreement of the Investment Committee. No fee of any kind will be charged in connection with the sale of Interests. 3 No person may become a transferee or substitute Member unless that person is a member of one of the classes listed in section 2(a)(13) of the Act, except that a legal representative or executor may hold an interest in a Fund in order to settle the estate of a decedent or bankrupt for similar purposes. 7. A Member will not be permitted to participate in any investment made by the Fund after that Member enters any of the following categories:
(a)A Member who has notified the Investment Committee before the effective date of the Investment Committee's investment decision to make an investment, which notice, except in the absolute discretion of the Investment Committee, is irrevocable for one year, that that Member will not participate in future investments;
(b)a Member who ceases to be an Eligible Investor when the Investment Committee determines to make an investment;
(c)a Member who the Investment Committee determines is no longer able to bear the economic risk of further investment;
(d)a Member whose aliquot share would be below a required minimum;
(e)a Member whose continued membership would have adverse tax consequences to the Fund; or
(f)a Member whose continued investment would violate applicable law or regulation. 8. Each Fund will bear its own expenses. The Firm may be reimbursed by a Fund for reasonable services and necessary out-of-pocket costs directly associated with the organization and operation of the Funds, including administrative and overhead expenses. There will be no allocation of any of the Firm's operating expenses to a Fund. No management fee or other compensation will be paid by the Fund or its Members to the Investment Committee or the Managers for their services in such capacity. 9. The Funds may borrow from Sonnenschein Group, a Partner, or a bank or other financial institution, provided that a Fund will not borrow from any person if the borrowing would cause any person not named in section 2(a)(13) of the Act to own outstanding securities of the Fund (other than short-term paper). Any borrowings by a Fund will be non-recourse to Members. If a Sonnenschein Entity or a Partner makes a loan to the Funds, the interest rate on the loan will be no less favorable to the Funds than the rate that could be obtained on an arm's length basis. 10. A Fund will not acquire any security issued by a registered investment company if immediately after the acquisition the Fund would own more than 3% of the outstanding voting stock of the registered investment company. Applicants' Legal Analysis 1. Section 6(b) of the Act provides, in part, that the Commission will exempt employees' securities companies from the provisions of the Act to the extent that the exemption is consistent with the protection of investors. Section 6(b) provides that the Commission will consider, in determining the provisions of the Act from which the company should be exempt, the company's form of organization and capital structure, the persons owning and controlling its securities, the price of the company's securities and the amount of any sales load, how the company's funds are invested, and the relationship between the company and the issuers of the securities in which it invests. Section 2(a)(13) defines an employees' securities company as any investment company all of whose securities (other than short-term paper) are beneficially owned
(a)by current or former employees, or persons on retainer, of one or more affiliated employers,
(b)by immediate family members of such persons, or
(c)by such employer or employers together with any of the persons in
(a)or (b). 2. Section 7 of the Act generally prohibits investment companies that are not registered under section 8 of the Act from selling or redeeming their securities. Section 6(e) provides that, in connection with any order exempting an investment company from any provision of section 7, certain provisions of the Act, as specified by the Commission, will be applicable to the company and other persons dealing with the company as though the company were registered under the Act. Applicants request an order under sections 6(b) and 6(e) of the Act exempting the Funds from all provisions of the Act, except section 9 and sections 36 through 53, and the rules and regulations under the Act. With respect to sections 17 and 30 of the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder, and rule 38a-1 under the Act, the exemption is limited as set forth in the application. 3. Section 17(a) generally prohibits any affiliated person of a registered investment company, or any affiliated person of an affiliated person, acting as principal, from knowingly selling or purchasing any security or other property to or from the company. Applicants request an exemption from section 17(a) to permit a Fund to:
(a)Purchase, from the Firm or any affiliated person thereof, securities or interests in properties previously acquired for the account of the Firm or any affiliated person thereof;
(b)sell, to the Firm or any affiliated person thereof, securities or interests in properties previously acquired by the Funds;
(c)invest in companies, partnerships or other investment vehicles offered, sponsored or managed by the Firm or any affiliated person thereof;
(d)to invest in securities of issuers for which the Firm or any affiliated person thereof have performed services and from which they may have received fees;
(e)purchase interests in any company or other investment vehicle
(i)in which the Firm owns 5% or more of the voting securities, or
(ii)that otherwise is an affiliated person of the Fund (or an affiliated person of such a person) or an affiliated person of the Firm; and
(f)to participate as a selling securityholder in a public offering in which the Firm or any affiliated person thereof acts as or represents as counsel a member of the selling group or the issuer or underwriter. 4. Applicants state that an exemption from section 17(a) is consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes of the Act. Applicants state that the Members will be informed by the offering materials for a Fund of the possible extent of the Fund's dealings with the Firm or any affiliated person thereof. Applicants also state that, as financially sophisticated professionals, Eligible Investors will be able to evaluate the attendant risks. Applicants assert that the community of interest among the Members and the Firm will provide the best protection against any risk of abuse. 5. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibit any affiliated person or principal underwriter of a registered investment company, or any affiliated person of an affiliated person or principal underwriter, acting as principal, from participating in any joint arrangement with the company unless authorized by the Commission. Applicants request relief to permit affiliated persons of each Fund, or affiliated persons of any of these persons, to participate in any joint arrangement in which the Fund is a participant. Joint transactions in which a Fund may participate could include the following:
(a)An investment by one or more Funds in a security in which the Firm or its affiliated person (including Partners of the Firm), or another Fund, is a participant, or with respect to which the Firm or an affiliated person is entitled to receive fees (including, but not limited to, legal fees, consulting fees, or other economic benefits or interests);
(b)an investment by one or more Funds in an investment vehicle sponsored, offered or managed by the Firm; and
(c)an investment by one or more Funds in a security in which an affiliate is or may become a participant. 6. Applicants state that compliance with section 17(d) would cause the Funds to forego investment opportunities simply because a Member, the Firm or other affiliates of the Fund also had made or contemplated making a similar investment. In addition, because investment opportunities of the types considered by the Funds often require that each participant make available funds in an amount that may be substantially greater than that available to the investor alone, there may be certain attractive opportunities of which a Fund may be unable to take advantage except as a co-participant with other persons, including affiliates. Applicants note that, in light of the Firm's purpose of establishing the Funds so as to reward Eligible Investors and to attract highly qualified personnel to the Firm, the possibility is minimal that an affiliated party investor will enter into a transaction with a Fund with the intent of disadvantaging the Fund. Finally, applicants contend that the possibility that a Fund may be disadvantaged by the participation of an affiliate in a transaction will be minimized by compliance with the lockstep procedures described in condition 4 below. Applicants assert that the flexibility to structure co-investments and joint investments will not involve abuses of the type section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 were designed to prevent. 7. Section 17(f) of the Act designates the entities that may act as investment company custodians, and rule 17f-2 allows an investment company to act as self-custodian, subject to certain requirements. Applicants request an exemption from section 17(f) and rule 17f-2 to permit the following exceptions from the requirements of rule 17f-2:
(a)A Fund's investments may be kept in the locked files of the Firm or of a Partner;
(b)for purposes of paragraph
(d)of the rule,
(i)Partners and employees of the Firm will be deemed employees of the Funds,
(ii)each Manager of a Fund will be deemed to be an officer of such Fund; and
(iii)the Investment Committee of a Fund will be deemed to be the board of directors of the Fund; and
(c)in place of the verification procedures under paragraph
(f)of the rule, verification will be effected quarterly by two employees of the Firm. Applicants assert that the securities held by the Funds are most suitably kept in the Firm's files, where they can be referred to as necessary. 8. Section 17(g) and rule 17g-1 generally require the bonding of officers and employees of a registered investment company who have access to its securities or funds. Rule 17g-1 requires that a majority of directors who are not interested persons (“disinterested directors”) take certain actions and give certain approvals relating to fidelity bonding. Paragraph
(g)of rule 17g-1 sets forth certain materials relating to the fidelity bond that must be filed with the Commission and certain notices relating to the fidelity bond that must be given to each member of the investment company's board of directors. Paragraph
(h)of rule 17g-1 provides that an investment company must designate one of its officers to make the filings and give the notices required by paragraph (g). Paragraph
(j)of rule 17g-1 exempts a joint insured bond provided and maintained by an investment company and one or more other parties from section 17(d) of the Act and the rules thereunder. Rule 17g-1(j)(3) requires that the board of directors of an investment company satisfy the fund governance standards defined in rule 0-1(a)(7). 9. Applicants request an exemption from section 17(g) and rule 17g-1 to the extent necessary to permit each Fund to comply with rule 17g-1 without the necessity of having a majority of the disinterested directors take such action and make such approvals as are set forth in the rule. Specifically, each Fund will comply by having the Investment Committee take such actions and make such approvals as are set forth in rule 17g-1. Applicants state that, because the Managers will be interested persons of the Fund, a Fund could not comply with rule 17g-1 without the requested relief. Applicants also request an exemption from the requirements of rule 17g-1(g) and
(h)relating to the filing of copies of fidelity bonds and related information with the Commission and the provision of notices to the board of directors and from the requirements of rule 17g-1(j)(3). Applicants believe the filing requirements are burdensome and unnecessary as applied to the Funds. The Investment Committee will maintain the materials otherwise required to be filed with the Commission by rule 17g-1(g) and agree that all such material will be subject to examination by the Commission and its staff. The Investment Committee will designate a person to maintain the records otherwise required to be filed with the Commission under paragraph
(g)of the rule. Applicants also state that the notices otherwise required to be given to the board of directors would be unnecessary as the Funds will not have boards of directors. The Funds will comply with all other requirements of rule 17g-1. 10. Section 17(j) and paragraph
(b)of rule 17j-1 make it unlawful for certain enumerated persons to engage in fraudulent or deceptive practices in connection with the purchase or sale of a security held or to be acquired by a registered investment company. Rule 17j-1 also requires that every registered investment company adopt a written code of ethics and that every access person of a registered investment company report personal securities transactions. Applicants request an exemption from the requirements of rule 17j-1, except for the anti-fraud provisions of paragraph (b), because they are unnecessarily burdensome as applied to the Funds. 11. Applicants request an exemption from the requirements in sections 30(a), 30(b) and 30(e), and the rules under those sections, that registered investment companies prepare and file with the Commission and mail to their shareholders certain periodic reports and financial statements. Applicants contend that the forms prescribed by the Commission for periodic reports have little relevance to the Funds and would entail administrative and legal costs that outweigh any benefit to the Members. Applicants request exemptive relief to the extent necessary to permit each Fund to report annually to its Members. Applicants also request an exemption from section 30(h) to the extent necessary to exempt the Managers of each Fund and any other persons who may be deemed members of an advisory board of a Fund from filing Forms 3, 4 and 5 under section 16 of the Exchange Act with respect to their ownership of Interests in the Fund. Applicants assert that, because there will be no trading market and the transfers of Interests will be severely restricted, these filings are unnecessary for the protection of investors and burdensome to those required to make them. 12. Rule 38a-1 requires investment companies to adopt, implement and periodically review written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violation of the federal securities laws and to appoint a chief compliance officer. The Funds will comply with rule 38a-1(a),
(c)and (d), except that
(a)since the Funds do not have boards of directors, the Investment Committee will fulfill the responsibilities assigned to a Fund's board of directors under the rule, and
(b)since the Managers are not disinterested persons of the Funds, approval by a majority of the disinterested board members required by rule 38a-1 will not be obtained. Applicants' Conditions The applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions: 1. Each proposed transaction to which a Fund is a party otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) or section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 (each, a “Section 17 Transaction”) will be effected only if the Investment Committee determines that:
(a)The terms of the Section 17 Transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are fair and reasonable to the Members of the participating Fund and do not involve overreaching of the Fund or its Members on the part of any person concerned; and
(b)the Section 17 Transaction is consistent with the interests of the Members of the participating Fund, the Fund's organizational documents and the Fund's reports to its Members. In addition, the Investment Committee will record and preserve a description of such Section 17 Transactions, its findings, the information or materials upon which its findings are based and the basis therefor. All such records will be maintained for the life of a Fund and at least six years thereafter, and will be subject to examination by the Commission and its staff. All such records will be maintained in an easily accessible place for at least the first two years. 2. If purchases or sales are made by a Fund from or to an entity affiliated with the Fund by reason of a Partner or employee of the Sonnenschein Group
(a)serving as an officer, director, general partner or investment adviser of the entity, or
(b)having a 5% or more investment in the entity, such individual will not participate in the Fund's determination of whether or not to effect the purchase or sale. 3. The Investment Committee will adopt, and periodically review and update, procedures designed to ensure that reasonable inquiry is made, prior to the consummation of any Section 17 Transaction, with respect to the possible involvement in the transaction of any affiliated person or promoter of or principal underwriter for the Funds, or any affiliated person of such a person, promoter, or principal underwriter. 4. The Investment Committee will not acquire for a Fund any investment in which a Co-Investor, as defined below, has acquired or proposes to acquire the same class of securities of the same issuer, where the investment involves a joint enterprise or other joint arrangement within the meaning of rule 17d-1 in which the Fund and the Co-Investor are participants, unless any such Co-Investor, prior to disposing all or part of its investment,
(a)gives the Investment Committee sufficient, but not less than one day's, notice of its intent to dispose of its investment, and
(b)refrains from disposing of its investment unless the participating Fund holding such investment has the opportunity to dispose of its investment prior to or concurrently with, on the same terms as, and on a *pro rata* basis with the Co-Investor. The term “Co-Investor” with respect to any Fund means any person who is
(a)an “affiliated person” (as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act) of the Fund;
(b)the Sonnenschein Group;
(c)a Partner, lawyer, or employee of the Sonnenschein Group;
(d)an investment vehicle offered, sponsored, or managed by the Firm or an affiliated person of the Firm; or
(e)an entity in which a Sonnenschein Entity acts as a general partner or has a similar capacity to control the sale or other disposition of the entity's securities. The restrictions contained in this condition, however, shall not be deemed to limit or prevent the disposition of an investment by a Co-Investor:
(a)To its direct or indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, to any company (a “parent”) of which the Co-Investor is a direct or indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, or to a direct or indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of its parent;
(b)to Immediate Family Members of the Co-Investor or a trust established for any such Immediate Family Member;
(c)when the investment is comprised of securities that are listed on a national securities exchange registered under section 6 of the Exchange Act; or
(d)when the investment is comprised of securities that are national market system securities pursuant to section 11A(a)(2) of the Exchange Act and rule 11Aa2-1 thereunder. 5. The Investment Committee of each Fund will send to each Member who had an interest in that Fund at any time during the fiscal year then ended, Fund financial statements. Such financial statements may be unaudited. At the end of each fiscal year, the Investment Committee will make a valuation or have a valuation made of all of the assets of the Fund, as of such fiscal year end in a manner consistent with the customary practice with respect to the valuation of assets of the kind held by the Fund. In addition, as soon as practicable after the end of each fiscal year of each Fund, the Managers of the Fund shall send a report to each person who was a Fund Investor at any time during the fiscal year then ended, setting forth such tax information as shall be necessary for the preparation by the Fund Investor of his or her federal and state income tax returns and a report of the investment activities of such Fund during such year. 6. Each Fund and its Investment Committee will maintain and preserve, for the life of that Fund and at least six years thereafter, such accounts, books and other documents as constitute the record forming the basis for the financial statements and annual reports of such Fund to be provided to its Members, and agree that all such records will be subject to examination by the Commission and its staff. All such records will be maintained in an easily accessible place for at least the first two years. For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-22297 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56766; File No. SR-Amex-2007-114] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Collection of the Activity Assessment Fee November 7, 2007. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on October 26, 2007, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by Amex. Amex filed the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) 4 thereunder, as establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge applicable to a member, 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)(ii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend Amex Rule 393 and the Amex Fee Schedule to revise the procedures by which the Exchange collects fees from its members and member organizations to offset its fee obligations under Section 31 of the Act. 5 The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Amex's Web site at *http://www.amex.com* , Amex's principal office, and the Commission's Public Reference Room. 5 15 U.S.C. 78ee. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, Amex included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. Amex has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose Background Effective August 6, 2004, the Commission established new procedures that govern the calculation, payment, and collection of fees and assessments on securities transactions owed by each national securities exchange and association. 6 Pursuant to the new procedures, each exchange and association must provide data on its securities transactions to the Commission using Form R31. Generally, only data obtained from a registered clearing agency may be submitted to the Commission for this purpose. 7 The Commission in turn, calculates the amount of fees and assessments based on the aggregate dollar volume of these transactions and the fee rate in effect at that time and bills the exchange or association that amount twice annually. 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49928 (June 28, 2004), 69 FR 1060 (July 7, 2004). 7 In connection with these new procedures the Commission concluded that the data collected by a registered clearing agency is the most reliable and auditable source for covered sales information. The National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) is the primary source of data for equity transactions and the Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) is the primary source of data for option transactions. Historically, the Exchange has funded the payment of these fees by requiring members pursuant to Rule 393 to:
(i)Report on a monthly basis the aggregate volume of equity sales, aggregate sales price of those equity sales, and the amount of the fee owed; and
(ii)submit along with the monthly report a check in the amount of the fee owed. The funds collected by the Exchange pursuant to Rule 393 for all equity securities are then remitted to the Commission in accordance with Rule 31. In addition, the Exchange uses the OCC to collect the funds to offset the payment of Section 31 fees owed based on the sales of options and sales of securities resulting from the exercise of physical delivery options. OCC collects fees directly from Exchange members through their clearing firms and remits the amount collected to the Commission on behalf of Amex. Proposal The Exchange now proposes to amend Rule 393 and the Amex Fee Schedule to revise the current procedures used to collect funds from its members to offset its obligations under Section 31 of the Act. On December 1, 2007, the Exchange will end the current “self-reporting” procedures using the Rule 393 Form for most transactions and will begin directly billing all members' and member organizations' designated clearing firms for the amount owed by the member to the Exchange. The fee will be identified as the Activity Assessment Fee and will be assessed monthly for all covered securities transactions (other than options transactions or sales of securities resulting from options exercises) whose settlement dates fall within the applicable computational period (which is generally a month). If the Section 31 fee rate changes in the middle of a computational period ( *i.e.* , in the middle of a month), the computational period may be broken up to facilitate the appropriate application of the old and new fee rates. The Activity Assessment Fee will be calculated based on securities transaction data reported by the NSCC (which is the same data used by the Exchange to prepare Form R31 to report its obligations under Section 31 to the Commission). Included in the Activity Assessment Fee will be covered sales resulting from orders entered on Amex but executed on another exchange through its private linkage. The Exchange will, however, continue to require firms participating in its After-Hours Trading program to continue self-reporting, on the Rule 393 Form, the aggregate volume and sales price of Aggregate Price-Coupled orders. The execution of covered sales resulting from Aggregate Price-Coupled orders will not be included in the Exchange's calculation of the monthly Activity Assessment Fee. 8 8 Firms participating in Amex's After-Hours Trading program will continue to submit, with their filings of the Rule 393 Form, payment of the Activity Assessment Fee for their self-reported Aggregate Price-Coupled orders. Telephone conversation between Claire McGrath, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Amex and David Michehl, Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission on November 7, 2007. It is the Exchange's initial intention to collect or receive from the membership the Activity Assessment Fee in an amount that, as accurately as possible equals the Exchange's Section 31 obligation (for equities transactions). The Exchange, however, has incurred, and continues to incur, the costs of developing systems necessary for compliance with the Commission's Section 31 procedures and for calculating and billing the Activity Assessment Fee. Therefore, the Exchange might in the future determine to bill the membership some form of assessment to offset these or other Section 31 costs. The proposed amendment to Rule 393 will also provide that, to the extent the Exchange may collect more from members under Rule 393 than is due from the Exchange to the Commission pursuant to Section 31 of the Act, for example due to rounding differences, the excess monies collected may be used by the Exchange to fund its regulatory expenses. In addition, as discussed above, the OCC will continue to collect and remit to the Commission on Amex's behalf, the funds to offset the payment of Section 31 fees owed based on the sales of options and sales of securities resulting from the exercise of physical delivery options. Therefore, sales of options and exercises will not be included in the monthly Activity Assessment Fee. 2. Statutory Basis The proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6(b) of the Act, 9 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4), 10 in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to assess a monthly Activity Assessment Fee to its members to fund its obligation pursuant to Section 31 of the Act. 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective upon filing with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 11 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) 12 thereunder, because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge applicable only to a member. 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 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 SRA-Amex-2007-114 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-2007-114. 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 Amex. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2007-114 and should be submitted on or before December 6, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-22203 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56772; File No. SR-CBOE-2007-126] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto To Increase the Class Quoting Limit in Fourteen Option Classes November 8, 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 November 1, 2007, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the CBOE. The Exchange has designated this proposal as one constituting a stated policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning, administration, or enforcement of an existing rule under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act, 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change on November 7, 2007. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change CBOE proposes to increase the class quoting limit in fourteen option classes. The text of the proposed rule change is available on CBOE's Web site ( *http://www.cboe.com* ), at the CBOE's Office of the Secretary, 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 parts of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose CBOE Rule 8.3A, Maximum Number of Market Participants Quoting Electronically per Product, establishes class quoting limits (“CQLs”) for each class traded on the Hybrid Trading System. 5 A CQL is the maximum number of quoters that may quote electronically in a given product and the current levels are established from 25-40, depending on the trading activity of the particular product. 5 *See* Rule 8.3A.01. Rule 8.3A, Interpretation .01(c) provides a procedure by which the President of the Exchange may increase the CQL for a particular product. In this regard, the President of the Exchange may increase the CQL in exceptional circumstances, which are defined in the rule as “substantial trading volume, whether actual or expected.” 6 The effect of an increase in the CQL is procompetitive in that it increases the number of market participants that may quote electronically in a product. The purpose of this filing is to increase the CQL in the following option classes as described below: 6 “Any actions taken by the President of the Exchange pursuant to this paragraph will be submitted to the SEC in a rule filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Exchange Act.” Rule 8.3A.01(c). Option class Current CQL New CQL Goldman Sachs Group Inc
(GS)45 60 Bear Stearns Companies
(BSC)35 50 Crocs Inc.
(CROX)35 50 Petro Bras Sa Petrobas A
(PBR)30 50 First Solar, Inc.
(FSLR)30 50 Focus Media Holding Ltd.
(FMCN)30 50 China Mobile Limited
(CHL)25 50 Dryships Inc.
(DRYS)25 50 Petrochina Co Ltd ADS
(PTR)25 50 JA Solar Holdings Co.
(JASO)25 50 Trina Solar Ltd.
(TSL)25 50 LDK Solar Co. Ltd
(LDK)25 50 China Digital TV Holding Co., Ltd.
(STV)25 50 China Sunergy Co., Ltd.
(CSUN)25 50 The trading volume in these option classes recently has increased substantially. Increasing the CQL in these classes will enable the Exchange to enhance the liquidity offered, thereby offering deeper and more liquid markets. The Exchange represents that it has the systems capacity to support this increase in the CQLs. 2. Statutory Basis Accordingly, CBOE believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act. 7 Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) 8 requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 7 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b). 8 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others The Exchange neither received nor solicited written comments on the proposal. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing proposed rule change will take effect upon filing with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act 9 and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder, 10 because it constitutes a stated policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning, administration, or enforcement of an existing rule. 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i). 10 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-CBOE-2007-126 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2007-126. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the CBOE. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2007-126 and should be submitted on or before December 6, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 11 11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-22337 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56771; File No. SR-CHX-2005-34] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Regarding Cancellation of the Stock Leg of a Stock-Option Order and Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Amendment No. 3 Thereto November 8, 2007. I. Introduction On November 14, 2005, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (“CHX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to permit the cancellation of the stock leg of a stock-option order 3 if market conditions in a non-Exchange market prevent the options leg of the order from being executed at the agreed upon price. On July 11, 2006, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change, as amended, was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on July 27, 2006. 4 The Commission received no comments regarding the proposal. The Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change on October 22, 2007, and withdrew Amendment No. 2 on November 5, 2007. On November 5, 2007, CHX filed Amendment No. 3 to the proposal. 5 This order approves the proposed rule change, as amended. In addition, the Commission is publishing notice to solicit comment on, and is simultaneously approving on an accelerated basis, Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 A “stock-option order” would be defined as an order to buy or sell a stated number of units of an underlying or a related security coupled with either
(i)the purchase or sale of option contract(s) on the opposite side of the market representing either the same number of units of the underlying or related security or the number of units of the underlying security necessary to create a delta-neutral or delta-hedged position or
(ii)the purchase or sale of an equal number of put and call option contracts, each having the same exercise price, expiration date and each representing the same number of units of stock as, and on the opposite side of the market from, the underlying or related security portion of the order. *See* CHX's proposed Interpretation and Policy .01(b) to Rule 9 under Article 20. 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54185 (July 20, 2006), 71 FR 42693 (“Notice”). 5 In Amendment No. 3, CHX made revisions to the proposed rule text and purpose section of the proposal to conform the proposal with changes to the Exchange's trading model that were approved by the Commission after publication of the Notice. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54550 (September 29, 2006), 71 FR 59563 (October 10, 2006). In addition, in Amendment No. 3 CHX added a representation to the proposal that would require CHX to establish a special trade indicator for stock-option orders prior to the proposal becoming operative. II. Description of Proposal The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 9 under Article 20 to add new Interpretation and Policy .01, to permit the cancellation of the stock leg of a stock-option order if market conditions in a non-Exchange market prevent the options leg of the order from being executed at the agreed-upon price. 6 The market conditions that would be sufficient to justify cancellation of the stock leg of a stock-option order include a sudden change in the price of the options involved in the transaction prior to execution of the trade or a trading halt or systems failure that precludes immediate execution of the options leg at the agreed upon price. The Exchange's proposed rule also would require CHX floor participants that handle stock-option orders that are cancelled in accordance with the proposed rule to maintain records “sufficient to establish that market conditions in a non-Exchange market prevented the execution of the option leg(s).” 7 6 CHX represented that the stock leg of a stock-option order always would be presented to the CHX with an identified buyer and seller who have agreed to the terms of the trade, and that both the buyer and seller would be aware of the possibility that the stock leg of a stock-option order may be cancelled on the CHX if the corresponding options leg is not executed because of market conditions. *See* Notice, *supra* note 5. 7 *See* CHX's proposed Interpretation and Policy .01(c) to Exchange Rule 9 under Article 20. In Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change, the Exchange amended the proposed Interpretation and Policy .01 to state that it would not become operative until a special trade indicator to identify stock transactions that are part of stock-option orders is implemented. The purpose of this trade indicator would be to provide notice to market participants that these stock trades could be cancelled. This trade indicator must be used on such transactions reported through the Consolidated Tape Association Plan and the Nasdaq/UTP Plan. III. Discussion and Commission Findings 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. 8 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 9 which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Commission notes that the Exchange's proposed Interpretation and Policy .01 to Exchange Rule 9 under Article 20 is substantially similar to current Rule 6.48(b) of the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, which permits cancellation of the options leg of a stock-option order under the same circumstances described in the Exchange's proposed rule. Accordingly, the Commission finds that it is reasonable for the Exchange to provide CHX floor participants with the ability to cancel the stock leg of a stock-option order in certain limited circumstances when market conditions prevent the completion of the options leg of the order. 8 In approving this proposed rule change the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The Commission also finds good cause for approving Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change prior to 30 days after the date of publication of notice of filing thereof in the **Federal Register** . This amendment will ensure that, before the proposed rule change becomes operative, an indicator is developed that will make transparent the potential cancellation of stock-option orders. Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause for approving Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change on an accelerated basis. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change, including whether Amendment No. 3 to 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-CHX-2005-34 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-CHX-2005-34. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the NYSE. 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-CHX-2005-34 and should be submitted on or before December 6, 2007. V. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 10 that the proposed rule change (SR-CHX-2005-34), as amended, is approved, and that Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change (SR-CHX-2005-34) is approved on an accelerated basis. 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 11 11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-22336 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56773; File No. SR-ISE-2007-104] Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Fee Changes November 8, 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 November 1, 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, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the ISE. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The ISE is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to remove the surcharge fee for transactions in options on 10 Premium Products. 3 The text of the proposed rule change is available on the ISE's Web site ( *http://www.ise.com* ), at the principal office of the ISE, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. 3 Premium Products is defined in the Schedule of Fees as the products enumerated therein. 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 ISE 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 ISE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to remove the surcharge fee previously adopted for transactions in options on the iShares S&P 100 Index Fund (“OEF”), 4 the Financial Select Sector SPDR Fund (“XLF”), the Technology Select Sector SPDR Fund (“XLK”), the Utilities Select Sector SPDR Fund (“XLU”), 5 the Materials Select Sector SPDR Fund (“XLB”), the Industrial Select Sector SPDR Fund (“XLI”), the Health Care Select Sector SPDR Fund (“XLV”), the Consumer Discretionary Select Sector SPDR Fund (“XLY”), 6 the Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund (“XLE”), and the Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR Fund (“XLP”). 7 The Exchange is proposing to remove the surcharge fee for these products from its Schedule of Fees because it no longer pays a license fee to Standard and Poor's, Inc. in connection with transactions in options on OEF, XLF, XLK, XLU, XLB, XLI, XLV, XLY, XLE and XLP. Accordingly, there is no longer a need for this surcharge fee. The Exchange will, however, continue to charge an execution fee and a comparison fee for transactions in options on OEF, XLF, XLK, XLU, XLB, XLI, XLV, XLY, XLE and XLP. 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46189 (July 11, 2002), 67 FR 47587 (July 19, 2002). 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47243 (January 24, 2003), 68 FR 5066 (January 31, 2003). 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47536 (March 19, 2003), 68 FR 14727 (March 26, 2003). 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47564 (March 24, 2003), 68 FR 15256 (March 28, 2003). 2. Statutory Basis The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 8 that an exchange have an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities. 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others 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 Because the foregoing rule change establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3) of the Act 9 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) 10 thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 10 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an E-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File No. SR-ISE-2007-104 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-2007-104. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the ISE. 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-2007-104 and should be submitted on or before December 6, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 11 11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-22338 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56767; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2007-87] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change, and Amendments No. 1 and No. 2 Thereto, To Amend Listing Fees for Structured Products November 7, 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 August 16, 2007, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. On October 30, 2007, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. On November 7, 2007, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange, through its wholly-owned subsidiary NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (“NYSE Arca Equities”), proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees and Charges (“Fee Schedule”) to revise the listing fees applicable to structured products listed on NYSE Arca, LLC (“NYSE Arca Marketplace”), the equities facility of NYSE Arca Equities. The proposed revisions would apply retroactively as of October 3, 2007. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Commission's Public Reference Room, at the Exchange, and at *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 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 a. Listing Fee Schedule NYSE Arca has determined to revise the listing fees specifically applicable to Structured Products 3 in order to harmonize its fees with the New York Stock Exchange LLC's fees. The proposed revisions would apply as of October 3, 2007. 3 For purposes of this proposal, Structured Products include securities qualified for listing and trading on NYSE Arca under the following NYSE Arca Equities Rules: Rule 5.2(j)(1) (Other Securities), 5.2(j)(2) (Equity Linked Notes), Rule 5.2(j)(4) (Index-Linked Exchangeable Notes), Rule 5.2(j)(6) (Equity Index-Linked Securities, Commodity-Linked Securities and Currency-Linked Securities) and Rule 8.3 (Currency and Index Warrants), as these rules may be amended from time to time. NYSE Arca currently assesses a one-time Listing Fee of $20,000 for each Structured Product that is listed pursuant to an initial public offering (“IPO”) or an initial listing. Each time the issuer lists additional shares for the same Structured Product pursuant to a subsequent IPO, the issuer is charged a $1,000 fee. If an issuer lists a Structured Product that is already listed on another Marketplace or quoted on an inter-dealer Quotation System, the issuer is subject to a $5,000 fee per such product. In addition, if an issuer lists additional Structured Products that were already listed on another marketplace or quoted on an inter-dealer quotation system, the issuer is subject to the following fees: Number of structured products Fee per product 2-10 $1,000 11-100 500 100+ 100 The revised fee schedule would clarify the types of products defined as “Structured Products” and replace the current fee schedule with a fee schedule based on the total of shares outstanding. The revised fee schedule provides a fee cap of $45,000 per issue. The new fee schedule is as follows: Shares outstanding Fee Up to 1 million $5,000 1+ to 2 million 10,000 2+ to 3 million 15,000 3+ to 4 million 20,000 4+ to 5 million 25,000 5+ to 6 million 30,000 6+ to 7 million 30,000 7+ to 8 million 30,000 8+ to 9 million 30,000 9+ to 10 million 32,500 10+ to 15 million 37,500 in excess of 15 million 45,000 As set forth in the revised fee schedule for Structured Products, the fees will apply each time an issuer lists a Structured Product as well as subsequent listings of additional shares of the same Structured Product. The Exchange will treat each series of a Structured Product as a separate issue. b. Annual Fee Schedule NYSE Arca currently assesses Annual Fees based on the total number of Structured Products per issuer. The Annual Fee for one Structured Product listed is $5,000. For each additional Structured Product listed by the same issuer the following fees apply: Number of structured products Fee per product 2 through 10 $1,000 11 through 100 500 101+ 100 NYSE Arca proposes revised Annual Fees for Structured Products based on total shares outstanding for each issue, as follows: Shares outstanding Fee Up to 6 million $10,000 6+ to 7 million 12,000 7+ to 8 million 14,000 8+ to 9 million 16,000 9+ to 10 million 18,000 10+ to 15 million 20,000 15+ to 25 million 25,000 25+ to 50 million 42,000 in excess of 50 million 55,000 The Annual Fees for Structured Products are billed each calendar quarter and are apportioned based on the number of shares outstanding for an issue at the end of the preceding quarter. While the Exchange imposes a maximum total fee of $250,000 paid by an issuer each year, this maximum fee does not apply to Structured Products. 2. Statutory Basis NYSE Arca believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 4 in general, and Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 5 in particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its issuers and other persons using its facilities. 4 15 U.S.C. 78f (b). 5 15 U.S.C. 78f (b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others 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-2007-87 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-2007-87. 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 Commissionwill post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2007-87 and should be submitted on or before December 6, 2007. 6 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 6 Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-22295 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56750; File No. SR-Phlx-2007-85] lf-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Amending Phlx Rule 607 November 6, 2007. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on November 1, 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 the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change Phlx proposes to amend Phlx Rule 607 to remove language regarding the NMS Linkage Plan (“Plan”). The Plan was utilized by certain exchanges, including Phlx, for the purpose of routing and receiving orders in NMS Stocks. The Plan ended by its own terms on June 30, 2007. 5 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act No. 54551 (September 29, 2006), 71 FR 59148 (October 6, 2006). The text of the proposed rule change is available at Phlx, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *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, 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. 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 update Phlx Rule 607 to reflect the termination of the Plan. Phlx Rule 607 permits Phlx to collect the Covered Sale Fee 6 from its members and member organizations. In order to facilitate the collection of the Covered Sale Fee, Phlx amended Phlx Rule 607 to permit the Exchange to enter into agreements with other exchanges and with Participants in NASD's (n/k/a FINRA) Alternative Display Facility (“ADF Participant”) to pass the Covered Sale Fee among the applicable exchanges or ADF Participants where the Exchange has collected the Covered Sale Fee from its members and member organizations for sale transactions executed on another exchange or ADF Participant through the Plan and when other exchanges or ADF Participants have collected the Covered Sale Fee from their members for sale transactions executed on the Exchange through the Plan. 7 6 Under Section 31 of the Act, the Exchange must pay certain fees to the Commission. To help fund the Exchange's obligations to the Commission under Section 31, a Covered Sale Fee is assessed by the Exchange on members and member organizations. 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54555 (October 2, 2006), 71 FR 59577 (October 10, 2006). With the termination of the Plan, the agreements with the other exchanges and the ADF Participants are no longer needed. 8 When the Plan began, certain exchanges and ADF Participants were unable to supply clearing or member information on orders routed through the Plan to other markets and therefore routed orders directly through the Plan without identifying a member or subscriber of the destination market. 9 Because no member or subscriber of the destination market was involved in the transaction, there was no mechanism for the destination market to collect the Covered Sale Fee. The agreements provided for in Phlx Rule 607 permitted destination markets to collect the Covered Sale Fee for orders routed through the Plan that did not involve members or subscribers of the destination market. Now that the Plan has terminated, all access to the destination market is provided through members or subscribers, which are subject to the fees charged pursuant to rule or subscriber agreement. 8 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 56361 (September 6, 2007), 72 FR 52192 (September 12, 2007) (SR-Phlx-2007-66, deleting references to the Plan in the XLE Fee Schedule); 55569 (April 2, 2007), 72 FR 17978 (April 10, 2007) (SR-Phlx-2007-31, deleting references to the Intermarket Trading System (“ITS”) Plan in Phlx Rule 607, when the ITS Plan terminated.) 9 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54548 (September 29, 2006), 71 FR 59159 (October 6, 2006) (footnote 6). Therefore, Phlx proposes to delete that section of Phlx Rule 607 referring to agreements with other exchanges and ADF Participants. Phlx does not intend this deletion to affect any rights or obligations that have accrued to any party up to this point in time pursuant to any such agreements. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 10 in general and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) 11 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system, and in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The 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. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
(i)Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii)Impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii)Become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 12 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 13 As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act, 14 the Exchange provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of the filing of the proposed rule change. 12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 13 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 14 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. 15 However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 16 permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay and render the proposed rule change operative immediately. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Waiver of the 30-day operative delay would enable the Exchange to delete language in Phlx Rule 607 that is no longer needed due to the termination of the Plan as quickly as possible and prevent any potential confusion as to the applicability of this language. For the reasons stated above, the Commission therefore designates the proposal to become operative immediately. 17 15 *Id.* 16 *Id.* 17 For purposes of waiving the operative date of this proposal only, the Commission has considered the impact of the proposed rule on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-Phlx-2007-85 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-2007-85. 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-2007-85 and should be submitted on or before December 6, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 18 18 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-22293 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-56760; File No. SR-Phlx-2007-40] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order Granting Accelerated Approval to a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 3, Relating to Complex Orders November 7, 2007. I. Introduction On May 21, 2007, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to amend Phlx Rule 1066, “Certain Types of Orders Defined,” to revise the definition of “synthetic option,” and to amend Phlx Rule 1083(c) to modify the definition of “Complex Trade” as it relates to the Plan for the Purpose of Creating and Operating an Intermarket Options Linkage (“Linkage Plan”). The Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposal on September 4, 2007, and withdrew Amendment No. 1 on October 1, 2007. The Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposal on October 1, 2007, and withdrew Amendment No. 2 on the same day. The Phlx filed Amendment No. 3 to the proposal on October 1, 2007. 3 The proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 3, was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on October 11, 2007. 4 The Commission received no comments regarding the proposed rule change, as amended. This order approves the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 3, on an accelerated basis. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 Amendment No. 3 replaces and supersedes the original filing and previous amendments in their entirety. 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56608 (October 3, 2007), 72 FR 57985. II. Description of the Proposal A. Phlx Rule 1066(g) Currently, Phlx Rule 1066(g) defines a “synthetic option” as an order to buy or sell a stated number of option contracts and the underlying stock or Exchange-Traded Fund Share in an amount that would offset the options position on a one-for-one basis. The Phlx proposes to amend Phlx Rule 1066(g) to define a “synthetic option” as an order to buy or sell a stated number of units of an underlying stock or a security convertible into the underlying stock (“convertible security”) coupled with either
(i)the purchase or sale of option contract(s) on the opposite side of the market representing either the same number of units of the underlying stock or convertible security or the number of units of the underlying stock or convertible security necessary to create a delta neutral position; or
(ii)the purchase or sale of an equal number of put and call option contracts, each having the same exercise price, expiration date, and each representing the same number of units of stock as, and on the opposite side of the market from, the stock or convertible security portion of the order. The revised definition of “synthetic option” will permit the purchase or sale of options on the opposite side of the market representing the number of units of the underlying stock or convertible security necessary to create a delta neutral position, rather than requiring that the stock and option components of the synthetic option order offset each other on a one-for-one basis. The revised definition is substantially similar to the definition of “stock-option order” adopted by other U.S. options exchanges. 5 5 *See,* *e.g.* , Amex Rule 950-ANTE(e)(viii)(1); CBOE Rule 1.1(ii); and ISE Rule 722(a)(5)(i). B. Phlx Rule 1083(c) The Phlx also proposes to amend Phlx Rule 1083(c) to revise the definition of “Complex Trade” for purposes of the Linkage Plan, which provides an exception to Trade-Through 6 liability and Satisfaction Order 7 liability when the transaction that caused the Trade-Through was the result of a Complex Trade. The proposed changes to Phlx Rule 1083(c) are almost identical to changes proposed by the other Linkage Plan Participants, 8 which the Commission is approving in a separate order today. 9 6 In connection with the Linkage Plan, a “ Trade-Through” means a transaction in an options series at a price that is inferior to the National Best Bid or Offer (“NBBO”), but shall not include a transaction that occurs at a price that is one minimum quoting increment inferior to the NBBO provided a Linkage Order is contemporaneously sent to each Participant Exchange disseminating the NBBO for the full size of the Participant Exchange's bid (offer) that represents the NBBO. *See* Phlx Rule 1083(t). 7 In connection with the Linkage Plan, a Satisfaction Order is an order sent through the Linkage to notify a member of another Participant Exchange of a Trade-Through and to seek satisfaction of the liability arising from that Trade-Through. *See* Phlx Rule 1083(k)(iii). 8 Phlx Rule 1083(c)(ii) refers to “stock-option orders” as synonymous with “synthetic option orders” to be consistent with the definitions proposed by the other Linkage Plan Participants. 9 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56761 (November 7, 2007) (order approving File Nos. SR-Amex-2007-65; SR-BSE-2007-45; SR-CBOE-2007-64; SR-ISE-2007-44; and SR-NYSEArca-2007-65) (“Complex Trade Order”). Specifically, the Phlx proposes to revise Phlx Rule 1083(c) to:
(1)Provide that the option orders in a Complex Trade may be in a ratio equal to or greater than one-to-three (.333) and less than or equal to three-to-one (3.0); and
(2)add a certain limited type of synthetic option order to the definition of Complex Trade. Phlx Rule 1083(c)(ii) defines a “stock-option order” as an order to buy or sell a stated number of units of an underlying stock or a security convertible into the underlying stock (“convertible security”), coupled with the purchase or sale of option contract(s) on the opposite side of the market representing either
(A)the same number of units of the underlying stock or convertible security; or
(B)the number of units of the underlying stock or convertible security necessary to create a delta neutral position, but in no case in a ratio greater than eight option contracts per unit of trading of the underlying stock or convertible security established for that series by the Clearing Corporation. III. Commission Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of the Proposed Rule Change, as Amended 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. 10 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 11 which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 10 In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The Commission believes that the revised definition of “synthetic option” could help enable the Phlx to compete with other U.S. options exchanges whose definitions of “stock-option order” currently permit delta neutral positions, thereby increasing the number of markets in which customers may execute such orders. The Commission also believes that the proposed changes to Phlx Rule 1083(c) will ensure that the Phlx's definition of “Complex Trade” is consistent with the definition of “Complex Trade” adopted by the other Linkage Plan Participants. The Commission believes that by amending the definition of “Complex Trade” to include certain stock-option orders, as described above, and by providing a consistent definition of “Complex Trade” in the rules of the exchanges, the proposal may facilitate the execution of such Complex Trades. The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change, as amended, prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice of filing thereof in the **Federal Register** . The proposal was subject to a 21-day comment period, and the Commission received no comments on the proposal. In addition, as described more fully above, the revised definition of “synthetic option” in Phlx Rule 1066(g) is substantially similar to the definition of “stock-option order” adopted by other U.S. options exchanges 12 and does not raise new regulatory issues. Similarly, the proposed changes to Phlx Rule 1083(c) are nearly identical to changes proposed by the other Linkage Plan Participants that the Commission is approving in a separate order. 13 Accordingly, accelerated approval of the changes to Phlx Rule 1083(c) will ensure that the Phlx's definition of “Complex Trade” is consistent with the definition of “Complex Trade” adopted by the other Linkage Plan Participants. For these reasons, the Commission finds good cause, consistent with Sections 6(b)(5) and 19(b) of the Act, to approve the proposal, as amended, on an accelerated basis. 12 *See supra* note 5. 13 *See* Complex Trade Order, *supra* note 9. IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 14 that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2007-40), as modified by Amendment No. 3, is approved on an accelerated basis. 14 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 15 15 15 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-22294 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Small Business Size Standards: Waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice of intent to Waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Irradiation Apparatus Manufacturing. SUMMARY: The U.S. Small Business Administration
(SBA)is considering granting a request for a waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Irradiation Apparatus Manufacturing, Computerized axial tomography (CT/CAT) scanners manufacturing; CT/CAT (computerized axial tomography) scanners manufacturing; Fluoroscopes manufacturing; Fluoroscopic X-ray apparatus and tubes manufacturing; Generators, X-ray, manufacturing; Irradiation equipment manufacturing; X-ray generators manufacturing; and X-ray irradiation equipment manufacturing. According to the request, no small business manufacturers supply these classes of products to the Federal government. If granted, the waiver would allow otherwise qualified regular dealers to supply the products of any domestic manufacturer on a Federal contract set aside for small businesses; service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses or SBA's 8(a) Business Development Program. DATES: Comments and source information must be submitted November 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments and source information to Edith G. Butler, Program Analyst, U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Government Contracting, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 8800, Washington, DC 20416. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edith G. Butler, Program Analyst, by telephone at
(202)619-0422; by FAX at
(202)481-1788; or by e-mail at *Edith.butler@sba.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 8(a)(17) of the Small Business Act (Act), 15 U.S.C. 637(a)(17), requires that recipients of Federal contracts set aside for small businesses, service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, or SBA's 8(a) Business Development Program provide the product of a small business manufacturer or processor, if the recipient is other than the actual manufacturer or processor of the product. This requirement is commonly referred to as the Nonmanufacturer Rule. The SBA regulations imposing this requirement are found at 13 CFR 121.406(b). Section 8(a)(17)(b)(iv) of the Act authorizes SBA to waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule for any “class of products” for which there are no small business manufacturers or processors available to participate in the Federal market. As implemented in SBA's regulations at 13 CFR 121.1202(c), in order to be considered available to participate in the Federal market for a class of products, a small business manufacturer must have submitted a proposal for a contract solicitation or received a contract from the Federal government within the last 24 months. The SBA defines “class of products” based on six digit coding system. The coding system is the Office of Management and Budget North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The SBA is currently processing a request to waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Irradiation Apparatus Manufacturing, Computerized axial tomography (CT/CAT) scanners manufacturing; CT/CAT (computerized axial tomography) scanners manufacturing; Fluoroscopes manufacturing; Fluoroscopic X-ray apparatus and tubes manufacturing; Generators, X-ray, manufacturing; Irradiation equipment manufacturing; X-ray generators manufacturing; and X-ray irradiation equipment manufacturing, North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 334517 product number 6525. The public is invited to comment or provide source information to SBA on the proposed waivers of the Nonmanufacturer Rule for this class of NAICS code within 15 days after date of publication in the Federal Business Opportunities. Dated: November 6, 2007. Arthur E. Collins, Jr., Director for Government Contracting. [FR Doc. E7-22353 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Small Business Size Standards: Waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice of intent to waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Electromedical and Electrotherapeutic Apparatus Manufacturing. SUMMARY: The U.S. Small Business Administration
(SBA)is considering granting a request for a waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Electromedical and Electrotherapeutic Apparatus Manufacturing, Diagnostic equipment, MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) manufacturing; Magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI)medical diagnostic equipment manufacturing; Medical ultrasound equipment manufacturing; MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) medical diagnostic equipment manufacturing; Patient monitoring equipment (e.g., intensive care coronary care unit) manufacturing; PET (positron emission equipment tomography) scanners manufacturing; and Positron emission tomography
(PET)scanners manufacturing. According to the request, no small business manufacturers supply these classes of products to the Federal government. If granted, the waiver would allow otherwise qualified regular dealers to supply the products of any domestic manufacturer on a Federal contract set aside for small businesses; service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses or SBA's 8(a) Business Development Program. DATES: Comments and source information must be submitted November 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments and source information to Edith G. Butler, Program Analyst, U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Government Contracting, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 8800, Washington, DC 20416. FOR FURTHER INFORMATI0N CONTACT: Edith G. Butler, Program Analyst, by telephone at
(202)619-0422; by fax at
(202)481-1788; or by e-mail at *Edith.butler@sba.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 8(a)(17) of the Small Business Act (Act), 15 U.S.C. 637(a)(17), requires that recipients of Federal contracts set aside for small businesses, service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, or SBA's 8(a) Business Development Program provide the product of a small business manufacturer or processor, if the recipient is other than the actual manufacturer or processor of the product. This requirement is commonly referred to as the Nonmanufacturer Rule. The SBA regulations imposing this requirement are found at 13 CFR 121.406(b). Section 8(a)(17)(b)(iv) of the Act authorizes SBA to waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule for any “class of products” for which there are no small business manufacturers or processors available to participate in the Federal market. As implemented in SBA's regulations at 13 CFR 121.1202(c), in order to be considered available to participate in the Federal market for a class of products, a small business manufacturer must have submitted a proposal for a contract solicitation or received a contract from the Federal government within the last 24 months. The SBA defines “class of products” based on a six digit coding system. The coding system is the Office of Management and Budget North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The SBA is currently processing a request to waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Electromedical and Electrotherapeutic Apparatus Manufacturing, Diagnostic equipment, MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) manufacturing; Magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI)medical diagnostic equipment manufacturing; Medical ultrasound equipment manufacturing; MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) medical diagnostic equipment manufacturing; Patient monitoring equipment (e.g., intensive care coronary care unit) manufacturing; PET (positron emission equipment tomography) scanners manufacturing; and Positron emission tomography
(PET)scanners manufacturing, North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 334510 product number 6525. The public is invited to comment or provide source information to SBA on the proposed waivers of the Nonmanufacturer Rule for this class of NAICS code within 15 days after date of publication in the **Federal Register** . Dated: November 6, 2007. Arthur E. Collins, Jr., Director for Government Contracting. [FR Doc. E7-22357 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Notice of Passenger Facility Charge
(PFC)Approvals and Disapprovals AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Monthly Notice of PFC Approvals and Disapprovals. In October 2007, there were nine applications approved. This notice also includes information on two applications, approved in September 2007, inadvertently left off the September 2007 notice. Additionally, 14 approved amendments to previously approved applications are listed. SUMMARY: The FAA publishes a monthly notice, as appropriate, of PFC approvals and disapprovals under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158). This notice is published pursuant to paragraph
(d)of § 158.29. PFC Applications Approved *Public Agency:* City of Phoenix, Arizona. *Application Number:* 07-08-C-00-PHX. *Application Type:* Impose and use a PFC. *PFC Level:* $4.50. *Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision:* $202,200,000. *Earliest Charge Effective Date:* August 1, 2008. *Estimated Charge Expiration Date:* August 1, 2010. Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's
(1)Non-scheduled, on-demand air carriers filing FAA Form 1800-31;
(2)commuters or small certificated air carriers filing Department of Transportation Form 298—C T1 or E1 with less than 7,500 annual enplanements at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX);
(3)large certificated air carriers filing Research and Special Programs Administration
(RSPA)Form T-100 with less than 7,500 annual enplanements at PHX; and
(4)foreign air carriers filing RSPA Form T-100(f) with less than 7,500 annual enplanements at PHX. *Determination:* Approved. Based on information contained in the public agency's application, the FAA has determined that each approved class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements at PHX. *Brief description of projects approved for collection and use at a $4.50 PFC Level:* Taxiway improvements. Noise mitigation program. Security improvements. *Brief Description of projects approved for collection and use at a $3.00 PFC level:* Improved terminal facilities. Passenger information and paging system. *Decision Date:* September 27, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimchi Hoang, Los Angeles Airports District Office,
(310)725-3617. *Public Agency:* City of Chicago Department of Aviation, Chicago, Illinois. *Application Number:* 07-20-C-00-ORD. *Application Type:* Impose and use a PFC. *PFC Level:* $3.00. *Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision:* $53,983,000. *Earliest Charge Effective Date:* May 1, 2024. *Estimated Charge Expiration Date:* October 1, 2024. *Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's:* Air taxi. *Determination:* Approved. Based on information contained in the public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements at Chicago O'Hare International Airport. *Brief Description of Projects Partially Approved for Collection and Use at a $3.00 PFC Level:* Airport access road improvements. *Determination:* After reviewing the information provided by the public agency, the FAA determined that portions of the roadways included in the project description are ineligible for PFC funding. Airport transit system vehicle acquisition and system improvements. *Determination:* After reviewing the materials provided by the public agency, the FAA determined there was a mathematical error in the cost estimate. Due to this error, the approved amount is less than the requested amount. *Decision Date:* September 28, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Hanson, Chicago Airports District Office,
(847)294-7354. *Public Agency:* City of San Antonio, Texas. *Application Number:* 07-05-C-00-SAT. *Application Type:* Impose and use a PFC. *PFC Level:* $4.50. *Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision:* $24,265,453. *Earliest Charge Effective Date:* March 1, 2018. *Estimated Charge Expiration Date:* March 1, 2019. *Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's:* Part 135 on demand/air taxi operators filing FAA Form 1800-31. *Determination:* Approved. Based on information contained in the public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements at San Antonio International Airport. *Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use at a $3.00 PFC Level:* Runway 21 extension (1,000 feet) and associated development. Taxiway R extension. *Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use At a $5.50 PFC Level:* Terminal 1 modifications. Runway safety action team improvements. *Decision Date:* October 4, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Guillermo Villalobos, Texas Airports District Office,
(817)222-5657. *Public Agency:* County of Okaloosa, Valparaiso, Florida. *Application Number:* 07-03-C-00-VPS. *Application Type:* Impose and use a PFC. *PFC Level:* $4.50. *Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision:* $1,143,526. *Earliest Charge Effective Date:* December 1, 2019. *Estimated Charge Expiration Date:* July 1, 2020. *Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's:* Air taxi/commercial operators. *Determination:* Approved. Based on information contained in the public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements at Okaloosa Regional Airport (VPS). *Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection at VPS and Use at VPS:* East access, site development, and site utilities. Construct cargo/maintenance building. Expand terminal apron. Relocate fuel farm. Design terminal baggage and gate expansion. Install backup emergency generator. PFC program and administration costs. *Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection at VPS and Use at VPS, CEW, and Destin-Fort Walton Beach Airport:* Master Plan Updates. *Brief Description of Project Partially Approved for Collection at VPS and Use at Crestview/Bob Sikes Airport (CEW):* Rehabilitate runway 17/35 (phases 1, 2, and 3). *Determination:* The FAA determined that only 6,500 feet of the runway length is eligible. Therefore, the approved amount is less than that requested by the public agency. *Decision Date:* October 5, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Moore, Orlando airports District Office,
(407)812-6331 extension 120. *Public Agency:* Palm Beach Board of County Commissioners, West Palm Beach, Florida. *Application Number:* 07-09-C-00-PBI. *Application Type:* Impose and use a PFC. *PFC Level:* $4.50. *Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision:* $22,283,317. *Charge Effective Date:* July 1, 2008. *Estimated Charge Expiration Date:* October 1, 2010. *Class of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC's:* Air taxi/commercial operators filing FAA Form 1800-31. *Determination:* Approved. Based on information contained in the public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements at Palm Beach International Airport. *Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use at a $4.50 PFC Level:* Extension of taxiway L. Extension of taxiway F. Replace two fire rescue vehicles. Navigational aid relocation study. *Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection for Future Use at a $4.50 PFC Level:* Land acquisition. *Decision Date:* October 9, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Moore, Orlando Airports District Office,
(407)812-6331, extension 120. *Public Agency:* County of Jefferson, Beaumont, Texas. *Application Number:* 07-06-C-00-BPT. *Application Type:* Impose and use a PFC. *PFC Level:* $4.50. *Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision:* $525,062. *Charge Effective Date:* November 1, 2008. *Estimated Charge Expiration Date:* February 1, 2012. *Class of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC's:* None. *Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:* Airfield equipment. Apron F rehabilitation. Airfield pavement joint rehabilitation. Runway 12/30 rehabilitation (phase 1). Airfield drainage system improvements. Airfield electrical upgrades. PFC application and administration fees. Pavement maintenance plan. *Decision Date:* October 9, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Guttery, Texas Airports Development Office,
(817)222-5614. *Public Agency:* Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority, Toledo, Ohio. *Application Number:* 07-05-C-00-TOL. *Application Type:* Impose and use a PFC. *PFC Level:* $4.50. *Total PFC Revenue Approved In This Decision:* $1,492,000. *Charge Effective Date:* December 1, 2007. *Estimated Charge Expiration Date:* December 1, 2010. *Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's:* Non-scheduled/on-demand air carriers filing FAA Form 1800-31. *Determination:* Approved. Based on information contained in the public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements at Toledo Express Airport. *Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:* Terminal improvements and reimbursement. Rehabilitation of B-6, B-9, B-11, and B-1 design and construction. Relocation of taxiway November design. Rehabilitate runway 16/34 design. Conduct airfield electrical master plan. Acquire snow removal equipment. Purchase of a vacuum truck/spill prevention. Cargo deicing recovery system. *Decision Date:* October 11, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Porter, Detroit Airports District Office,
(734)229-2915. *Public Agency:* Kent County Department of Aeronautics, Grand Rapids, Michigan. *Application Number:* 07-04-C-00-GRR. *Application Type:* Impose and use a PFC. *PFC Level:* $4.50. *Total PFC Revenue Approved In This Decision:* $5,525.000. *Charge Effective Date:* March 1, 2032. *Estimated Charge Expiration Date:* January 1, 2033. *Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's:* Non-scheduled/on-demand air carriers filing FAA Form 1800-31. *Determination:* Approved. Based on information contained in the public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements at Gerald R. Ford International Airport. *Brief Description of Projects Approved For Collection and Use:* Passenger loading bridge replacement. Public address system replacement. *Brief Description of Project Partially Approved For Collection and Use:* Radio system replacement. *Determination:* The FAA determined that the public agency consulted on a different amount than the amount requested. Therefore, the FAA's approval is limited to the amount discussed in the air carrier consultation and public notice. *Decision Date:* October 18, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Watt, Detroit Airports District Office,
(734)229-2906. *Public Agency:* Kent County Department of Aeronautics, Grand Rapids, Michigan. *Application Number:* 07-05-U-00-GRR. *Application Type:* Use PFC revenue. *PFC Level:* $4.50 *Total PFC Revenue To Be Used In This Decision:* $2,129,985. *Charge Effective Date:* October 1, 2016. *Estimated Charge Expiration Date:* April 1, 2018. *Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's:* No change from previous decision. *Brief Description of Project Approved For Use:* Terminal B concourse expansion. *Decision Date:* October 18, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Watt, Detroit Airports District Office,
(734)229-2906. *Public Agency:* Coos County Airport District, North Bend, Oregon. *Application Number:* 07-08-C-00-OTH. *Application Type:* Impose and use a PFC. *PFC Level:* $4.50. *Total PFC Revenue Approved In This Decision:* $403,360. * Earliest Charge Effective Date:* January 1, 2011. *Estimated Charge Expiration Date:* July 1, 2014. *Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's:* Non-scheduled air taxi/commercial operators filing FAA Form 1800-31. *Determination:* Approved. Based on information contained in the public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements at Southwest Oregon Regional Airport. *Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection and Use:* Relocation of taxiway C. *Decision Date:* October 19, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Trang Tran, Seattle Airports District Office,
(425)227-1662. *Public Agency:* Los Angeles County World Airports, Los Angeles, California *Application Number:* 07-06-C-00-LAX. *Application Type:* Impose and use a PFC. *PFC Level:* $4.50. *Total PFC Revenue Approved In This Decision:* $85,000,000. *Earliest Charge Effective Date:* October 1, 2009. *Estimated Charge Expiration Date:* July 1, 2010. *Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's:* All non-scheduled/on-demand air taxi/commercial operators. *Determination:* Approved. Based on information contained in the public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the approved class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements at Los Angeles International Airport. *Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection and Use at a $4.50 PFC Level:* Los Angeles residential soundproofing—phase II. Noise mitigation program in other local jurisdictions—phase II. *Decision Date:* October 19, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ruben Cabalbag, Los Angeles Airports District Office,
(310)735-3630. Amendments to PFC Approvals Amendment No. city, state Amendment approved date Original approved net PFC revenue Amended approved net PFC revenue Original estimated charge exp. date Amended estimated charge exp. date 98-03-C-03-TLH, Tallahassee, FL 09/27/07 $6,848,783 $3,770,045 10/01/02 10/01/02 93-01-C-04-GEG, Spokane, WA 10/12/07 12,594,838 9,283,006 04/01/98 04/01/98 93-01-C-04-TPA, Tampa, FL 10/15/07 133,682,614 145,316,784 04/01/01 04/01/01 94-02-U-03-TPA, Tampa, FL 10/15/07 NA NA 04/01/01 04/01/01 97-03-C-01-TPA, Tampa, FL 10/16/07 25,540,952 25,460,336 06/01/02 06/01/02 02-05-C-01-TPA, Tampa, FL 10/17/07 135,782,200 152,489,574 07/01/06 07/01/06 01-05-C-03-OTH, North Bend, OR 10/19/07 541,602 638,079 08/01/05 07/01/06 04-09-C-02-CRW, Charleston, WV 10/19/07 6,982,402 7,609,184 03/01/11 08/01/11 03-06-C-01-TPA, Tampa, FL 10/23/07 298,115,400 323,388,300 09/01/13 03/01/14 98-03-C-02-EUG, Eugene, OR 10/23/07 1,577,459 1,577,459 06/01/01 06/01/01 04-10-C-02-MKE, Milwaukee, WI 10/23/07 11,775,601 12,025,601 04/01/18 04/01/18 06-13-C-01-MKE, Milwaukee, WI 10/23/07 47,306,855 51,947,402 01/01/24 06/01/24 96-05-C-09-ORD, Chicago, IL 10/24/07 467,714,130 488,140,368 04/01/08 06/01/08 03-04-C-02-PIH, Pocatello, ID 10/25/07 497,218 294,313 04/01/08 04/01/08 Issued in Washington, DC, on November 6, 2007. Joe Hebert, Manager, Financial Analysis and Passenger Facility Charge Branch. [FR Doc. 07-5645 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 19
Traces to 19 documents
18 references not yet in our index
  • 26 USC 2813
  • 29 CFR 90.18(c)
  • 29 CFR 90.11(c)(7)
  • 29 CFR 75
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 49 CFR 177
  • 449 F.3d 1016
  • 10 CFR 51
  • 10 CFR 72
  • 29 CFR 4006
  • 29 CFR 4281
  • 29 CFR 4044
  • 17 CFR 240.19
  • 15 USC 78(f)(b)
  • 15 USC 78(f)(b)(5)
  • 17 CFR 19
  • Pub. L. 101-508
  • 14 CFR 158
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of meeting
U.S.C.§ 5601
U.S.C.§ 2273
U.S.C.§ 668
U.S.C.§ 7902
Fed. Reg.Notices
C.F.R.§ 150.20
C.F.R.§ 20.1801
C.F.R.§ 20.1802
C.F.R.§ 2.202
F. App'x449 F.3d 1016
Cite26 USC 2813
Cite29 CFR 90.18(c)
Cites 37 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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