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 · 2008-01-07 · Nuclear Regulatory Commission · Notices

Notices. Policy Statement: Revision

27,118 words·~123 min read·/register/2008/01/07/08-4

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

BILLING CODE 7533-01-PM NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Imposition of Civil Penalty on Contractors and Subcontractors Who Discriminate Against Employees for Engaging in Protected Activities AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Policy Statement: Revision. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is revising its Enforcement Policy to include contractors and subcontractors of a licensee against whom the Commission may impose a civil penalty for discriminating against employees for engaging in protected activities. DATES: Effective date: This action is effective February 6, 2008. Comment date: Comments on this revision should be submitted by March 7, 2008. The Commission will apply the modified Policy to violations that occur after the effective date. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to: Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: T6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Federal workdays. Copies of comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, Room O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. You may also e-mail comments to *nrcrep@nrc.gov.* The NRC maintains the current Enforcement Policy on its Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov;* select “About NRC”, “Organization and Functions”, “Office of Enforcement”, “About Enforcement”, then “Enforcement Policy”. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Starkey, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; Telephone
(301)415-3456; e-mail *drs@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission amended 10 CFR 30.7, 40.7, 50.7, 52.5, 60.9, 61.9, 63.9, 70.7, 71.9, 72.10 and 76.7 to clarify the Commission's authority to impose civil penalties on contractors and subcontractors for violations of Commission employee protection requirements. The changes to the Enforcement Policy hereunder incorporate the recent clarifying revisions set forth in the referenced employee protection regulations. Paperwork Reduction Act This final change to the NRC Enforcement Policy does not contain new or amended information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* ). Public Protection Notification If a means used to impose an information collection does not display a currently valid OMB control number, the NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, the information collection. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act In accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has determined that this action is not a “major” rule and has verified this determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Accordingly, the NRC Enforcement Policy is amended to read as follows: General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions I. Introduction and Purpose Footnote 1 This policy primarily addresses the activities of NRC licensees and applicants for NRC licenses. However, this policy provides for taking enforcement action against non-licensees and individuals in certain cases. These non-licensees include contractors and subcontractors, holders of, or applicants for, NRC approvals, e.g., certificates of compliance, early site permits, or standard design certificates, and the employees of these non-licensees. Specific guidance regarding enforcement action against individuals and non-licensees is addressed in Sections VII, VIII and X. VI. Enforcement Actions C. Civil Penalty A civil penalty is a monetary penalty that may be imposed for violation of
(1)certain specified licensing provisions of the Atomic Energy Act or supplementary NRC rules or orders;
(2)any requirement for which a license may be revoked; or
(3)reporting requirements under section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act. Civil penalties are designed to deter future violations both by the involved licensee, contractor, subcontractor or other person and other licensees, contractors, subcontractors or other persons, conducting similar activities. Civil penalties also emphasize the need for licensees, contractors, subcontractors and other persons to identify violations and take prompt comprehensive corrective action. VII. Exercise of Discretion B. Mitigation of Enforcement Sanctions 5. Violations Involving Certain Discrimination Issues Enforcement discretion may be exercised for discrimination cases when a licensee (including a contractor or subcontractor) who, without the need for government intervention, identifies an issue of discrimination and takes prompt, comprehensive, and effective corrective action to address both the particular situation and the overall work environment for raising safety concerns. Similarly, enforcement may not be warranted where a complaint is filed with the Department of Labor
(DOL)under Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, but the licensee settles the matter before the DOL makes an initial finding of discrimination and addresses the overall work environment. Alternatively, if a finding of discrimination is made, the licensee may choose to settle the case before the evidentiary hearing begins. In such cases, the NRC may exercise its discretion not to take enforcement action when the licensee has addressed the overall work environment for raising safety concerns and has publicized that a complaint of discrimination for engaging in protected activity was made to the DOL, that the matter was settled to the satisfaction of the employee (the terms of the specific settlement agreement need not be posted), and that, if the DOL Area Office found discrimination, the licensee has taken action to positively reemphasize that discrimination will not be tolerated. Similarly, the NRC may refrain from taking enforcement action if a licensee settles a matter promptly after a person comes to the NRC without going to the DOL. Such discretion would normally not be exercised in cases in which the licensee does not appropriately address the overall work environment ( *e.g.* , by using training, postings, revised policies or procedures, any necessary disciplinary action, etc., to communicate its policy against discrimination) or in cases that involve: Allegations of discrimination as a result of providing information directly to the NRC; allegations of discrimination caused by a manager above first-line supervisor (consistent with current Enforcement Policy classification of Severity Level I or II violations); allegations of discrimination where a history of findings of discrimination (by the DOL or the NRC) or settlements suggests a programmatic rather than an isolated discrimination problem; or allegations of discrimination which appear particularly blatant or egregious. Generally, the NRC holds licensees responsible for maintaining control and oversight of their contractor and subcontractor activities. As such, in cases involving licensee contractors and subcontractors, the NRC will typically take enforcement action against a licensee for violations arising out of the acts of its contractor or subcontractor. In addition, enforcement action (including a civil penalty) may be taken against the licensee contractor or subcontractor. On occasion, however, circumstances may arise where the NRC may refrain from taking enforcement action or imposing a civil penalty against a licensee even though it takes enforcement action or issues a civil penalty, against the licensee contractor or subcontractor. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of December, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E7-25629 Filed 1-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. ACR2007] FY 2007 Annual Compliance Report; Comment Request AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: As required by 39 U.S.C. 3652, the Postal Service has filed an Annual Compliance Report with the Postal Regulatory Commission on the costs, revenues, rates, and quality of service associated with its products in fiscal year 2007. Within 90 days, the Commission must evaluate that information and issue its determination as to whether rates were in compliance with title 39, chapter 36 and whether service standards in effect were met. To assist in this, the Commission seeks public comments on the Postal Service's FY 2007 Annual Compliance Report. DATES: Comments due January 30, 2008; reply comments due February 13, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at *http://www.prc.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 202-789-6820 and *stephen.sharfman@prc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3652 of title 39 of the United States Code requires the Postal Service to file a report with the Postal Regulatory Commission on the costs, revenues, rates, and quality of service associated with its products within 90 days after the close of each fiscal year. That section requires that the Postal Service's annual report be sufficiently detailed to allow the Commission and the public to determine whether the rates charged and the service provided comply with all of the requirements of title 39 of the United States Code. *See* 39 U.S.C. 3652(a)(1) and (e)(1)(A). The Postal Service filed its annual compliance report for FY 2007 with the Commission on December 28, 2007. Appended to it are four major sets of data—the Cost and Revenue Analysis (CRA), the International Cost and Revenue Analysis (ICRA), the models of costs avoided by worksharing, and billing determinant information. 1 1 United States Postal Service FY 2007 Annual Compliance Report, December 28, 2007 (FY 2007 Annual Compliance Report). After receiving the FY 2007 Annual Compliance Report, the Commission is required under 39 U.S.C. 3653 to provide an opportunity for comment to the interested public and an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public. The Commission hereby solicits public comment on the degree to which the Postal Service's operations and financial results comply with the policies of title 39. Comments by interested persons are due on or before January 30, 2008. Reply comments are due on February 13, 2008. 2 2 The officer of the Commission in this matter will be appointed shortly. The Commission is aware that these are shorter comment periods than those that the Commission has provided in other recent notice and comment proceedings. The statute affords the Commission 90 days to digest the report filed by the Postal Service and evaluate the Postal Service's compliance with the broad range of policies articulated in title 39. Expediting public comment is essential if the Commission is to have sufficient time to take the public's concerns into account in making its evaluation. 3 3 Expedition may have an additional benefit. There is the possibility that the Postal Service may file notice of a general rate adjustment sometime in February under the provisions of 39 U.S.C. 3622(d)(1)(C). This possibility has been discussed informally throughout the postal community. If public comments on the Postal Service's annual report identify potential problem areas several weeks in advance of the Postal Service's rate filing, this may inform or influence the Postal Service's pricing decisions. The context in which the Postal Service has filed its annual report for FY 2007 is unique in several respects. It is the first compliance report that the Postal Service has filed after passage of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 (PAEA). Fiscal Year 2007 was a transition period during which the rate-setting criteria of the former Postal Reorganization Act
(PRA)remained in force. The Postal Service suggests that FY 2007 rates and service should be analyzed for compliance with the rate-setting criteria of the PRA rather than the PAEA. *Id.* at 1. In its report, the Postal Service applies the rate-setting criteria of the PRA to the then-existing subclasses and concludes that FY 2007 rates and service fully complied with title 39. *Id.* at 6 and 22. Emphasizing the difficulty of developing a crosswalk between then-existing subclasses and the current list of products, the Postal Service does not offer conclusions regarding the extent workshare discounts in effect in FY 2007 comply with the criteria of either the PRA or the PAEA. *Id.* at 19-22. The Postal Service identifies some information as confidential and subject to protective conditions. It explains that in the absence of new rules regarding its confidential business information, it has largely followed past practice. Thus, financial data relating to international products is in a nonpublic annex while some financial information on competitive domestic products is presented publicly. The Postal Service recognizes that the appropriate identification of confidential data will be fully explored in a future Commission rulemaking. *Id.* at 30-33. The FY 2007 Annual Compliance Report is the Postal Service's first attempt to comply with the tight production schedule that section 3652 imposes. Consequently, its report does not contain all of the information that normally would be provided in a section 3652 report. For example, 39 U.S.C. 3652(g) requires the Postal Service to submit its comprehensive statement together with its annual compliance report. The Postal Service explains that it expects to file its comprehensive statement in early to mid-January, 2008. *Id.* at 5. Another reason that the FY 2007 Annual Compliance Report does not contain all of the information that may be included in a standard section 3652 report is that it was prepared without the guidance of Commission rules governing the Postal Service's periodic reporting. The Commission will issue a notice of proposed rulemaking containing its proposed periodic reporting rules in the near future. Most of the analytical methods employed in producing the FY 2007 Annual Compliance Report appear to be consistent with established precedent. However, some are new and have not been subjected to critical evaluation by the Commission or the public either in a formal evidentiary hearing or an informal rulemaking. 4 Examples of new methods are in the revisions to the cost model that the Commission used in Docket No. R2006-1 to design rates for Periodicals. In adopting that model, the Commission described it as more comprehensive than the Postal Service's alternative, but still dependent on a number of assumptions whose accuracy could be improved if they were based on more direct and/or more recent observation. *See* PRC Op. R2006-1, paras. 5730-44. 4 The Postal Service identifies methodology changes in FY 2007 Annual Compliance Report, USPS-FY07-31, Section Two. The Postal Service, too, views the Periodicals cost model as a work in progress. It has revised the model “in order to resolve internal inconsistencies and permit transparent updates of the inputs.” Its revisions include:
(1)Inclusion of sweeping time in a productivity adjustment,
(2)removing costs from bundle sorting for bundles that have already been broken into pieces,
(3)including the costs of opening containers in the cost for container handling rather than container flow, and
(4)elimination of bundle sortation costs when pallets flow directly to delivery units. FY 2007 Annual Compliance Report, USPS-FY07-11, at 1. It suggests that additional refinements are warranted as well. *Id.* at 2-5. The methodological changes employed in the FY 2007 Annual Compliance Report should be subjected to independent critical evaluation to the maximum extent possible in the narrow window afforded by sections 3652 and 3653. To achieve that end, the Commission issued a notice on December 27, 2007, scheduling an informal technical conference to be held on January 11, 2008. 5 At that conference, Postal Service analysts will describe the changes made to the Commission's Periodicals cost model, explain the reasons for making them, and answer related questions from the Commission's technical staff and the interested public. A follow-up technical conference to give interested parties an opportunity to discuss other possible refinements of the Periodicals cost model with Postal Service analysts will be held on January 23, 2008. Notice at 2. Other technical conferences may be scheduled as appear necessary. 5 Notice of Technical Conferences Supplementing Postal Service Annual Compliance Report, December 27, 2007 (Notice). *It is ordered:* 1. Public comments on the United States Postal Service FY 2007 Annual Compliance Report are due on or before January 30, 2008. 2. Reply comments on the United States Postal Service FY 2007 Annual Compliance Report are due on February 13, 2008. (Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3653.) Steven W. Williams, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-25656 Filed 1-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. ACR2007] Notice of Technical Conferences AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Technical conferences have been scheduled in Docket No. ACR2007. The conferences will discuss the cost model for Periodicals the Postal Service uses in its Cost and Revenue Analysis Report for FY 2007. DATES: January 11, 2008 (2 p.m.); January 23, 2008 (2 p.m.). ADDRESSES: The conference will be held in the Commission's hearing room at 901 New York Avenue, NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20268-0001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann C. Fisher, Chief of Staff, Postal Regulatory Commission, at 202-789-6803 or *ann.fisher@prc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3652 of title 39 of the United States Code requires the Postal Service to file an annual report with the Commission analyzing postal costs, revenues, rates, and service within 90 days of the end of each fiscal year. From that report, the Commission and the public are to determine whether the Postal Service has complied with all of the policies of title 39. *See* 39 U.S.C. 3653. The Commission shortly will receive from the Postal Service its annual compliance report for FY 2007. Upon its receipt, the Commission will promptly issue a formal notice announcing its receipt, and set a schedule for public comment, as 39 U.S.C. 3653(a) requires. The Postal Service has notified the Commission informally that its Cost and Revenue Analysis Report for FY 2007 will employ a cost model for Periodicals that corrects and refines the model that the Commission used in Docket No. R2006-1 to design rates for Periodicals. Under section 3653, the Commission has 90 days after receipt of the Postal Service's annual report to evaluate whether postal rates and services in FY 2007 complied with the policies of title 39. This brief evaluation period requires that the Commission set an early date for public comments. To facilitate interested parties to evaluate the anticipated changes to the Periodical cost model quickly enough to incorporate their conclusions in their comments on the Postal Service's compliance report, the Commission is scheduling an informal technical conference on January 11, 2008, at 2 p.m., in the Commission's hearing room, 901 New York Avenue, NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC. At the conference, Postal Service analysts will describe the model refinements that they have made, the reasons that they made them, and respond to questions from the Commission's technical staff and the public designed to clarify the nature of, and the reasons for, the Postal Service's changes to the model. To allow further clarification once interested persons have the benefit of the Postal Service's explanations, a second conference is scheduled for January 23, 2008 at 2 p.m. in the Commission's hearing room. At this second conference, interested persons may seek additional information from Postal Service analysts, and explore the reasons for the methodologies and data employed by the Postal Service. At this conference, interested persons may also, if they wish, offer potential additional improvements or alternatives for discussion prior to submitting written comments on the Postal Service's filing. Steven W. Williams, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-36 Filed 1-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Proposed Collection; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC 20549-0213. Extension: Rule 19b-7 and Form 19b-7; OMB Control No. 3235-0553; SEC File No. 270-495. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval. • Rule 19b-7 (17 CFR 240.19b-7) and Form 19b-7—Filings with respect to proposed rule changes submitted pursuant to section 19(b)(7) of the Act. The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a *et seq.* ) (“Exchange Act”) provides a framework for self-regulation under which various entities involved in the securities business, including national securities exchanges and national securities associations (collectively, self-regulatory organizations or “SROs”), have primary responsibility for regulating their members or participants. The role of the Commission in this framework is primarily one of oversight: the Exchange Act charges the Commission with supervising the SROs and assuring that each complies with and advances the policies of the Exchange Act. The Exchange Act was amended by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (“CFMA”). Prior to the CFMA, federal law did not allow the trading of futures on individual stocks or on narrow-based stock indexes (collectively, “security futures products”). The CFMA removed this restriction and provides that trading in security futures products would be regulated jointly by the Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”). The Exchange Act requires all SROs to submit to the SEC any proposals to amend, add, or delete any of their rules. Certain entities (Security Futures Product Exchanges) would be national securities exchanges only because they trade security futures products. Similarly, certain entities (Limited Purpose National Securities Associations) would be national securities associations only because their members trade security futures products. The Exchange Act, as amended by the CFMA, established a procedure for Security Futures Product Exchanges and Limited Purpose National Securities Associations to provide notice of proposed rule changes relating to certain matters. 1 Rule 19b-7 and Form 19b-7 implemented this procedure. 1 These matters are higher margin levels, fraud or manipulation, recordkeeping, reporting, listing standards, or decimal pricing for security futures products; sales practices for security futures products for persons who effect transactions in security futures products; or rules effectuating the obligation of Security Futures Product Exchanges and Limited Purpose National Securities Associations to enforce the securities laws. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(7)(A). The collection of information is designed to provide the Commission with the information necessary to determine, as required by the Act, whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules thereunder. The information is used to determine if the proposed rule change should remain in affect or abrogated. The respondents to the collection of information are SROs. Five respondents file an average total of 12, which corresponds to an estimated annual response burden of 207 hours. At an average cost per response of $4,607.25, the resultant total related cost of compliance for these respondents is $55,287 per year (12 responses × $4,607.25/response = $55,287). Compliance with Rule 19b-7 is mandatory. Information received in response to Rule 19b-7 shall not be kept confidential; the information collected is public information. Written comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication. Comments should be directed to: R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312 or send an e-mail to: *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov* . Comments must be submitted within 60 days of this notice. Dated: December 27, 2007. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-2 Filed 1-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Proposed Collection; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC 20549-0213. Extension: Rule 10f-3; SEC File No. 270-237; OMB Control No. 3235-0226. Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collections of information discussed below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for extension and approval. Section 10(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a) (the “Act”) prohibits a registered investment company (“fund”) from purchasing any security during an underwriting or selling syndicate if the fund has certain relationships with a principal underwriter for the security. Congress enacted this provision in 1940 to protect funds and their shareholders by preventing underwriters from “dumping” unmarketable securities on affiliated funds. Rule 10f-3 permits a fund to engage in a securities transaction that otherwise would violate section 10(f) if, among other things:
(i)Each transaction affected under the rule is reported on Form N-SAR;
(ii)the fund's directors have approved procedures for purchases made in reliance on the rule, regularly review fund purchases to determine whether they comply with these procedures, and approve necessary changes to the procedures; and
(iii)a written record of each transaction affected under the rule is maintained for six years, the first two of which in an easily accessible place. 1 The written record must state:
(i)From whom the securities were acquired;
(ii)the identity of the underwriting syndicate's members;
(iii)the terms of the transactions; and
(iv)the information or materials on which the fund's board of directors has determined that the purchases were made in compliance with procedures established by the board. 1 17 CFR 270.10f-3. The rule also conditionally allows managed portions of fund portfolios to purchase securities offered in otherwise off-limits primary offerings. To qualify for this exemption, rule 10f-3 requires that the subadviser that is advising the purchaser be contractually prohibited from providing investment advice to any other portion of the fund's portfolio and consulting with any other of the fund's advisers that is a principal underwriter or affiliated person of a principal underwriter concerning the fund's securities transactions. These requirements provide a mechanism for fund boards to oversee compliance with the rule. The required recordkeeping facilitates the Commission staff's review of rule 10f-3 transactions during routine fund inspections and, when necessary, in connection with enforcement actions. The staff estimates that approximately 350 funds engage in a total of approximately 4,400 rule 10f-3 transactions each year. 2 Rule 10f-3 requires that the purchasing fund create a written record of each transaction that includes, among other things, from whom the securities were purchased and the terms of the transaction. The staff estimates 3 that it takes an average fund approximately 30 minutes per transaction and approximately 2,200 hours 4 in the aggregate to comply with this portion of the rule. 2 These estimates are based on staff extrapolations from filings with the Commission. 3 Unless stated otherwise, the information collection burden estimates contained in this Supporting Statement are based on conversations between the staff and representatives of funds. 4 This estimate is based on the following calculation: (30 minutes × 4,400 = 2,200 hours). The funds also must maintain and preserve these transactional records in accordance with the rule's recordkeeping requirement, and the staff estimates that it takes a fund approximately 20 minutes per transaction and that annually, in the aggregate, funds spend approximately 1,467 hours 5 to comply with this portion of the rule. 5 This estimate is based on the following calculations: (20 minutes × 4,400 transactions = 88,000 minutes; 88,000 minutes ÷ 60 = 1,467 hours). In addition, fund boards must, no less than quarterly, examine each of these transactions to ensure that they comply with the fund's policies and procedures. The information or materials upon which the board relied to come to this determination also must be maintained and the staff estimates that it takes a fund 1 hour per quarter and, in the aggregate, approximately 1,400 hours 6 annually to comply with this rule requirement. 6 This estimate is based on the following calculation: (1 hour per quarter × 4 quarters × 350 funds = 1,400 hours). The staff estimates that reviewing and revising as needed written procedures for rule 10f-3 transactions takes, on average for each fund, two hours of a compliance attorney's time per year. 7 Thus, annually, in the aggregate, the staff estimates that funds spend a total of approximately 700 hours 8 on monitoring and revising rule 10f-3 procedures. 7 These averages take into account the fact that in most years, fund attorneys and boards spend little or no time modifying procedures and in other years, they spend significant time doing so. 8 This estimate is based on the following calculation: (350 funds × 2 hours = 700 hours). Based on an analysis of fund filings, the staff estimates that approximately 600 fund portfolios enter into subadvisory agreements each year. 9 Based on discussions with industry representatives, the staff estimates that it will require approximately 3 attorney hours to draft and execute additional clauses in new subadvisory contracts in order for funds and subadvisers to be able to rely on the exemptions in rule 10f-3. Because these additional clauses are identical to the clauses that a fund would need to insert in their subadvisory contracts to rely on rules 12d3-1, 17a-10, and 17e-1, and because we believe that funds that use one such rule generally use all of these rules, we apportion this 3 hour time burden equally to all four rules. Therefore, we estimate that the burden allocated to rule 10f-3 for this contract change would be 0.75 hours. 10 Assuming that all 600 funds that enter into new subadvisory contracts each year make the modification to their contract required by the rule, we estimate that the rule's contract modification requirement will result in 450 burden hours annually. 11 9 The use of subadvisers has grown rapidly over the last several years, with approximately 600 portfolios that use subadvisers registering between December 2005 and December 2006. Based on information in Commission filings, we estimate that 31 percent of funds are advised by subadvisers. 10 This estimate is based on the following calculation (3 hours ÷ 4 rules = .75 hours). 11 These estimates are based on the following calculations: (0.75 hours × 600 portfolios = 450 burden hours). The staff estimates, therefore, that rule 10f-3 imposes an information collection burden of 6,217 hours. 12 This estimate does not include the time spent filing transaction reports on Form N-SAR, which is encompassed in the information collection burden estimate for that form. 12 This estimate is based on the following calculation: (2,200 hours + 1,467 hours + 1,400 hours + 700 hours + 450 hours = 6,217 total burden hours). Written comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burdens of the collections of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burdens of the collections of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication. Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA, 22312; or send an e-mail to: *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov* . Dated: December 27, 2007. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-3 Filed 1-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of January 7, 2008: A Closed Meeting will be held on Thursday, January 10, 2008 at 2 p.m. Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be present. The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), (9)(B), and
(10)and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting. Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session. The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, January 10, 2008 will be: Formal orders of investigation; Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature; and Matters related to enforcement proceedings. At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the Secretary at
(202)551-5400. January 3, 2008. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-43 Filed 1-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57075; File No. SR-Phlx-2007-75] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change as Modified by Amendments No. 1 and 2 Thereto Relating to Market Data Distribution Network Fees December 31, 2007. I. Introduction On September 27, 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 proposal to eliminate:
(1)A fee assessed by the Exchange's wholly owned subsidiary, the Philadelphia Board of Trade (“PBOT”), for certain equity index values that subscribers receive over PBOT's Market Data Distribution Network (“MDDN”); 3 and
(2)a discount applicable to certain market data vendors. Phlx filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change on November 7, 2007. The proposed rule change, as amended, was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on November 28, 2007. 4 On December 14, 2007, Phlx filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change. 5 The Commission received no comments regarding the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change, as amended. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 The MDDN is an Internet protocol multicast network developed by PBOT and SAVVIS Communications. 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56827 (November 20, 2007), 72 FR 67334. 5 In Amendment No. 2, Phlx corrected Exhibit 5 to the Form 19b-4 it submitted to accurately reflect the proposed deletions and additions of the rule text. Phlx also clarified in footnote 1 of Exhibit 5 that the Administrative Fee deduction applies only to the per-device fee and to Index Data. Because Amendment No. 2 is technical in nature, it is not subject to notice and comment. II. Description of the Proposal Phlx licenses to PBOT the current and closing index values underlying most of Phlx's proprietary indexes, and Hapoalim Securities USA, Inc. licenses to PBOT the current and closing Hapoalim American Israeli Index TM (HAI SM ) values. PBOT distributes those values over the MDDN. The Exchange or its third-party designee calculates and makes available to PBOT a real-time value for each index every 15 seconds during each trading day and a closing index value at the end of the day. In exchange for subscriber fees paid to PBOT, market data vendors may receive and widely disseminate this market data to their subscribers. 6 6 PBOT has contracted with several major vendors to receive real-time and closing index values over the MDDN and promptly redistribute such values. Presently, subscriber fees are assessed in one of three ways: 7
(a)A monthly fee of $1.00 per “Device” 8 that is used by vendors and their subscribers to receive and re-transmit market data on a real-time basis (“device fee”);
(b)a fee of $0.0025 per request for snapshot data, 9 which is essentially market data that is refreshed no more frequently than once every 60 seconds, or $1,500 per month for unlimited snapshot data requests (“snapshot fee”); 10 or
(c)an Enterprise License Fee of $10,000 per year or $850 per month for unlimited real-time data as an alternative to the device fee. 11 All vendors that provide market data to 200,000 or more Devices in any month qualify for a 15% Administrative Fee credit for that month, to be deducted from the monthly Subscriber Fees that they collect and are obligated to pay PBOT under the Vendor/Subvendor Agreement. This credit is also currently given to vendors paying the Enterprise License Fee. 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53790 (May 11, 2006), 71 FR 28738 (May 17, 2006) (“Original Approval Order”). The applicable subscriber fees are set out in Vendor/Subvendor Agreements that PBOT executed with various market data vendors for the right to receive, store, and retransmit the current and closing index values transmitted over the MDDN. 8 The agreements provide that “Device” shall mean, in case of each Subscriber and in such Subscriber's discretion, either any Terminal or any End User. Devices may be exclusively Terminals, exclusively End Users, or a combination of Terminals or End Users, and shall be reported in a manner that is consistent with the way the vendor identifies such Subscriber's access to vendor's data. An “End User” is defined as an individual authorized or allowed by a vendor to access and display real-time market data that is distributed by PBOT over the MDDN; and a “Terminal” is any type of equipment (fixed or portable) that accesses and displays such market data. 9 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55111 (January 16, 2007), 72 FR 3188 (January 24, 2007) (increasing the snapshot fee to $0.0025 per request). 10 The index values may also be made available by vendors on a delayed basis ( *i.e.* , no sooner than 20 minutes following receipt of the data by vendors) at no charge. 11 A vendor is eligible for the Enterprise License Fee if it is a firm acting as a retail broker-dealer conducting a material portion of its business via one or more proprietary Internet Web sites by which the firm distributes market data to predominately non-professional market data users with whom the firm has a brokerage relationship (“Eligible Firm”). An Eligible Firm may also distribute market data to professional users with whom such firm has a brokerage relationship, provided such market data distribution is predominantly to non-professional users. The Eligible Firm's market data distribution to professional users cannot exceed 10%. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55424 (March 8, 2007), 72 FR 12242 (March 15, 2007) (SR-Phlx-2006-63). Phlx proposes to eliminate the ability to access the market data on a “snapshot” basis and consequently proposes to eliminate the snapshot data fee, effective January 1, 2008. The Exchange states that only a few vendors currently elect to use snapshot data. Consequently, PBOT seeks to eliminate the associated operational and accounting expenses of administering the snapshot data fee. Phlx is also proposing to eliminate the applicability of the 15% Administrative Fee credit to market data vendors paying the Enterprise License Fee. III. Discussion After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the amended proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 12 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 13 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 also finds that the proposal is consistent with section 6(b)(4) of the Act, 14 which requires the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among the Exchange's members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. The Commission also continues to believe that PBOT's MDDN fee structure is consistent with Rule 603 under the Act 15 regarding the distribution, consolidation, and display of information with respect to quotations for and transactions in NMS stocks. 12 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). 13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 14 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). 15 17 CFR 242.603. The Commission believes that the Exchange's proposal to eliminate snapshot requests for index value data and the associated fee is consistent with the Act. The Exchange makes available the same market data through other means, and, in the absence of a compelling regulatory concern, it is a reasonable exercise of the Exchange's business judgment to choose the means of delivery of this data. With respect to Phlx's proposal to eliminate the applicability of the Administrative Fee credit to vendors electing to pay the Enterprise License Fee, the Commission believes that the rule change is reasonable. The Exchange represents that, unlike vendors electing to receive market data pursuant to the device fee, vendors electing to receive market data pursuant to the Enterprise License Fee are not required to bear the same ongoing administrative expenses. In particular, vendors paying the device fee must prepare and deliver to PBOT a detailed monthly accounting and report of Devices. By contrast, a vendor paying the Enterprise License Fee is required only to submit an initial certification, and must notify PBOT of any changes to its qualification, but has no requirement to submit any on-going accounting to PBOT. 16 Thus, the administrative costs to a firm associated with monitoring its ongoing eligibility for the Enterprise License Fee should be substantially less than the administrative costs to a vendor subject to the device fee. 16 The Exchange notes that several large vendors are currently paying the Enterprise License Fee. To be eligible for the Enterprise License Fee, a vendor must certify to PBOT that it qualifies for the Enterprise License Fee, including that market distribution is predominantly to non-professional users, and must immediately notify PBOT if it can no longer certify its qualification. IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 17 that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2007-75), as amended, be, and it hereby is, approved. 17 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 18 18 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-9 Filed 1-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57071; File No. SR-DTC-2007-15] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Stock Loan and Repurchase Processing December 31, 2007. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 notice is hereby given that on November 7, 2007, The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) 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 primarily by DTC. DTC filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 2 and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) 3 thereunder so that the proposal was 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 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 3 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change Under the proposed rule change, DTC will provide participants using DTC's Stock Loan REPO Adjustment Menu (“SLRM”) system with new warning messages advising participants if any corrective action is needed to complete their stock loan or repurchase transaction. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, DTC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. DTC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change Prior to this rule change, DTC's SLRM system did not validate the reason code used to reclaim a stock loan or repurchase (“repo”) transaction. DTC participants have stated that the majority of errors associated with this process arose when the wrong reason code was used by counterparties. To reduce the frequency of these errors and the associated burden of correcting them, DTC is modifying its system by providing warning messages that advise a participant that a transaction will be rejected due to an incorrect reason code for reclaiming these items. As a result, users will be prompted to correct the reason code. In addition, if a participant that is to return the stock of a loan or repo transaction does not have sufficient inventory in its DTC deliverer/CUSIP/contra account to cover the return, it will receive a notification advising that an insufficient position exists so that it can take corrective action. Finally, if there is an open repo position for the same major/contra/CUSIP in DTC's system, a new warning message will be displayed stating that an open repo position for the contra/CUSIP exists. A new help screen will be displayed in SLRM to guide users when they submit a stock loan or repo transaction. The screen will describe the impact that a given action will have on the originator's stock loan or repo account and the related dividend payment. Also, the SLRM summary screen will be modified to list outstanding adjustments for a period of twenty business days instead of the current five business days. This will give participants more time to react to open stock loan or repo items so that they may be reconciled in a more timely fashion. Proposed system changes will necessitate revisions to existing DTC Service Guides. 4 4 The affected section of DTC's Guide is attached as Exhibit 5 to DTC's rule filing. DTC states that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A of the Act 5 and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to DTC as it allows for more efficient processing of certain transactions and will not adversely affect the safeguarding of funds or securities in DTC's custody and control or for which it is responsible. 5 15 U.S.C. 78q-1. B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any impact or impose any burden on competition. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others DTC has not solicited or received written comments relating to the proposed rule change. DTC will notify the Commission of any written comments it receives. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) 6 of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) 7 thereunder because it effects a change in an existing service of a registered clearing agency that does not adversely affect the safeguarding of securities or funds in the custody or control of the clearing agency and does not significantly affect the respective rights or obligations of the clearing agency or persons using the service. 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. 6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 7 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4). 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-DTC-2007-15 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 No. SR-DTC-2007-15. 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, 450 Fifth Street, NW., 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 DTC's principal office and on DTC's Web site at *http://www.dtc.org/impNtc/mor/index.html* . 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 submission should refer to File No. SR-DTC-2007-15 and should be submitted on or before January 28, 2008. For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets pursuant to delegated authority. 8 Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. 8 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). [FR Doc. E7-25655 Filed 1-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57066; File No. SR-ISE-2007-65] Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Generic Listing Standards for Exchange-Traded Funds Based on Fixed Income Indexes and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of the Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 December 28, 2007. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on July 24, 2007, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (“ISE” 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 prepared substantially by the Exchange. On December 28, 2007, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1. 3 This order provides notice of the proposed rule change, as amended, and approves the amended proposal on an accelerated basis. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(l). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 Amendment No. 1 replaced and superseded the original filing in its entirety. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rules 2123 and 2131 to include generic listing and/or trading standards for Investment Company Units (“Units”) and Portfolio Depositary Receipts (“PDRs”) that are based on indexes or portfolios consisting of fixed income securities (“Fixed Income Indexes”) or composite indexes consisting of both equity and fixed income securities (collectively, “Combination Indexes”). The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's principal office, on the Exchange's Web site at *http://www.ise.com* , and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item III below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange proposes to revise ISE Rules 2123 and 2131 to include generic listing and trading standards for series of Units and PDRs (Units and PDRs, collectively referred to as “ETFs”) that are based on Fixed Income Indexes or on Combination Indexes. This proposal would enable the Exchange to list and trade ETFs pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act 4 if each of the conditions set forth in ISE Rules 2123 and 2131, as applicable, is satisfied. Rule 19b-4(e) provides that the listing and trading of a new derivative securities product by a self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) shall not be deemed a proposed rule change, pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of Rule 19b-4, 5 if the Commission has approved, pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act, 6 the SRO's trading rules, procedures, and listing standards for the product class that would include the new derivatives securities product, and the SRO has a surveillance program for the product class. 7 Similar proposals by the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”) and NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”) have been approved by the Commission. 8 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(e). 5 17 CFR 240.19b-4(c)(1). 6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b). 7 When relying on Rule 19b-4(e), the SRO must submit Form 19b-4(e) to the Commission within five business days after the exchange begins trading the new derivative securities product. *See* 17 CFR 240.19b-4(e)(2)(ii). 8 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55437 (March 9, 2007), 72 FR 12233 (March 15, 2007) (SR-Amex-2006-118); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55783 (May 17, 2007), 72 FR 29294 (May 24, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-36). a. ETFs ISE Rule 2123 provides standards for the initial and continued listing of Units, which are securities issued by a unit investment trust, an open-end management investment company (open-end mutual fund), or a similar entity based on a portfolio of stocks or fixed income securities that seeks to provide investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance of a specified foreign or domestic stock index or fixed income securities index. PDRs represent securities based on a unit investment trust that holds the securities that comprise an index or portfolio underlying a series of PDRs. Pursuant to ISE Rules 2123 and 2131, Units and PDRs must be issued in a specified aggregate minimum number in return for a deposit of specified securities and/or a cash amount, with a value equal to the next determined net asset value (“NAV”). When aggregated in the same specified minimum number, Units and PDRs must be redeemable by the issuer for securities and/or cash, with a value equal to the next determined NAV. The NAV is calculated once a day after the close of the regular trading day. To meet the investment objective of providing investment returns that correspond to the price, dividend, and yield performance of the underlying index, an ETF may use a “replication” strategy or a “representative sampling” strategy with respect to the ETF portfolio. An ETF using a replication strategy would invest in each security found in the underlying index in about the same proportion as that security is represented in the index itself. An ETF using a representative sampling strategy would generally invest in a significant number, but perhaps not all, of the component securities of the underlying index, and would hold the securities that, in the aggregate, are intended to approximate the full index in terms of certain key characteristics. In the context of a Fixed Income Index, such characteristics may include liquidity, duration, maturity, and yield. In addition, an ETF portfolio may be adjusted in accordance with changes in the composition of the underlying index or to maintain compliance with requirements applicable to a regulated investment company under the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”). 9 9 In order for an ETF to qualify for tax treatment as a regulated investment company, it must meet several requirements under the IRC, including requirements with respect to the nature and the value of the ETF's assets. b. Generic Listing Standards for Exchange-Traded Funds The Commission has previously approved generic listing standards for ETFs based on indexes that consist of stocks listed on U.S. exchanges as well as on indexes consisting of U.S. Components, Non-U.S. Components or both U.S. and Non-U.S. Components. 10 In addition, the Commission has previously approved the listing and trading of ETFs based on fixed income securities indexes. 11 10 *See* ISE Rule 2123 and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54528 (September 28, 2006), 71 FR 58650 (October 4, 2006) (SR-ISE-2006-48) (approving generic listing standards for ICUs); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56633 (October 9, 2007), 72 FR 58696 (October 16, 2007) (SR-ISE- 2007-60) (approving generic listing standards for ETFs based on international or global indexes or indexes described in rules previously approved by the Commission as underlying benchmarks for derivative securities). 11 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46299 (August 1, 2002), 67 FR 51907 (August 9, 2002) (SR-NYSE-2002-26); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55780 (May 17, 2007), 72 FR 29022 (May 23, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-37). The Commission has also approved listing standards for other index-based derivatives that permit the listing—pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e)—of such securities where the Commission had previously approved the trading of specified index-based derivatives on the same index, on the condition that all of the standards set forth in the original order are satisfied by the exchange employing generic listing standards. 12 12 *See* NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52204 (August 3, 2005), 70 FR 46559 (August 10, 2005) (SR-PCX-2005-63) (order approving generic listing standards for index-linked securities); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56117 (July 23, 2007), 72 FR 41369 (July 27, 2007) (SR-ISE-2007-47) (order approving generic listing standards for index-linked securities). The Exchange believes that adopting additional generic listing standards for ETFs based on Fixed Income Indexes and Combination Indexes and applying Rule 19b-4(e) thereto should fulfill the intended objective of that rule by allowing those ETFs that satisfy the proposed generic listing standards to commence trading, without the need for individualized Commission approval. The proposed rules have the potential to reduce the timeframe for bringing ETFs to market, thereby reducing the burdens on issuers and other market participants. The failure of a particular index or portfolio to comply with the proposed generic listing standards under Rule 19b-4(e) would not, however, preclude the Exchange from submitting a separate filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) requesting Commission approval to list and trade a particular ETF. c. Fixed Income and Combination Index ETFs ETFs listed pursuant to the proposed generic standards would be traded in all other respects under the Exchange's existing trading rules and procedures that apply to all securities traded on ISE, including ETFs, and would be covered under the Exchange's surveillance procedures for equities. 13 13 The Exchange notes that its current trading surveillance focuses on detecting securities trading outside their normal patterns. When such situations are detected, surveillance analysis follows and investigations are opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of all relevant parties for all relevant trading violations. To list an ETF pursuant to the proposed generic listing standards for ETFs based on Fixed Income Indexes or Combination Indexes, the index underlying the ETF must satisfy all the conditions contained in proposed ISE Rules 2123 (for Units) or ISE Rule 2131 (for PDRs), as applicable. As with the existing generic listing standards for ETFs based on domestic and international or global indexes, the proposed generic listing standards are intended to ensure that fixed income securities with substantial market distribution and liquidity account for a substantial portion of the weight of an index or portfolio. While the standards in this proposal are based on the standards contained in Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) rules regarding the application of the definition of narrow-based security index to debt security indexes 14 as well as existing fixed income ETFs, they have been adapted as appropriate to apply generally to Fixed Income Indexes for ETFs. 14 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54106 (July 6, 2006), 71 FR 39534 (July 13, 2006) (File No. S7-07-06) (“Joint Rules”). d. Fixed Income Securities As proposed, ISE Rule 2123(b)(3) and .02 of the Supplementary Material to ISE Rule 2131 define the term “Fixed Income Securities” to include, notes, bonds (including convertible bonds), debentures, or evidences of indebtedness that include, but are not limited to, U.S. Treasury securities (“Treasury Securities”), government sponsored entity securities (“GSE Securities”), municipal securities, trust preferred securities, 15 supernational debt, 16 and debt of a foreign country or subdivision thereof. This new definition is designed to create a category of ETFs based on Fixed Income Indexes that may be listed and traded pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act. 15 Trust preferred securities are undated cumulative securities issued from a special purpose trust in which a bank or bank holding company owns all of the common securities. The trust's sole asset is a subordinated note issued by the bank or bank holding company. Trust preferred securities are treated as debt for tax purposes so that the distributions or dividends paid are a tax deductible interest expense. 16 Supranational debt represents the debt of international organizations such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, regional multilateral development banks, and multilateral financial institutions. Examples of regional multilateral development banks include the African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the Inter-American Development Bank. Examples of multilateral financial institutions include the European Investment Bank and the International Fund for Agricultural Development. For purposes of the proposed definition, a convertible bond is deemed to be a Fixed Income Security up until the time that it is converted into its underlying common or preferred stock. 17 Once converted, the equity security may no longer continue as a component of a Fixed Income Index under the proposed rules and accordingly would be removed from such index. 17 The Exchange notes that under Section 3(a)(11) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(11), a convertible security is defined as an equity security. However, for the purpose of the proposed generic listing criteria, ISE believes that defining a convertible security (prior to its conversion) as a Fixed Income Security is consistent with the objectives and intention of the generic listing standards for fixed-income-based ETFs as well as the Act. The Exchange proposes that, to list a series of Units or PDRs based on a Fixed Income Index pursuant to the generic standards, the index must meet the following criteria: • The index or portfolio must consist of Fixed Income Securities; • Components that in aggregate account for at least 75% of the weight of the index or portfolio each must have a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more; • No component Fixed Income Security (excluding Treasury Securities or GSE Securities) represents more than 30% of the weight of the index, and the five most heavily weighted component fixed income securities in the index do not in the aggregate account for more than 65% of the weight of the index; • An underlying index or portfolio (excluding one consisting entirely of exempted securities) must include a minimum of 13 non-affiliated issuers; and • Component securities that in aggregate account for at least 90% of the weight of the index or portfolio must be either: • From issuers that are required to file reports pursuant to Sections 13 and 15(d) of the Act; 18 18 15 U.S.C. 78m and 78o(d). ○ From issuers that have a worldwide market value of its outstanding common equity held by non-affiliates of $700 million or more; ○ From issuers that have outstanding securities that are notes, bonds, debentures, or evidences of indebtedness having a total remaining principal amount of at least $1 billion; ○ Exempted securities as defined in Section 3(a)(12) of the Act; 19 or ○ From issuers that are governments of foreign countries or political subdivisions of foreign countries. 19 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(12). The Exchange believes that these proposed component criteria standards are reasonable for Fixed Income Indexes and, when applied in conjunction with the other listing requirements, would result in ETFs that are sufficiently broad-based in scope. The Exchange notes that the proposed standards are similar to the standards set forth by the Commission and the CFTC in the Joint Rules as well as existing fixed-income-based ETFs. First, in the proposed standards, component Fixed Income Securities that in the aggregate account for at least 75% of the weight of the index or portfolio would have to have a minimum original principal amount outstanding of at least $100 million; this is consistent with ISE Rule 2123(d)(1)(ii) and .02(a)(2) of the Supplementary Material to ISE Rule 2131. Second, the proposed standards provide that the most heavily weighted component security cannot exceed 30% of the weight of the index or portfolio, consistent with the standard for U.S. equity ETFs set forth in ISE Rule 2123(c)(2)(i)(C). In addition, this standard is identical to the standard set forth by the Commission and the CFTC in the Joint Rules. 20 Third, in the proposed standards, the five most heavily weighted component securities shall not exceed 65% of the weight of the index or portfolio, which is consistent with the Joint Rules and the standard for U.S. equity ETFs set forth in ISE Rule 2123(c)(2)(i)(C) and .01(a)(1)(iii) of the Supplementary Material to ISE Rule 2131. Fourth, the minimum number of Fixed Income Securities (except for portfolios consisting entirely of exempted securities, such as Treasury Securities or GSE Securities) from unaffiliated 21 issuers in the proposed standards would be 13, consistent with the standard for U.S. equity ETFs set forth in ISE Rule 2123(c)(2)(i)(D), .01(a)(1)(v) of the Supplementary Material to ISE Rule 2131, and the Joint Rules. This requirement, together with the diversification standards set forth above, would provide assurance that the Fixed Income Securities comprising an index on which an overlying ETF may be listed pursuant to this proposal, would not be overly dependent on the price behavior of a single component or small group of components. 20 *See supra* at note 10. 21 Rule 405 under the Securities Act of 1933, 17 CFR 230.405, defines an affiliate as a person that directly, or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controls or is controlled by, or is under common control with, such person. Control, for this purpose, is the possession, direct or indirect, of the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of a person, whether through the ownership of voting securities, by contract, or otherwise. Finally, the proposed standards would require that at least 90% of the weight of the index or portfolio must be either:
(i)From issuers that are required to file reports pursuant to Sections 13 and 15(d) of the Act; 22
(ii)from issuers that each have a worldwide market value of its outstanding common equity held by non-affiliates of $700 million or more;
(iii)from issuers that have outstanding securities that are notes, bonds, debentures, or evidences of indebtedness having a total remaining principal amount of at least $1 billion;
(iv)exempted securities as defined in Section 3(a)(12) of the Act; 23 or
(v)from issuers that are governments of foreign countries or a political subdivision of foreign countries. This proposed standard is consistent with a similar standard in the Joint Rules and is designed to ensure that the component Fixed Income Securities have sufficient publicly available information. 22 15 U.S.C. 78m and 15 U.S.C. 78o(d). 23 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(12). The proposed generic listing standards for fixed income ETFs would not require that component securities in an underlying index have an investment-grade rating. 24 In addition, the proposed requirements would not require a minimum trading volume, due to the lower trading volume that generally occurs in the fixed income markets as compared to the equity markets. 24 *Cf.* Joint Rules, 71 FR at 30538. The proposed rules would also provide that the Exchange could not approve for listing or trading a series of ETFs based on a Combination Index under the proposed generic listing standards if such series seeks to provide investment results that either exceed the performance of a specified index by a specified multiple (“Multiple ETF”) or that correspond to the inverse (opposite) of the performance of a specified index by a specified multiple (“Inverse ETF”). e. Requirements for Listing and Trading ETFs Based on Combination Indexes The Exchange also seeks to list and trade ETFs based on Combination Indexes. An ETF listed or traded pursuant to the generic listing standards for Combination Indexes would be traded, in all other respects, under the Exchange's existing trading rules and procedures that apply to all Exchange-traded securities, including ETFs, and would be covered under the Exchange's surveillance program for equities. To list an ETF pursuant to the proposed generic listing standards for Combination Indexes, an index underlying a Unit or PDR must satisfy all the conditions contained in proposed ISE Rule 2123(e) (for Units) and .03 of Supplementary Material to ISE Rule 2131 (for PDRs). However, for Units traded on the Exchange pursuant to UTP, only the provisions ISE Rule 2110 and paragraphs (c)(3), (c)(5), (f), (h), (i), and
(l)of Rule 2123—regarding minimum price variation, disseminated information, written surveillance procedures, trading halts, hours of trading, and disclosures—would apply. For PDRs traded on the Exchange pursuant to UTP, only the provisions set forth in ISE Rules 2131(c) and 2131(e)(2)(ii), as well as paragraphs (c), (e), (f), and
(g)of Commentary .02 and Commentary .03 of the Supplementary Material to ISE Rule 2131—regarding disclosures, trading halts, disseminated information, minimum price variation, hours of trading, and written surveillance procedures would apply. Further, Commentary .02(b)(ii) and Commentary .03(a)(ii), which pertain to dissemination of the current index value, would also apply to PDRs traded pursuant to UTP on the Exchange that are based on Fixed Income Indexes and Combination Indexes, respectively. These generic listing standards are intended to ensure that securities with substantial market distribution and liquidity account for a substantial portion of the weight of both the equity and fixed income portions of an index or portfolio. Proposed ISE Rule 2123(e) and proposed .03 of the Supplementary Material to ISE Rule 2131 provide that the Exchange may approve a series of Units and PDRs—based on a combination of indexes or a series of component securities representing the U.S. or domestic equity market, the international equity market, and the fixed income market—for listing and trading pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act. The standards that an ETF would have to comply with are as follows:
(i)Such portfolio or combination of indexes has been described in an exchange rule for the trading of options, Units, PDRs, Index-Linked Exchangeable Notes, or Index-Linked Securities that has been approved by the Commission under Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, and all of the standards set forth in the Commission's approval order are satisfied; or
(ii)the equity portion and fixed income portion of the component securities separately meet the criteria set forth in 2123(c)(2) (equities) and proposed ISE Rule 2123(d) (fixed income) for Units and .01 (equities) and .02 (fixed income) of the Supplementary Material to ISE Rule 2131 for PDRs. In all cases, however, Multiple or Inverse ETFs may not be listed pursuant to ISE Rules 2123 or 2131. f. Index Methodology and Dissemination The Exchange proposes to adopt (d)(2) and (e)(1) of ISE Rule 2123 and .02(b) and .03(a) of Supplementary Material to ISE Rule 2131 to establish requirements for index methodology and dissemination in connection with Fixed Income and Combination Indexes. If a broker-dealer or fund advisor is responsible for maintaining (or has a role in maintaining) the underlying index, such broker-dealer or fund advisor would be required to erect and maintain a “firewall,” in a form satisfactory to the Exchange, to prevent the flow of non-public information regarding the underlying index from the personnel involved in the development and maintenance of such index to others such as sales and trading personnel. With respect to dissemination of the index values, the Exchange proposes to adopt ISE Rules 2123(d)(2)(ii), 2123(e)(1)(ii), as well as .02(b)(ii) and .03a(ii) of Supplementary Material to ISE Rule 2131. For an ETF based on a Fixed Income Index, the underlying index value must be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least once a day during the time when the ETF shares trade on the Exchange; if the index value does not change during some or all of the period when trading is occurring on the Exchange, the last official calculated index value must remain available throughout Exchange trading hours. This reflects the nature of the fixed income markets as well as the frequency of intra-day trading information with respect to Fixed Income Indexes. For an ETF based on a Combination Index, the underlying index value would have to be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during the time the ETF shares trade on the Exchange to reflect updates for the prices of the equity securities included in the Combination Index; the Non-U.S. Component Stock portion of the Combination Index will be updated at least every 60 seconds, 25 and the fixed income portion of the Combination Index will be updated at least daily. 25 *See* proposed ISE Rule 2123(e)(1)(ii) and proposed section .03(a)(ii) of the Supplementary Material to ISE Rule 2131. g. Application of General Rules Proposed ISE Rule 2123(f) as well as .02(c)-(g) and .03(b) of the proposed Supplementary Material to ISE Rule 2131 would be added to identify those requirements of ETFs that would apply to all such series of Units or PDRs based on Fixed Income or Combination Indexes. This would include the dissemination of the Intraday Indicative Value, an estimate of the value of a share of each ETF, updated at least every 15 seconds. In addition, ISE Rule 2123(c)(5), which requires the Exchange to implement written surveillance procedures applicable to a series of Units, would apply to series of Units based on Fixed Income and Combination Indexes. Proposed .02(d)-(g) to the Supplementary Material of ISE Rule 2131, sets forth the requirements for PDRs relating to initial shares outstanding, minimum price variation, trading hours, and surveillance procedures. Proposed Sections .02(g) and .03(b) of the Supplementary Material to ISE Rule 2131 provide that the written surveillance procedures applicable to a series of PDRs listed and traded under Section .01 would apply to Fixed Income and Combination Indexes. The Exchange represents that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the ETFs traded and/or listed pursuant to the proposed generic standards. The Exchange stated that it may obtain information via the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”) from exchanges that are members or affiliates of the ISG. In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees. The Exchange states that the Commission has approved generic listing standards providing for the listing pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) of other derivative products based on indexes or portfolios described in rules previously approved by the Commission under Section 19(b)(2) of the Act. The Exchange proposes to include in the generic listing standards for the listing of Fixed Income and Combination Indexes based Units and PDRs, in ISE Rule 2123(e) and .03 of the Supplementary Material to ISE Rule 2131, indexes or portfolios described in rules that have been approved by the Commission in connection with the listing of options, Investment Company Units, Portfolio Depository Receipts, Index-Linked Exchangeable Notes, or Index-Linked Securities. The Exchange believes that the application of that standard to ETFs is appropriate because the underlying index would have been subject to Commission review in the context of the approval of listing of other derivatives. 26 26 *See supra* notes 10 and 11. The Exchange notes that existing ISE Rules 2123 and 2131 provide continued listing standards for all Units and PDRs. For example, where the value of the underlying index or portfolio of securities on which the ETF is based is no longer calculated or available, the Exchange would commence delisting proceedings. The Exchange notes that ISE Rules 2123(a)(6) and 2131(e)(1)(ii) provide that, prior to approving an ETF for listing, the Exchange will obtain a representation from the ETF issuer that the NAV per share will be calculated daily and made available to all market participants at the same time. The trading halt requirements for existing ETFs will similarly apply to fixed income and combination index ETFs. In particular, ISE Rules 2123(e) and 2131(e)(2)(ii) provide that, if the Intraday Indicative Value or the index value applicable to that series of ETFs is not being disseminated as required when the Exchange is the listing market, the Exchange may halt trading during the day in which the interruption to the dissemination of the Intraday Indicative Value or the index value occurs. If the interruption to the dissemination of the Intraday Indicative Value or the index value persists past the trading day in which it occurred, the Exchange would halt trading no later than the beginning of the trading day following the interruption. 27 27 If an ETF is traded on the Exchange pursuant to unlisted trading privileges (“UTP”), the Exchange would halt trading if the primary listing market halts trading in such ETF because the Intraday Indicative Value and/or the index value is not being disseminated. *See* ISE Rules 2123(c)(3) and 2131(e)(2)(ii). Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rule 2101 to include securities contemplated by ISE Rule 2131 in the list of Equity Securities that the Exchange will trade via UTP, unless and until the Exchange files with the Commission a rule change under Section 19(b)(2) of the Act and receives Commission approval to amend its rules to become a listing market. Further, the Exchange proposes to expand the definition of “Equity Securities,” as set forth in ISE Rule 2100(c)(7), to include PDRs. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 28 which requires 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 foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. In particular, ISE believes that this filing will provide investors with access to a wider range of derivative securities products. 28 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would 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. 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-ISE-2007-65 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-ISE-2007-65. 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 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-2007-65 and should be submitted on or before January 28, 2008. IV. Discussion 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. 29 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 30 in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 29 In approving this rule change, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 30 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). Currently, the Exchange would have to file a proposed rule change with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act 31 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder 32 to list or trade any ETF based on a Fixed Income Index or on a Combination Index. The Exchange also would have to file a proposed rule change to list or trade an ETF based on a Fixed Income or Combination Index described in an exchange rule previously approved by the Commission as an underlying benchmark for a derivative security. Rule 19b-4(e), however, provides that the listing and trading of a new derivative securities product by an SRO will not be deemed a proposed rule change pursuant to Rule 19b-4(c)(1) if the Commission has approved, pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act, the SRO's trading rules, procedures, and listing standards for the product class that would include the new derivative securities product, and the SRO has a surveillance program for the product class. The Exchange's proposed rules for the listing and trading of ETFs pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) based on
(1)certain indexes with components that include Fixed Income Securities or
(2)indexes or portfolios described in exchange rules previously approved by the Commission as underlying benchmarks for derivative securities fulfill these requirements. Use of Rule 19b-4(e) by ISE to list and trade such ETFs should promote competition, reduce burdens on issuers and other market participants, and make such ETFs available to investors more quickly. 33 31 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 32 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 33 The Commission notes that failure of a particular ETF to satisfy the Exchange's generic listing standards does not preclude the Exchange from submitting a separate proposal under Rule 19b-4 to list and trade such ETF. The Commission previously has approved generic listing standards of other exchanges that are substantially similar to those proposed here by ISE. 34 This proposal does not appear to raise any novel regulatory issues. Therefore, the Commission finds that ISE's proposal is consistent with the Act on the same basis that it approved those earlier proposals. 34 *See supra* at note 8. The Commission believes that ISE's proposal is consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act, 35 which sets forth Congress' finding that it is in the public interest and appropriate for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets to assure the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors of information with respect to quotations for and transactions in securities. The value of a Fixed Income Index underlying an ETF listed pursuant to this proposal is required to be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least once a day. Likewise, the value of an underlying Combination Index is required to be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least once every 15 seconds during the time when the corresponding ETF trades on the Exchange, provided that, with respect to the fixed income components of the Combination Index, the impact on the index is required to be updated only once each day. 35 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C)(iii). Furthermore, the Commission believes that the proposed rules are reasonably designed to promote fair disclosure of information that may be necessary to price an ETF appropriately. If a broker-dealer or fund advisor is responsible for maintaining (or has a role in maintaining) the underlying index, such broker-dealer or fund advisor would be required to erect and maintain a “firewall,” in a form satisfactory to the Exchange, to prevent the flow of non-public information regarding the underlying index from the personnel involved in the development and maintenance of such index to others such as sales and trading personnel. The Commission also notes that current ISE Rules 2123(a)(6) and 2131(e)(1)(ii) provide that, in connection with approving an ETF issuer for listing on the Exchange, the Exchange would obtain a representation from the ETF issuer that the NAV per share will be calculated each business day and made available to all market participants at the same time. The Commission also believes that the Exchange's trading halt rules are reasonably designed to prevent trading in an ETF when transparency is impaired. Proposed ISE Rule 2123(h) and current ISE Rule 2131(e)(2)(ii) provide that, when the Exchange is the listing market, if the IIV or index value applicable to an ETF is not disseminated as required, the Exchange may halt trading during the day in which the interruption occurs. If the interruption continues, then the Exchange will halt trading no later than the beginning of the next trading day. Also, the Exchange may commence delisting proceedings in the event that the value of the underlying index is no longer calculated or available. The Commission further believes that the trading rules and procedures to which ETFs will be subject pursuant to this proposal are consistent with the Act. The definition of “Equity Securities” already includes Units and, by this proposed rule change, that definition would be expanded to also include PDRs. 36 As a result, ETFs would be subject to ISE's previously approved rules governing the trading of Equity Securities. 36 *See* proposed ISE Rule 2100(c)(7). The Exchange will implement written surveillance procedures for ETFs based on Fixed Income Indexes or Combination Indexes. 37 In approving this proposal, the Commission relied on ISE's representation that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of ICUs listed pursuant to this proposal. 37 *See* proposed ISE Rule 2123(m) and proposed sections .02(g) and .03(b) to the Supplementary Material to ISE Rule 2131. Acceleration The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change, as amended, prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of the notice of filing thereof in the **Federal Register.** ISE's proposal is substantially similar to other proposals that have been approved by the Commission. 38 The Commission does not believe that ISE's proposal raises any novel regulatory issues, and accelerated approval of the proposal will expedite the listing and trading of additional ETFs by the Exchange, subject to consistent and reasonable standards. Therefore, the Commission finds good cause, consistent with Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 39 to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis. 38 *See supra* at note 8. 39 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). V. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 40 that the proposed rule change (SR-ISE-2007-65), as modified by Amendment No. 1 thereto, be, and it hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis. 40 *Id.* For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 41 41 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-25652 Filed 1-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57060; File No. SR-Amex-2007-116] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, To Harmonize the Annual Listing Fees for All Exchange Traded Funds December 28, 2007. On October 29, 2007, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” 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 revise the annual listing fees for index fund shares, trust-issued receipts, commodity-based trust shares, currency trust shares, paired trust shares, partnership units, and closed-end funds (collectively, “Exchange Traded Funds” or “ETFs”) set forth in Section 141 of the Amex Company Guide. On November 9, 2007, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 3 On November 16, 2007, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposal. 4 The proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on November 27, 2007. 5 The Commission received no comment letters on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 Amendment No. 1 made clarifying changes to the purpose section of the original filing and revised the proposed annual listing fee schedule. 4 Amendment No. 2 made an additional clarifying change to the proposed annual listing fee schedule. Specifically, all references to a “maximum” or “minimum” identified as a parenthetical in the “Stock Issues” and “Issues Listed Under Section 106 and Section 107; Rule 1000A (Index Fund Shares); Rule 1200 (Trust Issued Receipts); Rule 1200A (Commodity Based Trust Shares); Rule 1200B (Currency Trust Shares); Rule 1400 (Paired Trust Shares); Rule 1500 (Partnership Units); and Closed-End Funds” Annual Fee Tables in the Company Guide were removed. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56809 (November 16, 2007), 72 FR 66203 (November 27, 2007) and 72 FR 70374 (December 11, 2007). Amex proposes to amend Section 141 of the Amex *Company Guide* to adopt a single annual listing fee for all ETFs. Amex's proposal would conform the annual listing fees for index fund shares with those of other ETFs and add an additional demarcation for outstanding shares or units of over 100 million, so that the maximum annual listing fee would increase to $50,000. Each series of the securities listed as index fund shares, trust-issued receipts, commodity-based trust shares, currency trust shares, paired trust shares, partnership units, or closed-end funds would be separately aggregated. The annual listing fee would then be applied to all of the outstanding securities of a particular issuer for each appropriate product class. Securities listed under Sections 106 and 107 of the Company Guide would be charged listing fees based on the shares outstanding of each individual issue. After careful review, the Commission finds that Amex's proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 6 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, 7 which requires, among other things, that the rules of the Exchange provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among members and issuers and other persons using the Exchange's facilities. The Commission notes that no comments were received on the proposed fee increase, which is based on existing annual fees for other comparable products listed on the Exchange. 6 In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 8 that the proposed rule change (SR-Amex-2007-116), as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, be, and hereby is, approved. 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 9 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 9 Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-25598 Filed 1-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57067; File No. SR-CBOE-2007-87] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Amend the Quoting Requirements Applicable to the Hybrid Opening System December 31, 2007. On July 25, 2007, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” 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 its rule pertaining to the Hybrid Opening System (“HOSS”) as well as related rules pertaining to the obligations of designated primary market-makers (“DPMs”), electronic designated primary market-makers (“e-DPMs”) and lead market-makers (“LMMs”) during opening rotations. On November 19, 2007, CBOE filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change, as amended, was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on November 26, 2007. 3 The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1 thereto. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56814 (November 19, 2007), 72 FR 66008 (“Notice”). I. Description of the Proposal HOSS is the Exchange's automated system for initiating trading at the beginning of each trading day. The Exchange proposes to amend its HOSS procedures contained in CBOE Rule 6.2B. Previously, for each option class approved for trading, HOSS had been programmed to open an option series only if the DPM or LMM, as applicable, for the particular option class submitted a quote that complies with the legal quote width requirements of paragraph (b)(iv) to CBOE Rule 8.7, *Obligations of Market-Makers* . In 2005, the HOSS procedures were revised; currently, HOSS is programmed to open an option series as long as any market maker, 4 not just the DPM or LMM, has submitted an opening quote that complies with the legal width quote requirements of CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv). 5 However, even though the procedures were changed to permit HOSS to automatically open a series without a DPM's or LMM's quote, DPMs (as well as e-DPMs) and LMMs are still obligated under CBOE's rules to submit timely opening quotes. 6 4 This could include a quote from a DPM, e-DPM, LMM, Market-Maker or Remote Market-Maker. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52234 (August 10, 2005), 70 FR 48214 (August 16, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2005-40). Other factors must also be satisfied for HOSS to open an options series. For example, the opening price for the series must be within an acceptable range and the opening trade cannot create a market order imbalance. *See, e.g.* , CBOE Rule 6.2B(e)(ii)-(iii). 6 Currently, DPMs, e-DPMs, and LMMs are required to enter opening quotes in accordance with CBOE Rule 6.2B in 100% of the series of each appointed class; whereas, other Market-Makers and Remote Market-Makers are permitted, but not obligated, to enter opening quotes in accordance with CBOE Rule 6.2B. *See* current CBOE Rules 6.2B, 8.15A, *Lead Market-Makers in Hybrid Classes* (subparagraph (b)(iv) of this rule has been interpreted by the Exchange to require an LMM to enter opening quotes in 100% of the series of each appointed class), 8.85, *DPM Obligations* , and 8.93, *e-DPM Obligations* . The proposed rule change modifies the HOSS procedures to allow the parameters to be configured so that an option series will open:
(1)If at least one market maker has submitted an opening quote, which is how HOSS currently operates; or
(2)only if a DPM or LMM, as applicable, has submitted an opening quote, which is how HOSS operated previously. Determinations on the particular configuration would be made on a class-by-class basis by the appropriate Exchange Procedure Committee and announced to the membership via Regulatory Circular. 7 7 *See* Notice, *supra* note 3, 72 FR at 66008 (noting that the Exchange Procedure Committee might consider such things as “trading in the underlying or related products, trading in the option on competing exchanges, how effectively opens have occurred in the past, liquidity and/or other factors.”). In addition, the proposed rule change amends the opening quote obligations of DPMs, e-DPMs, and LMMs to require them to ensure a timely initiation of an opening trading rotation of each allocated class by entering opening quotes as necessary ( *i.e.* , when no other market maker has entered an opening quote). This change would absolve DPMs, e-DPMs, and LMMs of their responsibility (under CBOE's current rules) to enter opening quotes when another market maker has already entered an opening quote in a particular series. 8 8 Under CBOE's proposed rules, DPMs, e-DPMs, and LMMs would still be *permitted* to enter opening quotes even if another market maker has already entered an opening quote. II. Discussion and Commission Findings The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change and finds that it is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 9 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 10 which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 9 In approving this 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). 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The proposed rule change will afford the Exchange more flexibility in the manner in which HOSS conducts opening rotations. The Commission believes that allowing the appropriate Exchange Procedure Committee to determine on a class-by-class basis how a particular series should open may allow CBOE to achieve more competitive, efficient, and orderly openings, while allowing the Exchange to provide sufficient liquidity at the open in particular classes. While the Commission continues to believe that the quoting obligations of LMMs, DPMs, and e-DPMs are appropriate, given the benefits (such as favorable margin treatment) that are provided to market makers, the Commission also believes that it is reasonable for CBOE to excuse them from submitting opening quotes in their assigned series when at least one other market maker has already entered an opening quote in that series. The Commission notes that if no other market maker has entered an opening quote, the DPM and e-DPM or LMM would be responsible for ensuring that an opening quote is promptly entered so that HOSS can automatically open the series. This proposal, in conjunction with another recently approved proposed rule change, 11 also should encourage LMMs, DPMs, and e-DPMs to quote more competitively during HOSS opening rotations. 12 11 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56860 (November 29, 2007), 72 FR 68919 (December 6, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2007-59) (allowing market makers to enter an opening quote for as low as one contract if the underlying primary market disseminates less than a 1,000-share best bid or offer quote immediately prior to an option series opening). 12 Nothing in this proposal would affect a Market-Maker's obligation to honor its firm quote obligations imposed by CBOE Rule 8.51. III. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 13 that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2007-87), as modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved. 13 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 14 14 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-25651 Filed 1-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57065; File No. SR-NYSE-2007-119] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Adoption of New Exchange Rule 309 (Failure To Pay Fees) December 28, 2007. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on December 21, 2007, the New York Stock Exchange, LLC (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change NYSE proposes to adopt new Exchange Rule 309, which delineates procedures for the collection of fee arrearages due the Exchange. The text of the proposed rule change is set forth below. New text is in *italics* . Admission of Members (Rules 300-324) Rule 309. Failure to Pay Exchange Fees *Any member, member organization or allied member who shall not pay a fee or any other sums due to the Exchange, within forty-five days after the same shall become payable, shall be reported to the Chief Financial Officer of the Exchange or designee who, after notice has been given to such member, member organization or allied member of such arrearages, may suspend access to some or all of the facilities of the Exchange until payment is made. Except that failure to pay any fine levied in connection with a disciplinary action shall be governed by Exchange Rule 476(k) (Disciplinary Proceedings Involving Charges Against Members, Member Organizations, Allied Members, Approved Persons, Employees, or Others* ). *Denial of access to some or all of the facilities of the Exchange through suspension under the provisions of this Rule shall not prevent the member, member organization or allied member from being proceeded against for any offense other than that for which such member, member organization, or allied member was suspended* . II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange seeks to adopt new procedures that relate to the collection of fees due the Exchange. Currently, Exchange Rule 476(k) delineates the procedures to address the failure of members, member organizations or allied members to pay a fine ( *i.e.* , a fine levied in connection with a disciplinary proceeding and related fees also associated with a disciplinary proceeding), or any other sum due the Exchange. Specifically, Exchange Rule 476(k) provides that upon written notice to such members, member organizations or allied members and notification of the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Exchange of the arrearage, the Board of Directors may suspend the member, member organization or allied member for failure to pay the arrearages due the Exchange until payment is made. The Exchange now proposes to adopt new Exchange Rule 309 to provide procedures to address members, member organizations and allied members who fail to pay fees and any other sums due the Exchange. Types of payments that would be considered a “fee” under proposed Rule 309 include, but are not limited to, regulatory fees ( *i.e.* , Gross Financial and Operational Combined Uniform Single Report (FOCUS) revenue fees and trading floor regulatory fees), trading license fees, and transaction charges. Additionally, examples of payments that would constitute “any other sums” include, but are not limited to, charges for using Exchange Floor facilities and equipment and phone service charges. 3 3 Telephone bills for Exchange provided portable phones are paid by the Exchange and thereafter the Exchange submits an invoice to the member, member organization, and allied member for reimbursement. Pursuant to proposed Exchange Rule 309, if payment is not made within forty-five days, notice of the arrearage will be given to the member, member organization or allied member and reported to Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”) of the Exchange or a designee. The CFO or designee will be responsible for determining and taking any remedial action he or she deems appropriate, including suspension of the delinquent member's, member organization's or allied member's access to one or more Exchange facilities. The terms “fees” and “any other sums” in the text of proposed Exchange Rule 309 will not include fines levied in connection with a disciplinary proceeding. Failure to pay such disciplinary fines will continue to be governed by the provisions of Rule 476(k). In any event, the Exchange Treasurer will not be precluded from presenting notice of any arrearage to the Board pursuant to Exchange Rule 476(k) where appropriate. The current prerequisite of applying to the Exchange Board of Directors to address the issue of other unpaid sums due the Exchange is an inefficient and onerous process. Presently, invoices for fees and any other sum due the Exchange are issued on a monthly basis to members, member organizations and allied members. Payment is due upon presentation of the invoice. After thirty days, another invoice is issued for the current month and any outstanding balance due the Exchange. Pursuant to Rule 476(k), the ability to suspend members, member organizations and allied members for arrearages becomes operative after 45 days. The relief afforded in Rule 476(k) currently is not utilized by the Exchange; instead, arrearages are referred to the Exchange's collections department for resolution. 4 In order for the Exchange to effect the efficient operations of its business, the authority to address non-payment of sums due the Exchange, other than disciplinary fines and related fees governed by Rule 476(k), is more appropriately vested with Exchange senior management, who are more familiar with the daily operation of the Exchange and thus more adept than the Board of Directors at addressing these matters. 4 The collections department similarly does not avail itself of the recourse provided in Exchange Rule 476(k). Accordingly, the Exchange seeks to have notice of overdue fees reported to the CFO or his designee and to vest in the CFO or his designee the authority to determine what if any remedial action should be taken upon receipt of a report that a member, member organization or allied member failed to pay a fee. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) 5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) 6 that an Exchange have rules that are designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 6 15 U.S.C. 78a. 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. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period
(i)as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding, or
(ii)as to which NYSE consents, the Commission will: A. By order approve such proposed rule change, or B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-NYSE-2007-119 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-119. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-119 and should be submitted on or before January 28, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 7 7 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-25597 Filed 1-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57063; File No. SR-NYSE-2007-123] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Rule 1000 (Automatic Execution of Limit Orders Against Orders Reflected in NYSE Published Quotation) December 28, 2007. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on December 27, 2007, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“Exchange” or “NYSE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated this proposal as non-controversial under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange is proposing to amend Exchange Rule 1000(a)(iv) to provide for, in specified circumstances, Liquidity Replenishment Points (“LRPs”) to be calculated based on the last published quote rather than the last sale price. The text of the proposed rule change is available at NYSE, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.nyse.com* . II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The NYSE proposes to amend Exchange Rule 1000(a)(iv) to provide for, in specified circumstances, LRPs to be calculated based on the last published quote rather than the last sale price. a. Current Exchange Rule 1000(a) (Automatic Execution of Limit Orders Against Orders Reflected in NYSE Published Quotation) Currently, Exchange Rule 1000(a) provides that, subject to certain exceptions, an automatically executing order shall receive an automatic execution against orders reflected in the Exchange published quotation, orders on the Display Book, e-Quotes, s-Quotes, and CAP-DI orders. 5 One exception is where a Liquidity Replenishment Point (“LRP”) has been reached. 6 5 *See* Exchange Rule 1000(a). Rule 1000(a)(iv), governing the calculation of LRPs, was originally adopted on March 22, 2006, as part of the Exchange's development and implementation of the Hybrid market. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53539 (March 22, 2006), 71 FR 16353 (March 31, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2004-05). The Rule was subsequently amended in November 2006 to simplify the LRP procedures to their current form. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54820 (November 27, 2006), 71 FR 70824 (December 6, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-65). 6 *See* Exchange Rule 1000(a)(iv). LRPs are pre-determined price points that function as “speed bumps” to moderate volatility in a particular security, improve price continuity, and foster market quality by temporarily converting the electronic market to an auction market and permitting new orders, the Crowd, and the specialist to add liquidity. 7 LRPs are calculated and reset automatically every 30 seconds throughout the day by both adding and subtracting a value to the last sale price on the Exchange in the relevant security. 8 LRPs are also automatically calculated after a manual trade by a specialist. 9 When a LRP is reached, Auto Execution is suspended and the market for the particular security temporarily changes to an auction (or “slow”) market. 10 Auto Execution resumes as soon as possible after a LRP is reached, usually in no more than 5 to 10 seconds or immediately following a manual transaction. 11 LRPs are automatically recalculated when Auto Execution resumes after a LRP has been reached. 12 The values used to calculate the LRPs are determined and disseminated by the Exchange and do not change intraday. 13 LRPs are not calculated and active until a trade in the relevant security occurs on the Exchange. 14 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53539 (March 22, 2006), 71 FR 16353, at 16362 (March 31, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2004-05). 8 *See* Exchange Rules 1000(a)(iv)(A) and (C). LRPs are calculated based only on sale prices for trades executed on the Exchange and do not take into account trades executed on away markets. 9 *See* Exchange Rule 1000(a)(iv)(C). 10 *See* Exchange Rules 1000(a) and (b). *See also* Exchange Rules 60(e)(ii)(C), 79A.30(a). 11 *See* Exchange Rule 60(e)(ii)(C). 12 *See* Exchange Rule 1000(a)(iv)(C). 13 *See* Exchange Rule 1000(a)(iv)(A). 14 *See* Exchange Rule 1000(a)(iv)(B). b. Proposed Amendments to Exchange Rule 1000(a)(iv) The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1000(a)(iv) to provide for, in specified circumstances, LRPs to be calculated based on the last published quote rather than the last sale price. Because of the way the system is currently designed, when a stock is opened on a quote, the system cannot calculate LRPs in that stock until the first new sale occurs on the Exchange. Similarly, when Auto Execution resumes after it was disabled due to quoting beyond the LRP, the system resets the LRP for the “slow” side to zero and will not recalculate a new LRP until the next sale on the Exchange. In both instances, particularly with a thinly traded stock, the next sale may not occur for some time. In order to address these technical limitations and fill in gaps in the calculation of LRPs, proposed new Rule 1000(a)(iv) would provide for LRPs to be calculated based on the last published quote, rather than the last sale price, when
(i)a stock opens on a quote, or
(ii)upon resumption of Auto Execution after it was disabled due to quoting beyond the LRP. c. Calculation of LRPs When Opening on Quote Under the proposed new Rule 1000(a)(iv), when a stock opens on a quote, the LRPs will be calculated immediately using the opening quote by taking the offer and adding the LRP value (High LRP = offer + LRP value) and taking the bid and subtracting the LRP value (Low LRP = bid−LRP value). These LRPs will remain in effect until the first sale of the security on the Exchange, at which time the LRPs will be reset based upon that sale price. d. Calculation of LRPs When the Market Is Slow Under the proposed new Rule 1000(a)(iv), upon resumption of Auto Execution after it was suspended due to quoting beyond one (or both) of the LRPs (the “slow” side), the LRP will be recalculated on the “slow” side using the last published quote for that side by taking either the offer (or the bid) and adding (or subtracting) the LRP value. Only the “slow” side LRP will be recalculated. This LRP will not be recalculated until a manual trade is entered, there is a new sale of the security on the Exchange, or the stock becomes “slow” again and the specialist again resumes Auto Execution. When a manual trade is entered or there is a new sale, both LRPs will be immediately recalculated based on the last sale price. The Exchange believes these changes would expand the advantages of LRPs and would better inform its customers, specialists and the market as a whole what the Exchange's trading ranges are and when Automatic Execution may be halted by the Exchange. 2. Statutory Basis The basis for the proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 15 that an exchange have rules that are designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change also is designed to support the principles of Section 11A(a)(1) 16 of the Act in that it seeks to ensure economically efficient execution of securities transactions, to make it practicable for brokers to execute investors' orders in the best market, and to provide an opportunity for investors' orders to be executed without the participation of a dealer. 15 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 16 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1). 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. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 17 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. 18 Because the foregoing proposed rule change:
(i)Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii)does not become operative for 30 days 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, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder. 19 17 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 18 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 19 Rule 19b-4(f)(6) also requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied the five-day pre-filing requirement. A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to waive the operative delay if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the operative delay to permit the proposed rule change to become effective prior to the 30th day after filing. 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 pre-operative waiting period will allow the benefits of expanding the recalculation and use of LRPs to certain times when there is no available last sale price to be realized without delay. Therefore, the Commission has determined to waive the 30-day delay and allow the proposed rule change to become operative upon filing. 20 20 For purposes only of waiving the operative delay of this proposal, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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 No. SR-NYSE-2007-123 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-123. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commissions Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-123 and should be submitted on or before January 28, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 21 21 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-25600 Filed 1-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57072; File No. SR-NYSE-2007-125] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Exchange Rule 107A (Registered Competitive Market Makers) and Exchange Rule 110 (Competitive Traders) December 31, 2007. Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on December 31, 2007, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The 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 NYSE proposes to extend for three months the moratorium related to the qualification and registration of Registered Competitive Market Makers (“RCMMs”) pursuant to Exchange Rule 107A and Competitive Traders (“CTs”) pursuant to Exchange Rule 110. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the NYSE's Web site ( *http://www.nyse.com* ), at the NYSE, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange proposes to extend for three months the current moratorium related to the qualification and registration of RCMMs pursuant to Exchange Rule 107A and CTs pursuant to Exchange Rule 110. On September 22, 2005, the Exchange filed SR-NYSE-2005-63 3 with the Commission proposing to implement a moratorium on the qualification and registration of new RCMMs and CTs (“Moratorium”). The purpose of the Moratorium was to allow the Exchange an opportunity to review the viability of RCMMs and CTs in the NYSE HYBRID MARKETSM (“Hybrid Market”). 4 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52648 (October 21, 2005), 70 FR 62155 (October 28, 2005) (SR-NYSE-2005-63). 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53539 (March 22, 2006), 71 FR 16353 (March 31, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2004-05) (establishing the Hybrid Market). The phased-in implementation of the Hybrid Market required the Exchange to extend the Moratorium an additional four times over the next eighteen
(18)months. 5 During each phase of the Hybrid Market, new system functionality was included in the operation of Exchange systems and new data was generated. As a result, the Exchange was unable to make an informed decision as to the viability of RCMMs and CTs in the Hybrid Market. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 54140 (July 13, 2006), 71 FR 41491 (July 21, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-48); 54985 (December 21, 2006), 72 FR 171 (January 3, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2006-113); 55992 (June 29, 2007), 72 FR 37289 (July 9, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-57); and 56556 (September 27, 2007), 72 FR 56421 (October 3, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-86). The Exchange is now proposing to extend the Moratorium, as amended, 6 for an additional three months to March 31, 2008 in order to finalize its determination as to the roles of RCMMs and CTs in the Exchange's Hybrid Market and to formally submit a proposal to the Commission outlining these roles. The Exchange has continued to review the data related to RCMMs and CTs generated during the phasing in of the Hybrid Market. 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No.53549 (March 24, 2006), 71 FR 16388 (March 31, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-11) (making certain amendments to the Moratorium). The Exchange is currently undergoing significant developments in its technology and market model. Accordingly, the Exchange requests additional time to decide what roles, if any, RCMMs and CTs should perform in the current Hybrid Market. The Exchange will issue an Information Memo announcing the extension of the Moratorium. 2. Statutory Basis The basis under the Act 7 for this proposed rule change is the requirement under section 6(b)(5) 8 that an exchange have rules that are designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 7 15 U.S.C. 78a. 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the proposed rule change:
(i)Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii)does not become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 9 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 10 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 10 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). Pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act, the Exchange is required to give the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 5-day pre-filing notice requirement. The Commission has determined to waive this requirement to allow the Exchange to file its proposal to extend the Moratorium, which expires on December 31, 2007, without delay. A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act 11 normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 12 permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The NYSE has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it would allow the Moratorium to continue without interruption so that the Exchange may have additional time to make a final determination as to the future roles of RCMMs and CTs in the Hybrid Market, if any, and to file with the Commission a proposed rule change outlining such roles. For these reasons, the Commission designates that the proposed rule change become operative immediately. 13 11 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). 13 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-NYSE-2007-125 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-125. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-125 and should be submitted on or before January 28, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 14 14 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-25654 Filed 1-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request and Comment Request The Social Security Administration
(SSA)publishes a list of information collection packages that will require clearance by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. The information collection packages that may be included in this notice are for new information collections, approval of existing information collections, revisions to OMB-approved information collections and extensions (no change) of OMB-approved information collections. SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the Agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility and clarity; and on ways to minimize the burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments and recommendations regarding the information collection(s) should be submitted to the OMB Desk Officer and the SSA Reports Clearance Officer. The information can be mailed, faxed or emailed to the individuals at the addresses and fax numbers listed below: (OMB), Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for SSA, Fax: 202-395-6974, E-mail address: *OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov.* (SSA), Social Security Administration, DCBFM, Attn: Reports Clearance Officer, 1333 Annex Building, 6401 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21235, Fax: 410-965-6400, E-mail address: *OPLM.RCO@ssa.gov.* I. The information collections listed below are pending at SSA and will be submitted to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. Therefore, your comments should be submitted to SSA within 60 days from the date of this publication. You can obtain copies of the collection instruments by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 410-965-0454 or by writing to the address listed above. 1. *Function Report—Adult—Third Party—20 CFR 404.1512, 416.912—0960-0635.* The information collected on the SSA-3380-BK is needed to make determinations on Supplemental Security Income
(SSI)and Social Security disability
(SSDI)claims. This information is necessary for case development and adjudication, and is used by State Disability Determination Services
(DDS)evaluators as an evidentiary source used in the disability evaluation process. The respondents are third parties familiar with the functional limitations (or lack thereof) of claimants who apply for SSDI benefits and SSI payments. *Type of Request:* Revision of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 1,000,000. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden per Response:* 60 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 1,000,000 hours. 2. *Function Report—Adult—20 CFR 404.1512 and 419.912—0960-0681.* Form SSA-3373 is used to collect information about a disability applicant's impairment-related limitations and ability to function. It documents the types of information specified in SSA regulations and provides disability interviewers with a convenient means to record information about how the claimant's condition affects his or her ability to function. This information, together with medical evidence, forms the evidentiary basis upon which the initial disability process is founded. The respondents are SSDI and SSI applicants. *Type of Request:* Revision to an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 4,005,367. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden per Response:* 60 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 4,005,367 hours. 3. *Information Collections conducted by State DDS's on Behalf of SSA—20 CFR, subpart P, 404.1503a, 404.1512, 404.1513, 404.1514 404.1517, 404.1519; 20 CFR subpart Q, 404.1613, 404.1614, 404.1624; 20 CFR subpart I, 416.903a, 416.912, 416.913, 416.914, 416.917, 416.919 and 20 CFR subpart J, 416.1013, 416.1024, 416.1014—0960-0555.* The State DDS's collect certain information to administer the SSDI and SSI programs. They collect information from medical sources on consultative examination
(CE)medical evidence, CE credentials and Medical Evidence of Record (MER). The DDS's collect information from claimants regarding medical appointments and pain/symptoms. The respondents are medical providers, other sources of MER and disability claimants. *Type of Request:* Revision of an OMB-approved information collection. The total combined burden is 1,803,810 hours. CE Collections There are two collections from CE providers:
(a)Medical evidence about claimants, which DDS's use to make disability determinations when the claimant's own medical sources cannot or will not provide the required information; and
(b)when CE providers offer proof of their credentials.
(a)Medical Evidence from CE Providers Number of respondents Frequency of response Average burden per response (minutes) Estimated annual burden (hours) Paper Submissions 1,215,000 1 30 607,500 Electronic Records Express
(ERE)Submissions 285,000 1 15 71,250 Totals 1,500,000 — — 678,750 CE Credentials Number of respondents Frequency of response Average burden per response (minutes) Estimated annual burden (hours) Paper Submission 3,000 1 20 1,000 There are two CE claimant collections:
(a)CE claimant completion of a response form in which claimants indicate if they intend to keep their CE appointment; and
(b)CE claimant completion of a form indicating whether they want a copy of the CE report to be sent to their doctor.
(a)Claimants re Appointment Letter Number of respondents Frequency of response Average burden per response (minutes) Estimated annual burden (hours) Paper Submission 750,000 1 5 62,500
(b)Claimants re Report to Medical Provider Number of respondents Frequency of response Average burden per response (minutes) Estimated annual burden (hours) Paper Submission 1,500,000 1 5 125,000 MER Collections The DDS's collect MER information from the claimant's own medical sources to determine a claimant's physical and/or mental status, prior to making a disability determination. Number of respondents Frequency of response Average burden per response (minutes) Estimated annual burden (hours) Paper Submissions 2,480,800 1 15 620,200 Connect Direct (CD), (electronic transfer) 218,400 1 15 54,600 ERE Submission 100,800 1 7 11,760 Total 2,800,000 686,560 Pain/Other Symptoms Information From Claimants The DDSs use information about pain/symptoms to determine how pain/symptoms affect the claimant's ability to do work-related activities, prior to making a disability determination. Number of respondents Frequency of response Average burden per response (minutes) Estimated annual burden (hours) Paper Submission 1,000,000 1 15 250,000 4. *Social Security Number
(SSN)Verification Services—20 CFR 401.45—0960-0660* . Under Internal Revenue Service regulations employers are obligated to provide wage and tax data to the SSA using Form W-2 or its electronic equivalent. As part of this process the employer must furnish the employee's name and their SSN. The employee's name and SSN must match SSA's records in order for the employee's earnings to be properly posted to their Earnings Record, which is maintained by SSA. In order to better assure that employers provide accurate employee name and SSN data that match SSA's records, SSA offers serveral cost-free methods for employers to verify the information, as follows:
(1)Internet-based service, known as the Social Secuirty Number Verification Service (SSNVS), where the employer can verify if the reported names and SSNs of their employees matches SSA's records;
(2)the Employee Verification Service (EVS), where employers can verify, via cartridge, diskette, paper and telephone if the reported name and SSN of their employees matches SSA's records;
(3)through our National 800 Number SSA, which is introducing an automated telephone employee verification service
(TNEV)that will allow callers, who have been authenicated and have a pin and password to use for this process, to verify employee's names and SSNs through the telephone system. *Type of Request:* Revision of an OMB-approved information collection. Verification system Number of respondents Frequency of response Number of responses Average burden per response (minutes) Total annual burden (hours) EVS 50,000 16 800,000 10 133,333 SSNVS 200,000 60 12,000,000 5 1,000,000 TNEV 5,798 60 347,880 9 52,182 Total 255,798 2,347,880 1,185,515 5. *Agreement to Sell Property—20 CFR 416.1240-1245—0960-0127* . Individuals or couples who are otherwise eligible for SSI benefits but whose resources exceed the allowable limit may receive conditional payments if they agree to dispose of the excess non-liquid resources and make repayment. Form SSA-8060 is used to document this agreement and to ensure that the individuals understand their obligations. Respondents are applicants and recipients of SSI benefits who will be disposing of excess non-liquid resources. *Type of Request:* Extension of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 20,000. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden per Response:* 10 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 3,333 hours. 6. *Listing of Impairments—Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix I and II—0960-0642.* Background The Listing of Impairments (the listings), part 404, subpart P, appendix I and II, describes for each of the major body systems, impairments which are severe enough to prevent a person from doing any gainful activity. As part of the listings, we provide a preface which identifies specific requirements that affect the body system, such as documentation requirements and other factors which must be considered when evaluating impairments within that body system. These can include requirements which include medical and other evidence. This clearance request covers sections in parts A and B. The Information Collection The medical evidence documentation described in the listings is used by State DDS's to assess the alleged disability. The information, together with other evidence, is used to determine if an individual claiming disability benefits has an impairment that meets severity and duration requirements. The respondents are disability applicants and other sources of evidence. The public reporting burden is accounted for in the Information Collection Requests
(ICR)for the various forms that the public uses to submit the information to SSA. Consequently, we are reporting no burden for this regulation aside from a 1-hour placeholder burden. *Type of Request:* Extension of an OMB-approved information collection. 7. *Reporting Events—SSI—20 CFR 416.701-.732—0960-0128.* The Social Security Act and regulations requires SSA to collection information to determine eligibility for SSI payments and to determine the correct payment amount. SSA periodically requests information from recipients to reevaluate their continuing SSI eligibility and payment amount using form SSA-8150-EV. Form SSA-8150-EV informs recipients of the information that needs to be reported to SSA in order to retain their benefits. Form SSA-8150-EV provides recipients with a means of reporting changes in their circumstances in writing. SSA uses the reported changes to determine SSI eligibility and correct payment amounts. *Type of Request:* Extension of an approved OMB information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 27,320. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden per Response:* 5 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 2,277 hours. II. The information collections listed below have been submitted to OMB for clearance. Your comments on the information collections would be most useful if received by OMB and SSA within 30 days from the date of this publication. You can obtain a copy of the OMB clearance packages by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 410-965-0454, or by writing to the address listed above. 1. *Advanced Notice of Termination of Child's Benefits & Student's Statement Regarding School Attendance—20 CFR 404.350-404.352, 404.367-404.368—0960-0105.* The information collected on Forms SSA-1372-BK and SSA-1372-BK-FC is needed to determine whether children of an insured worker are eligible for student benefits. The respondents are student claimants for Social Security benefits, their respective schools and, in some cases, their representative payees. *Type of Request:* Revision of an OMB-approved information collection. SSA-1372-BK: Type of respondent Number of respondents Frequency of response Average burden per response (minutes) Total annual burden (hours) Individuals/Households 99,850 1 11 18,306 State/Local/Tribal Government 99,850 1 11 18,306 Totals 199,700 36,612 SSA-1372-BK-FC: Type of respondent Number of respondents Frequency of response Average burden per response (minutes) Total annual burden (hours) Individuals/Households 150 1 11 27 State/Local/Tribal Government 150 1 11 27 Totals 300 54 *Correction Notice:* In the First **Federal Register** Notice, we inadvertently labeled this ICR as an extension instead of a revision. 2. *Authorization to Disclose Information to SSA—20 CFR 404.1512 & 20 CFR 416.912—0960-0623.* SSA must obtain sufficient medical evidence to make eligibility determinations for SSDI benefits and SSI payments. For SSA to obtain medical evidence, an applicant must authorize his or her medical source(s) to release the information to SSA. The applicant may use one of the forms SSA-827, SSA-827-OP1 or SSA-827-OP2 to provide consent for the release of information. Generally, the State DDS completes the form(s) based on information provided by the applicant, and sends the form(s) to the designated medical source(s). *Type of Request:* Revision of a currently approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 3,853,928. *Frequency of Response* (Average per case): 4. *Total Annual Responses:* 15,415,712. *Average Burden per Response:* 13 minutes to complete all 4 forms. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 835,018 hours. 3. *Acknowledgement of Receipt (Notice of Hearing)—20 CFR 404.938 & 416.1438—0960-0671.* The HA-504 and HA-504-OP1 are used to acknowledge receipt of the notice of hearing issued by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The ALJ uses the information collected on the HA-504 and HA-504-OP1 to:
(1)Prepare for the hearing as scheduled; or
(2)reschedule the hearing to a different date and/or location. The respondents are applicants for Social Security benefits or SSI payments who request a hearing to appeal an unfavorable entitlement or eligibility determination. *Type of Request:* Revision of an OMB-approved information collection. Form Number of respondents Frequency of response (per year) Average burden per response (minutes) Total annual burden (hours) HA-504 60,000 1 1 1000 HA-504-OP1 540,000 1 1 9000 Totals 600,000 10,000 *Correction Notice:* In the notice published on October 18, 2007 at 75 FR 59132 we inadvertently labeled this ICR as an extension. It is, in fact, a revision in order to reflect both versions of the form HA-504. Also, we are correcting the burden data from 660,000 respondents and 11,000 burden hours to 600,000 respondents and 10,000 burden hours. 4. *Request for Waiver of Special Veterans Benefits
(SVB)Overpayment Recovery or Change in Repayment Rate—20 CFR 408.900-408.950, 408.923(b), 408.931(b), 408.932(c),
(d)and (e), 408.941(b) and 408.942—0960-0698.* Title VIII allows the payment of a monthly benefit by the Commissioner of Social Security to a qualified World War II veteran who resides outside the United States. When an overpayment in SVB occurs, the beneficiary can use this form to request waiver of recovery of the overpayment or a change in the repayment rate. The SSA-2032-BK will be used to obtain the information necessary to determine whether the provisions of the Act regarding waiver of recovery of the overpayment are met. The information on the form is needed to determine a repayment rate if repayment cannot be waived. Respondents are beneficiaries who have overpayments on their Title VIII record and wish to file a claim for waiver of recovery or change in repayment rate. *Type of Request:* Extension of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 450. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden per Response:* 120 minutes. *Total Annual Burden:* 900 hours. *Correction Notice:* We are correcting information published on September 20, 2007 at 72 FR 53803 and on November 5, 2007 at 72 FR 62510 to show updated burden information. We changed the number of respondents from 39 to 450 and the burden hours from 78 to 900 hours. 5. *Request for Medical Treatment in an SSA Employee Health Facility: Patient Self-Administered or Staff Administered Care—0960-NEW.* SSA operates Employee Health Clinics onsite in eight different states. These clinics provide health care for all SSA employees including treatment of personal medical conditions when authorized by a physician. The SSA-5072 is the employee's personal physician's order form. The information collected on the SSA-5072 gives the nurses the guidance they need by law to perform certain medical procedures and to administer prescription medications such as allergy immunotherapy. Also, the information collected by the SSA-5072 allows the SSA Medical Officer to determine whether the treatment can be administered safely and appropriately in the SSA Employee Health Units. Each State has a Nurse Practice Act governing the practice of registered nurses in the State. All Nurse Practice Acts require that registered nurses administer prescription medications and certain medical treatments by following a licensed physician's orders. Form SSA-5072 provides the vehicle for the physician to provide these orders to the SSA nursing staff. Respondents are physicians of SSA employees who need to have medical treatment in the SSA Employee Health Unit. *Type of Request:* Information Collection in Use without an OMB Number. Reporting method Number of respondents Frequency of response Number of responses Average burden per response (minutes) Estimated annual burden (hours) Annual 25 1 25 5 2 Bi-Annual 75 2 150 5 13 Totals 100 175 15 6. *Sheltered Workshop Wage Reporting—0960-NEW.* Collection Background Section 1612(1)(C) of the Social Security Act (the Act) and 42 U.S.C. 1382a define remuneration received for services performed in a sheltered workshop as earned income for the SSI program. The amount of monthly wages determines an individual's SSI benefit amount. Collection Description SSA has maintained a working relationship with sheltered workshops since the inception of the SSI program. Most workshops report monthly wage totals to the local SSA office so that the client's SSI check is adjusted timely and overpayments are prevented. While participation of the workshop is strictly voluntary, they are highly motivated to report the wages because it provides a service to their clients. Sheltered Workshop reporting reduces the number of overpayments to SSI recipients. Processing these wage reports electronically reduces the cost of administering the program. SSA uses the information collected to verify and post monthly wages to the SSI recipient's record. Respondents are sheltered workshops that report monthly wages for services performed in the workshop. *Type of Request:* New information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 1,000. *Frequency of Response:* 12. *Average Burden per Response:* 15 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 3,000 hours. *Correction Notice:* We are updating information that was contained in the notices that were published at 72 FR 46529 on August 20, 2007 and 725 FR 62510 on November 5, 2007. We are changing the burden estimate from 5 to 15 minutes. 7. *Request for Social Security Earnings Information—20 CFR 404.810 & 401.100—0960-0525.* The Social Security Act provides that a wage earner, or someone authorized by a wage earner, may request Social Security earnings information from SSA using form SSA-7050. SSA uses the information collected on the form to verify that the requestor is authorized to access the earnings record and to produce the earnings statement. The respondents are wage earners and organizations and legal representatives authorized by the wage earner. *Type of Request:* Extension of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 60,000. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden per Response:* 11 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 11,000 hours. Dated: December 31, 2007. Elizabeth A. Davidson, Reports Clearance Officer, Social Security Administration. [FR Doc. E8-10 Filed 1-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 6052] Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: Assorted Objects of Greek and Roman Art SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, *et seq.* ), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be exhibited include assorted objects of Greek and Roman art, imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Greek and Roman Art galleries of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY, from on or about January 14, 2008, until on or about January 31, 2012, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the **Federal Register.** FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: (202-453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. Dated: December 28, 2007. C. Miller Crouch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E8-18 Filed 1-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 6053] Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Luxury for Export: Artistic Exchange Between India and Portugal Around 1600” SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, *et seq.* ), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Luxury for Export: Artistic Exchange Between India and Portugal Around 1600,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, Boston, MA, from on or about February 8, 2008, until on or about May 4, 2008, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the **Federal Register.** FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Carol B. Epstein, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/453-8048). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. Dated: December 28, 2007. C. Miller Crouch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E8-20 Filed 1-4-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Noise Exposure Map Notice; Receipt of Noise Compatibility Program and Request for Review; Orlando Executive Airport; Orlando, Florida AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)announces its determination that the Noise Exposure Maps submitted by the Greater Orlando Airport Authority for Orlando Executive Airport under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47501 *et seq.* (Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act) and 14 CFR Part 150 are in compliance with the applicable requirements. The FAA also announces that it is reviewing a proposed Noise Compatibility Program that was submitted for Orlando Executive under Part 150 in conjunction with the Noise Exposure Map, and that this program will be approved or disapproved on or before June 28, 2008. EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of the FAA's determination on the Noise Exposure Maps and of the start of its review of the associated Noise Compatibility Program is December 31, 2007. The public comment period ends February 29, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lindy McDowell, Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, Florida 32822, (407-812-6331). Comments on the proposed Noise Compatibility Program should also be submitted to the above office. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Notice announces that the FAA finds that the Noise Exposure Maps submitted for Orlando Executive Airport are in compliance with applicable requirements of Part 150, effective December 31, 2007. Further, FAA is reviewing a proposed Noise Compatibility Program for that Airport which will be approved or disapproved on or before June 28, 2008. This notice also announces the availability of this Program for public review and comment. Under 49 U.S.C., section 47503 (the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act, (the Act)), an airport operator may submit to the FAA Noise Exposure Maps which meet applicable regulations and which depict non-compatible land uses as of the date of submission of such maps, a description of projected aircraft operations, and the ways in which such operations will affect such maps. The Act requires such maps to be developed in consultation with interested and affected parties in the local community, government agencies, and persons using the airport. An airport operator who has submitted Noise Exposure Maps that are found by FAA to be in compliance with the requirements of Part 150, promulgated pursuant to the Act, may submit a Noise Compatibility Program for FAA approval which sets forth the measures the operator has taken or proposes to take to reduce existing non-compatible uses and prevent the introduction of additional non-compatible uses. The Greater Orlando Airport Authority submitted to the FAA on December 18, 2007 Noise Exposure Maps, descriptions and other documentation that were produced during the Orlando Executive Airport FAR Part 150 Noise and Land Use Compatibility Study conducted between November, 2003 and December, 2006. It was requested that the FAA review this material as the Noise Exposure Maps, as described in Section 47503 of the Act, and that the noise mitigation measures, to be implemented jointly by the airport and surrounding communities, be approved as a Noise Compatibility Program under section 47504 of the Act. The FAA has completed its review of the Noise Exposure Maps and related descriptions submitted by the Greater Orlando Airport Authority. The specific documentation determined to constitute the Noise Exposure Maps includes: Exhibit B—2006 Noise Contour and Existing Land Use; Exhibit C—2011 Noise Contour and Future Land Use; Table 7-1, 2004 Annual Operations; Table 7-2, 2004 Fleet Mix; Table 7-3, 2004 Fleet Mix—Operations Per Day; Table 7-4, Projected Annual Operations; Table 7-5, 2009 Fleet Mix; Table 7-6, 2009 Fleet Mix—Operations Per Day; Table 7-7, Runway Use Percentages; Exhibit 7-4, West Flow Track Use Percentages; Exhibit 7-5, East Flow Flight Corridors; Exhibit 7-6, Touch and Go Flight Tracks; Exhibit 7-7, Helicopter Flight Tracks; Table 7-8, 2004 and 2009 Arrival Corridor Percentages; Table 7-9, 2004 and 2009 Departure Corridor Percentages; Table 7-10, 2004 and 2009 Local Pattern Percentages; Table 7-11, 2004 and 2009 Time of Day Percentages by Aircraft Category, Exhibit 8-3, 2004 Noise Contours and Existing Land Use; Exhibit 8-4, 2009 Noise Contours and Future Land Use; Exhibit 8-5, Community Facilities; Table 8-3, DNL Noise Levels at Community Facilities; Table 8-4, Estimated Population within 2004 and 2009 Noise Contours; Map A—2006 Noise Exposure Map; Map B—2011 Noise Exposure Map. The FAA has determined that these maps for Orlando Executive Airport are in compliance with applicable requirements. This determination is effective on December 31, 2007. FAA's determination on the airport operator's Noise Exposure Maps is limited to a finding that the maps were developed in accordance with the procedures contained in Appendix A of FAR Part 150. Such determination does not constitute approval of the airport operator's data, information or plans, or a commitment to approve a Noise Compatibility Program or to fund the implementation of that Program. If questions arise concerning the precise relationship of specific properties to noise exposure contours depicted on a Noise Exposure Map submitted under section 47503 of the Act, it should be noted that the FAA is not involved in any way in determining the relative locations of specific properties with regard to the depicted noise exposure contours, or in interpreting the Noise Exposure Maps to resolve questions concerning, for example, which properties should be covered by the provisions of section 47506 of the Act. These functions are inseparable from the ultimate land use control and planning responsibilities of local government. These local responsibilities are not changed in any way under Part 150 or through FAA's review of Noise Exposure Maps. Therefore, the responsibility for the detailed overlaying of noise exposure contours onto the map depicting properties on the surface rests exclusively with the airport operator that submitted those maps, or with those public agencies and planning agencies with which consultation is required under section 47503 of the Act. The FAA has relied on the certification by the airport operator, under section 150.21 of Part 150, that the statutorily required consultation has been accomplished. The FAA has formally received the Noise Compatibility Program for Orlando Executive Airport, also effective on December 31, 2007. Preliminary review of the submitted material indicates that it conforms to the requirements for the submittal of Noise Compatibility Programs, but that further review will be necessary prior to approval or disapproval of the program. The formal review period, limited by law to a maximum of 180 days, will be completed on or before June 28, 2008. The FAA's detailed evaluation will be conducted under the provisions of Part 150, section 150.33. The primary considerations in the evaluation process are whether the proposed measures may reduce the level of aviation safety, create an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce, or be reasonably consistent with obtaining the goal of reducing existing non-compatible land uses and preventing the introduction of additional non-compatible land uses. Interested persons are invited to comment on the proposed program with specific reference to these factors. All comments, other than those properly addressed to local land use authorities, will be considered by the FAA to the extent practicable. Copies of the Noise Exposure Maps, the FAA's evaluation of the maps, and the proposed Noise Compatibility Program are available for examination at the following locations: Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, Florida 32822. Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Issued in Orlando, Florida, December 31, 2007. Juan C. Brown, Acting Manager, Orlando Airports District Office. [FR Doc. 08-4 Filed 1-4-08; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 31
Traces to 31 documents
U.S. Code
11 references not yet in our index
  • 17 CFR 240.19
  • 44 USC 3501-3520
  • 15 USC 80a
  • 17 CFR 270.10
  • Pub. L. 94-409
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 20 CFR 416.1240-1245
  • 20 CFR 404.350-404
  • 20 CFR 408.900-408
  • 79 Stat. 985
  • 14 CFR 150
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Policy Statement: Revision
C.F.R.§ 30.7
U.S.C.§ 3501
U.S.C.§ 3652
U.S.C.§ 3653
U.S.C.§ 3622
U.S.C.§ 78a
U.S.C.§ 78s
U.S.C.§ 552b
C.F.R.§ 200.402
Cite17 CFR 240.19
Cite44 USC 3501-3520
Cite15 USC 80a
Cites 42 · 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.