Notices. Notice
80,692 words·~367 min read·
/register/2008/07/10/08-1428A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage *de novo* , or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies.
Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at *www.ffiec.gov/nic/* .
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 25, 2008. **A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond** (A. Linwood Gill, III, Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528: *1. TCB Corporation* , to acquire at least 73 percent of the voting shares of Greenwood Capital Associates, LLC, both of Greenwood, South Carolina, and thereby engage in financial and investment advisory services, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(6)(i) of Regulation Y.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 7, 2008. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E8-15687 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Extension AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission (“Commission” or “FTC”). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The information collection requirements described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”).
The FTC is seeking public comments on its proposal to extend through July 31, 2011, the current PRA clearance for information collection requirements contained in its Funeral Industry Practice Rule (“Funeral Rule” or “Rule”). That clearance expires on July 31, 2008. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 11, 2008. ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments. Comments should refer to “Paperwork Comment: FTC File No. P084401” to facilitate the organization of comments.
A comment filed in paper form should include this reference both in the text and on the envelope and should be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade Commission/Office of the Secretary, Room H-135 (Annex J), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. Because paper mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay, please consider submitting your comments in electronic form, as prescribed below. If, however, the comment contains any material for which confidential treatment is requested, the comment must be filed in paper form, and the first page of the document must be clearly labeled “Confidential.” 1 1 Commission Rule 4.2(d), 16 CFR 4.2(d).
The comment must be accompanied by an explicit request for confidential treatment, including the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. The request will be granted or denied by the Commission's General Counsel, consistent with applicable law and the public interest. *See* Commission Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted by clicking on the following: *https://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-FuneralRule* and following the instructions on the Web-based form.
To ensure that the Commission considers an electronic comment, you must file it on the Web-based form at *https://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-FuneralRule.* You also may visit * http:// www.regulations.gov * to read this Rule, and may file an electronic comment through that website. The Commission will consider all comments that regulations.gov forwards to it. All comments should additionally be submitted to: Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Trade Commission.
Comments should be submitted via facsimile to
(202)395-6974 because U.S. Postal Mail is subject to lengthy delays due to heightened security precautions. The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. All timely and responsive public comments will be considered by the Commission and will be available to the public on the FTC website, to the extent practicable, at *http://www.ftc.gov.* As a matter of discretion, the FTC makes every effort to remove home contact information for individuals from the public comments it receives before placing those comments on the FTC Web site. More information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC's privacy policy at *http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information requirements for the Funeral Rule should be addressed to Craig Tregillus, Attorney, Division of Marketing Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Room H-288, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20580,
(202)326-2970. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 28, 2008, the FTC sought comment on the information collection requirements associated with the Funeral Rule, 16 CFR Part 453 (Control Number: 3084-0025). 2 No comments were received. Pursuant to the OMB regulations, 5 CFR Part 1320, that implement the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, the FTC is providing this second opportunity for public comment while seeking OMB approval to extend the existing paperwork clearance for the Rule. All comments should be filed as prescribed in the ADDRESSES section above, and must be received on or before August 11, 2008. 2 73 FR 16681. The Funeral Rule ensures that consumers who are purchasing funeral goods and services have accurate information about the terms and conditions (especially prices) for such goods and services. The Rule requires that funeral providers disclose this information to consumers and maintain records to facilitate enforcement of the Rule. The estimated burden associated with the collection of information required by the Rule is 20,300 hours for recordkeeping, 101,389 hours for disclosures, and 40,600 hours for training, for a total of 162,000 hours (rounded to the nearest thousand). This estimate is based on the number of funeral providers (approximately 20,300), 3 the number of funerals per year (approximately 2.4 million), 4 and the time needed to fulfill the information collection tasks required by the Rule. 3 The estimated number of funeral providers is from data provided on the National Funeral Directors Association Web site (see *http://www.nfda.org/careers.php* ), which was accessed in March 2008. 4 The estimated number of funerals conducted annually is derived from the National Center for Health Statistics (“NCHS”), *http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/.* According to NCHS, 2,448,017 deaths occurred in the United States in 2005, the most recent year for which final data is available. *See* National Vital Statistics Reports, vol. 56, no. 10 “Deaths: Final Data for 2005,” *available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_10.pdf* . *Recordkeeping:* The Rule requires that funeral providers retain copies of price lists and statements of funeral goods and services selected by consumers. Based on a maximum average burden of one hour per provider per year for this task, the total burden for the 20,300 providers is 20,300 hours. This estimate is lower than FTC staff's 2005 estimate of 21,500 hours due to a decrease in the number of funeral providers. *Disclosure:* The Rule requires that funeral providers:
(1)Maintain current price lists for funeral goods and services,
(2)provide written documentation of the funeral goods and services selected by consumers making funeral arrangements, and
(3)provide information about funeral prices in response to telephone inquiries. 1. Maintaining current price lists requires that funeral providers revise their price lists from time to time throughout the year to reflect price changes. Staff estimates, consistent with its current clearance, that this task requires a maximum average burden of two and one-half hours per provider per year for this task. Thus, the total burden for 20,300 providers is 50,750 hours. 2. Staff retains its prior estimate that 13% of funeral providers prepare written documentation of funeral goods and services selected by consumers specifically due to the Rule's mandate. The original rulemaking record indicated that 87% of funeral providers provided written documentation of funeral arrangements, even absent the Rule's requirements. 5 5 In a 2002 public comment, the National Funeral Directors Association asserted that nearly every funeral home had been providing consumers with some kind of final statement in writing even before the Rule took effect. Nonetheless, in an abundance of caution, staff continues to retain its prior estimate based on the original rulemaking record. According to the rulemaking record, the 13% of funeral providers who did not provide written documentation prior to enactment of the Rule are typically the smallest funeral homes. The written documentation requirement can be satisfied through the use of a standard form (an example of which the FTC has provided to all funeral providers in its compliance guide). 6 Based on an estimate that these smaller funeral homes arrange, on average, approximately twenty funerals per year and that it would take each of them about three minutes to record prices for each consumer on the standard form, FTC staff estimates that the total burden associated with the written documentation requirement is one hour per provider, for a total of 2,639 hours [(20,300 funeral providers × 13%) × (20 statements per year × 3 minutes per statement)]. 6 The FTC has provided its compliance guide to all funeral providers at no cost, and additional copies are available on the FTC Web site, *http://www.ftc.gov,* or by mail. 3. The Funeral Rule also requires funeral providers to answer telephone inquiries about the provider's offerings or prices. Information received in 2002 from the industry indicates that only about 12% of funeral purchasers make telephone inquiries, with each call lasting an estimated ten minutes. 7 Thus, assuming that the average purchaser who makes telephone inquiries places one call per funeral to determine prices, the estimated burden is 48,000 hours (2.4 million funerals per year × 12% × 10 minutes per inquiry). This burden likely will decline over time as consumers increasingly rely on the Internet for funeral price information. 7 No more recent information thus far has been available. The Commission invites submission of more recent data or studies on this subject. In sum, the burden due to the Rule's disclosure requirements totals 101,389 hours (50,750 + 2,639 + 48,000). *Training:* In addition to the recordkeeping and disclosure-related tasks noted above, funeral homes may also have training requirements specifically attributable to the Rule. While staff believes that annual training burdens associated with the Rule should be minimal because Rule compliance is generally included in continuing education requirements for state licensing and voluntary certification programs, staff estimates that, industry-wide, funeral homes should incur no more than 40,600 hours related to training specific to the Rule each year. This estimate is consistent with staff's assumption for the current clearance that an “average” funeral home consists of approximately five employees (full-time and part-time employment combined), but with no more than four of them having tasks specifically associated with the Funeral Rule. Staff retains its estimate that each of the four employees (three directors and a clerical employee) per firm would each require one-half hour, at most, per year, for such training. Thus, total estimated time for training is 40,600 hours (4 employees per firm × 1/2 hour × 20,300 providers). *Estimated annual cost burden:* $3,524,000 in labor costs and $1,226,000 in non-labor costs. *Labor costs:* Labor costs are derived by applying appropriate hourly cost figures to the burden hours described above. The hourly rates used below are averages. Clerical personnel, at an estimated hourly rate of $13, can perform the recordkeeping tasks required under the Rule. Based on the estimated hour burden of 20,300 hours, the estimated labor cost burden for recordkeeping is $263,900. The two and one-half hours required of each provider, on average, to update price lists should consist of approximately one and one-half hours of managerial or professional time, at an estimated $27.50 per hour, and one hour of clerical time, at $13 per hour, for a total of $54.25 per provider 8 [($27.50 per hour × 1.5 hours) + ($13.00 per hour × 1 hour)]. Thus, the estimated total labor cost burden for maintaining price lists is $1,101,275 ($54.25 per provider × 20,300 providers). 8 Based on the National Compensation Survey: Occupational Wages in the United States, June 2006, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (June 2007) (“BLS National Compensation Survey”) (citing the mean hourly earnings for funeral directors as $22.11/hour), available at *http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ocs/sp/ncbl0910.pdf.* As in the past, staff has increased this figure on the assumption that the owner or managing director, who would be paid at a slightly higher rate, would be responsible for making pricing decisions. Clerical estimates are derived from the above source data, applying roughly a mid-range of mean hourly rates for potentially applicable clerical types, e.g., bookkeeping, file clerks, new accounts clerks, data entry. The incremental cost to the 13% of small funeral providers not previously providing written documentation of the goods and services selected by the consumer, as previously noted, is 2,639 hours. Assuming managerial or professional time for these tasks at approximately $27.50 per hour, the associated labor cost would be $72,572.50 (2,639 hours × $27.50 per hour). As previously noted, staff estimates that 48,000 hours of managerial or professional time is required annually to respond to telephone inquiries about prices. The cost of 48,000 hours of managerial or professional time for responding to telephone inquiries about prices at $27.50 per hour, is $1,320,000 (48,000 hours × $27.50 per hour). The cost of training licensed and non-licensed funeral home staff to comply with the Funeral Rule is two hours per funeral home, with four employees of varying ranks each spending one-half hour on training. Consistent with estimates in the current clearance, the Commission is assuming that three funeral directors, at hourly wages of $27.50, $20, and $15, respectively, as well as one clerical or administrative staff member, at $13 per hour, require such training, for a total burden of 40,600 hours (20,300 funeral homes × 2 hours total per establishment), and $766,325 [($27.50 + $20 + $15 + $13) × 1/2 hour per employee × 20,300 funeral homes]. The total labor cost of the three disclosure requirements imposed by the Funeral Rule is $2,493,847.50 ($1,101,275 + $72,572.50 + $1,320,000). The total labor cost for recordkeeping is $263,900. The total labor cost for disclosures, recordkeeping and training is $3,524,000 ($263,900 for recordkeeping + $766,325 for training + $2,493,847.50 for disclosures), rounded to the nearest thousand. *Capital or other non-labor costs:* The Rule imposes minimal capital costs and no current start-up costs. The Rule first took effect in 1984 and the revised Rule took effect in 1994, so funeral providers should already have in place capital equipment to carry out tasks associated with Rule compliance. Moreover, most funeral homes already have access, for other business purposes, to the ordinary office equipment needed for compliance, so the Rule likely imposes minimal additional capital expense. Compliance with the Rule, however, does entail some expense to funeral providers for printing and duplication of price lists. Assuming that two price lists per funeral/cremation are created by industry to adhere to the Rule, 4,800,000 copies per year are made for a total cost of $1,200,000 (2,400,000 funerals per year × 2 copies per funeral × $.25 per copy). In addition, the estimated 2,639 providers not already providing written documentation of funeral arrangements apart from the Rule will incur additional printing and copying costs. Assuming that those providers use the standard two-page form shown in the Compliance Guide, at twenty-five cents per page, at an average of twenty funerals per year, the added cost burden would be $26,390 (2,639 providers × 20 funerals per year × 2 pages per funeral × $.25). Thus, estimated non-labor costs are $1,226,000, rounded to the nearest thousand. William Blumenthal, General Counsel. [FR Doc. E8-15659 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The information collection requirements described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) is seeking public comments on its proposal to extend through October 31, 2011, the current OMB clearance for information collection requirements contained in its Negative Option Rule. That clearance expires on October 31, 2008. DATES: Comments must be filed by September 8, 2008. ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments. Comments should refer to “Negative Option Rule: FTC File No. P789003” to facilitate the organization of comments. A comment filed in paper form should include this reference both in the text and on the envelope and should be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-135 (Annex J), 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions. Moreover, because paper mail in the Washington area and at the Agency is subject to delay, please consider submitting your comments in electronic form, as prescribed below. If, however, the comment contains any material for which confidential treatment is requested, it must be filed in paper form, and the first page of the document must be clearly labeled “Confidential.” 1 1 FTC Rule 4.2(d), 16 CFR 4.2(d). The comment must be accompanied by an explicit request for confidential treatment, including the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. The request will be granted or denied by the Commission's General Counsel, consistent with applicable law and the public interest. *See* FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted by using the following Weblink: *https://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-NegativeOptionRule* (and following the instructions on the Web-based form). To ensure that the Commission considers an electronic comment, you must file it on the web-based form at the Weblink: *https://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-NegativeOptionRule.* If this notice appears at *http://www.regulations.gov,* you may also file an electronic comment through that Web site. The Commission will consider all comments that regulations.gov forwards to it. The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives, whether filed in paper or electronic form. Comments received will be available to the public on the FTC Web site, to the extent practicable, at *http://www.ftc.gov.* As a matter of discretion, the FTC makes every effort to remove home contact information for individuals from the public comments it receives before placing those comments on the FTC Web site. More information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC's privacy policy at *http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.shtm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information should be addressed to Jock Chung, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580,
(202)326-2984. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” means agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3); 5 CFR 1320.3(c). As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB extend the existing paperwork clearance for the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Use of Prenotification Negative Option Plans Rule (“Negative Option Rule” or “Rule”), 16 CFR Part 425 (OMB Control Number 3084-0104). The FTC invites comments on:
(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses. All comments should be filed as prescribed in the ADDRESSES section above, and must be received on or before September 8, 2008. The Negative Option Rule governs the operation of prenotification subscription plans. Under these plans, sellers notify subscribers that they will ship merchandise, such as books, compact discs, or tapes, automatically and bill the subscribers for the merchandise if the subscribers do not expressly reject the merchandise beforehand within a prescribed time. The Rule protects consumers by:
(a)requiring that promotional materials disclose the terms of membership clearly and conspicuously; and
(b)establishing procedures for the administration of such “negative option” plans. *Estimated annual hours burden:* 13,000 hours rounded to the nearest thousand. Staff estimates that approximately 158 existing clubs each require annually about 75 hours to comply with the Rule's disclosure requirements, for a total of 11,850 hours (158 clubs × 75 hours). These clubs should be familiar with the Rule, which has been in effect since 1974, with the result that the burden of compliance has declined over time. Moreover, a substantial portion of the existing clubs likely would make these disclosures absent the Rule because they have helped foster long-term relationships with consumers. Approximately 7 new clubs come into being each year. These clubs require approximately 120 hours to comply with the Rule, including start up-time. Thus, the cumulative PRA burden for new clubs is about 840 hours. Combined with the estimated burden for established clubs, the total burden is 12,690 hours or 13,000, rounded to the nearest thousand. *Estimated annual cost burden:* $511,000, rounded to the nearest thousand (solely related to labor costs). Based on recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average compensation for advertising managers is approximately $44 per hour. Compensation for office and administrative support personnel is approximately $15 per hour. Assuming that managers perform the bulk of the work, while clerical personnel perform associated tasks ( *e.g.* , placing advertisements and responding to inquiries about offerings or prices), the total cost to the industry for the Rule's paperwork requirements would be approximately $510,510 [(65 hours managerial time x 158 existing clubs × $44 per hour) + (10 hours clerical time × 158 existing clubs × $15 per hour) + (110 hours managerial time × 7 new clubs × $44 per hour) + (10 hours clerical time × 7 new clubs × $15)]. Because the Rule has been in effect since 1974, the vast majority of the negative option clubs have no current start-up costs. For the few new clubs that enter the market each year, the costs associated with the Rule's disclosure requirements, beyond the additional labor costs discussed above, are de minimis. Negative option clubs already have access to the ordinary office equipment necessary to achieve compliance with the Rule. Similarly, the Rule imposes few, if any, printing and distribution costs. The required disclosures generally constitute only a small addition to the advertising for negative option plans. Because printing and distribution expenditures are incurred to market the product regardless of the Rule, adding the required disclosures results in marginal incremental expense. William Blumenthal, General Counsel. [FR Doc. E8-15660 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30Day-08-07BN] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC)publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at
(404)639-5960 or send an e-mail to *omb@cdc.gov* . Send written comments to CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, or by fax to
(202)395-6974. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice. Proposed Project Study to Assess Hepatitis Risk (STAHR)—New—National Center for AIDS Viral Hepatitis and TB Prevention, (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Background and Brief Description Hepatitis C is the most prevalent bloodborne infection in the United States. Approximately 3.2 million persons are chronically infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV). Identifying and reaching persons at risk for HCV infection is critical to prevent infection. Currently the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC)monitor the national incidence of acute hepatitis C through passive surveillance of acute, symptomatic cases of laboratory confirmed hepatitis C cases. However, only a small group of people with acute infection exhibit symptoms (<25%). Passive surveillance only captures a small fraction of acutely infected people. Injection drug users
(IDUs)are the primary risk group for acute hepatitis C. Thus, it is necessary to consider strategies other than passive surveillance for incidence monitoring. One such strategy is to conduct serial cross-sectional seroprevalence surveys among populations at increased risk of infection. Better methods of identification of persons at risk will enhance current surveillance efforts. The purpose of the proposed study is to develop and test different methods to recruit a sample of young IDUs at risk for HCV infection. These recruitment methods will be compared and contrasted to identify a methodology to be used in ongoing serial cross-sectional seroprevalence surveys. CDC is requesting approval for two years. Working with the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), the project will recruit a total of 1000 young IDUs during the 2 years using several methods. These methods are street outreach, respondent driven sampling and venue based. They are to be conducted in a sexually transmitted disease clinic and syringe exchange program. Young IDUs who consent to participate will be administered an eligibility interview questionnaire by a trained field staff member. If found eligible, the participant will take an audio-computer assisted self interview that includes questions on drug use and sexual behavior, HCV and Human Immunodeficiency Virus
(HIV)status, knowledge of HCV, and missed opportunities for hepatitis prevention. The project will also collect blood samples from each consenting participant to test for HCV infection and hepatitis A and B vaccination without cost. Participants needing medical and/or drug treatment services will be referred to the appropriate services. Participation in the data collection is voluntary and there is no cost to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annual burden hours are 816. Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Respondents Form Number of respondents Number of responses per respondent Average burden per response (in hours) Young IDUs Screener 1000 1 5/60 Eligible young IDUs Survey 800 1 55/60 Dated: July 1, 2008. Maryam I. Daneshvar, Acting Reports Clearance Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. E8-15630 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30Day-08-0576] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC)publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at
(404)639-5960 or send an e-mail to *omb@cdc.gov* . Send written comments to CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC or by fax to
(202)395-6974. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice. Proposed Project Possession, Use, and Transfer of Select Agents and Toxins (OMB Control No. 0920-0576)—Revision—Division of Select Agents and Toxins (DSAT), Coordinating Office for Terrorism Preparedness and Emergency Response (COTPER), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The revisions to the data collection are primarily changes to the guidance documents and forms to clarify instructions, correct editorial errors from previous submission, and reformat the structure of the forms based on the day-to-day processing of these forms. This request is for approval for three years. Background and Brief Description The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, Subtitle A of Public Law 107-188 (42 U.S.C. 262a), requires the United States Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS)to regulate the possession, use, and transfer of biological agents or toxins (i.e., select agents and toxins) that could pose a severe threat to public health and safety. The Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection Act of 2002, Subtitle B of Public Law 107-188 (7 U.S.C. 8401), requires the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA)to regulate the possession, use, and transfer of biological agents or toxins (i.e., select agents and toxins) that could pose a severe threat to animal or plant health, or animal or plant products. In accordance with these Acts, HHS and USDA promulgated regulations requiring entities to register with the CDC or the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) if they possess, use, or transfer a select agent or toxin (42 CFR part 73, 7 CFR part 331, and 9 CFR part 121). CDC and APHIS coordinate regulatory activities for those agents that would be regulated by both agencies (“overlap” select agents). CDC and APHIS adopted an identical system to collect information for the possession, use, and transfer of select agents and toxins. CDC is requesting continued OMB approval to collect this information through the use of five forms. The forms are:
(1)Application for Registration,
(2)Request to Transfer Select Agent or Toxin,
(3)Report of Theft, Loss, or Release of Select Agent and Toxin,
(4)Report of Identification of Select Agent or Toxin, and
(5)Request for Exemption. The Application for Registration (42 CFR, 73.7(d)) will be used by entities to register with CDC. Entities may amend their registration (42 CFR, 73.7(h)1)) if any changes occur. The Request to Transfer Select Agent or Toxin form (42 CFR 73.16) will be used to request transfer of a select agent or toxin to their facility. CDC, with APHIS, has revised the form by requiring the recipient to submit the initial request, be notified by the sender of the expected shipment date, and verify if the shipment did not occur. The Report of Theft, Loss, or Release of Select Agent and Toxin form (42 CFR 73.19(a)(b)) must be completed by entities if there is theft, loss, or release of a select agent or toxin. The Report of Identification of Select Agent or Toxin form 42 CFR 73.5(a)(b) and 73.6(a)(b)) will be used by clinical and diagnostic laboratories to notify CDC that select agents or toxins identified as the result of diagnostic or proficiency testing have been disposed of in a proper manner. The form will be used by Federal law enforcement agencies to report the seizure and final disposition of select agents and toxins. CDC has revised the Report of Identification of Select Agent or Toxin form to ensure duplicate reports are not submitted by requesting the entity that makes the final identification report the select agents or toxins identified as the result of diagnostic or verification testing. The Request for Exemption form (42 CFR 73.5(d)(e) and 73.6(d)(e)) will be used by entities that use an investigational product that are, bear, or contain select agents or toxins or in cases of public health emergency. An entity may apply to HHS for an exclusion of an attenuated strain of a select agent or toxin that does not pose a severe threat to public health and safety (42 CFR 73.3(e)(1) and 73.4(e)(1)). This regulation outlines situations in which an entity must notify or may make a request of HHS in writing. An entity may apply to the HHS Secretary for an expedited review of an individual by the Attorney General (42 CFR 73.10(e)). CDC has not developed standardized forms for these situations. The entity should provide the information in the appropriate section of the regulation. As part of the requirements of the Responsible Official, the Responsible Official is required to conduct regular inspections (at least annually) of the laboratory where select agents or toxins are stored. Results of these self-inspections must be documented (42 CFR 73.9(a)(5)). As part of the training requirements of this regulation, the entity is required to record the identity of the individual trained, the date of training, and the means used to verify that the employee understood the training (42 CFR 73.15(c)). An individual or entity may request administrative review of a decision denying or revoking certification of registration or an individual may appeal a denial of access approval (42 CFR 73.20). An entity must implement a system to ensure certain records and databases are accurate and that the authenticity of records may be verified (42 CFR 73.17(b). Prior to issuance of a certificate of registration, CDC inspects entities to ensure compliance with this regulation (42 CFR 73.18). The estimated annual burden is 9,657 hours. Estimated Annualized Burden Hours CFR reference Data collection Number of respondents Responses per respondent Average burden per response (in hours) 73.7(d) Registration Application 5 1 4.5 73.7(h)(1) Amendment to Registration Application 264 5 1 73.19(a)(b) Notification of Theft, Loss, or Release form 60 1 1 73.5 & 73.6(d-e)/73.3 & 73.4(e)(1) Request for Exemption/Exclusion 5 1 1 73.16 Request to Transfer Select Agent or Toxin 264 4 1.5 73.5 & 73.6(a)(b) Report of Identification of Select Agent or Toxin form 264 10 1 73.10(e) Request expedited review 10 1 30/60 73.9(a)(5) Documentation of self-inspection 264 1 1 73.15(c) Documentation of training 264 1 2 73.20 Administrative Review 15 1 4 73.17 Ensure secure recordkeeping system 264 1 4 73.18 Inspections 264 1 8 Dated: July 2, 2008. Maryam I. Daneshvar, Reports Clearance Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. E8-15749 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Office of Refugee Resettlement AGENCY: Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children and Families. ACTION: Single-Source Program Expansion Supplement. *CFDA#:* 93.583. *Legislative Authority:* The Refugee Act of 1980 as amended, Wilson-Fish Amendment, 8 U.S.C. 1522(e)(7); section 412(e)(7)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. *Amount of Award:* $1,312,414 supplement for current year. *Project Period:* 09/30/2005-09/29/2010. *Justification for the Exception to Competition:* The Wilson-Fish program is an alternative to the traditional State-administered welfare system for providing integrated assistance and services to refugees, asylees, Amerasian Immigrants, Cuban and Haitian Entrants, and Trafficking Victims. San Diego County is one of 12 sites that has chosen this alternative approach. The supplemental funds will allow the grantee, Catholic Charities Diocese of San Diego, to provide refugee cash assistance through the end of this fiscal year to eligible refugees (and others eligible for refugee benefits) under the San Diego Wilson-Fish Program. The primary reason for the grantee's supplemental request is a higher number of arrivals than anticipated when the grantee's budget was submitted and approved last year. The Refugee Act of 1980 mandates that the Office of Refugee Resettlement
(ORR)reimburse States and Wilson-Fish projects for the costs of cash and medical assistance for newly arriving refugees. Since 1991, ORR has reimbursed States and Wilson-Fish agencies for providing cash and medical assistance to eligible individuals during their first eight months in the United States. Hence, the supplement is consistent with the purposes of the Wilson-Fish Program, the Refugee Act of 1980, and ORR policy. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Rubenstein, Wilson-Fish Program Manager, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Aerospace Building, 8th Floor West, 901 D Street, SW., Washington, DC 20447. Telephone: 202-205-5933. Dated: July 1, 2008. David H. Siegel, Acting Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement. [FR Doc. E8-15633 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2008-D-0381] Draft Guidance for Industry on Voluntary Third-Party Certification Programs for Foods and Feeds; Availability AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Voluntary Third-Party Certification Programs for Foods and Feeds.” This draft guidance describes the general attributes FDA believes a voluntary third-party certification program should have in order to help ensure its certification is a reliable reflection that the foods and feeds from certified establishments are safe and meet applicable FDA requirements. DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit written or electronic comments on the draft guidance by September 8, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the draft guidance to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to *http://www.regulations.gov* . See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Lindan Mayl, Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane (HF-11), Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-3360. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Voluntary Third-Party Certification Programs for Foods and Feeds.” This draft guidance is issued in response to the recommendations contained in the Action Plan for Import Safety: A Roadmap for Continual Improvement (Action Plan) issued on November 6, 2007, by the Interagency Working Group on Import Safety (Working Group) established by Executive Order 13439, as well as FDA's Food Protection Plan released on the same date. Both those plans emphasize certification as a way to help verify the safety of products from a growing food establishment inventory, both domestic and foreign. In the **Federal Register** of April 2, 2008 (73 FR 17989), FDA issued a notice requesting comments on the use of third-party certification programs for foods and animal feeds. FDA received approximately 70 comments in response to that notice. The comments were generally supportive of the use of third-party certification programs. Many encouraged FDA to recognize such programs as a way to increase participation and improve the safety and security of foods. This draft guidance, when finalized, will represent FDA's current thinking on the certification process and will describe the general attributes FDA believes a voluntary third-party certification program should have in order to provide FDA with confidence in that program. If FDA has such confidence, we may choose to recognize the program and provide incentives for establishments to obtain certification by recognized certification programs. Recognition in this context means that FDA has determined that certification may be a reliable reflection that the foods from the certified establishment are safe and meet applicable FDA requirements. Such recognition would be tailored to particular categories of products and would occur in a separate document that builds upon the general attributes set forth in this document. Therefore, this draft guidance is intended as one of the steps in FDA's future recognition of one or more voluntary third-party certification programs for particular product types. To further that process, FDA is also announcing, in a separate notice issued in this **Federal Register** , a voluntary pilot program for third-party certification bodies that certify foreign processors of aquacultured shrimp. This pilot is intended to gather technical and operational information that will assist FDA in determining its infrastructure needs, as well as the process for evaluating third-party certification programs. The criteria for selection for that pilot are based upon the attributes set forth in the draft guidance. As with the pilot, the 12 attributes discussed in the draft guidance are intended to provide a model that could be tailored for particular categories of products and incorporated by FDA as it recognizes third-party certification programs for those products. These attributes incorporate such things as the authority of the certification body to adequately inspect the establishments seeking certification, qualifications, and training for the third-party inspectors, self-assessment of the certification programs and its inspectors, elements of an effective inspection program, notification to FDA, and preventing conflicts of interest. While FDA invites comments on all aspects of the draft guidance, FDA is particularly interested in receiving comments on this list of attributes for the certification program. More specifically, we would like to know whether there are some attributes that should be removed or added and whether the draft guidance provides sufficient information about each attribute. We are also interested in knowing how this list compares with existing, well-accepted guidelines or requirements for certification programs. The draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent FDA's current thinking on Voluntary Third-Party Certification Programs for Foods and Feeds. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. II. Comments The draft guidance is being distributed for comment purposes only and is not intended for implementation at this time. Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments regarding the draft guidance. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in the brackets in the heading of this document. A copy of the draft guidance and received comments are available for public examination in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division of Dockets Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management system. Electronic comments or submissions will be accepted by FDA only through FDMS at *http://www.regulations.gov* . III. Electronic Access Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance at either *http://www.fda.gov/oc/guidance/thirdpartycert.html* or *http://www.regulations.gov* . Dated: July 7, 2008. Jeffrey Shuren, Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning. [FR Doc. E8-15715 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0382] Voluntary Third-Party Certification Programs for Imported Aquacultured Shrimp; Notice of Pilot Program AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is seeking third-party certification bodies that certify foreign processors of aquacultured shrimp for compliance with FDA's Seafood Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) regulations to volunteer to participate in a pilot program to be conducted by FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) and Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA). The goal of the pilot program is to gather technical and operational information that will assist FDA in determining its infrastructure needs, as well as the process for evaluating third-party certification programs, in order to assist FDA in moving towards broader recognition of voluntary third-party certification programs, including third-party certification programs for aquacultured shrimp, at a later time. DATES: Submit written and electronic requests to participate in the pilot program by August 25, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit written requests to participate in the pilot program to the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-325), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740. Submit electronic requests to participate to *aquaculture@fda.hhs.gov* . We strongly encourage interested persons to electronically submit their request to participate. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brett Koonse, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-325), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 301-436-1700. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Ensuring the safety of food for human and animal use is a shared responsibility between the public and private sectors. FDA has the authority to establish regulatory standards, inspect facilities, and take action if there are violations, but it is primarily the responsibility of industry to ensure that foods products intended for human and animal consumption in the United States are safe and meet applicable FDA standards. An increasing number of establishments that sell foods to the public, such as retailers and food service providers, are independently requesting, as a condition of doing business, that their suppliers, both foreign and domestic, become certified as meeting safety (as well as quality) standards. In addition, domestic and foreign suppliers (such as producers, co-manufacturers, or re-packers) are increasingly looking to third-party certification programs to assist them in meeting U.S. requirements. On July 18, 2007, the President issued Executive Order 13439 to establish the Interagency Working Group on Import Safety (Working Group). On November 6, 2007, the Working Group released an “Action Plan for Import Safety: A Roadmap for Continual Improvement” (Action Plan) ( *http://www.importsafety.gov/report/actionplan.pdf* ). The Action Plan contains 14 broad recommendations and 50 specific short- and long-term action steps to better protect consumers and enhance the safety of the increasing volume of imports entering the United States. The Action Plan stresses the importance of the private sector's responsibility for the safety of its products and the importance of ongoing private-sector mechanisms and experience as a basis for ongoing, substantive public-private collaboration. The public and private sectors have a shared interest in import safety, and substantive improvement will require the careful collaboration of the entire importing community. Recommendation 2 of the Action Plan is to “verify compliance of foreign producers with United States safety and security standards through certification.” Third-party certification can augment the Federal Government's and the importing community's ability to help ensure that products imported into the United States meet U.S. safety and security standards. The Action Plan states “[f]or foreign producers, the ability to participate in voluntary certification programs could allow products from firms that comply with U.S. safety and security standards to enter the United States more quickly. This would facilitate trade, while allowing federal departments and agencies to focus their resources on products from non-certified firms or for which information suggests there may be safety or security concerns. This would allow federal departments and agencies to more effectively target their resources.” Action Steps 2.2 and 2.4 of the Action Plan call for the recognition or development of voluntary third-party certification programs, based on risk, for foreign producers of certain products who export to the United States and the creation of incentives for foreign firms to participate in voluntary certification programs and for importers to purchase only from certified firms. In conjunction with the Action Plan, on November 6, 2007, FDA released its Food Protection Plan (FPP), a comprehensive strategy designed to bolster efforts to better protect the Nation's food supply ( *http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/advance/food/plan.html* ). The FPP is a three-part plan that uses science and a risk-based approach of prevention, intervention and response to ensure the safety of domestic as well as imported foods eaten by American consumers. The FPP emphasizes certification as a way to help verify the safety of products from a growing food establishment inventory, both foreign and domestic. On April 2, 2008, FDA published a notice in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 17989) requesting comments by May 19, 2008, on the use of third-party certification programs for foods and animal feeds. The notice was FDA's first step in soliciting public input in the design and development or recognition of voluntary third-party certification programs. In order to assist FDA in moving towards broader recognition of third-party certification programs, FDA is now seeking voluntary participants for a third-party certification pilot program for aquacultured shrimp. This pilot program is the next step in gathering technical and operational information that will assist FDA in determining its infrastructure needs. The information from this pilot also will assist with subsequent steps, such as developing the process for evaluating third-party certification programs should FDA decide to recognize voluntary third-party certification programs and to consider certification in its decision making. Certification might be considered, for example, in decision making regarding determination of establishment inspection priorities, entry admissibly, field exam and sampling priorities, “may proceed” rates, and requests by firms to have their products removed from an import alert. If FDA were to recognize third-party certification programs, we would do so on a product-by-product basis. We would also provide an opportunity for both foreign and domestic certification bodies to voluntarily seek FDA recognition and for foreign and domestic establishments to voluntarily seek certification. II. Voluntary Third-Party Certification Pilot Program A. Scope and Selection Attributes FDA is seeking a limited number of third-party certification bodies (such as private, non-government entities, other Federal government, State government, and foreign government agencies) that currently certify foreign processors of aquacultured shrimp for compliance with FDA's Seafood HACCP regulations to volunteer to participate in the pilot program. Participants in the pilot program will be asked to provide FDA with technical feedback on the pilot. A limited number of voluntary participants are needed for the pilot program. The agency will use its discretion in choosing participants for Phase II of the pilot (see following discussion) from those who apply during Phase I of the pilot based on the following attributes: 1. Authority of the Certification Body. The certification body should have the authority to perform inspection activities, collect and evaluate records, collect and analyze samples, and assess and report on compliance as necessary to ensure certification standards and requirements are met and maintained. 2. Qualification and Training for Inspectors. The certification body should ensure that its inspectors are adequately trained to perform their work assignments. Such training includes course work, field work, and continuing education. 3. Elements of an Effective Inspection Program. The certification body should ensure that its inspectors are consistently using established, widely-recognized standards when performing inspections. The inspector should prioritize and target the elements of producing, manufacturing, processing, packing, and holding that pose the greatest risk to human and/or animal health. The certification body should have written policies and procedures describing the protocol to be used by all inspectors during an inspection. During an inspection, inspectors should verify that the establishments and products meet and maintain certification criteria that include the following: • The processor is in compliance with applicable FDA regulatory requirements for food, including FDA's Seafood HACCP regulations; • If appropriate, the processor has in place, and effectively executes, management systems that ensure the safety of all shrimp products, from production to distribution, as applicable, including the feed used, the hatchery, the growing area, harvesting, processing, and transportation. This may include a preventive control program for farms (e.g., Good Aquaculture Practices, Best Management Practices, farmer training along with farm inspections), a verification program (e.g., an effective testing scheme to ensure products are free of unapproved drugs, chemicals, and pathogens), a traceability program, or recall and follow-up procedures in case of an outbreak or illness associated with a product. 4. Inspection Audit Program. The third-party certification body should conduct audits of its inspections to assess the effectiveness of the inspections and sample collections and to ensure the competency and consistency of its inspectors. 5. Cooperation with FDA and Other Appropriate Government Officials When Safety Problems Occur. The certification body should cooperate as necessary with FDA and other appropriate government authorities if the certification body discovers a situation in which there is a reasonable probability that U.S. consumers may consume or be exposed to a food product that could cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals, whether the contamination or problem was caused intentionally or unintentionally. Such cooperation may include notification to relevant agencies inside and outside of the United States, where the food is sold or distributed. Moreover, when FDA has reliable information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC)or other reliable sources about a health risk associated with an FDA-regulated food product and FDA is conducting a traceback of a product, FDA may request information from the certification body regarding the supply chain. Such information may be requested based on preliminary information that an establishment under the certification program may be implicated. The certification body should provide FDA with this information in a timely manner. Such information would be disclosed (or protected from disclosure) in accordance with applicable laws and policies. 6. Compliance and Corrective Action. The certification body should have strategies, procedures, and actions to ensure the establishments and products it certifies comply with FDA laws and regulations and otherwise meet certification standards, to take action when there is non-compliance, and to evaluate the effectiveness of corrective action programs. 7. Industry Relations. At a minimum, the certification body should provide establishments seeking certification with information about current FDA requirements and guidances. 8. Resources. The certification body should have sufficient resources, such as technological tools and infrastructure, to carry out its certification program. 9. Self-Assessment of Overall Certification Program. In addition to auditing the inspection program, the certification body should assess the effectiveness of the certification program as a whole. 10. Laboratories. The certification body should have access to laboratory services to support the program functions. The laboratories should be accredited by an accreditation body operating in accordance with International Organization for Standardization
(ISO)standard 120/IEC 17011, General requirements for Accreditation bodies accrediting conformity assessment bodies. 11. Notifications to FDA. The certification body should promptly notify FDA of problems or changes that can affect product safety or security. We expect prompt notification of the following: a. Safety Issues. The certification body should immediately notify FDA if an inspector finds or discovers a situation in which there is a reasonable probability that U.S. consumers may consume or be exposed to a food that could cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals. This information may pertain to intentional or unintentional contamination. The certification body should provide detailed information that describes the extent and nature of the problem and allows us to identify the product and source, including traceability records. b. Fraud. The certification body should promptly notify FDA if it has information that the establishment or any of its officers or employees engages in any fraudulent acts related to foods, including providing false information to the certification body or any inspectors acting on its behalf. c. Criminal Acts. The certification body should promptly notify FDA if it has information that the establishment or any of its officers or employees has been convicted of a crime relating to foods or any crime involving false statements, fraud, or dishonesty. 12. Conflict of Interest. The certification body and its inspectors should be free from conflicts of interest. These attributes are described in greater detail in a draft guidance issued today entitled, “Voluntary Third Party Certification Programs for Foods and Feeds” ( *http://www.fda.gov/oc/guidance/thirdpartycert.html* or *http://www.regulations.gov* ). The draft guidance is being distributed for comment purposes only and is not intended for implementation at this time. Certification bodies interested in participating in this pilot should review the draft guidance. Favorable consideration will be given to third-party certification bodies that:
(1)Currently certify foreign shrimp processors for controls designed to ensure the safety of the product from production through distribution, in addition to compliance with FDA's Seafood HACCP regulations;
(2)certify processors of aquacultured shrimp in countries that export significant amounts of aquacultured shrimp to the United States; and/or
(3)are accredited or are in the process of becoming accredited by a recognized accreditation body. B. Pilot Program and FDA Audit The pilot program will be conducted in two phases. Phase I begins with the issuance of this document and will run through December 2008. During Phase I, FDA will receive and evaluate requests to participate in the pilot, including conducting paper audits to determine whether applicants have the attributes described in this document. During the paper audit, applicants will be asked to provide FDA with a list of inspectors for the products covered under this pilot and the inspectors' locations. In addition, applicants may be asked to provide FDA with other documents such as certification or recertification audit reports and product sampling results. Phase II will begin in December 2008 with notification of the applicants that have been selected for participation. During Phase II, which will run through June 2009, FDA will conduct onsite audits of third-party certification programs by accompanying certain inspectors during certification and/or recertification inspections. FDA will also conduct targeted sampling of imported shrimp products. FDA may elect to increase the “may proceed” rate during Phase II for shrimp products from certified establishments, if warranted based on information generated as a result of participation in the pilot. FDA's decision would be made on a case-by-case basis. The pilot program will not preclude FDA, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or other agencies from inspecting or taking other action with respect to any firm or imported product. Further, FDA may terminate a certifying body's participation in the pilot at any time for any reason. C. Duration FDA plans to conduct the pilot program for a period of 12 months, beginning in July 2008. Either phase of the pilot program may be extended or shortened as appropriate. D. Submission of Requests to Participate Written requests to participate in the pilot program should be submitted to the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-325), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740. Electronic requests to participate should be submitted to *aquaculture@fda.hhs.gov* . We strongly encourage interested persons to electronically submit their request to participate. Written and electronic requests to participate in the pilot program should be submitted to FDA by August 25, 2008. The request to participate should include the following information: 1. The docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document; 2. The applicant's name, telephone number, address, and e-mail address; 3. A signed statement indicating the following: a. The certification body, its inspectors, and any subcontractors that might be used (e.g., laboratories, sampling services) agree to participate in the pilot program and are free from any conflict of interest; b. The certification body agrees to undergo an FDA audit of its certification program, and supply information requested by FDA for the evaluation of the participant's certification program or of products certified under the program; and c. The certification body agrees to:
(i)Immediately notify FDA if an inspector finds or discovers a situation in which there is a reasonable probability that U.S. consumers may consume or be exposed to a food that could cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals;
(ii)promptly notify FDA if it has information that the establishment or any of its officers or employees engages in any fraudulent acts related to foods, including providing false information to the certification body or any inspectors acting on its behalf; and
(iii)promptly notify FDA if it has information that the establishment or any of its officers or employees has been convicted of a crime relating to foods or any crime involving false statements, fraud, or dishonesty. 4. The name and address of each certified foreign aquaculture shrimp farming and/or processing facility that has agreed to participate in the pilot and to be available for an FDA audit and a description of the products certified; 5. A detailed written description of the extent to which the applicant's certification program conforms to the 12 attributes listed previously; and 6. Any accreditation the applicant may have from an accreditation body operating in accordance with the International Organization for Standardization
(ISO)standard ISO/IEC 17011, General requirements for accreditation bodies accrediting conformity assessment bodies, or information confirming that the applicant is in the process of becoming accredited by such an accreditation body. FDA notes that statements made to FDA as part of this pilot are subject to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 1001, which provides for criminal penalties for anyone who, among other things, makes a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement to the U.S. government. E. Evaluation of Pilot Program FDA intends to evaluate the pilot program based on several factors, including, but not limited to, the extent to which certification provides adequate assurances of the safety of aquacultured shrimp from certified establishments, FDA's ability to accurately and efficiently evaluate third-party certification programs, and FDA's current ability and future needs to operationalize the recognition of third-party certification programs and the utilization of certification in agency decision making. After FDA evaluates the pilot program, the agency may extend, modify, or terminate the pilot program. As noted previously, FDA will take the results of the pilot program into consideration in future decisions of whether to provide incentives for voluntary certification, including considering whether to adjust the “may proceed” rate for imports, and/or begin the process to recognize voluntary third-party certification programs for aquacultured shrimp or other food or feed on a non-pilot basis. Dated: July 7, 2008. Jeffrey Shuren, Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning. [FR Doc. E8-15713 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Indian Health Service Division of Nursing, Office of Public Health Nursing *Funding Opportunity Number:* HHS-2008-IHS-PHN-0001. *Announcement Type:* New. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number(s):* 93.933. *Key Dates:* Application Deadline Date: August 4, 2008. Review Date: August 15, 2008. Award Announcement: August 22, 2008. Earliest Anticipated Start Date: August 29, 2008. I. Funding Opportunity Description The Indian Health Service
(IHS)Division of Nursing, Office of Public Health Nursing
(PHN)announces a new competitive grant application for community based model of PHN case management services. This program is authorized under the Snyder Act, 25 U.S.C. 13; Section 301(a), Public Health Service Act, as amended; and the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA) 25 U.S.C. 1652. This program is described at 93.933 in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA). The purpose of the program is to improve health outcomes of high risk patients through a community case management model that utilizes the PHN as case manager. Research indicates nursing case management is a cost effective way to maximize health outcomes. The PHN Model of community based case management utilizes roles and functions of PHN services of assessment, planning, coordinating services, communication and monitoring. The goals and outcomes of the PHN Case Management model are early detection, diagnosis, treatment and evaluation that will improve health outcomes in a cost effective manner. This model utilizes all prevention components of primary, secondary and tertiary prevention in the home with patient and family. The community based case management model addresses the scope of practice of PHN working with individuals and families in a population-based practice. Health disparities are greater for American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) communities than the general United States population. Infant mortality is greater in the AI/AN population than United States in general, suicide rates are greater, unintentional injuries are greater, and chronic disease is increasing. This project will focus on a PHN community based case management model. The project will be conducted in a phased approach, using the nursing process—assessment, planning, implementation, and evaluation. *First Phase:* Assessment—Conduct a comprehensive community assessment. The Senior Nurse Consultant will recommend a community assessment tool and provide appropriate training to the grantees in the Fall of 2008. Include, if available, pertinent data from the various community assessments and local health status data of the community in the community assessment. In addition, obtain input from key stake-holders such as, community members and healthcare administration and community health groups to determine the health care priorities. Develop plans for project sustainability. The PHN case management model will develop case management services addressing the priority health issues identified from the community assessment. The PHN case management program will establish policies and procedures, best practice
(BP)for services, and mechanisms for tracking outcomes using the recommended PHN community based case management tool to improve the health care status. *Second Phase:* Planning—After the community assessment is completed and priorities for Public Health Nursing case management services are determined, planning the case management model project will begin. Obtain additional staff training needed for the community based case management model and additional training needed such as evidence based practice, motivational interviewing, and any other training that would be applicable to the health issues addressed in the case management model. Plan specific case management services such as admission criteria, caseload size, policies and procedures, and an evaluation plan to include data tracking for outcomes generated and feedback to key stakeholders. Develop program guidelines. Obtain approval from healthcare administration. Develop patient education materials and community education materials for the program. *Third Phase:* Implementation—Case management program includes admission criteria, caseload size, and at risk population to receive this service with appropriate care standards. Patient caseload established. Monitor progress and make adjustments as needed. Track patient data outcomes. Continue to plan ongoing sustainability of program after award period ends. *Fourth Phase:* Patient Satisfaction Surveys—Data evaluation obtained from key stakeholders. Evaluate program services from population served and obtain satisfaction surveys. Evaluate and revise if needed, review policy and procedures and education materials. Report back to key stake-holders progress of the project. Each site will share program material with IHS Headquarters PHN program. This will be shared IHS-wide for replication of the project across IHS with credit given to the organization that developed the material. Poster presentation or oral presentation will be given at the National Combined Councils or IHS annual national nursing meeting. The Senior Nurse Consultant for PHN will make one or two site visits to each site. The program established must be sustainable after completion of the project. II. Award Information *Type of Awards:* Grant. *Estimated Funds Available:* The total amount identified for fiscal year
(FY)2008 is $1,200,000. The awards are for 48 months in duration and the average award is $150,000 per year. Continuation awards under this announcement are subject to the availability of funds and satisfactory performance. *Anticipated Number of Awards:* A total of eight awards will be made under this Program Announcement. One award will be made to an urban program and seven awards to Tribes and/or Tribal programs. *Project Period:* 4 years (48 months). *Award Amount:* $150,000 per year. III. Eligibility Information 1. Eligible applicants, the AI/AN must be one of the following (please specify in the application which category applies to each applicant): A. A Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or B. A Non-Profit Urban Indian Organization as defined by the IHCIA, 25 U.S.C. 1603(f), or C. A Non-Profit Tribal organization as defined by the IHCIA, 25 U.S.C. 1603(e). 2. Supporting Documentation to Determine Eligibility: A. Tribal Resolution—If the applicant is an Indian Tribe or Tribal organization, a resolution from the Tribal government of all Tribes to be served supporting the project must accompany the application submission. Applications by Tribal organizations will not require resolutions if the current Tribal resolutions under which they operate would encompass the proposed activities. In this instance, a copy of the current resolution must accompany the application. The list of Tribes to be served by the project in the proposal must match the set of appended resolutions. If a resolution from an appropriate representative of each Tribe to be served is not submitted, the application will be considered incomplete and will not be considered for review. No separate mailings of documents will be accepted for the proposal; all documents, Tribal resolutions, etc., must accompany the submission as one complete proposal. B. Non-Profit applicants must submit proof of non-profit status. A current IRS tax exemption certificate or a copy of 501(c)3 form is required proof that must accompany all applications. 3. Cost Sharing or Matching—The PHN will not require matching funds or cost sharing. 4. Other Requirements • If the application budget exceeds $150,000 per year, the application will not be considered for review. • Each application must be accompanied by a Tribal Resolution or a 501(c)3. If applicant is unable to obtain an approved Tribal resolution by the application deadline, a letter explaining the steps taken to achieve one, and any barriers confronted should be explained. Urban centers should include a letter from their Board of Directors. IV. Application and Submission Information 1. Applicant package HHS-2008-IHS-PHN-0001 may be found at *http://www.grants.gov* Web site. Please use CFDA number HHS-2008-IHS-PHN-0001 to search for the grant opportunity. Information regarding the electronic application process may be directed to Grants.gov Help Desk; 1-800-518-4726. If the applicant is unable to resolve issues, applicant should contact Michelle Bulls at 301-443-6290. The entire application package and downloadable application instructions are available at *http://www.grants.gov* . 2. *Content and Form of Application Submission:* • Be single spaced. • Be typewritten. • Have consecutively numbered pages. • Use black type not smaller than 12 characters per one inch. • Contain a narrative that does not exceed 15 typed pages that includes the other submission requirements below. The 15 page narrative does not include the work plan, standard forms, Tribal resolutions, table of contents, budget, budget justifications, narratives, and/or other appendix items. *Public Policy Requirements:* All Federal-wide public policies apply to IHS grants with exception of the discrimination public policy. 3. *Submission Dates and Times:* Applications must be submitted electronically through Grants.gov by August 4, 2008, 6 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). If technical challenges arise and the applicant is unable to successfully complete the electronic application process, the applicant should contact Grants Policy Staff
(GPS)at 301-443-6290 at least fifteen days prior to the application deadline and describe the difficulties that your organization continues to experience. The grantee must obtain prior approval, in writing (e-mails are acceptable), allowing the paper submission. If submission of a paper application is requested and approved, the original and two copies may be sent to: Norma Jean Dunne, Division of Grants Operations (DGO), 801 Thompson Avenue, TMP 360, Rockville, MD 20852 by August 4, 2008 6:00 p.m. EST. Applications not submitted through Grants.gov or submitted in hard copy without an approved waiver will be returned to the applicant without review or consideration. Late applications will not be accepted for processing, it will be returned to the applicant without further consideration. 4. *Intergovernmental Review:* Executive Order 12372 requiring intergovernmental review is not applicable to this program. 5. *Funding Restrictions:* • Pre-award costs are allowable pending prior approval from the awarding agency. However, in accordance with 45 CFR part 74, all pre-award costs are incurred at the recipient's risk. The awarding office is under no obligation to reimburse such costs if for any reason the applicant does not receive an award or if the award to the recipient is less than anticipated. • The available funds are inclusive of direct and appropriate indirect costs. • Only one grant will be awarded per eligible applicant. • IHS will not acknowledge receipt of applications. 6. *Other Submission Requirements:* If the applicant is unable to submit via Grants.gov and obtains a waiver from the standard application requirements please use the following forms: SF-424, 424A, 424B, and certification forms, as appropriate. One original and two copies must be submitted to: Attn: Norma Jean Dunne; Division of Grants Operations; 801 Thompson Avenue, TMP 360, Rockville, MD 20852. Applications are due on August 4, 2008 prior to 6 p.m. EST. *Electronic Submission* —the preferred method for receipt of applications is electronic submission through Grants.gov. However, should any technical challenges arise regarding the submission, please contact Grants.gov Customer Support at 1-800-518-4726 or *support@grants.gov* . The Contact Center hours of operation are Monday-Friday from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. EST. The applicant must seek assistance at least fifteen days prior to the application deadline. Applicants that do not adhere to the timelines for Central Contractor Registry
(CCR)and/or Grants.gov registration and/or requesting timely assistance with technical issues will not be a candidate for paper applications. To submit an application electronically, please use the *http://www.Grants.gov* Web site and select “Apply for Grants” link on the home page. Download a copy of the application package, on the Grants.gov Web site, complete it offline and then upload and submit the application via the Grants.gov site. You may not e-mail an electronic copy of a grant application to IHS. *Please be reminded of the following:* • Under the new IHS application submission requirements, paper applications are not the preferred method. However, if you have technical problems submitting your application on-line, please contact directly Grants.gov Customer Support at: *http://www.grants.gov/CustomerSupport* . • Upon contacting grants.gov, obtain a tracking number as proof of contact. The tracking number is helpful if there are technical issues that cannot be resolved and a waiver request from GPS must be obtained. • If it is determined that a formal waiver is necessary, the applicant must submit a request, in writing (e-mails are acceptable), to *Michelle.Bulls@ihs.gov* that includes a justification for the need to deviate from the standard electronic submission process. Upon receipt of approval, a hard-copy application package must be downloaded by the applicant from Grants.gov, completed, and sent directly to the Division of Grants Operations, 801 Thompson Avenue, TMP 360, Rockville, MD 20852 by August 4, 2008 6 p.m. EST. • Upon entering the Grants.gov Web site, there is information available that outlines the requirements to the applicant regarding electronic submission of an application through Grants.gov, as well as the hours of operation. We strongly encourage all applicants not to wait until the deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov as the registration process for CCR and Grants.gov could take up to fifteen working days. • To use Grants.gov, you, as the applicant, must have a Data Universal Numbering System
(DUNS)number and register in the CCR. You should allow a minimum of ten working days to complete CCR registration. See below on how to apply. • You must submit all documents electronically, including all information typically included on the SF-424 and all necessary assurances and certifications. • Please use the optional attachment feature in Grants.gov to attach additional documentation that may be requested by IHS. • Your application must comply with any page limitation requirements described in the program announcement. • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive an automatic acknowledgment from Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. The IHS DGO will download your application from Grants.gov and provide necessary copies to the cognizant program office. The DGO will not notify applicants that the application has been received. • You may access the electronic application for this program on *http://www.Grants.gov* . • You may search for the downloadable application package by either the CFDA 93.933 number or the Funding Opportunity Number
(FON)HHS-2008-IHS-PHN-0001. • The applicant must provide FON HHS-2008-IHS-PHN-0001. E-mail applications will not be accepted under this announcement. DUNS Number Applicants are required to have a DUNS number to apply for a grant from the Federal Government. The DUNS number is a nine-digit identification number, which uniquely identifies business entities. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, access *http://www.dunandbradstreet.com* or call 1-866-705-5711. Interested parties may wish to obtain their DUNS number by phone to expedite the process. Applications submitted electronically must also be registered with the CCR. A DUNS number is required before CCR registration can be completed. Many organizations may already have a DUNS number. Please use the number listed above to investigate whether or not your organization has a DUNS number. Registration with the CCR is free of charge. Applicants may register by calling 1-888-227-2423. Please review and complete the CCR Registration Worksheet located on *http://www.grants.gov/CCRRegister* . More detailed information regarding these registration processes can be found at *http://www.grants.gov* . V. Application Review Information 1. Criteria The instructions for preparing the application narrative also constitute the evaluation criteria for reviewing and scoring the application. Weights assigned to each section are noted in parentheses. The narrative should include four years of activities. The narrative section should be written in a manner that is clear to outside reviewers unfamiliar with prior related activities of the applicant. It should be well organized, succinct, and contain all information necessary for reviewers to understand the project fully. a. Format—maximum of 15 pages (5 Points). • Be single spaced. • Be typewritten. • Have consecutively numbered pages. • Use black type not smaller than 12 characters per one inch. • The narrative should not exceed 15 typed pages that include the other submission requirements below. The 15 page narrative does not include the work plan, standard forms, Tribal resolutions (if necessary), or organization's letter of support, proof of Non-Profit status, table of contents, budget, budget justifications, narratives, and/or other appendix items. b. Background/Problem Statement (5 Points). • Provide demographic information, prevalence rates of disease, and baseline health data to substantiate the proposal. • Describe how data collection will support the stated project objectives and how it will support the project evaluation in order to determine the impact of the project. Address how the proposed project will result in health improvements. • Name of facility, location, type of site (Direct Care, Tribal or urban). • Contact person and phone number, address, e-mail address, and fax number. c. Goals and Objectives (25 Points). • Establish two to three measurable objectives within a plan that will provide significant outcome. Goals/Objectives should be specific with a realistic time line. d. Methodology/Activities (20 Points). • Describe the activities that will be implemented in a work plan to meet the objectives. The work plan should be directly related to the objectives. • Describe how you will monitor the objectives (chart reviews, survey, etc.). • Describe any collaborative efforts with programs outside of PHN. e. Budget (15 Points). • Discuss all expected expenses for each project year, one through four. • Provide a justification of the funds for each project year, one through four. • Provide a succinct description of specific roles and activities of each person involved in the proposed project and their ability to perform in that capacity. f. Evaluation (30 Points). Describe the methods for evaluating the project activities. Each proposed project objective should have an evaluation component and the evaluation activities should appear on the work plan. At a minimum, projects should describe plans to collect or summarize evaluation information about all project activities. Please address the following for each of the proposed objectives: • Describe the community assessment tool that will be reviewed and what data will be selected to evaluate the success of the objective(s)? • How the data will be collected to assess the program's objective(s) (e.g., methods used such as, but not limited to, community focus groups, surveys, interviews, or other data collection activities)? • When the data will be collected and the data analysis completed? • The extent to which there are specific data sets, data bases or registries already in place to measure/monitor meeting objective. • Who will collect the data and any cost of the evaluation (whether internal or external)? • Where and to whom the data will be presented, key stake holders? • Address anticipated obstacles to the success of the proposal such as underlying causes and the nature of their influence on accomplishing the objectives. • Describe how the community assessment will be evaluated. • Describe the process that will be used to follow-up on the PHN Case Management Project findings/conclusions. When the applicant is approved for funding, the award recipient must comply with the proposal or provisions may result in withholding of support of other eligible projects. 2. Review and Selection Process a. The review committee will review each proposal according to this program announcement and undertake an in-depth evaluation based on the reviewer's findings, recommendations, scoring, and approval or disapproval. The final selection determination will be made by the PHN Nurse Consultant. b. All applications meeting the proposal requirements will be scored. c. The final score will be ranked by totaling the numerical scores and dividing by the number of reviewers which will be read into the record. d. Each reviewer will use the score sheet when evaluating proposals, a signature and date will complete the evaluation record which will be returned to the committee chairperson. e. The review committee may provide differing scores to the chairperson for discussion, resolution, and committee consensus. f. The review will be conducted in accordance with the IHS Objective Review Guidelines. The applications will be evaluated and rated on the basis of the evaluation criteria. g. An Executive Summary will be used to provide advice to the program officials in making award decisions and comments to applicants. • The review committee chairperson will compile an Executive Summary of the review, findings, recommendation, and comments of the project type, and proposal scores. • The reviewer's written evaluation will be used by the selecting official. 3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates Anticipated Announcement date is August 22, 2008 and Award Date is August 29, 2008. VI. Award Administration Information 1. Award Notices The Notice of Award
(NoA)will be initiated by the DGO and will be mailed via postal mail to each entity that is approved for funding under this announcement. The NoA will be signed by the Grants Management Officer, and this is the authorizing document for which funds are dispersed to the approved entities. The NoA will serve as the official notification of the grant award and will reflect the amount of Federal funds awarded, the purpose of the grant, the terms and conditions of the award, the effective date of the award, and the budget and project periods. The NoA is the legally binding document. Applicants who are approved but unfunded or disapproved based on their Objective Review score will receive a copy of the Executive Summary which identifies the weaknesses and strengths of the application submitted. 2. Administrative Requirements. Grants are administrated in accordance with the following documents: • This Program Announcement. • Administrative Requirements: 45 CFR Part 92, “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State, Local and Tribal Governments,” or 45 CFR Part 74, “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Awards to Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, Other Non-Profit Organizations, and Commercial Organizations.” • Grants Policy Guidance: HHS Grants Policy Statement, January 2007. • Cost Principles: OMB Circular A-87, “State, Local, and Indian” (Title 2 Part 225). • Cost Principles: OMB Circular A-122, “Non-Profit Organizations” (Title 2 Part 230). • Audit Requirements: OMB Circular A-133, “Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-profit Organizations.” 3. Indirect Costs: This section applies to all grant recipients that request reimbursement of indirect costs in their grant application. In accordance with HHS Grants Policy Statement, Part II-27, IHS requires applicants to have a current indirect cost rate agreement in place prior to award. The rate agreement must be prepared in accordance with the applicable cost principles and guidance as provided by the cognizant agency or office. A current rate means the rate covering the applicable activities and the award budget period. If the current rate is not on file with the DGO at the time of award, the indirect cost portion of the budget will be restricted and not available to the recipient until the current rate is provided to the DGO. Generally, indirect costs rates for IHS grantees are negotiated with the Division of Cost Allocation *http://rates.psc.gov/* and the Department of Interior, National Business Center at *http://www.nbc.gov/acquisition/ics/icshome.html* Web site. If your organization has questions regarding the indirect cost policy, please contact the DGO at
(301)443-5204. 4. Reporting A. Progress Report. Program progress reports are required semi-annually. These reports will include a brief comparison of actual accomplishments to the goals established for the period, or, if applicable, provide sound justification for the lack of progress, and other pertinent information as required. A final report must be submitted within 90 days of expiration of the budget/project period. B. Financial Status Report. Semi-annual financial status reports must be submitted within 30 days of the end of the half year. Final financial status reports are due within 90 days of expiration of the budget/project period. Standard Form 269 (long form) will be used for financial reporting. Grantees are responsible and accountable for accurate reporting of the Progress Reports and Financial Status Reports which are generally due semi-annually and the final reports, Financial Status Report (SF-269) and Program Progress Report are due 90 days after each budget period. The grantee must verify how the value was derived and submit reports according to the terms and conditions of the award. Failure to submit required reports within the time allowed may result in suspension or termination of an active grant, withholding of additional awards for the project, or other enforcement actions such as withholding of payments or converting to the reimbursement method of payment. Continued failure to submit required reports may result in one or both of the following:
(1)The imposition of special award provisions; and
(2)the non-funding or non-award of other eligible projects or activities. This applies whether the delinquency is attributable to the failure of the grantee organization or the individual responsible for preparation of the reports. 5. Telecommunication for the hearing impaired is available at: TTY
(301)443-6394. VII. Agency Contacts For program-related information regarding the community based model of PHN case management services: Cheryl Peterson, R.N., Project Official, Indian Health Service, 801 Thompson Avenue, Suite 329, Rockville, Maryland 20852,
(301)443-1840, *Cheryl.Peterson@ihs.gov* . For general information regarding this announcement: Ms. Orie Platero, Office Clinical and Preventive Services, Indian Health Service, 801 Thompson Avenue, Suite 326, Rockville, Maryland 20852,
(301)443-2522, Fax:
(301)594-6213. For specific grant-related and business management information: Ms. Norma Jean Dunne, Division of Grant Operations, Indian Health Service, 801 Thompson Avenue, TMP 360-79, Rockville, Maryland 20852,
(301)443-5204, Fax:
(301)443-9602. VIII. Other Information The Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS)is committed to achieving the health promotion and disease prevention objectives of *Healthy People 2010* , a HHS-led activity for setting priority areas. This project will aid the accomplishment of Healthy People 2010 Focus Area 1—Access. Potential applicants may obtain a printed copy of Healthy People 2010, (Summary Report No, 017-001-00549-5) or CD-ROM, Stock No. 017-001-00549-5, through the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7945,
(202)512-1800. You may also access this information at the following Web site: *http://www.healthypeople.gov/Publications* . The IHS is focusing efforts on three Health Initiatives that, linked together, have the potential to achieve positive improvements in the health of AI/AN people. These three initiatives are Health Promotion/Disease Prevention, Management of Chronic Disease, and Behavioral Health. Further information is available at the Health Initiatives Web site: *http://www.ihs.gov/NonMedicalPrograms/DirInitiatives/index.cfm* . Dated: June 27, 2008. Robert G. McSwain, Director, Indian Health Service. [FR Doc. E8-15773 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-16-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5186-N-28] Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless. DATES: *Effective Date:* *July 10, 2008* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7262, Washington, DC 20410; telephone
(202)708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired
(202)708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in *National Coalition for the Homeless* v. *Veterans Administration,* No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week. Dated: July 3, 2008. Mark R. Johnston, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs. [FR Doc. E8-15652 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5230-01] OIG Fraud Alert: Bulletin on Charging Excess Rent in the Housing Choice Voucher Program AGENCY: Office of the Inspector General, HUD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This **Federal Register** notice provides important information recently issued by HUD's Office of the Inspector General
(OIG)on a recurring problem in the Housing Choice Voucher program. The problem, which this notice addresses, is landlords submitting false claims for periodic payments under housing assistance payment
(HAP)contracts. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryan P. Saddler, Counsel to the Inspector General, Office of Legal Counsel Office of Inspector General, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 8260, Washington, DC 20410-4500, telephone
(202)708-1613 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at
(800)877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Mission of HUD's OIG The mission of HUD's OIG is to provide policy direction to HUD and to conduct, supervise, and coordinate audits, investigations, and other activities for the purpose of promoting economy and efficiency in the administration of the programs and operations of HUD and preventing and detecting fraud and abuse in such programs. Consistent with this mission, Section II of this notice presents OIG's fraud information bulletin on charging excess rent in the Housing Choice Voucher program. II. Fraud Information Bulletin: Excess Rent Purpose This Bulletin highlights a recurring problem in the Housing Choice Voucher
(HCV)program. Specifically, this Bulletin discusses the submission by landlords of false claims for periodic payments under Housing Assistance Payment
(HAP)contracts, where such landlords have violated their continuing obligations to not charge tenants rents in excess of what is authorized by the HAP contracts. The Problem Improperly requiring tenants to pay rent in excess of what is authorized by the applicable HAP contract represents both an actionable offense under the False Claims Act and deplorable behavior directed towards the very persons whom the HCV program was designed to serve. (Additionally, depending on the intent, such an action may qualify as a criminal offense under 18 U.S.C. 287, 1343, etc.) OIG will not tolerate such conduct, and rather will cooperate with efforts to bring offending landlords to justice and to remedy their wrongs. Background HUD administers Federal aid to local housing agencies
(HAs)that is intended to implement housing assistance programs for low-income residents. With respect to the HCV program, HUD funds HAs via annual contributions contracts. The HAs, in turn, enter into HAP contracts with individual landlords. These HAP contracts provide for periodic housing assistance payments on behalf of eligible low-income tenants. The HAP contracts also may require eligible tenants to make supplemental rent payments; however, the contracts expressly prohibit landlords from requiring tenants to pay rent in excess of what is authorized by the HAP contracts. Pursuant to qui tam complaints and citizen complaints filed throughout the nation and subsequent activities, OIG has become aware of a number of landlords who have improperly required tenants to pay rent in excess of what is authorized by the HAP contracts, and thereby submitted or caused to be submitted false claims for HAP contract periodic rent payments. Example On July 29, 2005, a Connecticut tenant filed a qui tam complaint, under 31 U.S.C. 3730, against her former landlord. *See Coleman* v. *Hernandez,* 490 F. Supp.2d 278 (D. Conn. 2007). The tenant complained that pursuant to a HAP contract the landlord had agreed to accept $1,550 per month for the rental of an apartment in Stamford. Of this $1,550, the tenant was personally responsible for $20, and HUD via the HA paid the complementary $1,530. In spite of the explicit prohibition in the HAP contract, however, the landlord required the tenant to pay an “additional rent payment” of $60 on six separate occasions. In other words, the landlord inappropriately extracted an additional $360 from the helpless tenant. OIG is aware of numerous similar examples of this sort of egregious conduct nationwide. Penalty Pursuant to the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729 *et seq.,* persons who submit to HUD or a HUD intermediary claims that are false, fictitious or fraudulent are liable for an assessment equal to three times the amount of the claim, plus a penalty of between $5,500 and $11,000 per claim. The United States may take the position that the entire amount of its HAP payment, not merely the amount of the excess payment by the tenant, is the claim that should be trebled where landlords make false certifications concerning excess rent charged. Additionally, each periodic rent payment constitutes a separate claim; thus, in the *Coleman* case the court levied a $33,000 (6 × $5,500) penalty against the landlord for her $360 victimization of the tenant. Pertinent Information If you have pertinent information regarding this bulletin, please contact: Office of Legal Counsel, Office of the Inspector General, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh St., SW., Room 8260, Washington, DC 20410. Dated: July 1, 2008. Kenneth M. Donohue, Inspector General. [FR Doc. E8-15663 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service Fish and Wildlife Service and Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Sign Annual Funding Agreement AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: On June 19, 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the Service) and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes
(CSKT)(collectively the Parties) signed an annual funding agreement
(AFA)under the Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994. The Tribal Self-Governance Act provides for the Secretary of the Interior (the Secretary) to negotiate and enter into an AFA with a tribe participating in Self-Governance, authorizing the tribe to plan, conduct, consolidate, and administer programs, services, functions, and activities, or portions thereof (Activities), administered by the Secretary, which are of special geographic, historical, or cultural significance to that tribe. This includes such Activities within the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). Under the AFA, the CSKT will function in partnership with the Service and will be directly involved with our management mission at the National Bison Range Complex (NBRC). CSKT will perform a variety of Activities at the NBRC, including operational responsibility for mission-critical Activities such as the biology, maintenance, visitor services, and fire programs. The NBRC will remain a unit of the NWRS and will continue to be administered and managed by the Service in accordance with the NWRS Administration Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd-ee, as amended), and all other applicable Federal laws, regulations, and policies. On June 19, 2008, the AFA was signed by the Tribal Chairman and the Director of the Service, and endorsed by the following senior Department of the Interior management officials: The Secretary of the Interior, Deputy Secretary of the Interior, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, and Acting Director, Office of Economic Development, on behalf of the Office of the Acting Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. Copies of the AFA have been forwarded to the U.S. Congress for a 90-day review period, pursuant to the implementing regulations at 25 CFR 1000.177-178. DATES: The AFA term is October 1, 2008, through September 30, 2011. The Parties may agree in writing to extend the term for performing any Activity covered by the AFA, as provided at 25 CFR 1000.146, and subject to applicable Federal laws and regulations. All of the terms and conditions of the AFA will apply during any extension. The Parties may modify the Activities covered by the AFA or the consideration paid by the Service to the CSKT for performing an Activity only by amendment as provided in Section 21.A of the AFA. ADDRESSES: You may obtain a copy of the AFA and Attachments A-D at any of the following Internet or U.S. mail addresses: 1. Internet— *http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/cskt-fws-negotiation* . 2. Montana—National Bison Range Headquarters, 132 Bison Range Road, Moiese, Montana 59824. 3. Denver—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office, National Wildlife Refuge System—Mountain-Prairie Region, P.O. Box 25486, DFC, Denver, Colorado 80225. 4. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, P.O. Box 278, Pablo, Montana 59855. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Rundle, Refuge Supervisor, at
(303)236-4306. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: What is the NBRC? Located in northwestern Montana, the NBRC is part of the NWRS and consists of the National Bison Range, the Pablo and Ninepipe National Wildlife Refuges, and that portion of the Northwest Montana Wetland Management District that lies in Lake County. Established in 1908 to conserve the American Bison, the NBRC provides important habitat for a variety of species such as elk, pronghorn antelope, and migratory birds. How Was the AFA Developed? The Service and the CKST negotiated in accordance with 25 CFR part 1000. What Events Led to this AFA? In January 2008, at the request of Department of the Interior and Service leadership, representatives of the Parties entered into a facilitated process to create a framework for negotiating an AFA pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93-638). The overarching goal of this process and the subsequent negotiations was to build trust and ensure a solid understanding of both Parties' interests and intentions with regard to the long-term conservation and stewardship of the NBRC. Throughout the period of January-June 2008, the parties engaged in government-to-government negotiations, led by professional, field-level staff, to draft the AFA in a manner that balanced the intent and function of the Self-Governance Act and the NWRS Administration Act, as well as other applicable Federal laws, regulations, and policies. Following the conclusion of negotiations in June 2008, the Service and the Department of the Interior conducted an extensive legal and policy review of the AFA to ensure it met all applicable requirements before signing the AFA on behalf of the United States. What is the Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994? The Tribal Self-Governance Act (codified at 25 U.S.C. 458aa-458hh) was enacted as an amendment to Public Law 93-638 (codified as the Indian Self-Determination Act, 25 U.S.C. 450-450n) and incorporated as Title IV of that Law. The Tribal Self-Governance Act allows qualifying tribes the opportunity to request AFAs with the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA)and non-BIA bureaus within the Department of the Interior. When dealing with non-BIA bureaus, including the Service, qualifying tribes may enter into AFAs that allow them to conduct certain activities of such non-BIA bureaus. Eligible activities include Indian programs (programs created for the benefit of Native Americans because of their status as Native Americans); activities otherwise available to Native American tribes (any activity that a Federal agency might otherwise contract to outside entities); and activities that have a special geographic, historical, or cultural significance to the Indian tribe requesting a compact. Public Law 93-638 and the implementing regulation at 25 CFR 1000.129 prohibit the inclusion of Activities in an AFA that are inherently Federal functions. The NBRC has no special Tribal programs. All activities conducted by the Service on national wildlife refuges are for the benefit of the fish and wildlife resources, their habitats, and the American public. Activities that may have a special relationship with a tribe are the most promising for inclusion in an AFA. Whether to enter into an AFA with a tribe for these activities is discretionary on the part of the Service. The Service recognizes that the CSKT has a cultural, historical, and/or geographical connection to the lands and resources of the NBRC. The proposed AFA provides for the CSKT to perform certain Activities for the NBRC during a 3-year period. What Happens Now? As noted above, the AFA has been signed by the Director of the Service, and endorsed by senior Department of the Interior management. In accordance with 25 CFR 1000.177, the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks has forwarded copies of the AFA to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the House Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs, as well as other Congressional committees with jurisdictions related to the NWRS and the Service. If there are no objections to the AFA, the agreement will take effect 90 days after submission to Congress. Dated: June 27, 2008. Lyle Laverty, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. E8-15685 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R9-FHC-2008-N0174; 94300-1122-0000-Z2] Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee; Announcement of Public Meeting AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), will host a Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee (Committee) meeting, on July 23-24, 2008. The meeting is open to the public. The meeting agenda will include reports from the Subcommittees on Existing Guidelines, Legal, Landscape Habitat (Mapping), Science Tools and Procedures, and Other Models/Uncertainty; and briefings from Service regional offices on wind/wildlife issues. DATES: The meeting will take place on July 23-24, 2008, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: South Interior Auditorium, South Interior Building, 1951 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20240. For more information, see “Public Workshop and Meeting Location Information” under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel London, Division of Habitat and Resource Conservation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior,
(703)358-2161. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 13, 2007, the Department of the Interior (Interior) published a notice of establishment of the Committee and call for nominations in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 11373). The Committee's purpose is to provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) on developing effective measures to avoid or minimize impacts to wildlife and their habitats related to land-based wind energy facilities. The Committee is expected to exist for 2 years and meet approximately four times per year. Its continuation is subject to biennial renewal. All Committee members serve without compensation. In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), a copy of the Committee's charter has been filed with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration; Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate; Committee on Natural Resources, U.S. House of Representatives; and the Library of Congress. The Secretary appointed 22 individuals to the Committee on October 24, 2007, representing the varied interests associated with wind energy development and its potential impacts to wildlife species and their habitats. The USFWS has held Committee meetings in February, April, and June of 2008. All Committee meetings are open to the public. The public has an opportunity to comment at all Committee meetings. Meeting Location Information Please note that the South Main Interior auditorium is accessible to wheelchair users. If you require additional accommodations, please notify us by July 16, 2008. All persons planning to attend the meeting will be required to present photo identification when entering the building. Because of building security in the Department of the Interior, we recommend that persons planning to attend the workshop and/or meeting register at *http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/windpower/wind_turbine_advisory_committee.html* by July 16, 2008, to allow us sufficient time to provide the building security staff with a list of persons planning to attend. You may still attend if you register after July 16, 2008; however, seating is limited due to room capacity. We will give preference to registrants based on date and time of registration. There will be standing room available if all seats are filled. Dated: July 26, 2008. Rachel London, Alternate Designated Federal Officer, Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee. [FR Doc. E8-15665 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Cowlitz Indian Tribe's Proposed 151.87-Acre Fee-to-Trust Transfer, Reservation Proclamation, and Casino-Resort Project, Clark County, WA AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior. ACTION: Notice of extension of the date of issuance of the Record of Decision and reopening of the comment period. SUMMARY: This notice announces that the Bureau of Indian Affairs is extending the date of issuance of the Record of Decision and reopening the comment period originally announced on May 30, 2008 (73 FR 31143) for the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS)for the Cowlitz Indian Tribe's Proposed 151.87-acre fee-to-trust transfer, reservation proclamation, and casino-resort project, in Clark County, Washington. DATES: The Record of Decision on the proposed action will be issued on or after August 12, 2008. Any comments on the FEIS must arrive by August 11, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may mail or hand carry written comments to Mr. Stanley Speaks, Northwest Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Northwest Region, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232. Please include your name, return address and the caption, “FEIS Comments, Cowlitz Indian Tribe Trust Acquisition and Casino Project,” on the first page of your written comments. The FEIS will be available for public review at the following Fort Vancouver Public Library branches: La Center Community Library, 1402 East Lockwood Creek Road, La Center, Washington 98629; Ridgefield Community Library, 210 North Main Avenue Ridgefield, Washington 98642. General information for the Fort Vancouver Public Library system can be obtained by calling
(360)659-1561. The FEIS is also available on the following Web site: *http://www.cowlitzeis.org* . To obtain copies of the FEIS, please provide your name and address in writing or by voicemail to Dr. B.J. Howerton, Environmental Protection Specialist, at the BIA address above or at the telephone number provided below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: B.J. Howerton,
(503)321-6749. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The BIA published its Notice of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Cowlitz Indian Tribe on May 30, 2008, in the **Federal Register** (73 FR 31143). Please refer to that notice for project details. Public Comment Availability Comments, including names and addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the mailing addresses shown in the ADDRESSES section, during regular business hours, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address or other personal identifying information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comments-including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Authority: This notice is published in accordance with section 1503.1 of the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508) implementing the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4371 *et seq.* ), and the Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM 1-6), and is in the exercise of authority delegated to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by 209 DM 8. Dated: July 1, 2008. George T. Skibine, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, for Policy and Economic Development—Indian Affairs. [FR Doc. E8-15741 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-02-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [WY-923-1310-FI; WYW157574] Wyoming: Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM)received a petition for reinstatement from Yates Petroleum Corporation, ABO Petroleum Corporation, MYCO Industries, Inc., and Yates Drilling Company for Competitive oil and gas lease WYW157574 for land in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the law. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, Pamela J. Lewis, Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at
(307)775-6176. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lessees have agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre, or fraction thereof, per year and 16 2/3 percent, respectively. The lessees have paid the required $500 administrative fee and $163 to reimburse the Department for the cost of this **Federal Register** notice. The lessees have met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in Sections 31(d) and
(e)of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to reinstate lease WYW157574 effective May 1, 2008, under the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above. BLM has not issued a valid lease affecting the lands. Pamela J. Lewis, Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication. [FR Doc. E8-15623 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-22-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [ES-956-1910-BK], Group 178, Minnesota Eastern States: Filing of Plat of Survey AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of Filing of Plat of Survey; Minnesota. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management
(BLM)will file the plat of survey of the lands described below in the BLM-Eastern States, Springfield, Virginia, 30 calendar days from the date of publication in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 22153. *Attn:* Cadastral Survey. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The survey was requested by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The land we surveyed are: Fifth Principal Meridian, Minnesota T. 144 N., R. 37 W The plat of survey represents the dependent resurvey and subdivision of section 33, Township 144 North, Range 37 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, in the State of Minnesota, and was accepted June 19, 2008. We will place a copy of the plat we described in the open files. It will be available to the public as a matter of information. If BLM receives a protest against this survey, as shown on the plat, prior to the date of official filing, we will stay the filing pending our consideration of the protest. We will not officially file the plat until the day after we accepted or dismissed all protests and they have become final, including decisions on appeals. Copies of the plat will be made available upon request and prepayment of the reproduction fees. Dated: July 2, 2008. Joseph W. Beaudin, Acting Chief Cadastral Surveyor. [FR Doc. E8-15692 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [OR-010-1020-DF; HAG 08-0138] Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory Council: Meeting Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management
(BLM)announces the following advisory committee meeting: *Name:* Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory Council (SEORAC). *Time and Date:* 8 a.m. August 7, 2008; 8 a.m. August 8, 2008. *Place:* Holiday Inn Ontario, 1249 Tapadera Avenue, Ontario, Oregon 97914. *Status:* Open to the public. *Matters to be Considered:* The SEORAC will be briefed on BLM's Oregon Energy Corridor proposal, fire and fuels management program, Vegetation Treatments Environmental Impact Statement, wild horse and burro program, and Eastside Transportation Strategy. Presentations will be heard on the results of The Nature Conservancy's June After Fire Re-vegetation Symposium, progress of the Steens Mountain Advisory Council Science Strategy and Oregon Explorer project, and status of the Fremont-Winema National Forests' Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Invasive Plant Treatment. Council members will also receive information from designated federal officials, provide constituent updates, tour sites managed by the Vale District of the BLM, give subgroup reports and develop agenda items for the next meeting. Any other matters that may reasonably come before the SEORAC may also be addressed. The public is welcome to attend all portions of the meeting and may contribute during the public comment period at 11:30 a.m. on August 8, 2008. Those who verbally address the SEORAC during the public comment period are asked to provide a written statement of their comments or presentation. Unless otherwise approved by the SEORAC chair, the public comment period will last no longer than 30 minutes, and each speaker may address the SEORAC for a maximum of 5 minutes. *For Further Information Contact:* Program information, meeting records and a roster of council members may be obtained from Scott Stoffel, public affairs specialist, 1301 South G Street, Lakeview, OR 97630,
(541)947-6237. The meeting agenda will be posted at *http://www.blm.gov/or/rac/seorrac-minutes.php* when available. Should you require reasonable accommodation, please contact the BLM Lakeview District at
(541)947-2177 as soon as possible. Thomas E. Rasmussen, Field Manager. [FR Doc. E8-15761 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-33-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-609] In the Matter of Certain Buffer Systems and Components Thereof Used in Container Processing Lines; Notice of a Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating Two Respondents From the Investigation on the Basis of a Settlement Agreement and License Agreement; Termination of Investigation AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 26) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) in the above-captioned investigation terminating two respondents on the basis of a settlement agreement and license agreement and terminating the investigation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael K. Haldenstein, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone
(202)205-3041. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone
(202)205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at *http://www.usitc.gov* . The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket
(EDIS)at *http://edis.usitc.gov* . Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on
(202)205-1810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation on July 5, 2007, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based on a complaint filed by Sidel Participations of France, Sidel Canada Inc. of Canada, and Sidel Inc. of Norcross, Georgia. Complainants supplemented their complaint on June 18, 2007. The respondents named in the complaint are Krones AG and KHS AG of Germany; Krones Inc., of Franklin, Wisconsin; and KHS USA, Inc. of Waukesha, Wisconsin. The complaint, as supplemented, alleged violations of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain buffer systems and components thereof used in container processing lines by reason of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,168,005. The complaint further alleged that a domestic industry exists in the United States as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The complainants request that the Commission issue a general exclusion order and cease and desist orders. On May 28, 2008, complainants and the two remaining respondents, KHS AG and KHS USA, Inc. (collectively “KHS”), filed a joint motion pursuant to Commission rule 210.21 for termination of the investigation based upon a settlement agreement and license agreement. The Commission investigative attorney filed a response in support of the motion. On June 11, 2008, the ALJ issued the subject ID, granting the joint motion and terminating the investigation with respect to KHS on the basis of the settlement agreement and license agreement. No petitions for review were filed and the Commission has determined not to review the subject ID. The investigation is terminated. This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and Commission rules 210.21, 210.42, 19 CFR 210.21, 210.42. Issued: July 3, 2008. By order of the Commission. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E8-15634 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-618] In the Matter of: Certain Computer Systems, Printers and Scanners; Notice of Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation on the Basis of a Settlement Agreement AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 13) granting a joint motion to terminate the captioned investigation based on a settlement agreement. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan M. Valentine, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone
(202)708-2301. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E. Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone
(202)205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at *http://www.usitc.gov.* The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket
(EDIS)at *http://edis.usitc.gov.* Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on
(202)205-1810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 3, 2007, the Commission instituted an investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based on a complaint filed by Acer Incorporated (“Acer”) of Taipei, Taiwan, as supplemented, alleging a violation of section 337 in the importation, sale for importation, and sale within the United States after importation of certain computer systems, printers and scanners by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,214,761 and 5,581,122. 72 *FR* 67960 (December 3, 2007). The complainant named Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP”) of Palo Alto, California, as respondent. On June 6, 2008, Acer and HP jointly moved to terminate the investigation on the basis of a settlement agreement. On June 16, 2008, the Commission investigative attorney filed a response supporting the motion. On June 17, 2008, the ALJ issued the subject ID granting the joint motion to terminate the investigation based on the settlement agreement. The ALJ found that the motion complied with the requirements of Commission Rule 210.21(b) by including copies of the settlement agreement and a statement that there are no other agreements, written or oral, express or implied, between the parties concerning the subject matter of the investigation. The ALJ concluded, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(2), that there is no evidence that termination of this investigation will prejudice the public interest. No petitions for review of this ID were filed. The Commission has determined not to review the ID. The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in section 210.42 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42). By order of the Commission. Issued: July 7, 2008. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E8-15721 Filed 7-10-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. AGOA-002] Denim Fabric: Use in AGOA Countries During Fiscal Year 2007 AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice of determination. *Determination:* Based on the information developed in the subject investigation, the United States International Trade Commission determines, pursuant to section 112(c)(2)(B)(iii) of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), 1 that the quantity of denim fabric 2 produced in beneficiary sub-Saharan African
(SSA)countries for use by lesser-developed beneficiary
(LDB)SSA countries that was used in the production of apparel articles receiving U.S. preferential treatment during the period October 1, 2006-September 30, 2007 (fiscal year 2007) was 21,120,000 square meter equivalents (SMEs). 1 19 U.S.C. 3721(c)(2)(B)(iii). 2 Denim articles provided for in subheading 5209.42.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. See section 112(c)(2)(C) of AGOA, 19 U.S.C. 3721(c)(2)(C). *Background:* Section 112(c)(2)(B)(iii) of AGOA requires the Commission to determine, after the end of each year for which an availability determination is in effect, the extent to which the fabric or yarn determined to be available in commercial quantities for use in LDB SSA countries was used in the production of apparel articles receiving preferential treatment. To the extent that the quantity so determined was not so used, section 112(c)(2)(B)(iii) requires the Commission to add to the quantity of that fabric or yarn determined to be available in the next applicable 1-year period the quantity not so used in the preceding applicable 1-year period. Congress, in section 112(c)(2)(C) of AGOA, deemed the subject denim fabric to be available in commercial quantities for use in LDB SSA countries in the amount of 30 million SMEs during fiscal year 2007, as if the Commission had made such a determination. Having determined that the quantity of subject denim fabric used in the production of apparel articles receiving preferential treatment during fiscal year 2007 (21,120,000 SMEs) was less than the 30 million SMEs deemed to be available by statute for that year, the Commission has added the shortfall of 8,880,000 SMEs to the quantity of subject denim fabric that it previously determined will be so available during fiscal year 2008 (21,303,613 SMEs). 3 The adjusted quantity of subject denim fabric that will be so available during fiscal year 2008 is 30,183,613 SMEs. 3 See the Commission's determination in investigation No. AGOA-001, *Commercial Availability of Fabric & Yarn in AGOA Countries: Certain Denim,* Publication 3950 (Sept. 2007) at 1; 72 FR 56382 (Oct. 3, 2007). Notice of the institution of the Commission's investigation and of the scheduling of a public hearing in connection therewith was given by posting a copy of the notice on the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.usitc.gov* ) and by publishing the notice in the **Federal Register** of December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67961). The hearing was held on April 9, 2008, in Washington, DC; all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication No. 4021 entitled *Denim Fabric: Use in AGOA Countries During Fiscal Year 2007.* By order of the Commission. Issued: July 7, 2008. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E8-15718 Filed 7-10-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-606] In the Matter of: Certain Personal Computers and Digital Display Devices; Notice of Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation on the Basis of a Settlement Agreement AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 31) granting the joint motion to terminate the captioned investigation based on a settlement agreement. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan M. Valentine, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E. Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone
(202)708-2301. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E. Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone
(202)205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at *http://www.usitc.gov.* The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket
(EDIS)at *http://edis.usitc.gov.* Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on
(202)205-1810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation on May 21, 2007, based on a complaint filed by Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP”) of Palo Alto, California. 72 *FR* 28520-1. The complaint, as amended and supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain personal computers and digital display devices by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,691,236; 6,029,119; 5,353,415; and 6,894,706. The complaint further alleges the existence of a domestic industry. The Commission's notice of investigation named Acer Incorporated of Taipei, Taiwan and Acer America Corporation of San Jose, California as respondents (collectively “Acer”). On June 6, 2008, HP and Acer jointly moved to terminate the investigation on the basis of a settlement agreement. On June 16, 2008, the Commission investigative attorney filed a response supporting the motion. On June 17, 2008, the ALJ issued the subject ID granting the joint motion to terminate the investigation based on the settlement agreement. The ALJ found that the motion complied with the requirements of Commission Rule 210.21(b) by including copies of the settlement agreement and a statement that there are no other agreements, written or oral, express or implied, between the parties concerning the subject matter of the investigation. The ALJ concluded, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(2), that there is no evidence that termination of this investigation will prejudice the public interest. No petitions for review of this ID were filed. The Commission has determined not to review the ID. The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in section 210.42 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42). By order of the Commission. Issued: July 7, 2008. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E8-15719 Filed 7-10-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Inv. No. 337-TA-652] In the Matter of Certain Rubber Antidegradants, Antidegradant Intermediates, and Products Containing the Same; Notice of Investigation AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Institution of investigation pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on May 12, 2008, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Flexsys America L.P. of St. Louis, Missouri. A supplement to the complaint was filed on June 2, 2008. On June 2, 2008, the Commission voted to extend by 30 days the deadline for its decision on whether to institute an investigation based on the complaint. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain rubber antidegradants, antidegradant intermediates, and products containing the same that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,453,541 and 5,608,111. The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue an exclusion order and cease and desist orders. ADDRESSES: The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at *http://www.usitc.gov* . The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket
(EDIS)at *http://edis.usitc.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Juan Cockburn, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone
(202)205-2572. *Authority:* The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2008). *Scope of Investigation:* Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on July 2, 2008, *ordered that* —
(1)Pursuant to subsection
(b)of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain rubber antidegradants, antidegradant intermediates, or products containing the same that infringe one or more of claims 61-74 of U.S. Patent No. 5,453,541 and claims 23-28 of U.S. Patent No. 5,608,111, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2)For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a)The complainant is— Flexsys America L.P., 575 Maryville Centre, St. Louis, Missouri 63141.
(b)The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served: Sinorgchem Co., Shandong, No. 1, Beihuan Road, Caoxian, Shandong, China 274400; Korea Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd., 15/16F Kumho-Asiana Building, #57, 1-Ga, Shinmun-Ro, Jongro-Gu, Seoul, South Korea; Kumho Tire USA, Inc., 10299 6th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730; Kumho Tire Co., Inc., 58-31, 1-Ga, Shinmun-Ro, Jongro-Gu, Seoul, South Korea.
(c)The Commission investigative attorney, party to this investigation, is Juan Cockburn, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(3)For the investigation so instituted, the Honorable Paul J. Luckern is designated as the presiding administrative law judge. Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(d) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown. Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent. The Commission notes that the patents at issue were the subject of earlier litigation, which raises the question of whether the complainant is precluded from asserting those patents. In instituting this investigation, the Commission has not made any determination as to whether the complainant is so precluded. Accordingly, the presiding administrative law judge may wish to consider this issue at an early date. Any such decision should be issued in the form of an initial determination (ID). The ID will become the Commission's final determination 45 days after the date of service of the ID unless the Commission determines to review the ID. Any petitions for review of the ID must be filed within ten
(10)days after service thereof. Any review will be conducted in accordance with Commission Rules 210.43, 210.44, and 210.45, 19 CFR 210.43, 210.44, and 210.45. By order of the Commission. Issued: July 3, 2008. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E8-15607 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Final Consent Decree With Newmont USA Limited and Resurrection Mining Company Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Notice is hereby given that on July 2, 2008, a Final Consent Decree with Newmont USA Limited and Resurrection Mining Company (“Final Consent Decree”) in *State of Colorado* v. *ASARCO Incorporated et al.* , Civil Action No. 86-cv-1675-WYD (consolidated with 83-cv-2388-WYD) was lodged with the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The United States and the State of Colorado previously entered into a consent decree with Newmont Mining Corporation (now Newmont USA Limited, “Newmont”) and Resurrection Mining Company (“Resurrection”) concerning, among other things, Newmont's and Resurrection's performance of response actions addressing areas designated as Operable Units (“OUs”) 4, 8 and 10 of the California Gulch Superfund Site located in Lake County, Colorado (“Site”). That consent decree was approved and entered by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on August 26, 1994 (the “1994 Decree”). The proposed Final Consent Decree implements a settlement of the remainder of the claims concerning the Site (as that term is defined in the Final Consent Decree) filed by the Plaintiffs. In general, pursuant to the terms of the Final Consent Decree, Newmont and Resurrection will:
(1)Pay $2,000,000 in Past Response Costs, of which the United States will receive $1,813,200 and the State of Colorado will receive $186,800;
(2)pay the United States $6,500,000 for OUs 11 and 12 and additional source control in OUs 4, 8, and 10;
(3)pay $10,500,000 for natural resource damages, of which the United States will receive $5,250,000 and the State of Colorado will receive $5,250,000;
(4)pay the future oversight costs incurred by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the State of Colorado with respect to OUs 1, 4, 8 and 10;
(5)implement the OU1 work plan; and
(6)continue performance of the Operation and Maintenance Plan for OUs 4, 8 and 10. In addition, Newmont and Resurrection will, subject to the specific terms of the Final Decree, reclaim the Black Cloud Mine. The Final Consent Decree will resolve the Governments' claims against Newmont and Resurrection at the Site and at the Black Cloud Mine, and replace the 1994 Decree. In exchange for their commitments under the Final Consent Decree Newmont and Resurrection receive covenants not to sue from the Governments. The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty
(30)days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Final Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either e-mailed to *pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov* or mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to *United States* v. *Apache Energy and Minerals Company* , D.J. Ref. 90-11-3-138. The Final Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Colorado, 1225 Seventeenth Street, Suite 700, Denver, CO 80202, and at U.S. EPA Region 8, Superfund Records Center, 1595 Wynkoop St., Denver, CO 80202-1129. During the public comment period, the Decree, may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site, *http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html* . A copy of the Final Consent Decree may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood ( *tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov* ), fax no.
(202)514-0097, phone confirmation number
(202)514-1547. In requesting a copy of the Final Consent Decree exclusive of appendices from the Consent Decree Library, please enclose a check in the amount of $20.50 payable to the U.S. Treasury or, if by e-mail or fax, forward a check in that amount to the Consent Decree Library at the stated address. In requesting a copy of the Final Consent Decree with all appendices, please enclose a check in the amount of $138.75. Robert E. Maher, Jr., Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division. [FR Doc. E8-15647 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Final Modification of 1994 Consent Decree With ASARCO Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Notice is hereby given that on July 2, 2008, a Final Modification of 1994 Consent Decree with Asarco (“Final Consent Decree Modification”) in *State of Colorado* v. *ASARCO Incorporated et al.* , Civil Action No. 86-cv-1675-WYD (consolidated with 83-cv-2388-WYD) was lodged with the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The United States and the State of Colorado previously entered into a consent decree with ASARCO Incorporated (now ASARCO, LLC) (“ASARCO”) concerning, among other things, ASARCO's performance of response actions at various Operable Units (“OUs”) of the California Gulch Superfund Site located in Lake County, Colorado (“Site”) including OUs 5, 7 and 9. That consent decree was approved and entered by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on August 26, 1994 (the “1994 Decree”). The 1994 Decree was modified concerning OU 9, and approved and entered by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on May 1, 2008. The proposed Final Consent Decree Modification implements a settlement of the remainder of the claims concerning the Site filed by the Plaintiffs (as that term is defined in the Final Consent Decree Modification) in *In re ASARCO LLC, et al.* , a bankruptcy case pending in the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division, Case No. 05-21207 (the “Bankruptcy Case”). In general, pursuant to the terms of the Final Consent Decree Modification, the United States, on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, shall have an allowed general unsecured claim in the Bankruptcy Case in the amount of $8,833,000 for past and future response costs. In addition, the United States, on behalf of the United States Department of the Interior, shall have an allowed general unsecured claim in the Bankruptcy Case in the amount of $5,000,000 for natural resource damages. Under the terms of the Final Consent Decree Modification, the State of Colorado shall have an allowed general unsecured claims in the amount of $467,000 for past and future response costs, and in the amount of $5,000,000 for natural resource damages. This Final Consent Decree Modification will resolve the Governments' claims against ASARCO with respect to the Site. The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty
(30)days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Final Consent Decree Modification. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either e-mailed to *pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov* or mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to *United States* v. *Apache Energy and Minerals Company* , D.J. Ref. 90-11-3-138. The Final Consent Decree Modification may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Colorado, 1225 Seventeenth Street, Suite 700, Denver, CO 80202, and at U.S. EPA Region 8, Superfund Records Center, 1595 Wynkoop St., Denver, CO 80202-1129. During the public comment period, the Decree, may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site, *http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html* . A copy of the Final Consent Decree Modification may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood ( *tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov* ), fax no.
(202)514-0097, phone confirmation number
(202)514-1547. In requesting a copy from the Consent Decree Library, please enclose a check in the amount of $9.00 payable to the U.S. Treasury or, if by e-mail or fax, forward a check in that amount to the Consent Decree Library at the stated address. Robert E. Maher, Jr., Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division. [FR Doc. E8-15648 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-CW-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act In accordance with 28 CFR 50.7 and Section 122 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622, the Department of Justice gives notice that a proposed Consent Decree, in *United States and the State of Illinois* v. *Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation,* Civil No. 08-CV-50129 (N.D. Ill.), was lodged with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 3, 2008, pertaining to Source Area 9/10 (the “Site”) of the Southeast Rockford Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site (“SERGWCS Site”), located in Rockford, Winnebago County, Illinois. In this action, the United States and the State of Illinois brought civil claims under Sections 106, 107 and 113(g)(2) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606, 9607 and 9613(g)(2), against Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation (“Settling Defendant”) for implementation of remedial action and recovery of response costs incurred and to be incurred by the United States and the State of Illinois at the Site. Under the proposed Consent Decree, the Settling Defendant is obligated to implement the remedy selected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) in the SERGWCS Site source control Record of Decision (“ROD”) for the Hamilton Sundstrand property portion of the Site, and to pay the United States' and the State of Illinois' Interim Response Costs and Future Response Costs related to that property portion, including costs of overseeing the implementation of the remedial action. The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty
(30)days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either e-mailed to *pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov* or mailed to United States Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to *United States and the State of Illinois* v. *Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation,* Civil No. 08-CV-50129 (N.D. Ill.), and DOJ Reference No. 90-11-3-945/3. *The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at:*
(1)The Office of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, Rockford Division, 308 West State Street, Suite 300, Rockford, Illinois 61101,
(815)987-4444; and
(2)the United States Environmental Protection Agency (Region 5), 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604-3507 (contact: Tom Turner
(312)886-6613). During the public comment period, the proposed Consent Decree may also be examined on the following U.S. Department of Justice Web site, *http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html* . A copy of the proposed Consent Decree may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood ( *tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov* ), fax no.
(202)514-0097, phone confirmation no.
(202)514-1547. In requesting a copy from the Consent Decree Library, please refer to the referenced case and DOJ Reference Number and enclose a check in the amount of $23.50 for the Consent Decree only (94 pages, at 25 cents per page reproduction costs), or in the amount of $267.50 for the Consent Decree and Appendices (1,070 pages), made payable to the U.S. Treasury or, if by e-mail or fax, forward a check in that amount to the Consent Decree Library at the stated address. William D. Brighton, Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division. [FR Doc. E8-15645 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-CW-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [CPCLO Order No. 002-2008] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY: Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice. ACTION: Notice of a New System of Records. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), the Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD), Department of Justice, proposes to establish a new system of records to store personnel locator information entitled, “Personnel Locator System, JUSTICE/ENRD-002.” The Personnel Locator System will include modules with locator information (including professional background held by particular staff) as well as emergency contact information. DATES: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), the public is given a 30-day period in which to comment; and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which has oversight responsibility under the Act, requires a 40-day period in which to conclude its review of the system. Therefore, please submit any comments by August 19, 2008. ADDRESSES: The public, OMB, and Congress are invited to submit any comments to the Department of Justice, *Attn:* Kirsten J. Moncada, Director, Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties, Department of Justice, National Place Building, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 940, Washington, DC 20530. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna B. Whitaker, Director, Office of Information Management, Environment & Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7754, Washington, DC 20044-7754, 202-616-3100. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), the Department has provided a report to OMB and the Congress on the new system of records. Dated: July 3, 2008. Kenneth P. Mortensen, Acting Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer. Department of Justice Justice/ENRD-002 System name: Personnel Locator System, Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD-002). Security classification: Sensitive but unclassified. System location: U.S. Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20530, and other ENRD field offices throughout the United States. Categories of individuals covered by the system: Employees, Student Aides, Law Clerks, Volunteers, Contractors and other personnel employed by or otherwise affiliated with the Environment and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice. Categories of records in the system: The locator portion of the system will contain records filed by name of employee or affiliated personnel or individuals, including his or her position title; office location; office telephone and facsimile
(fax)numbers; office address; professional electronic mail (e-mail) address(es); and optional voluntary photograph. Locator information will also include professional background records filed by name of employee or affiliated personnel, listing any voluntary, self-declared experience, skill or certification in the following areas: Law school name and year(s) of graduation; clerkships; bar memberships; advanced degrees earned; foreign language expertise; Notary Public commission. The emergency contact information module of the Personnel Locator System will contain comprehensive contact information from employees or affiliated personnel that may be used to contact the person named, or his/her authorized designee, in the event of an emergency during or outside of official duty hours. Information categories include home addresses and telephone numbers; cellular telephone numbers; pager numbers; other alternate telephone numbers where persons or their designees may be reached while away on travel, assigned work detail, or other extended absence from the office; electronic mail (e-mail) addresses; names, telephone numbers and e-mail addresses of family members or other emergency contacts; and other contact information persons may wish to provide. The system will also include audit information for emergency contact information to track changes that are updated by authorized emergency coordinators, managers and system administrators. Authority for Maintenance of the System: Authority to establish and maintain this system is contained in 5 U.S.C. 301 and 44 U.S.C. 3101, which authorize the Attorney General to create and maintain federal records of agency activities, and is further described in 28 CFR 0.65 and 28 CFR 0.135, which give the Environment and Natural Resources Division authority to create and maintain federal records. Purpose(s): Division personnel collaborate on cases and matters requiring specialized legal expertise and often require assistance from colleagues with particular background or skills. The ENRD staff desires a centralized, searchable directory of employee expertise with associated locator information to facilitate professional contacts. ENRD desires to maintain its emergency contact database in the same system of records to assist with the ease of data entry and information updates for or by employees, and to simplify system maintenance for the system administrators. Submission of information to the PLS database is voluntary and electing not to participate will have no adverse impact on the selection, promotion or retention status of the non-participant. Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:
(a)To a Member of Congress or staff acting upon the Member's behalf when the Member or staff requests the information on behalf of, and at the request of, the individual who is the subject of the record.
(b)To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, students, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for the Federal Government, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records.
(c)To the National Archives and Records Administration for purposes of records management inspections conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
(d)To a former employee of the Department for purposes of: Responding to an official inquiry by a federal, state, or local government entity or professional licensing authority, in accordance with applicable Department regulations; or facilitating communications with a former employee that may be necessary for personnel-related or other official purposes where the Department requires information and/or consultation assistance from the former employee regarding a matter within that person's former area of responsibility.
(e)Where a record, either alone or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law—criminal, civil, or regulatory in nature—the relevant records may be referred to the appropriate federal, state, local, territorial, tribal, or foreign law enforcement authority or other appropriate entity charged with the responsibility for investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing such law.
(f)To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when
(1)the Department suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised;
(2)the Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Department or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and
(3)the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize or remedy such harm.
(g)To appropriate officials and employees of a federal agency or entity that requires information relevant to a decision concerning the hiring, appointment, or retention of an employee; the issuance, renewal, suspension, or revocation of a security clearance; the execution of a security or suitability investigation; the letting of a contract; or the issuance of a grant or benefit.
(h)In an appropriate proceeding before a court, grand jury, or administrative or adjudicative body, when the Department of Justice determines that the records are arguably relevant to the proceeding; or in an appropriate proceeding before an administrative or adjudicative body when the adjudicator determines the records to be relevant to the proceeding.
(i)To such recipients and under such circumstances and procedures as are mandated by federal statute or treaty. Disclosure to consumer reporting agencies: None. Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system: Storage: Information will be stored electronically in a database located on a server connected to the Division's intranet. In accordance with ENRD's emergency planning policies, ENRD databases also are copied offsite on a mirror system to which data are replicated every 24 hours. Retrievability: Information is retrieved by the individual's name or by subject matter. Safeguards: Access to the Personnel Locator System is restricted to ENRD personnel, contractors and other affiliated persons with accounts on the Division's computer network because it is accessed via the Division's intranet. Information access will be governed by security safeguards as described below:
(1)General locator information: Data editors will be restricted to ENRD Executive Office personnel, contractors, and other affiliated staff. All ENRD personnel may view these records in read-only format.
(2)Professional background information: Each staff member may edit his or her own record to keep information accurate and current. Personnel may not edit records other than their own. System administrators will have full editing privileges over these records. Other ENRD personnel may view these records in read-only format.
(3)Emergency contact information: Each person will be able to view and edit his or her own emergency contact information record so that he or she may keep this information accurate and current. ENRD emergency coordinators and managers will have editing rights according to level of responsibility so that they may update these records on behalf of staff, if necessary, during emergencies or as needed at other times. System administrators will have full editing privileges over these records. Viewing privileges will be restricted to managers and certain other employees or contractors with a need to know. Technical equipment for the Personnel Locator System database is maintained in buildings with restricted access and is safeguarded in accordance with applicable rules and policies, including the Department's automated systems security and access policies. The offsite mirror system servers are physically and electronically secure to top-level DOJ systems personnel and the ENRD senior systems engineer. Retention and disposal: Records are retained during their useful life in accordance with records retention schedules approved by the National Archives and Records Administration. The records will be purged from the database when they no longer are needed for business purposes, or after 3 years, whichever is later. System manager(s) and address: Director, Office of Information Management, Executive Office, Environment and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7754, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044-7754. Notification procedure: Address inquiries to the FOIA/Privacy Act Coordinator, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Law and Policy Section, P.O. Box 4390, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044-4390. Record access procedures: Access to the Personnel Locator System is restricted to ENRD personnel, contractors and other affiliated persons with accounts on the Division's computer network because it is accessed via the Division's intranet.
(1)General locator information: All ENRD personnel may view these records in read-only format.
(2)Professional background information: Each staff member may access and edit his or her own record to keep information accurate and current. Personnel may not edit records other than their own. System administrators will have full editing privileges over these records. Other ENRD personnel may view these records in read-only format.
(3)Emergency contact information: Each person will be able to access and edit his or her own emergency contact information record so that he or she may keep this information accurate and current. ENRD emergency coordinators and managers will have editing rights according to level of responsibility so that they may update these records on behalf of staff, if necessary, during emergencies or as needed at other times. System administrators will have full editing privileges over these records. Viewing privileges will be restricted to managers and certain other employees or contractors with a need to know. All other requests for access should be submitted in writing. Clearly mark the envelope and letter, “Privacy Act Access Request.” Include in the request your full name, date and place of birth, case caption, or other information which may assist in locating the records you seek. Also include your notarized signature, or a dated and signed statement under penalty of perjury, and a return address. Direct all access requests to the FOIA/Privacy Act Coordinator; Environment and Natural Resources Division; Law and Policy Section; P.O. Box 4390, Ben Franklin Station; Washington, DC; 20044-4390. Contesting record procedures: If staff members wish to amend information maintained in the system, they may amend their own personal and professional background records, or emergency contact information data as described above under “Record Access Procedures.” Requests to amend or update other general locator information or the personal photograph may be directed to system administrators. You may also seek to amend or contest information maintained in the system, by directing a written request to the FOIA/PA Coordinator at the address above, stating clearly and concisely what information is being contested, the reasons for contesting it, and the proposed amendment to the information you seek. Record source categories: Sources of information contained in this system are
(1)the ENRD Executive Office, furnishing employee locator information, and
(2)the ENRD employees, student aides, law clerks, and volunteers, contractors, and other associated personnel who furnish the remaining employee locator information; the professional background data; and the emergency contact data. Exemptions claimed for the system: None. [FR Doc. E8-15672 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration
(ETA)Proposed Information Collection Request, Extension of Approved Collection With One Revision: “Petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance, Business Confidential Data Request, Business Confidential Non-Production Questionnaire, and Business Confidential Customer Survey” ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employment and Training Administration is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension, with revisions, of data collections using the ETA Form 9042A, Petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (1205-0342) and its Spanish translation ETA 9042A-1 (1205-0342); ETA 9043a, Business Confidential Data Request (1205-0342); ETA 8562a, Business Confidential Customer Survey (1205-0342). There is only one revision: ETA 9118 Business Confidential Non Production Questionnaire (currently approved under OMB Control Number 1205-0447) will be consolidated with the other forms listed above into one reporting requirement under OMB control number 1205-0342. A copy of the proposed information collection request
(ICR)can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addressee section of this notice by accessing: *http://www.doleta.gov/OMBCN/OMBControlNumber.cfm* . DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed below on or before September 8, 2008. ADDRESSES: Susan Worden, U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Room C-5428, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. *Phone:* 202-693-3517, *Fax:* 202-693-3584, *E-mail: worden.susan@dol.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Section 221(a) of Title II, Chapter 2 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by the Trade Act of 2002, authorizes the Secretary of Labor and the Governor of each state to accept petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance. The petitions may be filed by a group of workers, their certified or recognized union or duly authorized representative, employers of such workers, one-stop operators or one-stop partners. ETA Form 9042A, Petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance, and its Spanish translation, ETA Form 9042A-1, Solicitud De Asistencia Para Ajuste, establish a format that may be used for filing such petitions. Sections 222, 223 and 249 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, require the Secretary of Labor to issue a determination for groups of workers as to their eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). After reviewing all of the information obtained for each petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance filed with the Department, a determination is issued as to whether the statutory criteria for certification are met. The information collected in ETA Form 9043a, Business Confidential Data Request, ETA Form 9118, Business Confidential Non Production Questionnaire, and ETA Form 8562a, Business Confidential Customer Survey, will be used by the Secretary to determine to what extent, if any, increased imports or shifts in production have impacted the petitioning worker group. II. Review Focus ETA is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses. III. Current Actions *Type of Review:* Extension, with revision, of OMB approved information collection. *Agency:* Employment and Training Administration. *Title:* “Petition For Trade Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance, Business Confidential Data Request, Business Confidential Non-Production Questionnaire, and Business Confidential Customer Survey: Investigative Data Collection Requirements for the Trade Act of 1974 as amended by the Trade Act of 2002.” *OMB Number:* 1205-0342. *Affected Public:* Individuals or Households, Businesses, State, Local or Tribal Governments. Cite/reference Responses Total respondents Average time per response Total requested burden (hours) ETA 9042A & ETA 9042A-1 2,200 2,200 25 min 916 ETA 9043a 2,200 1056 3.5 hours 7,700 ETA 8562a 8,800 8,800 1.78 hours 15,664 ETA 9118 550 264 3.5 hours 1,925 Totals 13,750 12,320 26,205 *Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):* $0. *Total Burden Cost (operating/maintaining):* $0. Comments submitted in response to this Notice will be summarized for inclusion in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of this information collection request and will become a matter of public record. Dated: July 2, 2008. Ralph Di Battista, Deputy Administrator, Office of National Response, Employment and Training Administration. [FR Doc. E8-15712 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment Standards Administration Proposed Extension of the Approval of Information Collection Requirements ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employment Standards Administration is soliciting comments concerning the proposal to extend OMB approval of the information collection: Regulations 29 CFR Part 547, Requirements of a “Bona Fide Thrift or Savings Plan” and Regulations 29 CFR Part 549, Requirements of a “Bona Fide Profit-Sharing Plan or Trust”. A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addresses section of this Notice. DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before September 8, 2008. ADDRESSES: Hazel M. Bell, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Room S-3201, Washington, DC 20210, telephone
(202)693-0418, fax
(202)693-1451, E-mail *bell.hazel@dol.gov.* Please use only one method of transmission for comments (mail, fax, or E-mail). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 7(e)(3)(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act permits the exclusion from an employee's regular rate of pay, payments on behalf of an employee to a “bona fide” thrift or savings plan, profit-sharing plan or trust. Regulations, 29 CFR Parts 547 and 549 set forth the requirements for what constitutes a “bona fide” thrift or savings plan, profit-sharing plan or trust. The maintenance of the records required by the regulations enables Department of Labor investigators to determine whether contributions to a given thrift or savings plan, profit-sharing plan or trust may be excluded in calculating the regular rate of pay for overtime purposes in compliance with section 7(e)(3)(b) of the FLSA. Without these records, such a determination could not be made. This information collection is currently approved for use through February 28, 2009. II. Review Focus The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses. III. Current Actions The Department of Labor seeks approval for the extension of this currently approved information collection in order to determine whether contributions to a given thrift or savings plan or profit-sharing plan or trust may be excluded in calculating the regular rate of pay for overtime purposes under section (7)(e)(3)(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Agency:* Employment Standards Administration. *Title:* Requirements of a Bona Fide Thrift or Savings Plan (29 CFR Part 547) and Requirements of a Bona Fide Profit-Sharing Plan or Trust (29 CFR Part 549). *OMB Number:* 1215-0119. *Affected Public:* Business or not for-profit, Not-for-profit institution, Farms, and State, Local or Tribal Government. *Total Respondents:* 844,000. *Total Annual Responses:* 844,000. *Estimated Total Burden Hours (Recordkeeping):* 4. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):* $0. *Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance):* $0. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record. Dated: July 3, 2008. Ruben Wiley, Chief, Branch of Management Review and Internal Control, Division of Financial Management, Office of Management, Administration and Planning, Employment Standards Administration. [FR Doc. E8-15725 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-27-P NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 AGENCY: National Science Foundation. ACTION: Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation of 1978, Public Law 95-541. SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation
(NSF)is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 4, 2008, the National Science Foundation published a notice in the **Federal Register** of permit applications received. A permit was issued on July 7, 2008 to: Wayne Z. Trivelpiece, Permit No. 2009-006. Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Officer. [FR Doc. E8-15694 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY: Office of the General Counsel, National Science Foundation. ACTION: Notice of a new Privacy Act System of Records NSF-73: NSF Alert. *System Name:* NSF Alert. SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the National Science Foundation
(NSF)gives notice of a new Privacy Act system of records: NSF Alert. The purpose of NSF Alert is to collect and maintain emergency contact information for current Federal employees, Intergovernmental Personnel Act employees (IPAs), selected guests and contractors of the National Science Foundation. The emergency contact information may contain personally identifiable information. DATES: *Effective Date:* This action shall be effective without further notice on August 10, 2008, unless comments are received during or before this period that would result in a contrary determination. *Comments Due Date:* Submit comments on or before August 10, 2008. ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this notice to Leslie Jensen, National Science Foundation, Office of the General Counsel, Room 1265, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230 or by sending electronic mail (e-mail) to *ljensen@nsf.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This publication is in accordance with the Privacy Act requirement that agencies publish a new system of records in the **Federal Register** . Submit comments as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Identify all comments sent in electronic E-mail with Subject Line: Comments on new system. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie Jensen
(703)292-5065. Dated: July 3, 2008. Lawrence Rudolph, General Counsel. National Science Foundation SYSTEM NAME: NSF Alert (NSF-73). SYSTEM LOCATION: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd, Arlington, VA 22230. CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM: Employees, IPAs, selected guests and agency contractors. CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: Name, directorate/division, work and personal electronic mail addresses, work telephone number, home and cellular telephone numbers, work fax and Blackberry phone numbers, pager and any SMS device they want to provide. AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: 5 U.S.C. 301 and Executive Order 12656 of Nov. 18, 1988 on Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities. PURPOSE OF THE SYSTEM: The purpose of this system of records is to maintain emergency contact information for current employees, IPAs, selected guests and contractors of the National Science Foundation. The system provides for high-speed message delivery that reaches all NSF personnel in response to threat alerts issued by the Department of Homeland Security, weather related emergencies, or other critical situations that disrupt the operations and accessibility of a worksite. The system also provides for personnel accountability during an emergency, through personnel sign-in and rapid alert and notification. ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: 1. Information from the system may be disclosed to any Federal government authority for the purpose of coordinating and reviewing agency continuity of operations plans or emergency contingency plans developed for responding to Department of Homeland Security threat alerts, weather related emergencies, or other critical situations. 2. Disclosure may be made to a Congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the Congressional office made at the request of that individual. 3. Information from the system may be disclosed to contractors, grantees, volunteers, experts, advisors, and other individuals who perform a service to or work on or under a contract, grant, cooperative agreement, advisory committee, committee of visitors, or other arrangement with or for the Federal government, as necessary to carry out their duties in pursuit of the purposes described above. The contractors are subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act. 4. Information from the system may be merged with other computer files in order to carry out statistical studies or otherwise assist NSF with program management, evaluation, and reporting. Disclosure may be made for this purpose to NSF contractors and collaborating researchers, other Government agencies, and qualified research institutions and their staffs. Disclosures are made only after scrutiny of research protocols and with appropriate controls. The results of such studies are statistical in nature and do not identify individuals. 5. Information from the system may be disclosed to the Department of Justice or the Office of Management and Budget for the purpose of obtaining advice on the application of the Freedom of Information Act or Privacy Act to the records. 6. Information from the system may be given to another Federal agency, a court, or a party in litigation before a court or in an administrative proceeding being conducted by a Federal agency when the Government is a party to the judicial or administrative proceeding. 7. Information from the system may be given to the Department of Justice, to the extent disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the record was collected and is relevant and necessary to litigation or anticipated litigation, in which one of the following is a party or has an interest:
(a)NSF or any of its components;
(b)an NSF employee in his/her official capacity;
(c)an NSF employee in his/her individual capacity when the Department of Justice is representing or considering representing the employee; or
(d)the United States, when NSF determines that litigation is likely to affect the Agency. 8. Records from this system may be disclosed to representatives of the General Services Administration and the National Archives and Records Administration who are conducting records management inspections under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906. 9. Information from the system may be given to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when
(1)the NSF suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised;
(2)the NSF has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the NSF or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and
(3)the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the NSF's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm. POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: STORAGE: Records are maintained in a computerized database. RETRIEVABILITY: Records may be retrieved by the individual's name and work e-mail. SAFEGUARDS: Records are safeguarded by restricted computer user ids and passwords. Access to the records is restricted to those who require the records in the performance of official duties related to the purposes for which the system is maintained. RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: Periodic purging and disposal of those records concerning individuals who are no longer employees, IPAs, guests or select contractors of the National Science Foundation. Otherwise, records are retained and disposed of in accordance with the appropriate National Archives and Records Administration General Records Schedules. SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: National Science Foundation, Director, Division of Administrative Services, 4201 Wilson Blvd, Room 295, Arlington, VA 22230. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES: All requests to determine whether this system of records contains a record pertaining to the requesting individual may be directed to the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the General Counsel, 4201 Wilson Blvd, Arlington, VA 22230. RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: Persons wishing to obtain information on the procedures for gaining access to or contesting the contents of this record may contact the Privacy Act Officer, Office of the General Counsel, 4201 Wilson Blvd, Arlington, VA 22230. CONTESTING RECORDS PROCEDURES: See record access procedures above. RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: Information is provided by current employees, IPAs, guests and selected contractors of the National Science Foundation. EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM: None. [FR Doc. E8-15693 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)Review; Comment Request AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment. SUMMARY: The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The NRC published a **Federal Register** Notice with a 60-day comment period on this information collection on April 7, 2008. 1. *Type of submission, new, revision, or extension:* Extension. 2. *The title of the information collection:* Grant and Cooperative Agreement Provisions. 3. *Current OMB approval number:* 3150-0107. 4. *The form number if applicable:* Not applicable. 5. *How often the collection is required:* Technical performance reports are submitted every six months, other information is submitted on occasion, as needed. 6. *Who will be required or asked to report:* Grantees and Cooperators. 7. *An estimate of the number of annual responses:* 458 (318 responses plus 140 recordkeepers). 8. *The estimated number of annual respondents:* 140. 9. *An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request:* 3,381 (3,153 reporting hours plus 228 recordkeeping hours). 10. *Abstract:* The Division of Contracts
(DC)is responsible for awarding grants and cooperative agreements for the NRC. The DC collects information from grantees and cooperators in order to administer these programs. The DC uses provisions (required to obtain or retain a benefit in its awards and cooperative agreements) to ensure: adherence to Public Laws, that the Government's rights are protected, that work proceeds on schedule, and that disputes between the Government and the recipient are settled. A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site: *http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html* . The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice. Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer listed below by August 11, 2008. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date. Nathan J. Frey, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0107), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Comments can also be e-mailed to *Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov* or submitted by telephone at
(202)395-7345. The NRC Clearance Officer is Margaret A. Janney,
(301)415-7245. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of July, 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Gregory Trussell, Acting NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services. [FR Doc. E8-15678 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 040-09068] Notice of License Application of Lost Creek ISR, LLC, for a New In Situ Leach Uranium Recovery Facility at the Lost Creek Site, Sweetwater County, Wyoming, and Opportunity to Request a Hearing and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) for Contention Preparation AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of license application for a new uranium recovery facility, and opportunity to request a hearing. DATES: A request for a hearing must be filed by September 8, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen J. Cohen, Project Manager, Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone:
(301)415-7182; fax number:
(301)415-5369; e-mail: *stephen.cohen@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction By letter dated October 30, 2007, Lost Creek ISR, LLC
(LCI)submitted a Source Materials License Application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)for a new *in situ* leach
(ISL)uranium recovery facility at its Lost Creek site in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. The Lost Creek facility would involve the recovery of uranium by ISL extraction techniques. By letter dated February 29, 2008, LCI withdrew the application to revise its radiation protection program; the application was resubmitted on March 31, 2008. An NRC administrative review, documented in a letter dated June 10, 2008, found the application acceptable to begin a detailed technical and environmental review. Before approving the license application, the NRC will need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and NRC's regulations. These findings will be documented in a Safety Evaluation Report
(SER)and a site-specific environmental review consistent with the provisions of 10 CFR Part 51. II. Opportunity To Request a Hearing The NRC hereby provides notice that this is a proceeding on an application for a source materials license regarding LCI's proposal to construct and operate the Lost Creek ISL uranium recovery facility in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. Any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding, and who desires to participate as a party, must file a request for a hearing and a specification of the contentions which the person seeks to have litigated in the hearing, in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC promulgated in August 2007, 72 **Federal Register** 49139 (August 28, 2007). The E-Filing rule requires participants to submit and serve documents over the internet or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below. To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least ten
(10)days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requester must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at *hearingdocket@nrc.gov* , or by calling
(301)415-1677, to request
(1)a digital identification
(ID)certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or
(2)creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances in which the petitioner/requester (or its counsel or representative) already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/requester will need to download the Workplace Forms Viewer TM to access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the E-Filing system. The Workplace Forms Viewer TM is free and is available at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html* . Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on NRC's public Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html* . Once a petitioner/requester has obtained a digital ID certificate, has a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, the petitioner/requester can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC public Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html* . A filing is considered complete at the time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system. A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC website at *http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html* , or by calling the NRC technical help line, which is available between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. The help line number is
(800)397-4209 or locally,
(301)415-4737. Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file a motion, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by:
(1)First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or
(2)courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be admitted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at *http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp* , unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include social security numbers in their filings. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submissions. The formal requirements for documents contained in 10 CFR 2.304(c)-(e) must be met. If the NRC grants an electronic document exemption in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g)(3), then the requirements for paper documents, set forth in 10 CFR 2.304(b) must be met. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(b), a request for a hearing must be filed by September 8, 2008. In addition to meeting other applicable requirements of 10 CFR 2.309, a request for a hearing filed by a person other than an applicant must state: 1. The name, address, and telephone number of the requester; 2. The nature of the requester's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; 3. The nature and extent of the requester's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; 4. The possible effect of any decision or order that may be issued in the proceeding on the requester's interest; and 5. The circumstances establishing that the request for a hearing is timely in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(b). In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(1), a request for hearing or petitions for leave to intervene must set forth with particularity the contentions sought to be raised. For each contention, the request or petition must: 1. Provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted; 2. Provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention; 3. Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is within the scope of the proceeding; 4. Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is material to the findings that the NRC must make to support the action that is involved in the proceeding; 5. Provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions which support the requester's/petitioner's position on the issue and on which the requester/petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue; and 6. Provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. This information must include references to specific portions of the application (including the applicant's environmental report and technical report) that the requester/petitioner disputes and the supporting reasons for each dispute, or, if the requester/petitioner believes the application fails to contain information on a relevant matter as required by law, the identification of each failure and the supporting reasons for the requester's/petitioner's belief. In addition, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(2), contentions must be based on documents or other information available at the time the petition is to be filed, such as the application, supporting technical (i.e., safety analysis) report, environmental report or other supporting document filed by an applicant or licensee, or otherwise available to the petitioner. On issues arising under the National Environmental Policy Act, the requester/petitioner shall file contentions based on the applicant's environmental report. The requester/petitioner may amend those contentions or file new contentions if there are data or conclusions in the NRC draft, or final environmental impact statement, environmental assessment, or any supplements relating thereto, that differ significantly from the data or conclusions in the applicant's documents. Otherwise, contentions may be amended or new contentions filed after the initial filing only with leave of the presiding officer. Each contention shall be given a separate numeric or alpha designation within one of the following groups: 1. Technical—primarily concerns issues relating to matters discussed or referenced in the Technical Report for the proposed action. 2. Environmental—primarily concerns issues relating to matters discussed or referenced in the Environmental Report for the proposed action. 3. Miscellaneous—does not fall into one of the categories outlined above. If the requester/petitioner believes a contention raises issues that cannot be classified as primarily falling into one of these categories, the requester/petitioner must set forth the contention and supporting bases, in full, separately for each category into which the requester/petitioner asserts the contention belongs with a separate designation for that category. Requesters/petitioners should, when possible, consult with each other in preparing contentions and combine similar subject matter concerns into a joint contention, for which one of the co-sponsoring requesters/petitioners is designated the lead representative. Further, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(3), any requester/petitioner that wishes to adopt a contention proposed by another requester/petitioner must do so, in accordance with the E-Filing rule, within ten
(10)days of the date the contention is filed, and designate a representative who shall have the authority to act for the requester/petitioner. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(g), a request for hearing and/or petition for leave to intervene may also address the selection of the hearing procedures, taking into account the provisions of 10 CFR 2.310. III. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the March 31, 2008, license application and its supporting documentation (i.e., Technical Report and Environmental Report), are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession number for the documents related to this Notice is ML081060525 Lost Creek ISR, LLC, Submittal of Source Materials License Application to Construct and Operate the Lost Creek ISL uranium recovery facility in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. The ADAMS accession number for the NRC staff's administrative review letter, dated June 10, 2008, is ML081570711. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room
(PDR)Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr.resource@nrc.gov.* These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) for Contention Preparation 1. This order contains instructions regarding how potential parties to this proceeding may request access to documents containing sensitive unclassified information. A suggested schedule is provided as Attachment 1 to this order. 2. Within ten
(10)days after publication of this notice of opportunity for hearing any potential party as defined in 10 CFR 2.4 who believes access to SUNSI is necessary for a response to the notice may request access to such information. A “potential party” is any person who intends or may intend to participate as a party by demonstrating standing and the filing of an admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests submitted later than ten
(10)days will not be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier. 3. The requester shall submit a letter requesting permission to access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate General Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or courier mail address for both offices is U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The e-mail address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General Counsel are *HearingDocket@nrc.gov* and *OGCmail@nrc.gov,* respectively. 1 1 See footnote 4. While a request for hearing or petition to intervene in this proceeding must comply with the filing requirements of the NRC's “E-Filing Rule,” the initial request to access SUNSI under these procedures should be submitted as described in this paragraph. The request must include the following information: a. A description of the licensing action with a citation to this Federal Register notice of opportunity for hearing; b. The name and address of the potential party and a description of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed, if the licensing action is taken; c. The identity of the individual requesting access to SUNSI and the requester's need for the information in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding, particularly why publicly available versions of the application would not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention; 4. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under items 2 and 3.a through 3.c, above, the NRC staff will determine within ten
(10)days of receipt of the written access request whether
(1)there is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding, and
(2)there is a legitimate need for access to SUNSI. 5. A request for access to SUNSI will be granted if: a. The request has demonstrated that there is a reasonable basis to believe that a potential party is likely to establish standing to intervene or to otherwise participate as a party in this proceeding; b. The proposed recipient of the information has demonstrated a need for SUNSI; c. The proposed recipient of the information has executed a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit and agrees to be bound by the terms of a Protective Order setting forth terms and conditions to prevent the unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI; and d. The presiding officer has issued a protective order concerning the information or documents requested. 2 Any protective order issued shall provide that the petitioner must file SUNSI contentions 25 days after receipt of (or access to) that information. However, if more than 25 days remain between the petitioner's receipt of (or access to) the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline. 2 If a presiding officer has not yet been designated, the Chief Administrative Judge will issue such orders, or will appoint a presiding officer to do so. 6. If the request for access to SUNSI is granted, the terms and conditions for access to such information will be set forth in a draft protective order and affidavit of non-disclosure appended to a joint motion by the NRC staff, any other affected parties to this proceeding, 3 and the petitioner(s). If the diligent efforts by the relevant parties or petitioner(s) fail to result in an agreement on the terms and conditions for a draft protective order or non-disclosure affidavit, the relevant parties to the proceeding or the petitioner(s) should notify the presiding officer within five
(5)days, describing the obstacles to the agreement. 3 Parties/persons other than the requester and the NRC staff will be notified by the NRC staff of a favorable access determination (and may participate in the development of such a motion and protective order) if it concerns SUNSI and if the party/person's interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information (e.g., as with proprietary information). 7. If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff after a determination on standing, the NRC staff shall briefly state the reasons for the denial. Before the Office of Administration makes an adverse determination regarding access, the proposed recipient must be provided an opportunity to correct or explain information. The requester may challenge the NRC staff's adverse determination with respect to access to SUNSI or with respect to standing, by filing a challenge within five
(5)days of receipt of that determination with
(a)the presiding officer designated in this proceeding;
(b)if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an administrative law judge with jurisdiction pursuant to § 2.318(a); or
(c)if another officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer. In the same manner, a party other than the requester may challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. Such a challenge must be filed within five
(5)days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of such a request. If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10 CFR 2.311. 4 4 As of October 15, 2007, the NRC's final “E-Filing Rule” became effective. See Use of Electronic Submissions in Agency Hearings (72 FR 49139; Aug. 28, 2007). Requesters should note that the filing requirements of that rule apply to appeals of NRC staff determinations (because they must be served on a presiding officer or the Commission, as applicable), but not to the initial SUNSI requests submitted to the NRC staff under these procedures. 8. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers (and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR Part 2. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of July 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Kenneth R. Hart, Acting Secretary of the Commission. Attachment 1—General Target Schedule for Processing and Resolving Requests for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) Day Event 0 Publication of [Federal Register notice/other notice of proposed action and opportunity for hearing], including order with instructions for access requests. 10 Deadline for submitting requests for access to SUNSI with information: Supporting the standing of a potential party identified by name and address; describing the need for the information in order for the potential party to participate meaningfully in an adjudicatory proceeding; demonstrating that access should be granted. [20, 30 or 60] Deadline for submitting petition for intervention containing:
(i)Demonstration of standing;
(ii)all contentions whose formulation does not require access to SUNSI (+25 Answers to petition for intervention; +7 petitioner/requestor reply). 20 NRC staff informs the requester of the staff's determination whether the request for access provides a reasonable basis to believe standing can be established and shows need for SUNSI. NRC staff also informs any party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information. If NRC staff makes the finding of need for SUNSI and likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins document processing (preparation of redactions or review of redacted documents). 25 If NRC staff finds no “need,” “need to know,” or likelihood of standing, the deadline for petitioner/requester to file a motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff's denial of access; NRC staff files copy of access determination with the presiding officer (or Chief Administrative Judge or other designated officer, as appropriate). If NRC staff finds “need” for SUNSI, the deadline for any party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information to file a motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff's grant of access. 30 Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to reverse NRC staff determination(s). 40 (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to complete information processing and file motion for Protective Order and draft Non-Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/licensee to file Non-Disclosure Agreement for SUNSI. 190 (Receipt +180) If NRC staff finds standing and trustworthiness and reliability, deadline for NRC staff to file motion for Protective Order and draft Non-disclosure Affidavit. Note: Before the Office of Administration makes an adverse determination regarding access, the proposed recipient must be provided an opportunity to correct or explain information. 205 Deadline for petitioner to seek reversal of a final adverse NRC staff determination either before the presiding officer or another designated officer. A If access granted: Issuance of presiding officer or other designated officer decision on motion for protective order for access to sensitive information (including schedule for providing access and submission of contentions) or decision reversing a final adverse determination by the NRC staff. A+3 Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI consistent with decision issuing the protective order. A+28 Deadline for submission of contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI. However, if more than 25 days remain between the petitioner's receipt of (or access to) the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline. A+53 (Contention receipt +25) Answers to contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI. A+60 (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor reply to answers. B Decision on contention admission. [FR Doc. E8-15695 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Draft Regulatory Guide: Issuance, Availability AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of Issuance and Availability of Draft Regulatory Guide, DG-1198. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Burke, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone:
(301)415-1529 or e-mail to *John.Burke@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is issuing for public comment a draft regulatory guide in the agency's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe and make available to the public such information as methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses. The draft regulatory guide (DG), entitled “Physical Models for Design and Operation of Hydraulic Structures and Systems for Nuclear Power Plants,” is temporarily identified by its task number, DG-1198, which should be mentioned in all related correspondence. This guide describes the desired coordination of an applicant with the staff of the NRC and the detail and documentation of data and studies that an applicant should include in the preliminary safety analysis report
(PSAR)or final safety analysis report
(FSAR)to support the use of physical hydraulic model testing for predicting the performance of hydraulic structures and systems for nuclear power plants. The regulatory position of this guide is applicable only to physical models used to predict the action or interaction of surface waters with features located outside of containment. The recommendations of this guide do not apply to internal plant systems or structures. Title 10, Section 50.34(a)(3)(ii) of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 50.34(a)(3)(ii)) requires that the PSAR include information on the design bases of the facility and the relation of the design bases to the principal design criteria. In part, 10 CFR 50.34(a)(4) requires a preliminary analysis of the adequacy of structures, systems, and components provided for the prevention of accidents and the mitigation of the consequences of accidents. II. Further Information The NRC staff is soliciting comments on DG-1198. Comments may be accompanied by relevant information or supporting data, and should mention DG-1198 in the subject line. Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available to the public in their entirety through the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). Personal information will not be removed from the comments. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: 1. *Mail to:* Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. 2. *E-mail to: NRCREP@nrc.gov* . 3. *Hand-deliver to:* Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. 4. *Fax to:* Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at
(301)415-5144. Requests for technical information about DG-1198 may be directed to John Burke at
(301)415-1529 or e-mail to *John.Burke@nrc.gov* . Comments would be most helpful if received by September 5, 2008. Comments received after that date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. Although a time limit is given, comments and suggestions in connection with items for inclusion in guides currently being developed or improvements in all published guides are encouraged at any time. Electronic copies of DG-1198 are available through the NRC's public Web site under Draft Regulatory Guides in the “Regulatory Guides” collection of the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/* . Electronic copies are also available in ADAMS ( *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* ), under Accession No. ML081080301. In addition, regulatory guides are available for inspection at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), which is located at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR's mailing address is USNRC PDR, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The PDR can also be reached by telephone at
(301)415-4737 or
(800)397-4205, by fax at
(301)415-3548, and by e-mail to *PDR@nrc.gov* . Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and Commission approval is not required to reproduce them. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of July, 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Stephen C. O'Connor, Acting Chief, Regulatory Guide Development Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. [FR Doc. E8-15674 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 030-19324] Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment to Byproduct Materials License No. 25-19852-01 for Unrestricted Release of Building 11 of the GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals-Hamilton Facility in Hamilton, MT AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel S. Browder, Health Physicist, Nuclear Materials Safety Branch B, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region IV, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 612 Lamar Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, Texas 76011; telephone:
(817)276-6552; fax number:
(817)860-8188; or by e-mail: *rachel.browder@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is considering the issuance of a license amendment to Byproduct Materials License No. 25-19852-01. The license is held by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals-Hamilton (the Licensee), for its Hamilton facility (the Facility), located at 553 Old Corvallis Road in Hamilton, Montana. Issuance of the amendment would authorize release of Building 11 of the Facility for unrestricted use. The Licensee requested this action in a letter dated December 21, 2007. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment
(EA)in support of this proposed action in accordance with the requirements of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 51 (10 CFR part 51). Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate with respect to the proposed action. The amendment will be issued to the Licensee following the publication of this FONSI and EA in the **Federal Register** . II. Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Action The proposed action would approve the Licensee's December 21, 2007 license amendment request, resulting in the release of the stand-alone Building 11 at the Facility for unrestricted use. NRC License No. 25-19852-01 was issued on June 24, 1988, pursuant to 10 CFR part 30, and has been amended periodically since that time. This license authorizes the Licensee to possess and use small quantities of byproduct material, in both sealed and unsealed form, for laboratory research in immunological and biochemical studies. Additionally, the license authorizes the Licensee to possess and use a self-shielded irradiator device and to possess and use sealed sources for the purposes of performing instrument calibration. The Facility is situated on 35 acres (14 hectares) and consists of a main building comprised of office space and laboratories as well as several smaller buildings used for various purposes. The Facility is located in a mixed residential/commercial area. The Licensee's December 21, 2007, license amendment request specifically addressed the release of Building 11 at the Facility for unrestricted use. Building 11 was used as a storage building to store equipment, wood shavings (animal bedding for a vivarium), biomedical waste materials and low level radioactive waste. The building was originally designed as an overhead shelter. In 2004 walls were added to divide a potion of the structure into four rooms. The building was constructed with a concrete slab floor, wood framing and walls, and a sheet metal roof. There are no floor drains or other fixtures such as sinks with plumbing inside Building 11. The center east room within Building 11 is the only area licensed for storage and decay of low level radioactive materials. The floor dimensions of the center east room are approximately 8 feet (2.4 meters) by 20 feet (6.1 meters). The Licensee removed the low-level radioactive materials from Building 11 and initiated a final status survey for the stand-alone building. The Licensee was not required to submit a decommissioning plan to the NRC. The Licensee conducted surveys of the center east room of Building 11 and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that it meets the criteria in subpart E of 10 CFR part 20 for unrestricted release. Need for the Proposed Action The Licensee has ceased conducting licensed activities in the stand-alone Building 11 of the Facility and seeks the unrestricted use of Building 11. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The low level wastes generated as a result of the licensed activities at the Facility consisted of the following radionuclides with half-lives greater than 120 days: hydrogen-3 (tritium), carbon-14, and calcium-45. The radioactive materials were in the form of dry-solids, sharps, scintillation vials, and bulk liquid in polypropylene carboys. The licensee stored the low level radioactive wastes in plastic lined UN 55 gallon steel drums and stored the drums in the center east room of Building 11. The drums were never opened while stored in Building 11. Prior to performing the final status survey, the Licensee removed the low level radioactive drums from Building 11. The Licensee conducted a final status survey during November and December 2007. This survey covered the center east room of Building 11. The final status survey report was attached to the Licensee's amendment request dated December 21, 2007. NRC regulation 10 CFR 20.1402, *Radiological Criteria for Unrestricted Use* , states in part that a site will be considered acceptable for unrestricted use if the residual radioactivity that is distinguishable from background radiation results in a total effective dose equivalent not to exceed 25 millirems per year (0.25 milliSeiverts per year) to an average member of the critical group (the group of individuals reasonably expected to receive the greatest exposure to residual radioactivity for any applicable set of circumstances). The Licensee elected to demonstrate compliance with the radiological criteria for unrestricted use as specified in 10 CFR 20.1402 by comparing the final status survey results to background radiation levels for the area. Since the Licensee's survey results did not identify any radioactive contamination in excess of background radiation levels for the area, then the results adequately met the criteria for unrestricted use. Accordingly, the Licensee's final status survey results were acceptable. Based on its review, the staff has determined that the affected environment and any environmental impacts associated with the proposed action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by the “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities” (NUREG-1496) Volumes 1-3 (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). Further, no incidents were recorded involving spills or releases of radioactive material in Building 11 of the Facility. Accordingly, there were no significant environmental impacts from the use of radioactive material at the Facility. The NRC staff finds that the proposed release of the portion of the Facility described above for unrestricted use is in compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402. The NRC has found no other activities in the area that could result in cumulative environmental impacts. Based on its review, the staff considered the impact of the residual radioactivity at Building 11 of the Facility and concluded that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action Due to the largely administrative nature of the proposed action, its environmental impacts are small. Therefore, the only alternative the staff considered is the no-action alternative, under which the staff would simply deny the amendment request. This no-action alternative is not feasible because it conflicts with 10 CFR 30.36(d), requiring that decommissioning of byproduct material facilities be completed and approved by the NRC after licensed activities cease. Additionally, this denial of the application would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the no-action alternative are similar, and the no-action alternative is accordingly not further considered. Conclusion The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is consistent with the NRC's unrestricted release criteria specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. Because the proposed action will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred alternative. Agencies and Persons Consulted NRC provided a draft of this EA to the State of Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services for review on April 25, 2008. The State of Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services did not have any comments to the draft EA. The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a procedural nature and will not affect listed species or critical habitat. Therefore, no consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed action. On the basis of this EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for license amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The documents related to this action are listed below, along with their ADAMS accession numbers, if applicable. 1. **Federal Register** Notice, Volume 65, No. 114, page 37186, dated Tuesday, June 13, 2000, “Use of Screening Values to Demonstrate Compliance With The Federal Rule on Radiological Criteria for License Termination;” 2. NRC, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities,” NUREG-1496, July 1997 (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385); 3. NRC, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,” NUREG-1757, Volume 1, Revision 1, September 2003 (ML053260027); 4. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E, “Radiological Criteria for License Termination;” 5. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions;” 6. Poletti, Brian, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals—Hamilton, License Amendment Request dated December 21, 2007 (ML080380101). If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room
(PDR)Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr.rosource@nrc.gov* . These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at Arlington, Texas this 27th day of June 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Jack E. Whitten, Chief, Nuclear Materials Safety Branch B, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region IV. [FR Doc. E8-15675 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 030-33658] Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment Request to Byproduct Materials License 01-25316-01 for the Department of Defense, Defense Intelligence Agency, Redstone Arsenal, AL AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Thompson, Senior Health Physicist, Commercial and R&D Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, PA 19406. Telephone:
(610)337-5303; fax number:
(610)337-5269; e-mail: *TKT@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is considering the issuance of a license renewal to Byproduct Materials License No. 01-25316-01. This license is held by the Department of Defense, Defense Intelligence Agency (the Licensee), for activities conducted at the Redstone Arsenal facility, located in Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. As part of its license renewal, the Licensee has requested an exemption from the requirement in 10 CFR 30.32(g) to list sealed sources by their manufacturer and model number as registered under the provisions of 10 CFR 32.210. The Licensee requested this exemption in a letter received on November 1, 2005. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment
(EA)in support of this proposed action in accordance with the requirements of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51). Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate with respect to the proposed action. The license renewal, including the approval of the exemption request, will be issued to the Licensee following the publication of this FONSI and EA in the **Federal Register** . II. Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Action The proposed action would renew License No. 01-25316-01, including approval of the Licensee's request for exemption received on November 1, 2005. License No. 01-25316-01 was issued on January 26, 1995, pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30 and 70, and has been amended periodically since that time. This license authorized the Licensee to receive, store, use and/or transfer specified radioactive materials incident to research and development as defined in 10 CFR 30.4. On December 29, 2004, the Licensee submitted its renewal application for License No. 01-25316-01. In a letter received on November 1, 2005, submitted in response to an inquiry from the NRC, the Licensee requested an exemption from the requirement in 10 CFR 30.32(g) to list sealed sources by their manufacturer and model number as registered under the provisions of 10 CFR 32.210. In requesting this exemption, the Licensee states that the sole purpose of possessing the sealed sources on this license “is to be able to remove and store for disposal devices of foreign manufacture which may be contained on, or in, foreign military vehicles or conveyances.” Furthermore, the Licensee states that it will not know in advance what sources or devices may be received at its facility and that, in the interest of national security and Department of Defense policy, the sources or origination of foreign equipment cannot be revealed. The Licensee states that it immediately surveys all such foreign vehicles for radioactive material and places them in storage for future disposal if radioactive contamination is found. Need for the Proposed Action The Licensee receives and takes possession of sealed sources and devices which have not been registered with the NRC under 10 CFR 32.210 or with an Agreement State. As these sources and devices are of foreign manufacture, the Licensee would not be able to continue this activity without this exemption. Technical Analysis of the Proposed Action 10 CFR 30.11(a) states that the Commission may grant such exemptions from the requirements of the regulations as it determines are authorized by law, will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and are otherwise in the public interest. The NRC staff has analyzed the Licensee's request to be authorized to receive and take possession of sealed sources and devices which have not been registered with the NRC under 10 CFR 32.210 or with an Agreement State. The NRC staff considered that the Licensee is qualified by sufficient training and experience and has sufficient facilities and equipment to handle these sources and devices. Furthermore, NRC inspections have evaluated the Licensee's performance and determined that the Licensee has safely handled these unregistered sources for many years. Accordingly, the NRC staff has concluded that granting this exemption is authorized by law, will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and is in the public interest. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The proposed action is largely administrative in nature. Approving this exemption will have no environmental impact. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action Due to the largely administrative nature of the proposed action, its environmental impacts are small. Additionally, denying the exemption request would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the no-action alternative are therefore similar, and the no-action alternative is accordingly not further considered. Conclusion The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment. The NRC staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred alternative. Agencies and Persons Consulted The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a procedural nature, and will not affect listed species or critical habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed action. On the basis of this EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for exemption and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The documents related to this action are listed below, along with their ADAMS accession numbers. 1. Licensee renewal application dated December 29, 2004 [ML081780249] 2. Licensee letter received November 1, 2005 [ML081780216] If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room
(PDR)Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr.resource@nrc.gov* . These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this 26th day of June 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. James P. Dwyer, Chief, Commercial and R&D Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I. [FR Doc. E8-15673 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Notice of Issuance of Regulatory Guide AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of Issuance and Availability of Regulatory Guide 10.6, Revision 2. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Orr, Regulatory Guide Development Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone
(301)415-6373 or e-mail to *Mark.Orr@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is issuing a revision to an existing guide in the agency's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe and make available to the public information such as methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the agency's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses. Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 10.6, “Guide for the Preparation of Applications for an Industrial Radiography License,” was issued with a temporary identification as Draft Regulatory Guide DG-0016. This guide directs the reader to the type of information needed by the NRC staff to evaluate an application for an industrial radiography (radiography) license. The term “radiography” as used in this guide means an examination of the structure of materials by nondestructive methods using ionizing radiation from gamma-emitting byproduct materials (radioisotopes) to produce radiographic images. This guide does not address the research and development of radiography devices or associated equipment, or the commercial aspects of manufacturing, distributing, and servicing such devices and equipment. The regulatory framework that the NRC has established for radiography includes Title 10, Part 30, “Rules of General Applicability to Domestic Licensing of Byproduct Material,” of the *Code of Federal Regulations* (10 CFR part 30); 10 CFR part 34, “Licenses for Industrial Radiography and Radiation Safety Requirements for Industrial Radiographic Operations;” and NRC Form 313, “Application for Materials License.” This regulatory guide endorses the methods and procedures contained in the current revision of NUREG-1556, Volume 2, “Consolidated Guidance About Material Licenses: Program-Specific Guidance About Industrial Radiography Licenses,” as a process that the NRC staff finds acceptable for meeting the regulatory requirements and providing the criteria for evaluating a radiography license application. II. Further Information In January 2008, DG-0016 was published with a public comment period of 60 days from the issuance of the guide. No comments were received and the public comment period closed on April 18, 2008. Electronic copies of Regulatory Guide 10.6, Revision 2 are available through the NRC's public Web site under “Regulatory Guides” at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/* . In addition, regulatory guides are available for inspection at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), which is located at Room O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738. The PDR's mailing address is USNRC PDR, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The PDR can also be reached by telephone at
(301)415-4737 or
(800)397-4209, by fax at
(301)415-3548, and by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and NRC approval is not required to reproduce them. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of July, 2008. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Stephen C. O'Connor, Chief, Regulatory Guide Development Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. [FR Doc. E8-15677 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee; Notice of Meeting The ACRS Subcommittee on Plant Operations & Fire Protection will hold a meeting on July 24, 2007, at the U.S. NRC Region III, 2443 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL. The entire meeting will be open to public attendance. The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: *Thursday July 24, 2008—8:30 a.m.-2:30 p.m.* The Subcommittee and Region III will discuss implementation of significant safety issues and programs. Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Ms. Maitri Banerjee (telephone 301-415-6973) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted. Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 6:45 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda. Dated: July 2, 2008. Christopher L. Brown, Acting Branch Chief, ACRS. [FR Doc. E8-15691 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Public Availability of Fiscal Year 2007 Agency Inventories Under the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act AGENCY: Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President. ACTION: Notice of Public Availability of Agency Inventory of Activities That Are Not Inherently Governmental and of Activities That Are Inherently Governmental. SUMMARY: The Federal Activities Inventory Reform
(FAIR)Act, Public Law 105-270, requires agencies to develop inventories each year of activities performed by their employees that are not inherently governmental—i.e., inventories of commercial activities. The FAIR Act further requires OMB to review the inventories in consultation with the agencies and publish a notice of public availability in the **Federal Register** after the consultation process is completed. In accordance with the FAIR Act, OMB is publishing this notice to announce the availability of inventories from the agencies listed below. These inventories identify both commercial activities and activities that are inherently governmental. This is the second and final release of the FAIR Act inventories for FY 2007. Interested parties who disagree with the agency's initial judgment may challenge the inclusion or the omission of an activity on the list of activities that are not inherently governmental within 30 working days and, if not satisfied with this review, may appeal to a higher level within the agency. The Office of Federal Procurement Policy has made available a FAIR Act User's Guide through its Internet site: *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/procurement/fair-index.html* . This User's Guide will help interested parties review FY 2007 FAIR Act inventories. Paul A. Denett, Administrator. Second FAIR Act Release FY 2007 African Development Foundation Mr. Larry Bevan,
(202)673-3916 x113, *www.adf.gov* . American Battle Monuments Commission Mr. Alan Gregory,
(703)696-6868, *www.abmc.gov/other/fair.htm* . Arlington National Cemetery Mr. Rory Smith,
(703)607-8561, *www.arlingtoncemetery.org* . Armed Forces Retirement Home Mr. Steven G. McManus,
(202)730-3533, *www.afrh.gov* . Broadcasting Board of Governors Ms. Cathy Brown,
(202)203-4608, *www.bbg.gov* . Consumer Product Safety Commission Mr. Edward Quist,
(301)504-7655, *www.cpsc.gov* . Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia Mr. James Williams,
(202)220-5707, *www.csosa.gov* . Department of Defense Ms. Monica Kelliher-Hamby,
(703)602-3666, *web.lmi.org/fairnet* . Department of Defense
(IG)Mr. Stephen D. Wilson,
(703)604-8306, *www.dodig.mil* . Department of Energy Mr. Dennis O'Brien,
(202)586-1690, *www.mbe.doe.gov/me2-1/a76/csa76.htm* . Department of Labor
(IG)Mr. David LeDoux,
(202)693-5138, *www.oig.dol.gov/2006fair_act.htm* . Department of the Interior
(IG)Mr. Roy Kime,
(202)208-6232, *www.oig.doi.gov* . Department of Transportation
(IG)Ms. Jacquelyn Weber,
(202)366-1495, *www.oig.dot.gov* . Department of Veterans Affairs Ms. Julie Plush,
(202)461-5810, *www.va.gov/op3/* . Environmental Protection Agency
(IG)Mr. Michael J. Binder
(202)566-2617, *www.epa.gov/oig* . Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service Mr. Dan Ellerman,
(202)606-5460, *www.fmcs.gov/internet* . Federal Election Commission Ms. Tina VanBrakle,
(202)694-1006, *www.fec.gov/pages/fair.shtml* . Federal Labor Relations Authority Ms. Jill Crumpacker,
(202)218-7900, *www.flra.gov* . Inter-American Foundation Ms. Linda Kolko,
(703)306-4308, *www.iaf.gov* . International Trade Commission Mr. Stephen McLaughlin,
(202)205-3131, *www.usitc.gov* . Merit Systems Protection Board Mr. Wade Douglas,
(202)653-6772 x1118, *www.mspb.gov* . National Endowment for the Humanities Mr. Barry Maynes,
(202)606-8233, *www.neh.gov* . National Gallery of Art Mr. William W. McClure,
(202)312-2760, *www.nga.gov* . National Labor Relations Board Ms. Demetria Gregory,
(202)273-0054, *www.nlrb.gov* . National Labor Relations Board
(IG)Mr. Lester Heltzer,
(202)273-1067, *www.nlrb.gov* . National Science Foundation Mr. Joseph Burt,
(703)292-8108, *www.nsf.gov/publications* . National Transportation Safety Board Ms. Carol Belovitch,
(202)314-6232, *www.ntsb.gov/info/fair_act_2007.htm* . Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. Mary Lynn Scott,
(301)415-7305, *www.nrc.gov* . Nuclear Regulatory Commission OIG Mr. David Lee,
(301)415-5930, *www.nrc.gov/insp-gen/fairact-inventory.html* . Office of Management and Budget Ms. Lauren Wright,
(202)395-3970, *www.whitehouse.gov/omb/procurement/fair/notices_avail.html* . Office of National Drug Control Policy Mr. Daniel Petersen,
(202)395-6745, *www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov* . Office of the U.S. Trade Representative Ms. Susan Buck,
(202)395-9412, *www.ustr.gov* . Peace Corps Ms. Caroline Allen,
(202)962-1096, *www.peacecorps.gov/index.cfm?shell=pchq.policies.docs* . Railroad Retirement Board
(IG)Mr. William Tebbe,
(312)751-4350, *www.rrb.gov/mep/oig.asp* . Securities and Exchange Commission Mr. Jeffrey Risinger,
(202)551-7446, *www.sec.gov* . Selective Service System Mr. Calvin Montgomery,
(703)605-4038, *www.sss.gov* . Small Business Administration
(IG)Mr. Robert Fisher,
(202)205-6583, *www.sba.gov/ig/OIG_Fair.html* . U.S. Agency for International Development Ms. Deborah Lewis,
(202)712-0936, *www.usaid.gov/business/regulations/fair/* . U.S. Agency for International Development
(IG)Mr. Robert Ross,
(202)712-1331, *www.usaid.gov/oig/public/public1.htm* . U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Ms. Delores Padgett,
(571)272-6738, *www.uspto.gov* . U.S. Trade Development Agency Ms. Carolyn Hum,
(703)875-4357, *www.tda.gov* . [FR Doc. E8-15737 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3110-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC 20549-0213. Extension: “Investor Form” SEC File No. 270-485; OMB Control No. 3235-0547. 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 (“SEC”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a request to approve the collection of information discussed below. Investors who submit complaints, ask questions, or provide tips to the SEC do so voluntarily. To make it easier for the public to contact the agency electronically, the SEC created a series of investor complaint and question web forms. Investors can access these forms through the SEC Center for Complaints and Enforcement Tips at *http://www.sec.gov/complaint.shtml.* The SEC is now going to consolidate those forms into one form (the Investor Form) which will ask for the same information, but also provide several drop down options to choose from in order to categorize the investor's complaint, and possibly provide the investor with information about that issue. The investor will have the same opportunity to describe their complaint, and they will be free to submit it without their name or contact information. Although the Investor Form provides a structured format for incoming investor correspondence, the SEC does not require that investors use any particular form or format when contacting the agency. To the contrary, investors may submit complaints, questions, and tips through a variety of other means, including telephone, letter, facsimile, or e-mail. Approximately 20,000 investors each year voluntarily choose to use the complaint and question forms. Investors who choose not to use the Investor Form receive the same level of service as those who do. The dual purpose of the form is to make it easier for the public to contact the agency with complaints, questions, tips, or other feedback and to streamline the workflow of the SEC staff who handle those contacts. The SEC has used—and will continue to use—the information that investors supply on the complaint and question forms, and the Investor Form to review and process the contact (which may, in turn, involve responding to questions, processing complaints, or, as appropriate, initiating enforcement investigations), to maintain a record of contacts, to track the volume of investor complaints, and to analyze trends. As with the previous forms, the Investor Form will ask investors to provide information concerning, among other things, their names, how they can be reached, the names of the individuals or entities involved, the nature of their complaint or tip, what documents they can provide, and what, if any, actions they have taken. Use of the Investor Form is strictly voluntary. Moreover, the SEC does not require investors to submit complaints, questions, tips, or other feedback. Absent the forms, the public still has several ways to contact the agency, including telephone, facsimile, letters, and e-mail. Nevertheless, the SEC created these forms to make it easier for the public to contact the agency with complaints, questions, or tips. The forms further streamline the workflow of SEC staff who record, process, and respond to investor contacts. The staff of the SEC estimates that the total reporting burden for using the complaint and question forms is 5,000 hours. The calculation of this estimate depends on the number of investors who use the forms each year and the estimated time it takes to complete the forms: 20,000 respondents × 15 minutes = 5,000 burden hours. Members of the public should be aware that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number is displayed. General comments regarding the above information should be directed to the following persons:
(i)Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or send an e-mail to *Alexander_T._Hunt@omb.eop.gov* ; and
(ii)Lewis W. Walker, Acting Director and Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312, or send an e-mail to *PRA_mailbox@sec.gov* . Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice. Dated: July 2, 2008. Florence E. Harmon, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-15640 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-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 17Ab2-1, Form CA-1; SEC File No. 270-203; OMB Control No. 3235-0195. 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 17Ab2-1 and Form CA-1: Registration of Clearing Agencies (17 CFR 240.17Ab2-1). Rule 17Ab2-1 and Form CA-1 require clearing agencies to register with the Commission and to meet certain requirements with regard to, among other things, a clearing agency's organization, capacities, and rules. The information is collected from the clearing agency upon the initial application for registration on Form CA-1. Thereafter, information is collected by amendment to the initial Form CA-1 when material changes in circumstances necessitate modification of the information previously provided to the Commission. The Commission uses the information disclosed on Form CA-1 to
(i)Determine whether an applicant meets the standards for registration set forth in Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”),
(ii)enforce compliance with the Exchange Act's registration requirement, and
(iii)provide information about specific registered clearing agencies for compliance and investigatory purposes. Without Rule 17Ab2-1, the Commission could not perform these duties as statutorily required. There are currently approximately six operational clearing agencies and five clearing agencies that have been granted an exemption from registration. The Commission staff estimates that each initial Form CA-1 requires approximately 130 hours to complete and submit for approval. Hours required for amendments to Form CA-1 that must be submitted to the Commission in connection with material changes to the initial CA-1 can vary, depending upon the nature and extent of the amendment. Since the Commission only receives an average of one submission per year, the aggregate annual burden associated with compliance with Rule 17Ab2-1 and Form CA-1 is 130 hours. Based upon the staff's experience, the average cost to clearing agencies of preparing and filing the initial Form CA-1 is estimated to be $18,000. Written comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 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. Please direct your written comments to Lewis W. Walker, Acting 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* . Dated: July 2, 2008. Florence E. Harmon, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-15641 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-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 17Ad-3(b); SEC File No. 270-424; OMB Control No. 3235-0473. 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 17Ad-3(b) (17 CFR 240.17Ad-3(b)). Rule 17Ad-3(b) requires registered transfer agents that for each of two consecutive months have failed to turnaround at least 75% of all routine items in accordance with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-2(a) or to process at least 75% of all routine items in accordance with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-2(a) to send to the chief executive officer of each issuer for which such registered transfer agent acts a copy of the written notice required under Rule 17Ad-2(c), (d), and (h). The issuer may use the information contained in the notices in several ways:
(1)To provide an early warning to the issuer of the transfer agent's non-compliance with the Commission's minimum performance standards regarding registered transfer agents, and
(2)to assure that issuers are aware of certain problems and poor performances with respect to the transfer agents that are servicing the issuer's securities. If the issuer does not receive notice of a registered transfer agent's failure to comply with the Commission's minimum performance standards, then the issuer will be unable to take remedial action to correct the problem or to find another registered transfer agent. Pursuant to Rule 17Ad-3(b), a transfer agent that has already filed a Notice of Non-Compliance with the Commission pursuant to Rule 17Ad-2 will only be required to send a copy of that notice to issuers for which it acts when that transfer agent fails to turnaround 75% of all routine items or to process 75% of all items. The Commission estimates that only two transfer agents will meet the requirements of Rule 17Ad-3(b). If a transfer agent fails to meet the minimum requirements under 17Ad-3(b), such transfer agent is simply sending a copy of a form that had already been produced for the Commission. The Commission estimates a requirement will take each respondent approximately one hour to complete, for a total annual estimate burden of two hours at cost of approximately $60.00 for each hour. Written comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions for the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate 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. Please direct your written comments to Lewis W. Walker, Acting 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* . Dated: July 2, 2008. Florence E. Harmon, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-15642 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-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 17f-7; SEC File No. 270-470; OMB Control No. 3235-0529. 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 collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit the existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for extension and approval. Rule 17f-7 (17 CFR 270.17f-7) permits funds to maintain their assets in foreign securities depositories based on conditions that reflect the operations and role of these depositories. 1 Rule 17f-7 contains some “collection of information” requirements. An eligible securities depository has to meet minimum standards for a depository. The fund or its investment adviser generally determines whether the depository complies with those requirements based on information provided by the fund's primary custodian (a bank that acts as global custodian). The depository custody arrangement has to meet certain risk limiting requirements. The fund can obtain indemnification or insurance arrangements that adequately protect the fund against custody risks. The fund or its investment adviser generally determines whether indemnification or insurance provisions are adequate. If the fund does not rely on indemnification or insurance, the fund's contract with its primary custodian is required to state that the custodian will provide to the fund or its investment adviser a custody risk analysis of each depository, monitor risks on a continuous basis, and promptly notify the fund or its adviser of material changes in risks. The primary custodian and other custodians also are required to agree to exercise reasonable care. 1 Custody of Investment Company Assets Outside the United States, Investment Company Act Release No. 23815 (April 29, 1999) (64 FR 24489 (May 6, 1999)). The collection of information requirements in rule 17f-7 are intended to provide workable standards that protect funds from the risks of using securities depositories while assigning appropriate responsibilities to the fund's primary custodian and investment adviser based on their capabilities. The requirement that the depository meet specified minimum standards is intended to ensure that the depository is subject to basic safeguards deemed appropriate for all depositories. The requirement that the custody contract state that the fund's primary custodian will provide an analysis of the custody risks of depository arrangements, monitor the risks, and report on material changes is intended to provide essential information about custody risks to the fund's investment adviser as necessary for it to approve the continued use of the depository. The requirement that the primary custodian agree to exercise reasonable care is intended to provide assurances that its services and the information it provides will meet an appropriate standard of care. The alternative requirement that the funds obtain adequate indemnification or insurance against the custody risks of depository arrangements is intended to provide another, potentially less burdensome means to protect assets held in depository arrangements. The staff estimates that each of approximately 828 investment advisers 2 would make an average of 7 responses annually under the rule to address depository compliance with minimum requirements, any indemnification or insurance arrangements, and reviews of risk analyses or notifications. The staff estimates each response would take 5.5 hours, requiring a total of approximately 38.5 hours for each adviser. The total annual burden associated with these requirements of the rule would be approximately 31,878 hours (828 advisers × 38.5 hours per adviser). The staff further estimates that during each year, each of approximately 15 global custodians would make an average of 4 responses to analyze custody risks and provide notice of any material changes to custody risk under the rule. The staff estimates that each response would take 250.25 hours, requiring approximately 1001 hours annually per custodian. 3 The total annual burden associated with these requirements of the new rule would be approximately 15,015 hours (15 custodians × 1001 hours). Therefore, the staff estimates that the total annual burden associated with all collection of information requirements of the rule would be 46,893 hours (31,878 + 15,015). The total annual cost of burden hours is estimated to be $10,081,302 (31,878 × $239 for a portfolio manager, plus 15,015 hours × $164/hour for a trust administrator's time). 4 The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms. Compliance with the collection of information requirements of the rule is necessary to obtain the benefit of relying on the rule's permission for funds to maintain their assets in foreign custodians. 2 At the start of 2008, there were more than 9300 open-end (including ETFs) portfolios and closed-end funds. These entities were managed or sponsored by more 828 investment advisers. 3 These estimates are based on conversations with representatives of the fund industry and global custodians. 4 The salaries for a portfolio manager and a trust administrator are from SIFMA's Management & Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2007, modified to account for an 1800-hour work-year and multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits and overhead. Written comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the collection of information is 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 burden of the collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 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. Please direct your written comments to Lewis W. Walker, Acting Director/CIO, 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: July 2, 2008. Florence E. Harmon, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-15643 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-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 10A-1; SEC File No. 270-425; OMB Control No. 3235-0468. 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 10A-1 (17 CFR 240.10A-1) implements the reporting requirements in Section 10A of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78j-1), which was enacted by Congress on December 22, 1995 as part of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Public Law No. 104-67, 109 Stat 737. Under section 10A and Rule 10A-1 reporting occurs only if a registrant's board of directors receives a report from its auditors that
(1)there is an illegal act material to the registrant's financial statements,
(2)senior management and the board have not taken timely and appropriate remedial action, and
(3)the failure to take such action is reasonably expected to warrant the auditor's modification of the audit report or resignation from the audit engagement. The board of directors must notify the Commission within one business day of receiving such a report. If the board fails to provide that notice, then the auditor, within the next business day, must provide the Commission with a copy of the report that it gave to the board. Likely respondents are those registrants filing audited financial statements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a, *et seq.* ) and the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1, *et seq.* ). It is estimated that Rule 10A-1 results in an aggregate additional reporting burden of 10 hours per year. The estimated average burden hours are solely for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of SEC rules or forms. Written comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 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. 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, Virginia 22312; or send an e-mail to: *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov* . Dated: June 30, 2008. Florence E. Harmon, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-15676 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-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 17f-2(d); SEC File No. 270-36; OMB Control No. 3235-0028. 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 17f-2(d) (17 CFR 240.17f-2(d)). Rule 17f-2(d) was adopted on March 16, 1976, and was last amended on November 18, 1982. Paragraph
(d)of the rule
(i)requires that records produced pursuant to the fingerprinting requirements of Section 17(f)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) be maintained,
(ii)permits the designated examining authorities of broker-dealers or members of exchanges, under certain circumstances, to store and maintain records required to be kept by this rule, and
(iii)permits the required records to be maintained on microfilm. The general purpose for Rule 17f-2 is:
(i)To identify security risk personnel;
(ii)to provide criminal record information so that employers can make fully informed employment decisions; and
(iii)to deter persons with criminal records from seeking employment or association with covered entities. Retention of fingerprint records, as required under paragraph
(d)of the Rule, enables the Commission or other examining authority to ascertain whether all required persons are being fingerprinted and whether proper procedures regarding fingerprints are being followed. Retention of these records for the term of employment of all personnel plus three years ensures that law enforcement officials will have easy access to fingerprint cards on a timely basis. This in turn acts as an effective deterrent to employee misconduct. Approximately 5,984 respondents are subject to the recordkeeping requirements of the rule. Each respondent keeps approximately 62 new records per year, which takes approximately 2 minutes per record for the respondent to maintain, for an annual burden of approximately 2 hours per respondent or a total annual burden of approximately 11,968 hours on all respondents, collectively. All records subject to the rule must be retained for the term of employment plus 3 years. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Written comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 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. Please direct your written comments to Lewis W. Walker, Acting 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* . Dated: July 7, 2008. Florence E. Harmon, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-15683 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-58083; File No. SR-Amex-2008-57] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Quarterly Options Series Pilot Program July 2, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on June 27, 2008, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Exchange” or “Amex”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated this proposal as non-controversial under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to extend for one year, through July 10, 2009, its pilot program allowing the listing and trading of options series that expire at the close of business on the last business day of a calendar quarter (the “Pilot Program”). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site ( *http://www.amex.com* ), at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange is proposing to extend the Pilot Program from July 10, 2008, through and including July 10, 2009. The Pilot Program was originally approved by the Commission in July 2006, 5 and subsequently extended in July 2007. 6 The Pilot Program permits the Amex to accommodate the listing and trading of options series that expire at the close of business on the last business day of a calendar quarter (“Quarterly Options Series”). The Exchange as well as the other options exchanges recently amended the Pilot Program to permit the listing of additional Quarterly Options Series relating to exchange-traded fund (“ETF”) shares. 7 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54137 (July 12, 2006), 71 FR 41283 (July 20, 2006) (SR-Amex-2006-67). 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56032 (July 9, 2007), 72 FR 38634 (July 13, 2007) (SR-Amex-2007-66). 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57581 (March 31, 2008), 73 FR 18593 (April 4, 2008) (SR-Amex-2008-31) (“Pilot Expansion”). The Pilot Expansion permits the listing of additional series and establishes a delisting policy for outlying series with no open interest. The Exchange submits that Quarterly Options Series are beneficial to the marketplace and provide investors an additional risk management tool. Amex Rules 900(b)(45) and 900C(c)(26) define “Quarterly Options Series” as a series of an options class or an index options class, respectively, that is approved for listing and trading on the Exchange in which the series is opened for trading on any business day and that expires at the close of business on the last business day of a calendar quarter. Quarterly Options Series are limited to options classes that are either stock index options or options on ETF shares and can be opened on a business day (“Quarterly Options Opening Date”). Commentary .09 to Amex Rule 903 and Amex Rule 903C(a)(iv) set forth the requirements for listing such options on the Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange lists series that expire at the end of the next four consecutive calendar quarters, as well as the fourth quarter of the next calendar year. The Exchange has submitted a report (“Report”) providing data regarding the Pilot Program as required in the original approval of the Pilot Program 8 as amended by the Pilot Expansion. 9 Under the terms of the Pilot Program, the Exchange selected
(5)option classes on which Quarterly Options Series may be opened on any Quarterly Options Opening Date. Also under the terms of the Pilot Program, the Exchange may list those Quarterly Options Series on any option class that is selected by another securities exchange with a similar Pilot Program under its rules. 8 The Report submitted to the Commission is required to include, at a minimum:
(1)Data and written analysis on the open interest and trading volume in the classes for which Quarterly Options Series were opened;
(2)an assessment of the appropriateness of the option classes selected for the Pilot Program;
(3)an assessment of the impact of the Pilot Program on the capacity on the Amex, OPRA and on market data vendors (to the extent data from market data vendors is available);
(4)any capacity problems or other problems that arose during the operation of the Pilot Program and how the Amex addressed such problems;
(5)any complaints that the Amex received during the operation of the Pilot Program and how the Amex addressed them; and
(6)any additional information that would assist the Commission in assessing the operation of the Pilot Program. 9 In connection with the Pilot Expansion ( *see supra* note 7), the Commission required that the Report also include an analysis of
(1)the impact of the additional series on the Exchange's market and quote capacity, and
(2)the implementation and effects of the delisting policy, including the number of series eligible for delisting during the period covered by the report, the number of series actually de-listed during that period (pursuant to the delisting policy or otherwise), and documentation of any customer requests to maintain Quarterly Options Series strikes that were otherwise eligible for delisting. As noted in the Report, the Exchange has not selected any additional ETF or stock index options for the Pilot at this time. As the data in the Report indicate, the Amex volume trends in Quarterly Options Series as compared to all options in the Pilot securities show higher utilization rates throughout the year. Specifically, an examination of monthly volume in Quarterly Options Series as compared to all options in the Pilot Program securities shows a monthly average of 7.5% or 335,383 contracts per month. Notable are the higher utilization rates seen in the calendar quarters of December 2007 and May 2008 that were 12.94% and 21.53%, respectively. The Exchange believes that the December 2007 figures demonstrate that Quarterly Options Series increasingly are used by participants looking to hedge exposures through the end of a given calendar quarter. With respect to the large increase in utilization of Quarterly Options Series during May 2008, the data indicate that the primary reason is due to trading in Select Energy SPDR options (XLE). The Exchange submits that based on greater volatility and price increases in recent months in the energy commodities sectors, XLE has concurrently shown increased interest and trading by investors. In connection with open interest, the Report reveals that, on average, Quarterly Options Series account for 15% of total open interest in Pilot Program securities. The open interest in Quarterly Options Series has generally trended higher during the time period evaluated. The December 2007 and March 2008 open interest in Quarterly Options Series were markedly higher, at 18.2% and 18.1% of total options open interest, respectively. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that an extension of the Pilot Program for one year, through July 10, 2009, is warranted in order to satisfy the institutional demand for such options and provide additional flexibility as well as an additional risk management tool to investors. The Exchange notes that it possesses the adequate systems capacity to support the trading of Quarterly Options Series. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6 of Act 10 in general and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 11 in particular in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange further believes that an extension of the Quarterly Options Series Pilot Program will benefit the marketplace and continue to provide investors additional risk management tools. 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one that:
(1)Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(2)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and
(3)does not become operative for 30 days from the date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 12 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. 13 12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 13 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has fulfilled this requirement. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the operative delay to permit the proposed rule change to become operative prior to the 30th day after filing. The Commission has determined that waiving the 30-day operative delay of the Exchange's proposal is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest and will promote competition because such waiver will allow the Exchange to continue the existing Quarterly Options Series Pilot Program without interruption. 14 Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal operative upon filing. 14 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File No. SR-Amex-2008-57 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2008-57. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Amex-2008-57 and should be submitted on or before July 31, 2008. 15 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 15 Florence E. Harmon, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-15636 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-58084; File No. SR-Amex-2008-55] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Short Term Option Series Pilot Program July 2, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on June 27, 2008, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated this proposal as non-controversial under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to extend the period for its Short Term Option Series pilot program (the “Pilot Program”) for an additional year, through July 12, 2009. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site ( *http://www.amex.com* ), at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose On July 12, 2005, the Commission initially approved the Pilot Program. 5 On July 11, 2007, the Pilot Program was extended through July 12, 2008. 6 The Exchange now proposes to extend the Pilot Program for an additional year, through July 12, 2009. The Pilot Program allows the Amex to list and trade options series that expire one week after the date on which the series is opened (“Short Term Option Series”). 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52014 (July 12, 2005), 70 FR 41244 (July 18, 2005) (SR-Amex-2005-035). 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56046 (July 11, 2007), 72 FR 39105 (July 17, 2007) (SR-Amex-2007-62). The Exchange believes that Short Term Option Series may provide investors with a flexible and valuable tool to manage risk exposure, minimize capital outlays, and be more responsive to the timing of events affecting the securities that underlie option contracts. At the same time, however, the Exchange is cognizant of the need to be cautious in introducing a product that can increase the number of outstanding strike prices. In its original proposal to establish the Pilot Program, the Exchange stated that if it were to propose an extension of the program, the Amex would submit a Pilot Program report (“Report”) that would provide analysis of the Pilot Program covering the entire period during which the Pilot Program was in effect. Because the Exchange has yet to list any Short Term Option Series during the Pilot Program, there is no data available to prepare the Report at this time, and accordingly, the Exchange has not submitted a Report with this proposal to extend the Pilot Program. The Exchange notes that it possesses the adequate systems capacity to trade any Short Term Options Series, should any be listed in the future. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6 of the Act 7 in general and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 8 in particular in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that continuing the Pilot Program for Short Term Option Series can stimulate customer interest in options and provide a flexible and valuable tool to manage risk exposure, minimize capital outlays and be more responsive to the timing of events affecting the securities that underlie option contracts. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 8 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one that:
(1)Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(2)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and
(3)does not become operative for 30 days from the date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 9 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. 10 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 10 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has fulfilled this requirement. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the operative delay to permit the proposed rule change to become operative prior to the 30th day after filing. The Commission has determined that waiving the 30-day operative delay of the Exchange's proposal is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest and will promote competition because such waiver will allow Amex to continue the existing Pilot Program without interruption. 11 Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal operative upon filing. 11 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File No. SR-Amex-2008-55 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2008-55. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Amex-2008-55 and should be submitted on or before July 31, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 12 12 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-15637 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-58086; File No. SR-Amex-2008-52] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to an Extension of the Linkage Fee Pilot Program July 2, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on June 26, 2008, the American Stock Exchange, LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared substantially by 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 Exchange proposes to extend for one
(1)year through July 31, 2009, the current pilot program (“Pilot Program”) regarding transaction fees for trades executed through the intermarket options linkage (“Linkage”). The text of the proposed rule change is available at *www.amex.com* , the Exchange, and the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Amex is proposing to extend for one
(1)year through July 31, 2009, the current Pilot Program establishing Exchange fees for Principal Orders (“P Orders”) and Principal Acting As Agent Orders (“P/A Orders”) submitted through the Linkage. This proposal does not make any substantive changes to the existing Pilot Program, other than to extend its operation through July 31, 2009. The fees in connection with the Pilot Program are scheduled to expire on July 31, 2008. 3 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56102 (July 19, 2007), 72 FR 40908 (July 25, 2007) (SR-Amex-2007-64). The current fees applicable to P Orders and P/A Orders executed on the Exchange are as follows:
(i)$0.10 per contract side options transaction fee for equity options, exchange traded fund share (“ETF”) options and trust issued receipt (HOLDR) options,
(ii)$0.21 per contract side options transaction fee for index options,
(iii)$0.05 per contract side options comparison fee,
(iv)$0.05 per contract side options floor brokerage fee, and
(v)an options licensing fee for certain ETF and index option products ranging from $0.16 per contract side to $0.05 per contract side depending on the particular ETF or index option. 4 These are the same fees charged to specialists and registered option traders (“ROTs”) for transactions executed on the Exchange. The Exchange does not charge for the execution of Satisfaction Orders sent through the Linkage. 4 *See* the Options Licensing Fee section of the Amex Options Fee Schedule available at *www.amex.com.* The Options Fee Schedule also provides that automatically executed Linkage Orders (except Satisfaction Orders) are subject to the “BD Auto-Ex Fee” set forth in Section VII of the Fee Schedule. 5 As a result, the Linkage Orders (except Satisfaction Orders) received by the Exchange from a non-member market maker ( *i.e.* an away market maker) that are automatically executed are charged
(i)a $0.50 per contract side options transaction fee,
(ii)a $0.05 per contract side options comparison fee and
(iii)a $0.05 per contract side options floor brokerage fee. Accordingly, the total transaction fee for Linkage Orders received by a non-member market maker that is automatically executed is $0.60 per contract side. 6 5 The BD Auto-Ex Fee provides that broker-dealer orders that are automatically executed on the Exchange are subject to
(i)a $0.50 per contract side options transaction fee for equity options, ETF share options, trust issued receipt (HOLDR) options and index options,
(ii)$0.05 per contract side options comparison fee and
(iii)$0.05 per contract side options floor brokerage fee. 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57589 (April 1, 2008), 73 FR 18827 (April 7, 2008) (SR-Amex-2008-09). As was the case in the original Pilot Program and subsequent extensions, the Exchange believes that the existing fees currently charged to Exchange specialists and ROTs should also apply to Linkage executions resulting from P/A and P Orders. Based on experience to date, the Exchange believes that an extension of the Pilot Program for one
(1)year through July 31, 2009 is appropriate. 2. Statutory Basis The proposed fee change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 7 regarding the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among Exchange members and other persons using Exchange facilities. The Exchange believes that an extension of the existing Linkage fee Pilot Program is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) and equitably allocates fees to those non-member market makers executing orders on the Exchange through the Linkage. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The proposed rule change will impose no burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 8 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder 9 because:
(i)It does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii)it does not impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii)by its terms, it does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest; provided that the self-regulatory organization has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change. 10 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 9 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 10 The Exchange satisfied this pre-filing requirement. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-Amex-2008-52 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2008-52. 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 such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2008-52 and should be submitted on or before July 31, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 11 11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-15638 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-58082; File No. SRVBSE-2008-35] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Extending the Current Pilot Program for Linkage Fees on the Boston Options Exchange Facility July 2, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on June 23, 2008, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (“BSE” 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 self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange is proposing to amend the Fee Schedule of the Boston Options Exchange (“BOX”), the options trading facility of the BSE, to extend until July 31, 2009, the current pilot program applicable to the options intermarket linkage (“Linkage”) fees. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.bse.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 self-regulatory organization 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 self-regulatory organization 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's fees for Principal (“P”) and Principal Acting as Agent (“P/A”) Orders 3 executed on BOX currently operate under a pilot program scheduled to expire on July 31, 2008. 4 The Exchange proposes to extend the current pilot program for such Linkage fees through July 31, 2009. The Exchange is not proposing any changes other than changing the date. Because all Linkage orders received by BOX are for the account of a market maker on another exchange, Linkage fees that are applicable to P and P/A orders are the same as fees applicable to market makers on other exchanges that submit orders to BOX outside of Linkage. The side of a BOX trade opposite an inbound P or P/A order would be billed normally as any other BOX trade. Consistent with the Linkage Plan, no fees will be charged to a party sending a Satisfaction Order to BOX. Rather, a fee will be charged to the BOX Participant that was responsible for the trade-through that caused the Satisfaction Order to be sent. 3 Under Section 1(j) of Chapter XII of the BOX Rules, a “Linkage Order” means an Immediate or Cancel order routed through Linkage. There are three types of Linkage Orders:
(i)“P/A Order,” which is an order for the principal account of a Market Maker (or equivalent entity on another Participant Exchange that is authorized to represent Public Customer orders), reflecting the terms of a related unexecuted Public Customer order for which the Market Maker is acting as agent;
(ii)“P Order,” which is an order for the principal account of a market maker (or equivalent entity on another Participant exchange) and is not a P/A Order; and
(iii)“Satisfaction Order,” which is an order sent through the Linkage to notify a Participant Exchange of a Trade-Through and to seek satisfaction of the liability arising from that Trade Through. 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56167 (July 30, 2007), 72 FR 43302 (August 3, 2007) (SR-BSE-2007-33). *See also* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54225 (July 27, 2006), 71 FR 44056 (August 3, 2006) (SR-BSE 2006-26); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52147 (July 28, 2005) 70 FR 44706 (August 3, 2005) (SR-BSE 2005-28). The Exchange believes that extending the Linkage fee pilot program until July 31, 2009 will give the Exchange and the Commission additional time and opportunity to evaluate the appropriateness of Linkage fees. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, 5 in general, and Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, 6 in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. The proposed rule change will preserve the status quo of the pilot program without interruption as the Commission further reviews the area of Linkage fees. 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition 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 comments on the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action This proposed rule change is filed pursuant to paragraph
(A)of section 19(b)(3) of the Exchange Act 7 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 8 This proposed rule change does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, 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, provided that the self-regulatory organization has given 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. 9 7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 8 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 9 The Exchange has satisfied this pre-filing requirement. 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 the action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or would otherwise further the purposes of the Exchange 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-BSE-2008-35 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BSE-2008-35. 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 such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of BSE. 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-BSE-2008-35 and should be submitted on or before July 31, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 10 10 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-15625 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-58088; File No. SR-CBOE-2008-16] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change To Reduce Certain Order Exposure Times From Three Seconds to One Second July 2, 2008. I. Introduction On May 16, 2008, 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 reduce certain order exposure times from three seconds to one second. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on May 30, 2008. 3 The Commission received no comments 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 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57849 (May 22, 2008), 73 FR 31167 (May 30, 2008). II. Description of the Proposal The Exchange proposes to reduce the order handling and exposure periods contained in Rules 6.45A, *Priority and Allocation of Equity Option Trades on the CBOE Hybrid System* , 6.45B, *Priority and Allocation of Trades in Index Options and Options on ETFs on the CBOE Hybrid System* , 6.74A, *Automated Improvement Mechanism (“AIM”)* , and 6.74B, *Solicitation Auction Mechanism* , from three seconds to one second. Rules 6.45A and 6.45B provide that an order entry firm may not execute an order it represents as agent with a facilitation or solicited order (referred to herein as “crossing orders”) using the Hybrid Trading System (“Hybrid”) unless it first complies with the three-second exposure requirement. Specifically, order entry firms may not execute a facilitation cross unless:
(i)The agency order is first exposed on Hybrid for at least three seconds;
(ii)the order entry firm has been bidding or offering for at least three seconds prior to receiving the agency order that is executable against such bid or offer; or
(iii)the order entry firm proceeds in accordance with the floor-based open outcry crossing rules contained in CBOE Rule 6.74, *Crossing Orders* . Similarly, order entry firms may not execute an order they represent as agent against orders solicited from members and non-member broker-dealers unless the agency order is first exposed on Hybrid for at least three seconds. During this three-second exposure period for crossing orders, other members may enter orders to trade against the exposed order. CBOE proposes to reduce these exposure periods to one second. Rule 6.74A provides that orders entered into AIM must be exposed for a random time period that is not less than three seconds and not more than five seconds, to provide an opportunity for additional trading interest to be entered before the orders are automatically executed. Rule 6.74B provides that orders entered into the Solicitation Auction Mechanism (the “SAM Auction”) must be exposed for a three second period, also to provide an opportunity for additional trading interest to be entered before the orders are automatically executed. CBOE proposes to reduce the exposure period for AIM and the exposure period for the SAM Auction to one second. III. 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. 4 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 5 which, among other things, requires 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. The Commission also finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b)(8) of the Act, 6 which requires that the rules of an exchange not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 4 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). 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8). The Commission believes that, in the electronic environment of Hybrid, reducing each of the exposure periods from three seconds to one second could facilitate the prompt execution of orders, while continuing to provide participants in Hybrid with an opportunity to compete for exposed bids and offers. According to the Exchange, numerous CBOE market participants have the capability to and do opt to respond within a one-second exposure period on its Hybrid trading platform. Specifically, the Exchange noted that the exposure and allocation timers for the Exchange's Hybrid Agency Liaison (“HAL”) mechanism, which employs the same type of mechanical messaging as the AIM and SAM Auction mechanisms, are currently both set at 0.300 seconds and numerous market participants can and do opt to respond to HAL exposure messages within this time frame. The Exchange also noted that market participants receive mechanically messaged information about book updates, and are able to and do opt to automatically submit orders and quotes in response to those book updates on the Hybrid trading system, in substantially the same manner as they would respond to a HAL message. Accordingly, the Commission believes that it is consistent with the Act for these order exposure times to be reduced from three seconds to one second. IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 7 that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2008-16) be, and hereby is, approved. 7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 8 8 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-15628 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-58076; File No. SR-CBOE-2008-66] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to the Appointment Cost of RVX and VXN Options July 1, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on June 26, 2008, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the “Exchange” or “CBOE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a “non-controversial” proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 4 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend CBOE rules relating to the appointment cost for options on the CBOE Russell 2000 Volatility Index
(RVX)and options on the CBOE Nasdaq 100 Volatility Index (VXN). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site ( *http://www.cboe.org/Legal* ), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend CBOE Rule 8.3 relating to the appointment cost for options on the CBOE Russell 2000 Volatility Index
(RVX)and options on the CBOE Nasdaq 100 Volatility Index (VXN). Presently, RVX and VXN each have an appointment cost of .25. CBOE proposes to reduce the appointment cost of RVX and VXN such that they would fall within one of the six tiers according to trading volume, and be subject to the quarterly rebalancing of the tiers that CBOE conducts. It is currently anticipated that each would be placed in Tier F and have an appointment cost of .001. CBOE is proposing to lower the appointment cost in these two option classes in light of their trading volume, which CBOE does not believe justifies a weighting of .25. Also, CBOE believes it would be appropriate for these two classes to be subject to the quarterly rebalancing of the tiers. Members then could utilize the excess membership capacity to hold an appointment and quote electronically in an appropriate number of Hybrid 2.0 option classes, which promotes competition and efficiency. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act. 5 Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) Act 6 requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Lowering the appointment cost for RVX and VXN options promotes competition and efficiency by allowing Market-Makers to utilize their excess membership capacity to trade other option classes. 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposal. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the foregoing rule does not
(i)significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii)impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii)become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory organization has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file 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, 7 the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 8 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 9 At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 7 The Exchange satisfied this pre-filing requirement. 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 9 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 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-CBOE-2008-66 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2008-66. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the 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 such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of CBOE. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2008-66 and should be submitted on or before July 31, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 10 10 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-15635 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-58087; File No. SR-CHX-2008-11] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified By Amendment No. 1 Thereto, Relating to Equity-Linked Debt Securities July 2, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on June 20, 2008, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (“CHX” 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 June 25, 2008, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons and is granting accelerated approval to the proposed rule change. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 26 under Article 22 of the CHX Rules (“Rule 26”) to clarify that the trading of equity-linked debt securities (“ELDS”) is pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act. 3 The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.chx.com.* 3 17 CFR 240.19b-4(e). II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, CHX 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 III below. CHX 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 CHX proposes to amend Rule 26 to clarify that the trading of ELDS is pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act. Rule 26 currently provides for the trading of ELDS whether by listing or pursuant to unlisted trading privileges. This rule change would further clarify that the trading of ELDS is pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act. Through this filing, the Exchange would change its rules to reflect this clarification. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 4 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5), 5 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, by allowing CHX to amend its rules to clarify that the listing and trading of ELDS is pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act and to conform CHX's rules to those of other exchanges. 6 4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 6 *See e.g.* , Chicago Board Options Exchange Rule 31.5(I); Paragraph 703.21 of the New York Stock Exchange Listed Company Manual; Nasdaq Rule 4420(g); and Philadelphia Stock Exchange Rule 803(h). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others No written comments were either solicited or received. III. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-CHX-2008-11 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2008-11. 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-CHX-2008-11 and should be submitted on or before July 31, 2008. IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of the Proposed Rule Change After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 7 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 8 which requires that the rules of an exchange be designed, among other things, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 7 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). 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The Commission finds good cause for approving this proposal before the 30th day after the publication of notice thereof in the **Federal Register** . The proposal seeks to clarify that the Exchange's listing and trading of ELDS under Rule 26 is subject to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act. The Commission does not believe that this clarification raises any novel regulatory issues. Therefore, the Commission believes that accelerating approval of this proposal is appropriate and would ensure that the Exchange's rules clearly reflect the standards for listing and trading of ELDS and conform CHX's rules to those of other exchanges without delay. 9 9 *See supra,* note 6. V.Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 10 that the proposed rule change, as modified (SR-CHX-2008-11), be, and it hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis. 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 11 11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-15639 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-58095; File No. SR-FINRA-2008-028] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade), FINRA Rule 2020 (Use of Manipulative, Deceptive or Other Fraudulent Devices), and FINRA Rule 5150 (Fairness Opinions) in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook July 3, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on June 13, 2008, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) (f/k/a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”)) 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 FINRA. 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 FINRA is proposing to adopt NASD Rules 2110 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade), 2120 (Use of Manipulative, Deceptive or Other Fraudulent Devices), and 2290 (Fairness Opinions) as FINRA rules in the consolidated FINRA rulebook without material change and to delete Incorporated NYSE Rule 401(a) (Business Conduct), Incorporated NYSE Rule 435 (Miscellaneous Prohibitions), with the exception of paragraph (5), and NYSE Rule Interpretations 401/01 and 401/02. The text of the proposed rule change is available at FINRA, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.finra.org.* II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA 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 As part of the process of developing the new consolidated rulebook (“Consolidated FINRA Rulebook”), 3 FINRA is proposing to adopt NASD Rules 2110, 2120, and 2290 as FINRA Rules 2010, 2020, and 5150, respectively, in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook. The rules would be adopted without change, with the exception of renumbering the rules to reflect the new organizational structure of the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook. 4 The proposed rule change would also delete Incorporated NYSE Rule 401(a) (including two accompanying Interpretations to the rule) and certain provisions of Incorporated NYSE Rule 435 from the Transitional Rulebook. 3 The current FINRA rulebook consists of two sets of rules:
(1)NASD Rules and
(2)rules incorporated from NYSE (“Incorporated NYSE Rules”) (together referred to as the “Transitional Rulebook”). The Incorporated NYSE Rules apply only to those members of FINRA that are also members of the NYSE (“Dual Members”). Dual Members also must comply with NASD Rules. For more information about the rulebook consolidation process, *see* FINRA *Information Notice,* March 12, 2008 (Rulebook Consolidation Process). 4 This proposal does not address the Interpretive Materials (“IMs”) to NASD Rule 2110, which FINRA advises will be considered in a later phase of the rulebook consolidation process. Consequently, the IMs would remain in the Transitional Rulebook. Telephone conference between Brant Brown, Associate General Counsel, FINRA, Mia Zur, Senior Special Counsel, and Linda Jeng-Braun, Attorney, Commission, on June 27, 2007. a. FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade) The proposed rule change would transfer NASD Rule 2110 into the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook as FINRA Rule 2010. Incorporated NYSE Rule 401 (including two accompanying Interpretations to the rule) would be deleted from the Transitional Rulebook. Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act requires that FINRA design its rules to “promote just and equitable principles of trade.” 5 The Act's mandate is reflected in NASD Rule 2110, which requires that members, in the conduct of their business, observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade. This general ethical standard articulated in NASD Rule 2110 is broader and provides more flexibility than prescriptive regulations and legal requirements. NASD Rule 2110 protects investors and the securities industry from dishonest practices that are unfair to investors or hinder the functioning of a free and open market, even though those practices may not be illegal or violate a specific rule or regulation. NASD Rule 2110 has proven effective through nearly 70 years of regulatory experience. 5 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3(b)(6). The Incorporated NYSE Rules also include general ethical rules and associated rule interpretations that correspond to NASD Rule 2110 and other provisions in the FINRA rulebook. Specifically: • *Good Business Practice:* Using somewhat different language than NASD Rule 2110, Incorporated NYSE Rule 401(a) requires members at all times to adhere to the principles of good business practice in the conduct of their business affairs. 6 This overarching ethical requirement is subsumed under NASD Rule 2110. 6 In addition to the general good business practice requirement in Incorporated NYSE Rule 401(a), paragraph
(b)of the rule requires that members maintain written policies and procedures, administered pursuant to the internal control requirements of Incorporated NYSE Rule 342.23, with respect to transmittals of funds or securities, customer changes of address, and customer changes of investment objectives. These provisions duplicate requirements under NASD Rule 3012(a)(2)(B), for which FINRA has requested comments on proposals to relocate them to the supervision rule in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook. *See Regulatory Notice* 08-24 (May 2008) (Proposed Consolidated FINRA Rules Governing Supervision and Supervisory Controls) (“ *Supervision Notice* ”). • *Firm/Personal Trading:* Incorporated NYSE Rule Interpretation 401/01 addresses ethical considerations in connection with transactions by a member or its personnel shortly before or after the member issues a purchase or sale recommendation. These considerations are subsumed under NASD Rules 2110 and 2120. 7 7 In addition, Incorporated NYSE Rule Interpretation 401/01 includes an unrelated, obsolete template relating to the identification of counterfeit stock certificates and a cross-reference provision reminding firms of the personal trading restrictions for research analysts under Incorporated NYSE Rule 472(e). • *Private Sales:* Incorporated NYSE Rule Interpretation 401/02 broadly addresses the obligation of members to monitor the activities of associated personnel with respect to their marketing of securities through private sales. These obligations are addressed by the requirements in NASD Rule 3040 and Incorporated NYSE Rules 407(b) and 407.11. 8 8 FINRA has requested comment on a proposal for the provisions concerning private securities transactions in NASD Rule 3040 and Incorporated NYSE Rules 407(b) and 407.11 to be rewritten and relocated to the supervision rule in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook. *See Supervision Notice.* For the reasons discussed above, FINRA is proposing to transfer NASD Rule 2110 into the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook as FINRA Rule 2010 with no changes. In addition, FINRA is proposing to delete from the Transitional Rulebook Incorporated NYSE Rule 401(a) and Incorporated NYSE Rule Interpretations 401/01 and 401/02. 9 9 In addition to Incorporated Rule Interpretations 401/01 and 401/02, discussed above, there are two other interpretations under Incorporated NYSE Rule 401. Incorporated NYSE Rule Interpretations 401/03 and 401/04 address member notification requirements in the event of certain organizational or operational changes, such as mergers with or acquisitions of other broker-dealers, or certain conditions that a member organization reasonably believes could lead to capital, liquidity or similar problems. FINRA will be considering the requirements of these remaining two interpretations as part of a later phase of the rulebook consolidation process. Consequently, the proposed rule change would not delete these two interpretations from the Transitional Rulebook. b. FINRA Rule 2020 (Use of Manipulative, Deceptive or Other Fraudulent Devices) The proposed rule change would transfer NASD Rule 2120, which is FINRA's general antifraud provision, into the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook as FINRA Rule 2020 with no changes to the rule text. The proposed rule change would also delete Incorporated NYSE Rule 435 (with the exception of paragraph (5)) from the Transitional Rulebook. NASD Rule 2120, which has remained unchanged for nearly 70 years, states in its entirety that “[n]o member shall effect any transaction in, or induce the purchase or sale of, any security by means of any manipulative, deceptive, or other fraudulent device or contrivance.” FINRA has used this broad antifraud rule to address a wide variety of manipulative, deceptive, and fraudulent misconduct, including market manipulation, 10 excessive trading, 11 insider trading, 12 and fraudulent misrepresentation. 13 Given the rule's broad reach and substantial history, FINRA believes the rule should be transferred unchanged into the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook as FINRA Rule 2020. 10 *See, e.g.* , Terrance Yoshikawa, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53731 (April 26, 2006), 87 SEC Docket 2924 (finding that the Applicant, by engaging in a repeated and intentional pattern of market manipulation, had violated Section 10(b) of the Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as NASD Rule 2120). 11 *See, e.g.* , Michael T. Studer and Castle Securities Corp., 84 S.E.C. 911
(2004)(affirming NASD's decision that the Applicants violated NASD Rules 2510, 2120, and 2110 by churning a customer's account). 12 *See, e.g.* , Sidney C. Eng, 67 S.E.C. 2175
(1998)(finding that a preponderance of the record evidence established that, as found by the NASD, the Applicant purchased stock on the basis of material, non-public information and, thus, violated Article III, Sections 1 and 18 (which have been renumbered as NASD Rules 2110 and 2120)). 13 *See, e.g., Dane S. Faber,* 82 S.E.C. 530
(2004)(affirming NASD's finding that the Applicant violated Section 10(b) of the Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and NASD Rules 2110 and 2120 by making misrepresentations and omitting material facts). Although there is no identical NYSE rule equivalent to NASD Rule 2120, Incorporated NYSE Rule 435 includes three provisions that prohibit specific manipulative and fraudulent misconduct that would generally also violate NASD Rules 2110 or 2120. In addition, these provisions of Incorporated NYSE Rule 435 are duplicative of provisions in NASD Rule 5120. 14 14 *See* NASD Rule 5120(a), (c), and (d). FINRA has proposed transferring NASD Rule 5120 into the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook as FINRA Rule 6140. See SR-FINRA-2008-021. Paragraph
(5)of Incorporated NYSE Rule 435 concerning the circulation of rumors has no precise equivalent in NASD Rule 5120; however, NASD Rule 5120(e) is similar in nature. The proposed rule change does not address Incorporated NYSE Rule 435(5) or its related Interpretation, which FINRA advises will be considered during a later phase of the rulebook consolidation process. • Incorporated NYSE Rule 435(1) prohibits excessive trading by a member for accounts in which the member is directly or indirectly interested if the trading is “excessive in view of his or its financial resources or in view of the market for such security.” • Incorporated NYSE Rule 435(3) 15 prohibits buying or selling a security at successively higher or lower prices, respectively, for the purpose of improperly influencing the market price of the security or “making a price which does not reflect the true state of the market in such security.” 15 NYSE deleted paragraph
(2)of NYSE Rule 435 in 1968 and left the paragraph reserved; thus, there is no rule text for Incorporated NYSE Rule 435(2). • Incorporated NYSE Rule 435(4) prohibits:
(1)Direct or indirect participation in a manipulative operation,
(2)having any interest in the profits of a manipulative operation, and
(3)managing or financing a manipulative operation. Because these three provisions are duplicative of existing NASD rules that FINRA is proposing to transfer into the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook, the proposed rule change would delete these three provisions from the Transitional Rulebook. 16 16 Incorporated NYSE Rule 435 also includes two other miscellaneous provisions directed at specific issues:
(1)A provision in paragraph
(6)preventing the reopening of certain contracts for improper purposes, and
(2)a provision in paragraph
(7)preventing certain types of loans. FINRA believes that these two provisions are obsolete, and the proposed rule change would also delete these provisions from the Transitional Rulebook. The provisions of the Federal Reserve Board's Regulation T, which governs credit by broker-dealers, would continue to apply to broker-dealers. For the reasons discussed above, FINRA is proposing to transfer NASD Rule 2120 into the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook as FINRA Rule 2020 with no changes. In addition, FINRA is proposing to delete Incorporated NYSE Rule 435 (with the exception of paragraph
(5)and its related Interpretation) from the Transitional Rulebook. c. FINRA Rule 5150 (Fairness Opinions) The proposed rule change would transfer NASD Rule 2290 into the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook as FINRA Rule 5150 with no changes to the rule text. NASD Rule 2290 requires specific disclosures and procedures addressing the conflicts of interest that arise when a broker-dealer provides a fairness opinion in a change of control transaction, such as a merger or sale or purchase of assets. The disclosures required by the rule are aimed at informing investor shareholders of potential conflicts, such as whether a member has acted as a financial advisor to any party to the transaction that is the subject of the fairness opinion, and if so, whether it will receive compensation contingent on the successful completion of the transaction. The rule also requires disclosure by a member of other significant contingent payments; material relationships with any parties to the transaction; whether information used by the member has been independently verified; whether the opinion expresses an opinion about the fairness of the compensation to officers, directors or employees, relating to that received by public shareholders; and whether the opinion was approved or issued by a fairness committee. Additionally, NASD Rule 2290 requires that any member issuing a fairness opinion must have written procedures for approval of a fairness opinion. The procedures must address the types of transactions and the circumstances in which the firm will use a fairness committee to approve or issue a fairness opinion, and in those transactions in which it uses a fairness committee:
(1)The process for selecting personnel to be on the fairness committee;
(2)the necessary qualifications of persons serving on the fairness committee; and
(3)the process to promote a balanced review by the fairness committee, which shall include the review and approval by persons who do not serve on the deal team to the transaction. Members are also required to have a process to determine whether the valuation analyses used in the fairness opinion are appropriate. NASD Rule 2290 was approved by the Commission in October 2007, and was the product of extensive notice and comment rulemaking over a period of several years. 17 FINRA solicited comment on proposed NASD Rule 2290 in a Notice to Members issued in 2004. 18 FINRA modified the proposed rule based upon the comments received, and the Commission published the proposal for comment in the **Federal Register** in 2006. 19 The final rule reflects additional changes based upon the comments received by the Commission. 20 Consequently, the proposed rule filing would transfer NASD Rule 2290 into the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook as FINRA Rule 5150. 17 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56645 (October 11, 2007), 72 FR 59317 (October 19, 2007) (SR-NASD-2005-080). 18 *See* NASD Notice to Members 04-83 (November 2004). 19 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53598 (April 4, 2006), 71 FR 18395 (April 11, 2006) (SR-NASD-2005-080). 20 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56645 (October 11, 2007), 72 FR 59317 (October 19, 2007) (SR-NASD-2005-080). 2. Statutory Basis FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, 21 which requires, among other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change to transfer the rule requiring adherence to just and equitable principles of trade and the rule prohibiting fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices is necessary so that FINRA can continue to enforce these overarching provisions that express FINRA's core regulatory objectives and allow FINRA to effectively protect investors and the public interest. FINRA also believes that the provisions of NASD Rule 2290 benefit investors and the public interest by requiring the disclosure of conflicts of interest in connection with fairness opinions and procedures designed to mitigate those conflicts. 21 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3(b)(6). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period
(i)as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or
(ii)as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
(A)By order approve such proposed rule change; or
(B)Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-FINRA-2008-028 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2008-028. 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 FINRA. 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-FINRA-2008-028 and should be submitted on or before July 31, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 22 22 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-15696 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-58091; File No. SR-ISE-2008-55] Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Market Maker Fee Changes July 3, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on June 30, 2008, International Securities Exchange, LLC (“ISE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. ISE filed the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change ISE proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees related to options market maker transaction fees. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.ise.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 Exchange proposes to amend its transaction fees applicable to options market makers on the ISE and options market makers on other options exchanges. With respect to ISE market makers, the Exchange proposes to adopt a per contract transaction fee that is based on the number of contracts the ISE market maker trades in a month as follows: • First 1,000,000 contracts in a month—$0.18 per contract. • 1,000,001 to 3,000,000 contracts in a month—$0.16 per contract. • 3,000,001 to 5,000,000 contracts in a month—$0.13 per contract. • 5,000,001 to 10,000,000 contracts in a month—$0.03 per contract. • Above 10,000,000 contracts in a month—$0.01 per contract. The sliding scale applies to all ISE market makers for transactions in all products, is calculated on a member firm basis, 5 and applies to non-discounted volume only; that is, it does not apply to orders previously discounted by other pricing incentives that currently appear on the Exchange's Schedule of Fees. Previously, the Exchange had applied a sliding scale that was based upon the Exchange's overall averaged daily volume (“ADV”). The ADV-based method reduced the ISE market maker transaction fee for all members, regardless of the volume executed by any individual member. Under this proposal, ISE market maker fees are reduced on the member firm level as a volume discount. 5 If a member firm operates more than one market maker membership, all of the member firm's market maker volume will be aggregated for purposes of the market maker transaction fee. The Exchange also proposes to increase the transaction fee charged to members to execute orders for the account of options market makers on other exchanges. Under this proposal, the “non-ISE market maker fee,” previously set at $0.40 per contract, has been increased to $0.45 cents per contract. 6 These changes became operative on July 1, 2008. 6 ISE's non-ISE market maker fee is currently $0.37 cents plus a $0.03 comparison fee. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55897 (June 12, 2007), 72 FR 33546 (June 18, 2007) (SR-ISE-2007-41). The Exchange consolidated these two fees in SR-ISE-2008-54, so that the total non-ISE market maker fee is represented as $0.40 on the Exchange's schedule of fees. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange states that the basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement of Section 6(b)(4) 7 that an exchange have an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange states that the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others The Exchange states that it has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. Additionally, the Exchange states that it has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 8 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 9 because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge imposed on members by ISE. Accordingly, the proposal is effective upon filing with the Commission. 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. 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 9 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-ISE-2008-55 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2008-55. 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-ISE-2008-55 and should be submitted on or before July 31, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 10 10 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-15650 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-58081; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2008-058] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Modify Fees for Members Using the NASDAQ Options Market July 2, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on June 30, 2008, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared substantially by Nasdaq. Nasdaq has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by Nasdaq under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change Nasdaq proposes to modify Rule 7050 governing pricing for Nasdaq members using the NASDAQ Options Market (“NOM”), Nasdaq's facility for executing and routing standardized equity and index options. Nasdaq will implement the proposed rule change on July 1, 2008. The text of the proposed rule change is available at *http://www.complinet.com/nasdaq* , the principal offices of the Exchange, and the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose Nasdaq is proposing to modify the fees assessed for execution of options orders entered into NOM but routed to away markets. Nasdaq currently assesses a routing fee based upon an approximation of the cost to Nasdaq of executing such orders at those markets. In order to reflect Nasdaq's cost of execution at away markets, the fees are separated by type of option (penny pilot, equity/non-penny pilot, ETF or HLDS/non-penny pilot, and Index) and vary depending upon whether the order is being routed for a customer, a member firm, or a registered market maker. In addition, Nasdaq passes through surcharges that are assessed by other markets for the execution of specific options orders on specific underlying instruments. Nasdaq has determined that the superior approach is to pass through to exchange members the actual fees assessed by away markets plus the clearing fees for the execution of orders routed from Nasdaq. Nasdaq has collected and organized in chart format the fees to be assessed for routing to each destination exchange. These fees include both the execution fees charged by the individual exchanges and also the clearing fees associated with each execution. Nasdaq believes that these routing fees are inherently competitive, fair and reasonable, and non-discriminatory in that they replicate the fees assessed by away markets executing orders routed from Nasdaq. As with all fees, Nasdaq may adjust these routing fees in response to competitive conditions by filing a new proposed rule change. 2. Statutory Basis Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, 5 in general, and with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, 6 in particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facility or system which Nasdaq operates or controls. 5 15 U.S.C. 78f. 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). Nasdaq is one of seven options markets in the national market system for standardized options. Joining Nasdaq and electing to trade options is entirely voluntary. Under these circumstances, Nasdaq's fees must be competitive and low in order for Nasdaq to attract order flow, execute orders, and grow as a market. The various exchanges have filed these fees with the Commission and it is reasonable for Nasdaq to pass those fees through to its members. As such, Nasdaq believes that its fees are fair and reasonable and consistent with the Act. B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. To the contrary, Nasdaq has designed its fees to compete effectively for the execution and routing of options contracts and to reduce the overall cost to investors of options trading. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others Written comments were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 7 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) 8 thereunder, because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge imposed on members by Nasdaq. Accordingly, the proposal is effective upon filing with the Commission. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 8 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-NASDAQ-2008-058 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2008-058. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2008-058 and should be submitted on or before July 31, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 9 Florence E. Harmon, Acting Secretary. 9 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). [FR Doc. E8-15624 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-58093; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2008-057] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Regarding Technical and Conforming Changes to NASDAQ Rules Governing Options Trading July 3, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on June 24, 2008, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared substantially by Nasdaq. Nasdaq has designated the proposed rule change as a “non-controversial” proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change NASDAQ proposes to make minor and technical corrections to its rules for the NASDAQ Options Market (“NOM”). 5 The text of the proposed rule change is available at Nasdaq, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.complinet.com/nasdaq* . 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57478 (March 12, 2008), 73 FR 14521 (March 18, 2008) (order approving SR-NASDAQ-2007-004 and 2007-080). II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose On March 12, 2008, the Commission approved SR-NASDAQ-2007-004 and SR-NASDAQ-2007-080, proposals to create NOM. Nasdaq has identified six minor and technical modifications to the rules governing NOM.
(1)Nasdaq is proposing to modify the Table of Contents for the options rules to conform it to the titles of the previously approved rules.
(2)Nasdaq is proposing to modify Chapter IV, Section 3(i) to eliminate the limitation of underlying Fund Shares securities to those based on “broad based” indexes. Nasdaq is proposing to conform its rule to the rules of other options exchanges that permit them to trade Fund Shares (including exchange traded funds) based on any index. 6 The four conditions for listing underlying Fund Shares set forth in Section 3(i) will remain unchanged. Nasdaq represents that it has the necessary systems capacity to support the additional trading of Fund Shares that could potentially be listed pursuant to this provision. In addition, Nasdaq believes that the capacity required is well within the projections that Nasdaq has provided to the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) and for which OPRA has provisioned. 6 *See, e.g.* , Philadelphia Stock Exchange Rule 1009.06. To the extent that Nasdaq has incorporated by reference the rules of the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated pertaining to margin, position limits, and exercise limits, this proposal is not designed to change the application of those requirements. Members should be cognizant of the need to comply with those requirements and any amendments thereto as applied to different options classes (including options on Fund Shares).
(3)Nasdaq is proposing to modify Chapter IV, Section 6, Commentary.01 and Commentary.02, which describe the “$1 Strikes” Pilot Program, to conform these provisions to the rules of other options exchanges. Specifically, Nasdaq proposes to expand and make permanent the $1 Strikes Pilot Program to allow it to select a total of 10, instead of the current 5, individual stocks on which option series may be listed at $1 strike price intervals. Additionally, Nasdaq proposes to expand the price range on which it may list $1 strikes to $3-$50, instead of the current $3-$20. The proposed expanded and permanent $1 Strikes Price Program would be known as the “$1 Strike Price Program.” The existing restrictions on listing $1 strikes would continue to apply (i.e., no $1 strike price may be listed that is greater than $5 from the underlying stock's closing price in its primary market on the previous day or that would result in strike prices being $0.50 apart). This proposal is designed to respond to the requests of market participants for broader participation in the $1 Strikes Price Program on Nasdaq. Nasdaq represents that it has the necessary systems capacity to support the potential additional trading that might arise from the proposed modification of the $1 Strikes Price Program. In addition, Nasdaq believes that the capacity required is well within the projections that Nasdaq has provided to OPRA and for which OPRA has provisioned.
(4)Nasdaq is proposing to modify Chapter V, Section 1(b)(vi) to eliminate cross-references to non-existent rule provisions. The cross-references were improperly included because Nasdaq modeled its rules upon the rules of another exchange but did not copy the specific rules that were cross-referenced in Section 1(b)(vi). The specific provisions that were cited are not included in the Nasdaq rule manual because they pertain to a price improvement mechanism that exists on another market that does not exist on Nasdaq. Nasdaq is proposing instead to cross-reference approved Nasdaq rules proscribing similar fraudulent misconduct that could occur on NOM.
(5)Nasdaq is proposing to modify Chapter XI, Sections 23 (Brokers' Blanket Bond) and 25 (Telephone Solicitation) to cross-reference existing Nasdaq member conduct rules rather than maintain two separate rules governing the same conduct. Specifically, Nasdaq proposes to replace Section 23 by instead cross-referencing to NASDAQ Rule 3020, which currently requires Nasdaq members to post Fidelity Bonds. Nasdaq also proposes to replace Section 25 by cross-referencing current NASDAQ Rule 2212 which prescribes members' conduct for telephone solicitation.
(6)Finally, Nasdaq is proposing to modify Chapter XIV, Section 10 to clarify that when a halt involving an index option is lifted, trading resumes as specified in Chapter V, Section 4 (Resumption of Trading After A Halt) rather than as specified in Chapter VI, Section 8. When Nasdaq first proposed its options trading rules, it planned to resume trading by operating a “Halt Cross,” which it originally described in Chapter VI, Section 8. Nasdaq later amended the proposed rules to remove the Halt Cross and to make clear that trading after a halt would “resume” rather than “open.” The cross-reference to the Halt Cross in Chapter XIV, Section 10 should have been removed, but was overlooked. 2. Statutory Basis Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, 7 in general and with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 8 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest; and are not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers, or to regulate by virtue of any authority conferred by this title matters not related to the purposes of this title or the administration of the exchange. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f. 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The proposed changes are either technical in nature or are designed to conform the rules of Nasdaq's options market to the rules of other options markets or to conform Nasdaq's rules for options trading to its rules for equities trading. None of the proposed changes will impact the manner in which executions occur on NOM. B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action 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 because the foregoing proposed rule:
(1)Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(2)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and
(3)does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. 11 The Commission expects Nasdaq to continue to monitor for options with little or no open interest and trading activity and to act promptly to delist such options. In addition, the Commission expects that Nasdaq will continue to monitor the trading volume associated with the additional options series listed as a result of this proposal and the effect of these additional series on market fragmentation and on the capacity of Nasdaq's, OPRA's, and vendors' automated systems. 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 10 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 11 In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires the self-regulatory organization to give the Commission 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. Nasdaq has satisfied the five-day pre-filing requirement. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-NASDAQ-2008-057 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2008-057. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of Nasdaq. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2008-057 and should be submitted on or before July 31, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 12 12 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-15651 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-58104; File No. SR-NSCC-2008-05] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Lower Fees for Certain NSCC Services July 7, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 notice is hereby given that on June 26, 2008, National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change described in Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared primarily by NSCC. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested parties. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The purpose of the proposed rule change is to revise NSCC's fee schedule to lower fees for certain NSCC services. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, NSCC 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. NSCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and
(C)below, of the most significant aspects of these statements. 2 2 The Commission has modified the text of the summaries prepared by NSCC.
(A)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change The purpose of the proposed rule change is to lower fees for certain services provided by NSCC to align them with the costs of delivering the services. These changes are: 3 3 The specific changes to NSCC's fee schedule are attached as an exhibit to the filing.
(1)A decrease in the unit-based equity trade recording fee from $.001436 per side to $.000402 per side.
(2)A decrease in the unit-based equity netting fee from $.000916 per side to $.000256 per side.
(3)A decrease in both the trade comparison fee and the trade recording fee for corporate bonds, municipal bonds, and unit investment trusts from $1.00 per side to $0.65 per side. The effective date for these fee adjustments was July 1, 2008. NSCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act 4 and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to NSCC because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among NSCC's participants. 4 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
(B)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any impact on 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 No written comments relating to the proposed rule change have been solicited or received. NSCC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by NSCC. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 5 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) 6 thereunder because the proposed rule change establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge applicable only to a participant. At any time within sixty 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. 5 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 6 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ) or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-NSCC-2008-05 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2008-05. 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 Section, 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 NSCC and on NSCC's Web site at *http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rule_filings/nscc/2008.php* . 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-NSCC-2008-05 and should be submitted on or before July 31, 2008. For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 7 7 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-15706 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-58100; File No. SR-NSCC-2006-17] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change as Modified by Amendment No. 1 To Reorganize Membership Rules and Procedures July 3, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 notice is hereby given that on December 13, 2006, the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) and on January 31, 2008, amended the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared by NSCC. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested parties. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change NSCC is seeking to reorganize its Rules and Procedures (“Rules”) related to membership standards and membership requirements to conform them to current practice and to harmonize them with similar rules of NSCC's affiliate, the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”). 2 2 Both NSCC and FICC's Government Securities Division (“GSD”) share a number of common participants, and both act as central counterparties with respect to certain transactions submitted by participants. Harmonization of NSCC and FICC Rules is an ongoing process, and additional NSCC and FICC rule filings will follow. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, NSCC 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. NSCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and
(C)below, of the most significant aspects of these statements. 3 3 The Commission has modified the text of the summaries prepared by NSCC. A Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change Over the years, NSCC has created a variety of membership classes, each with different initial and continuing membership requirements. These requirements are currently scattered throughout NSCC's Rules. With the objective of promoting greater transparency, NSCC proposes to reorganize and restructure its Rules related to member types, the membership application process, and the ongoing requirements of NSCC members in a form that it believes will make them more readily located and understood by applicants and members alike. To accomplish this, NSCC proposes to revise and restructure Rule 2 (currently called “Members” but would be renamed “Members and Limited Members”) to create a new Rule 2A (to be called “Initial Membership Requirements”) and to create a new Rule 2B (to be called “Ongoing Membership Requirements and Monitoring”). Current provisions and rule text will be moved from existing rules and addenda and will be relocated within these newly structured rules. Certain provisions will be modified where necessary and, where possible, harmonized with analogous provisions of GSD's rules. Additionally, NSCC proposes to add certain descriptive text to its Rules with regard to the current membership application process and with regard to the voluntary membership retirement process ( *i.e.* , NSCC text which codifies the current process of evaluating applicants and the current process by which an existing member may voluntarily retire from participation in NSCC's services). 1. Membership Types—Members and Limited Members NSCC's Rule 2 (currently titled “Members”) provides that an applicant may apply to become a member that uses all of NSCC's services or a member that uses certain limited services. In restructuring and revising Rule 2, NSCC seeks to clearly, concisely, and in one location, set forth each membership type differentiating between members that may generally, unless otherwise limited by NSCC, access all services made available by NSCC, (often referred to as “full service Members”) and those member types that may utilize NSCC's systems and services only on a limited basis (“Limited Members”). Limited Members would include the following: Fund Members, Insurance Carrier/Retirement Services Members, Municipal Comparison Only Members, Mutual Fund/Insurance Services Members, Data Services Only Members, Non-Clearing Members (which would be renamed “Commission Billing Members”), Settling Bank Only Members, and Third Party Administrator Members. This change is intended to be cosmetic only, and other than logically grouping member types, would not alter in any way each member's existing rights and obligations. Additionally, NSCC would add text to Rule 2 making it clear that no full service Member or Limited Member may submit or confirm any transaction, charge, request, instruction, or transmission through NSCC's services, or otherwise utilize NSCC's services, in contravention of any law, rule, regulation, or statute. 2. Consolidation of Membership Standards and Requirements Within the Rules The membership qualifications, financial standards, and operational requirements for each member type are currently set forth in separate rules and addenda, which are spread throughout NSCC's Rules. 4 4 “Members” qualifications, standards, and requirements are located in Rule 2 and in Addendum B. “Mutual Fund/Insurance Services Members,” also defined to be “Members,” qualifications, standards, and requirements are located in Rule 2 and in Addendum B. “Fund Members” qualifications, standards, and requirements are located in Rule 51 and Addendum I. “Insurance Carrier/Retirement Services Members” qualifications, standards, and requirements are located in Rule 56 and in Addendum Q. “Third Party Administrator Members” qualifications, standards, and requirements are located in Rule 60 and in Addendum R. “Data Services Only Members” qualifications, standards, and requirements are located in Rule 31. “Municipal Comparison Only Members” qualifications, standards, and requirements are located in Rule 3, Section 2. “Non-Clearing Members” qualifications, standards, and requirements are located in Rule 3, Section 2. “Settling Bank Only Members” qualifications, standards, and requirements are located in Rule 54. To consolidate this information, NSCC proposes to create two new rules which would contain the content moved from membership Rules 3, 31, 51, 54, 56, and 60. Proposed Rule 2A (to be called “Initial Membership Requirements”) would provide information regarding initial membership eligibility requirements for all member types and would address the membership application and evaluation process. Proposed Rule 2B (to be called “Ongoing Membership Requirements and Monitoring”) would contain provisions regarding the continuing requirements of members. For ease of reference, NSCC also proposes to relocate and consolidate the detailed membership qualifications, financial standards, and operational requirements for all membership types into Addendum B (to be renamed “Qualifications and Standards of Financial Responsibility, Operational Capability and Business History”). The content NSCC is seeking to reorganize into Addendum B is currently spread throughout Addenda B, I, Q, and R. Accordingly, NSCC would delete current membership related Rules 3 (specifically, Sections 2, 5, and 6), 31, 51, 54, 56, and 60. In addition, NSCC would delete Addenda I, Q, and R. 3. Use of the Terms “Members” and “Settling Members” Throughout the Rules Currently, an applicant that agrees to limit its use of NSCC's services to those specified by NSCC ( *i.e.* , Mutual Fund Services and/or Insurance and Retirement Services) is called a “Mutual Fund/Insurance Services Member.” Thus when the term “Member” is used within NSCC's Rules, it may apply to a full service Member (which may generally use all NSCC services), a Mutual Fund/Insurance Services Member (which may only utilize the Mutual Fund and Insurance and Retirement Processing Services), or to both, depending upon the context. Additionally, NSCC's Rules make reference to “Settling Members,” which may apply to a full service Member, a Mutual Fund/Insurance Services Member, a Non-Clearing Member, or all three member types. It is only in further understanding the Rules or in the context of a term's use that one may determine to which member type a Rule may apply. 5 Accordingly, NSCC proposes to modify all references to “Settling Member” and to “Member” within each NSCC Rule to clearly indicate to which member type a rule is applicable. Definitions associated with these terms (contained in Rule 1) would be modified and the term “Settling Member” would be deleted from NSCC's Rules. 5 For example, as a Mutual Fund/Insurance Services Member may not participate in the Continuous Net Settlement Service (“CNS”), any reference to “Members” within Rule 11 (“CNS”) would not apply to Mutual Fund/Insurance Services Members. Any reference to “Settling Member” within Rule 17 (“Fine Payments”) would apply to all full service Members, Mutual Fund/Insurance Services Members, and Non-Clearing Members (which NSCC proposes to rename “Commission Billing Members”). 4. Rule 15 (“Financial Responsibility and Operational Capability”) Rule 15 contains, among other things, the continuing requirements of members with regard to reports to be timely filed on an ongoing basis ( *e.g.* , annual audited financial statements, Financial and Operational Combined Uniform Single (“FOCUS”) Reports, etc.) and notifications that members are required to timely make to NSCC regarding any failure to maintain their membership qualifications and standards, including notifications of certain material changes in business, ownership, or control. NSCC proposes to move these ongoing reporting requirements into proposed Rule 2B. Rule 15 would then be renamed “Assurances of Financial Responsibility and Operational Capability.” In Section 2.A. (“Reports and Information”) of proposed Rule 2B, NSCC seeks to add text clarifying that unless specifically set forth within the Rule, the time periods established for remitting reports and data to NSCC are set forth in the form of notices posted on NSCC's Web site and that each member is required to retrieve all notices from NSCC's Web site daily. In Section 2.B. (“Notification of Changes in Condition”) of proposed Rule 2B, NSCC seeks to change the reporting requirements of certain member types with respect to providing NSCC with written notice of events that would effect a change in control of the member or that could have a material impact on the member's business and/or financial condition. Historically, this provision applied to full service Members ( *i.e.* , those Members for which certain activity is guaranteed at a fixed point in the clearance and settlement process) as well as Mutual Fund/Insurance Services Members, Fund Members, and Insurance Carrier/Retirement Services Members ( *i.e.* , those member types whose activity is limited to use of non-guaranteed services). NSCC has determined that this notification provision should apply solely to full service Members. Additionally, NSCC seeks to delete the current requirement that a Non-Clearing Member (to be renamed “Commission Billing Member”) provide NSCC with written and oral notice if it is no longer in compliance with any of the relevant qualifications and standards for membership. Non-Clearing Members participate in NSCC solely for the purpose of paying and receiving broker commissions and file transmissions related to the service are sent to NSCC directly from either the New York Stock Exchange or the American Stock Exchange. As there are no NSCC financial or operational requirements applicable to this member type and the participation of the member is coordinated between NSCC and the member's Exchange, the current requirement is not necessary. 5. Rule 1 (“Definitions and Descriptions”) NSCC proposes the following with respect to terms defined within Rule 1: Board of Directors The current definition would be modified to make clear that the term “Board of Directors” means the Board of Directors of NSCC, or a committee thereof, acting on delegated authority. Commission Billing Member NSCC proposes to rename Non-Clearing Members “Commission Billing Members” to better reflect the nature of their participation in NSCC's services. Non-Clearing Members utilize NSCC's Commission Settlement Service solely for the payment and collection of commissions. Limited Member The proposed term “Limited Member” would mean a Person whose use of NSCC's services is limited to those services specified by NSCC. Person The proposed term “Person” would mean a partnership, corporation, limited liability corporation, or other organization, entity, or individual. Registered Broker-Dealer The term “Registered Broker-Dealer” (currently defined in Rule 2 as “a broker or dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended”) would be moved to Rule 1. Settling Member The term “Settling Member” would be deleted from NSCC's Rules. Each member type encompassed by this term would be specifically named within NSCC's Rules. Other conforming technical changes to Rule 1 are being proposed to accommodate the restructuring of the Rules. 6. Rule 2A (“Initial Membership Requirements”) Applicant Operational Testing Requirements Under NSCC's Rules, certain applicants as determined by NSCC must demonstrate that they will be able to satisfactorily communicate with NSCC. These applicants conduct system/operational tests with NSCC. NSCC proposes to add new text to its rules (Rule 2A, Section 1.C. (“Application Documents”)) to make clear NSCC's current requirement with regard to applicant testing. Member's Agreement NSCC's Rules currently provide that members sign and deliver to NSCC a member's agreement. The applicable provisions of each type of member's agreement have historically been set forth in the Rule that applies to that member type ( *e.g.* , a Fund Member's agreement provisions are contained in Rule 51, a full service Member's provisions are contained in Rule 2, a Third Party Administrator Member's provisions are contained in Rule 60). Regardless of member type, each member agreement has certain standard provisions that generally apply to all members ( *e.g.* , the only services the member may use are those that are permitted by NSCC, that the member will abide by NSCC's Rules and be bound by all provisions of the Rules, etc.) and certain other provisions that are unique to particular member types ( *e.g.* , Fund Members have a unique provision with regard to NSCC's inspection of their books and records). NSCC proposes Rule 2A, Section 1.E. (“Membership and Other Agreements”) that would contain the main member agreement provisions for all member types, as well as address the requirements with regard to any other agreements. Third Party Administrator (“TPA”) ACH Agreements NSCC's Rules currently state that TPA Members (non-settling members) must provide NSCC with an agreement for preauthorized payments (an “ACH” agreement) so that NSCC may collect monthly charges pursuant to Rule 26 (“Bills Rendered”). To accommodate payment methods other than ACH ( *i.e.* , “e-payment” using a credit card or bank account), NSCC proposes to replace the specific TPA ACH requirement within its Rules with more generic text. 7. Rule 2B (“Ongoing Membership Requirements and Monitoring”) Reports and Information Annual Audited Financial Statements NSCC's Rules currently state that a member whose membership is contingent upon a guarantee of a third party must provide a copy of the annual audited financial statements of the guarantor. If such statements for the member or its guarantor are not available, NSCC may accept at its sole discretion consolidated financial statements prepared at the level of the parent of the member or guarantor. NSCC is modifying this text to make clear that it may accept consolidated financial statements or financial information prepared at the level of the parent of such entity. 6 6 NSCC also seeks to correct a typographical error in Rule 2B, Section 2.A.(a) in that “each” guarantor should read “such” guarantor. Call Reports NSCC is proposing Rule 2B, Section 2.A.(c) with regard to Call Reports filed with NSCC by members that are banks or trust companies. To the extent that such information is not contained within the Call Report or the member is a bank or trust company that is not required to file a Call Report, such member would be required to provide NSCC with information containing each of its capital levels and ratios. Supplemental and Quarterly Financial Statements Filed With The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (“NAIC”) NSCC proposes to delete the current Rule 15 requirement that Insurance Companies provide NSCC with copies of their supplemental and quarterly financial statements filed with the NAIC or the Insurance Company's regulatory authority. Currently, NSCC receives annual audited financial statements and annual regulatory reports from these members in order to monitor adherence to membership requirements. The proposed change would conform the Rules to current practice. Securities Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1 Notification NSCC is proposing to add Rule 2B, Section 2.A.(g) to its Rules, which would require that a member that has provided to the Commission notice pursuant to paragraph
(e)of Securities Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1 (“Notice Provisions Relating to Limitations on the Withdrawal of Equity Capital”) shall notify NSCC and provide NSCC with a copy of such notice by close of business on the day such notice is provided to the Commission. Operational Testing NSCC requires that certain “top tier” members participate in periodic connectivity testing with NSCC for business recovery purposes. NSCC now proposes to add Rule 2B, Section 3 (“Operational Testing”) to its Rules to specifically set forth NSCC's operational testing requirements. Ongoing Monitoring—Surveillance Status Currently, the provision relating to NSCC's ongoing monitoring of full service Members (NSCC's “credit risk matrix”) appears in Addendum B. NSCC proposes to move this provision into new Rule 2B. Additionally, NSCC would replace the term “Settling Member” with “Member” as the credit risk matrix only applies to full service “Members.” Voluntary Retirement NSCC proposes to add Rule 2B, Section 5 (“Voluntary Retirement”) to its Rules, which is the current process by which an active participant may voluntarily retire its NSCC membership. 8. Addendum B (“Qualifications and Standards of Financial Responsibility, Operational Capability and Business History”) Immediate Placement on Surveillance by NSCC Currently, NSCC's Rules provide that applicants to become a Member, Mutual Fund/Insurance Services Member, Fund Member, or Insurance Carrier/Retirement Services Member may not be known to be subject to any other action or condition the existence of which would require it to be placed on surveillance by NSCC. In addition, the financial requirements for certain members (full service Members and Mutual Fund/Insurance Services Members) state that the member must have a capital ratio or percentage that would not require the applicant to be placed on immediate surveillance by NSCC. All applicants must meet their minimum financial requirements, as applicable to their member type. NSCC now seeks to delete these provisions. When the NSCC membership standards were developed, the NSCC credit risk matrix was not in place. As a result of the implementation of the credit risk matrix, it is possible that once an applicant is approved for membership, it may be placed directly on NSCC's Watch List ( *i.e.* , surveillance status). As sufficient discretion to deny membership based on financial, operational, or character issues exists in other sections of NSCC's rules, elimination of these provisions will not diminish NSCC's authority under its Rules to deny an applicant membership. Fund Member Applicants Subject to Securities Exchange Act Rule 17a-11 Reporting NSCC proposes to delete Addendum I (“Standards of Financial Responsibility and Operational Capability for Fund Members”), which includes a requirement that a broker-dealer Fund Member applicant not be subject to reporting under Securities Exchange Act Rule 17a-11 (“Notification Provisions for Broker and Dealers”). As a Fund Member, an applicant must meet NSCC's minimum financial requirements for membership (and, as stated above, NSCC retains sufficient discretion to deny membership based on financial, operational, or character issues in other sections of NSCC's Rules). Thus, NSCC has determined that this requirement is duplicative and that its elimination will not diminish NSCC's authority under its Rules to deny an applicant membership if it does not meet the applicable financial standards. Financial Responsibility—Entities That Qualify for Membership Under the Category of “Other” Entity Types In certain instances in NSCC's membership Rules, an applicant that does not qualify for membership under one of the specifically defined qualification criteria established for its membership type, may apply for membership if it has demonstrated to NSCC that its business and capabilities are such that it could reasonably expect material benefit from direct access to NSCC's services. NSCC's financial requirements for such an applicant require that it meet financial stability standards as are applied to the industry in which the applicant is associated. As industry standards are not always well-defined and as there may not be consensus among market participants as to what such standards should be, NSCC is proposing to modify the financial requirements for “other” applicants by requiring that such applicants be required to satisfy such minimum standards of financial responsibility deemed appropriate by NSCC. Business History NSCC's Rules currently provide that Insurance Carrier/Retirement Services applicants and Third Party Administrator applicants (both non-guaranteed service members) must have an established business history of a minimum of three years or personnel with sufficient operational background and experience to ensure the ability of the applicant to conduct such a business. The business history requirement for full service Members, as well as Mutual Fund/Insurance Services Members and Fund Members (both non-guaranteed service members) is six months, or the member must have personnel with sufficient operational background and experience to ensure the ability of the applicant to conduct such a business. NSCC has determined that the business history requirement of Insurance Carrier/Retirement Services and Third Party Administrator applicants need not be any more stringent that those applied to Fund Members and Mutual Fund/Insurance Services Members. Therefore, NSCC proposes to change the three year requirement to six months. Fund Members That Are Insurance Companies Under NSCC's Rules, an Insurance Company may apply to become a Fund Member, however, the financial requirements for Insurance Companies is not specifically set forth in Addendum I. Addendum I states that all “other” applicants shall be required to meet financial stability and operational capability standards as are applicable to the industry in which the applicant is associated. Historically, NSCC looked to its Insurance Carrier/Retirement Services Member financial standards set forth in Rule 57. NSCC proposes to clearly state Insurance Company financial standards under its Fund Member financial requirements in Addendum B, Section 3. 9. Rule 3 (“Lists To Be Maintained”) In consolidating NSCC's membership standards, NSCC proposes to move to Rule 2 the portions of Rule 3 (specifically, Sections 2, 5, and 6) that pertain to Municipal Comparison Only Members, Non-Clearing Members, and/or Data Services Only Members. For purposes of clarity, the remaining information within Rule 3 would be reorganized and reordered. 10. Addendum D (“Statement of Policy Envelope Settlement Service”) To more accurately reflect the scope of the information contained within Addendum D, NSCC proposes to rename it “Statement of Policy Envelope Settlement Service, Mutual Fund Services, Insurance and Retirement Processing Service and Other Services Offered by the Corporation.” 11. Rule 38 (“Captions”) Mirroring FICC's Rules, NSCC proposes to add language to Rule 38 to make clear that NSCC's Rules are governed by New York substantive law. This language currently exists in NSCC's membership agreements only. Rule 38 would be renamed “Governing Law and Captions.” 12. Technical Corrections In 2006, NSCC submitted for immediate effectiveness proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2006-07 which made clarifying and technical changes to NSCC's Rules related to funds which are eligible for processing on Fund/Serv. 7 At that time, the membership qualifications contained within Section 1.(viii) of Rule 31 (“Data Services Only Member”) should have been modified to reflect the definitional change made within Rule 1 with respect to “TPA.” Accordingly, NSCC is correcting the text within its rules to eliminate the reference to “defined contribution plans as defined in Section 414(i) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended,” and refer instead, to “a retirement or other benefit plan.” 7 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54366 (August 25, 2006), 71 FR 52199. In 2006, NSCC submitted for immediate effectiveness proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2006-14 which, among other things, deleted references to the Product Repository service as NSCC had determined not to offer the service. 8 At that time, any references within NSCC to “Repository Data” should have been deleted. Accordingly, NSCC is seeking to delete such references. 8 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54921 (December 12, 2006), 71 FR 76415. In 2005, the Commission approved NSCC proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2005-01 which clarified that the operational capability that is ordinarily focused upon by NSCC during the application process is the ability of an applicant to appropriately communicate with NSCC, that is, the ability to input to NSCC and to receive output from NSCC on a timely and accurate basis. 9 The rule change removed certain provisions that might be interpreted to impose upon NSCC an obligation to make determinations with respect to particular aspects of operational capability. Instead, NSCC relies upon the requirement that the applicant in fact be able to satisfactorily communicate with NSCC as generally stated in the operational capability requirements currently set forth for members in NSCC's Rules. At the time of the filing, the provision within Rule 60 with respect to approval of TPA Member applicants based upon an alternative operational standard should have been deleted. Accordingly, NSCC now seeks to delete this provision from its Rules. NSCC would continue to retain the right to examine any aspect of an applicant's or member's business pursuant to the provisions of Rule 15. 9 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51600 (April 22, 2005), 70 FR 22167. In 2005, the Commission approved NSCC proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2005-14 which added Rule 64 (“DTCC Shareholders Agreement”) requiring that full service Members of NSCC purchase shares of the common stock of the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (“DTCC”), NSCC's parent corporation, and that certain Limited Member types could voluntarily purchase such shares. 10 Section 5 of Rule 64 made incorrect references to “Members” and should have referenced all member types specified in Section 2 (“Members”) and Section 3 (“Fund Members, Insurance Carrier/Retirement Services Members, Municipal Comparison Only Members, and Mutual Fund/Insurance Services Members”) of Rule 64. Accordingly, NSCC now seeks to correct such references. 10 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52922 (December 7, 2005), 70 FR 74070. In 2004, the Commission approved NSCC proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2003-05 which modified NSCC's Rules to provide that notices to members posted by NSCC via electronic format ( *i.e.* , posted on NSCC's Web site) meet NSCC's notification obligations. 11 At that time, Section 7 of Rule 45 (“Notices”) was added to NSCC's Rules with an incorrect reference to Section 3. NSCC is seeking to remove this incorrect reference. 11 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50085 (July 26, 2004), 69 FR 45872. NSCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act 12 and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to NSCC because it should assure the safeguarding of securities and funds in NSCC's custody or control or for which it is responsible by assisting NSCC applicants and members in understanding, and thereby complying with, NSCC's membership standards and requirements thereby protecting NSCC and its members from undue risk. 12 15 U.S.C. 78q-1. B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition NSCC 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 Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been solicited and none have been received. NSCC will notify the Commission of any written comments it receives. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within thirty-five 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 ninety days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or
(ii)as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
(A)By order approve such proposed rule change or
(B)Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, 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-NSCC-2006-17 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2006-17. 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 Section, 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 NSCC and on NSCC's Web site at *http://www.dtcc.com/downloads/legal/rule_filings/2006/nscc/2006-17.pdf* . 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-NSCC-2006-17 and should be submitted on or before July 31, 2008. For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 Florence E. Harmon, Acting Secretary. 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). [FR Doc. E8-15707 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-58096; File No. SR-NYSE-2008-54] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Operative Date of the NYSE Rule 2 Requirement That NYSE-Only Member Organizations Apply for and Be Approved as Members of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. July 3, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on June 30, 2008, 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 Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as a change concerned solely with the administration of the Exchange pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(3) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to extend to December 31, 2008, the operative date of the NYSE Rule 2 requirement that NYSE-only member organizations apply for and be approved as members of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”). 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. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange is proposing to extend to December 31, 2008, the grace period for NYSE-only member organizations to apply for and be approved as FINRA members, as required by NYSE Rule 2. In connection with the consolidation of NASD and NYSE Regulation, Inc. member firm regulation operations into FINRA, which closed on July 30, 2007, the Exchange amended NYSE Rule 2 to require NYSE member organizations to also be FINRA members. 5 In connection with that rule change, the Commission approved a 60-day grace period within which NYSE-only member organizations must apply for and be approved for FINRA membership. In that rule filing, NYSE-only member organizations were defined as those member organizations that were not NASD members as of the date of the closing of the FINRA transaction. This grace period began on October 12, 2007, the date of Commission approval of the Exchange's rule filing. In furtherance of the consolidation, FINRA adopted NASD IM-1013-1 to enable eligible NYSE member organizations to become FINRA members though an expedited process (the “FINRA Waive-in application process”). 6 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-56654 (October 12, 2007), 72 FR 59129 (October 18, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-67). 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56653 (October 12, 2007), 72 FR 59127 (October 18, 2007) (SR-NASD-2007-56). At the close of the 60-day grace period, all but two of the former NYSE-only member organizations had applied for and been approved as FINRA members. On December 12, 2007, the Exchange filed for an extension of the grace period to June 30, 2008 for those two firms. 7 In that filing, the Exchange noted that those two firms had unique member qualification issues and were ineligible to participate in the FINRA Waive-in application process. As of June 30, 2008, these two firms have not yet been approved as FINRA firms, but are being considered for FINRA membership. Accordingly, the NYSE proposes to extend the grace period to December 31, 2008 for these two firms, to provide time for those issues to be resolved, including time for the firms to apply for and be approved as FINRA members through FINRA's regular member approval process. 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56953 (December 12, 2007), 72 FR 71990 (December 19, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-115). 2. Statutory Basis The basis under the Act 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. 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the foregoing proposed rule change is concerned solely with the administration of the Exchange, it is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 9 and Rule 19b-4(f)(3) 10 thereunder. 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. 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 10 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3). 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-2008-54 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2008-54. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the 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-2008-54 and should be submitted on or before July 31, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 11 Florence E. Harmon, Acting Secretary. 11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). [FR Doc. E8-15697 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-58089; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2008-71] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Enable the Exchange To Conduct Market Order and Closing Auctions in NYSE-Listed Securities Subject to a Sub-Penny Trading Condition July 2, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on June 27, 2008, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” 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. NYSE Arca has designated the proposed rule change as a “non-controversial” proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 7.35 in order to add the ability to conduct a Market Order and Closing Auction in securities listed on the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”) subject to a sub-penny trading condition. 5 The text of the proposed rule change is available at *http://www.nyse.com,* the principal office of the Exchange, and the Commission's Public Reference Room. 5 A sub-penny trading condition is defined by NYSE Rule 123D and applies to securities that are trading at a price of $1.05 or less. 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 NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.35 establishes rules for auctions that are conducted at different times during the trading day and in different eligible securities. NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.35(b) states that the Opening Auction will be conducted at 4 a.m.
(ET)and will include all eligible securities traded on the Exchange. NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.35(c) states that the Exchange will conduct a Market Order Auction at 9:29 a.m.
(ET)for:
(1)Exchange-listed securities for which the Exchange is the primary market; and
(2)all exchange-listed exchange traded funds (“ETFs”). All other securities are routed to the primary market until after the first opening print. Similarly, NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.35(e) states that the Exchange will conduct a Closing Auction at 4 p.m.
(ET)for:
(1)Exchange-listed securities for which NYSE Arca is the primary market and;
(2)all exchange-listed ETFs. All other securities are routed to the primary market. NYSE Rule 123D establishes a “sub-penny trading condition” that requires NYSE to place a non-regulatory trading halt on a security that is, or is immediately likely to be, trading at a price of less than $1.00. Specifically, NYSE Rule 123D states, “[w]henever a security trading on the Exchange is reported on the Consolidated Tape during normal trading hours as having traded at a price of $1.05 or less, or if a security would open on the Exchange at a price of $1.05 or less, trading in the security on the Exchange shall be immediately halted because of a `[s]ub-penny trading' condition.” The rule further states that, “[a]ny orders received by the NYSE in a security subject to a `[s]ub-penny trading' condition will be routed to NYSE Arca, Inc. (`NYSE Arca') where they will be handled in accordance with the rules governing that market.” The non-regulatory trading halt for securities with a sub-penny trading condition was added to NYSE Rule 123D in March 2007. 6 This rule filing resulted from the combination of Rule 612 of Regulation NMS 7 requiring securities priced at less than $1.00 be quoted in increments no smaller than $0.0001, and the fact that NYSE's trading system is not able to accommodate sub-penny trading, nor can it recognize a quote disseminated by another market center if such quote has a sub-penny component. NYSE determined that it would not be cost-effective to make the changes that would allow its trading system to fully accommodate sub-penny trading and, therefore, introduced the non-regulatory trading halt described above. Later in March 2007, NYSE again changed Rule 123D, this time adding language to establish that any orders received by NYSE in a security subject to a sub-penny trading condition will be routed to NYSE Arca. 8 The Exchange's ability to quote in sub-pennies allows for continued trading in securities that otherwise may have been halted, and brings continuity to the marketplace by preventing potentially harmful trading interruptions. 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55398 (March 5, 2007), 72 FR 11072 (March 12, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-25). 7 17 CFR 242.612. 8 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55537 (March 27, 2007), 72 FR 15749 (April 2, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-30). The purpose of this rule filing is to add new language to Rule 7.35 that will give the Exchange the ability to conduct a Market Order and Closing Auction in NYSE-listed securities subject to a sub-penny trading condition when NYSE directs orders to NYSE Arca for execution. Currently, NYSE Arca rules do not permit the Exchange to conduct a Market Order and/or Closing Auction in securities for which it is not the primary market. This restriction applies when NYSE has placed a non-regulatory trading halt on a security due to a sub-penny trading condition and NYSE orders are routed to NYSE Arca for execution. The Exchange believes that in those circumstances NYSE Arca must have the ability to conduct a Market Order Auction and Closing Auction for NYSE-listed securities subject to a sub-penny trading condition in order to facilitate a fair and orderly market and give customers the ability to interact with the market when not otherwise permitted to participate at NYSE. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.35(c) and
(e)to permit the Exchange to conduct a Market Order and Closing Auction in:
(1)Exchange-listed securities for which the Exchange is the primary market;
(2)all exchange-listed ETFs; and
(3)NYSE-listed securities subject to a sub-penny trading condition. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change offers the Exchange the ability to conduct a Market Order Auction and a Closing Auction in those instances where NYSE is prevented from trading in a security due to a sub-penny trading condition, but where NYSE Arca is permitted to conduct transactions. In that scenario, it is appropriate for the Exchange to conduct a Market Order Auction and a Closing Auction in order to best facilitate a fair and orderly market by providing the maximum number of matched orders at the best available price. This is particularly important because it will allow customers to interact with the market when not otherwise permitted to participate at NYSE. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 9 in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices; to promote just and equitable principles of trade; to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system; and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Specifically, the Exchange's ability to quote in sub-pennies allows for continued trading in securities that otherwise may have been halted and brings continuity to the marketplace by preventing potentially harmful trading interruptions. 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The 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 proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 10 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder 11 because the foregoing proposed rule:
(1)Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(2)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and
(3)does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. 12 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 11 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 12 In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires the self-regulatory organization to give the Commission 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. NYSE Arca has satisfied this requirement. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay and designate the proposed rule change as operative upon filing. The Commission hereby grants the Exchange's request and believes that such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. This action will permit without further delay more continuous trading of certain securities that are subject to a non-regulatory halt on their primary market, NYSE. 13 13 For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-NYSEArca-2008-71 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2008-71. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca 2008-71 and should be submitted on or before July 31, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 14 14 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-15621 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-58085; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2008-68] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the One Week Option Series Pilot Program Through July 12, 2009 July 2, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on June 24, 2008, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated 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 NYSE Arca proposes to amend its rules to extend the One Week Option Series pilot program (“Pilot Program”) for an additional year, through July 12, 2009. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at ( *http://www.nyse.com* ), at the Exchange's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose On July 12, 2005 the Commission approved the Pilot Program 5 permitting NYSE Arca to list and trade One Week Option Series. Under the terms of the Pilot Program, the Exchange can select up to five options classes on which One Week Option Series may be opened on any One Week Option Opening Date. The Exchange also may list One Week Option Series on any options class that is selected by other securities exchanges that employ a similar Pilot Program under their respective rules. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52013 (July 12, 2005), 70 FR 41471 (July 19, 2005) (SR-PCX-2005-32). The purpose of this proposal is to extend the Pilot Program for one year, through July 12, 2009. The current Pilot Program expires on July 12, 2008. 6 The Exchange believes that One Week Term Option Series can provide investors with a flexible and valuable tool to manage risk exposure, minimize capital outlays, and be more responsive to the timing of events affecting the securities that underlie options contracts. Although NYSE Arca has not listed any One Week Option Series during the Pilot Program, there has been investor interest in trading short-term options at the Chicago Board Options Exchange. In order to have the ability to respond to customer interest if warranted, the Exchange proposes to continue the Pilot Program at NYSE Arca. 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56048 (July 11, 2007), 72 FR 39653 (July 19, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-62) (Pilot Program extension). In the original proposal to establish the Pilot Program the Exchange stated that if it were to propose an extension or an expansion of the program, the Exchange would submit, along with any filing proposing such amendments to the program, a Pilot Program report (“Report”). The Report would provide an analysis of the Pilot Program covering the entire period during which the Pilot Program was in effect. Since the Exchange did not have any One Week Option Series listed during the first year of the Pilot Program, there are no data available to compile such a report at this time. Therefore there is no Report associated with the program included with this proposal to extend the Pilot Program. NYSE Arca represents that it has the necessary system capacity to support the addition of any new options series added as part of the One Week Option Series Pilot Program. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that One Week Option Series can stimulate customer interest in options and provide a flexible and valuable tool to manage risk exposure, minimize capital outlays, and be more responsive to the timing of events affecting the securities that underlie options contracts. For these reasons, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act. 7 Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 8 which requires that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 8 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will 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 Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one that:
(1)Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(2)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and
(3)does not become operative for 30 days from the date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 9 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. 10 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 10 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has fulfilled this requirement. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the operative delay to permit the proposed rule change to become operative prior to the 30th day after filing. The Commission has determined that waiving the 30-day operative delay of the Exchange's proposal is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest and will promote competition because such waiver will allow NYSE Arca to continue the existing Pilot Program without interruption. 11 Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal operative upon filing. 11 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File No. SR-NYSEArca-2008-68 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2008-68. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NYSEArca-2008-68 and should be submitted on or before July 31, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 12 12 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-15649 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-58099; File No. SR-Phlx-2008-50] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Complex Orders July 3, 2008. 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 1, 2008, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared substantially by the Phlx. 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 Phlx proposes to add Commentary .08 to Phlx Rule 1080 to establish an automated process for handling complex options orders on the Phlx's electronic trading platform for options, Phlx XL. 3 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50100 (July 27, 2004), 69 FR 44612 (August 3, 2004) (order approving File No. SR-Phlx-2003-59). The text of the proposed rule change is available at Phlx, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.phlx.com.* II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Phlx included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Phlx has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The purpose of the proposed rule change is to more efficiently handle complex orders on the Exchange by establishing rules and systems that would enable the Exchange to handle such orders electronically. Definitions The proposed rule change would establish specific definitions relevant to the automated handling of complex orders. Order Types Proposed Phlx Rule 1080, Commentary .08(i) would define “Complex Order” to mean any of the following: a spread order; 4 a straddle order; 5 a combination order; 6 a ratio order; 7 or a collar order (risk reversal). 8 4 A spread order is an order to buy a stated number of option contracts and to sell a stated number of option contracts in a different series of the same option and may be bid for or offered on a total net debit or credit basis. *See* Phlx Rule 1066(f)(1). 5 A straddle order is an order to buy a number of call option contracts and the same number of put option contracts with respect to the same underlying security (in the case of options on a stock or Exchange-Traded Fund Share) or the same underlying foreign currency (in the case of options on a foreign currency) and having the same exercise price and expiration date; or an order to sell a number of call option contracts and the same number of put option contracts with respect to the same underlying security (in the case of options on a stock or Exchange-Traded Fund Share) or the same underlying foreign currency (in the case of options on a foreign currency) and having the same exercise price and expiration date ( *e.g.* , an order to buy two XYZ July 50 calls and to buy two XYZ July 50 puts is a straddle order). In the case of adjusted stock option contracts, a straddle order need not consist of the same number of put and call contracts if such contracts both represent the same number of shares at option. *See* Phlx Rule 1066(f)(2). 6 A combination order is an order involving a number of call option contracts and the same number of put option contracts in the same underlying security and representing the same number of shares at option (if the underlying security is a stock or Exchange-Traded Fund Share) or the same number of foreign currency units (if the underlying security is a foreign currency). A combination order includes a conversion (generally, buying a put, selling a call and buying the underlying stock or Exchange-Traded Fund Share) and a reversal (generally, selling a put, buying a call and selling the underlying stock or Exchange-Traded Fund Share). In the case of adjusted option contracts, a combination order need not consist of the same number of shares at option. *See* Phlx Rule 1066(f)(3). 7 For purposes of this rule, a “ratio order” would be defined as a spread, straddle or combination order that may consist of legs that have a different number of contracts. While a ratio order under this proposed rule may consist of legs that have a different number of contracts, in order to establish priority pursuant to Phlx Rules 1033(d) and (g), the number of contracts must differ only by a permissible ratio. A permissible ratio for purposes of priority is any ratio that is equal to or greater than one-to-three (.333) and less than or equal to three-to-one (3.00). For example, a one-to-two (.5) ratio, a two-to-three (.667) ratio, or a two-to-one (2.00) ratio is permissible, whereas a one-to-four (.25) ratio or a four-to-one (4.0) ratio is not. 8 A collar order (risk reversal) is defined as an order involving the sale (purchase) of a call
(put)option coupled with the purchase
(sale)of a put
(call)option in equivalent units of the same underlying security having a lower (higher) exercise price than, and the same expiration date as, the sold (purchased) call
(put)option. Complex Order Strategy The term “Complex Order Strategy” means any Complex Order involving any option series which is priced at a net debit or credit (based on the relative prices of each component). The Exchange will calculate both a bid price and an offer price for each Complex Order Strategy based on the current PBBO (as defined below) for each component of the Complex Order and the bid/ask differential for each component. For example, a Complex Order Strategy might be “buy one XYZ January 20 call, sell one XYZ January 20 put.” The system would assign this Complex Order Strategy a specific identification number or code that would be used in the system to identify this Complex Order Strategy. Hypothetically, the identification number for this particular Complex Order Strategy could be “Complex Order Strategy #12345.” Complex Order Strategy #12345 would have a bid price and an offer price, as stated above, based on the PBBO and the bid/ask differential for each component. If an investor wishes to purchase or sell, for example, 10 Complex Order Strategy 12345, such an investor would be bidding for or offering to buy 10 XYZ January 20 calls and sell 10 XYZ January 20 puts. Other Definitions PBBO The term “PBBO” means the Phlx Best Bid and/or Offer for individual option series. cPBBO The term “cPBBO” means the best net debit or credit price for a Complex Order Strategy based on the PBBO for the individual components of such Complex Order Strategy. NBBO The term “NBBO” means the National Best Bid and/or Offer for individual option series. cNBBO The term “cNBBO” means the best net debit or credit price for a Complex Order Strategy based on the NBBO for the individual components of a Complex Order Strategy. Phlx XL Participant The term “Phlx XL participant” includes Streaming Quote Traders (“SQTs”), Remote Streaming Quote Traders (“RSQTs”), non-SQT Registered Options Traders (“ROTs”), specialists or non-Phlx market makers on another exchange; non-broker-dealer customers and non-market-maker off-floor broker-dealers; and Floor Brokers using the Options Floor Broker Management System. Order Entry Under the proposal, Complex Orders would be eligible to be entered in increments of $0.01. Non-broker-dealer customers and non-market-maker off-floor broker-dealers would be permitted to enter Complex Orders as Day, Good Till Cancelled (“GTC”) or Immediate or Cancel (“IOC”). Exchange SQTs, 9 RSQTs, 10 non-SQT ROTs, 11 specialists and non-Phlx market makers on another exchange would be permitted to enter Complex Orders as IOC only. Floor Brokers using the Options Floor Broker Management System 12 may enter Complex Orders as Day, GTC, or IOC on behalf of non-broker-dealer customers and non-market maker off-floor broker-dealers, and as IOC only on behalf of broker-dealers or affiliates of broker-dealers. 9 An SQT is an ROT who has received permission from the Exchange to generate and submit option quotations electronically through an electronic interface with AUTOM via an Exchange approved proprietary electronic quoting device in eligible options to which such SQT is assigned. *See* Phlx Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A). 10 An RSQT is an ROT that is a member or member organization with no physical trading floor presence who has received permission from the Exchange to generate and submit option quotations electronically through AUTOM in eligible options to which such RSQT has been assigned. An RSQT may only submit such quotations electronically from off the floor of the Exchange. *See* Phlx Rule 1014(b)(ii)(B). 11 A non-SQT ROT is an ROT who is neither an SQT nor an RSQT. *See* Phlx Rule 1014(b)(ii)(C). 12 The Options Floor Broker Management System is a component of the Exchange's electronic options trading system designed to enable Floor Brokers and/or their employees to enter, route and report transactions stemming from options orders received on the Exchange. The Options Floor Broker Management System also is designed to establish an electronic audit trail for options orders represented and executed by Floor Brokers on the Exchange, such that the audit trail provides an accurate, time-sequenced record of electronic and other orders, quotations and transactions on the Exchange, beginning with the receipt of an order by the Exchange, and further documenting the life of the order through the process of execution, partial execution, or cancellation of that order. *See* Phlx Rule 1080, Commentary .06. Eligible Complex Orders A Complex Order would be eligible to trade on Phlx XL only when each component of the Complex Order is open for trading on the Exchange. Complex Orders may be executed against the Complex Order Book (“CBOOK”) or placed on the CBOOK. Certain Complex Orders will be entered into a Complex Order Live Auction (“COLA”) either following a Complex Order Opening Process (“COOP”) or when a Complex Order improves the cPBBO. Complex Orders would not trade on Phlx XL when:
(i)The Complex Order is received prior to the opening on the Exchange for each component of the Complex Order;
(ii)during an opening rotation for any component of the Complex Order;
(iii)during a trading halt for any component of the Complex Order;
(iv)when the Exchange's automated execution system is disengaged for any component of the Complex Order;
(v)when the Exchange's Risk Monitor Mechanism 13 is engaged for any component of the Complex Order pursuant to Phlx Rule 1093 that represents all or a portion of the PBBO; or
(vi)when the Exchange's market for any component of the Complex Order is disseminated pursuant to Phlx Rule 1082(a)(ii)(B). 14 13 The Risk Monitor Mechanism automatically removes a Phlx XL participant's quotations from the Exchange's disseminated quotation in all series of a particular option once such Phlx XL participant executes a maximum volume threshold within a specific time period. In the event that the specialist's quote is removed by the Risk Monitor Mechanism and there are no other Phlx XL participants quoting in the particular option, the system will automatically provide two-sided quotes that comply with the Exchange's rules concerning quote spread parameters on behalf of the specialist until such time as the specialist revises the quotation. *See* Phlx Rule 1093(d). 14 If an SQT's or RSQT's (other than a Directed SQT or RSQT) quotation size in a particular series in a Streaming Quote Option is exhausted or removed by the Risk Monitor Mechanism, such SQT's or RSQT's quotation shall be deleted from the Exchange's disseminated quotation until the time the SQT or RSQT revises his/her quotation. If the Exchange's disseminated size in a particular series in a Streaming Quote Option is exhausted at that particular price level, and no specialist, SQT, or RSQT has revised their quotation immediately following the exhaustion of the Exchange's disseminated size at such price level, the Exchange shall automatically provide two-sided quotes that comply with the Exchange's rules concerning quote spread parameters on behalf of the specialist until such time as the specialist revises the quotation, with a size of one contract. *See* Phlx Rule 1082(a)(ii)(B). The Phlx XL system will begin a COOP upon the termination of most of the above conditions, except that the Phlx XL system will not engage the COOP Timer upon re-opening Complex Order trading when either:
(a)The Exchange's automated execution system was disengaged and subsequently re-engaged, or
(b)the Phlx XL Risk Monitor Mechanism was engaged and subsequently disengaged for a quote of any component of the Complex Order that represents the PBBO. In either event, the Phlx XL system will immediately begin the COOP Evaluation (defined below) and will not initiate the COOP Timer (defined below). COOP The Phlx XL system will accept pre-opening Complex Orders, and will accept Complex Orders prior to re-opening following a halt in trading on the Exchange. Complex Orders received prior to the opening or during a trading halt will reside on the CBOOK. Once trading in each component of a Complex Order has opened (or re-opened following a trading halt), the Phlx XL system will initiate a COOP, provided that a COOP will only be conducted for any Complex Order Strategy that has a Complex Order pending at the opening or re-opening following a trading halt. The COOP will be conducted in two phases, the “COOP Timer” and the “COOP Evaluation.” COOP Timer A COOP Timer will begin counting a number of seconds during which bids and/or offers for a Complex Order Strategy can be received but during which Complex Orders may not be traded. The COOP Timer would be configurable to a period ranging from 0 to 600 seconds as determined by the Exchange and communicated to the Exchange membership via Exchange Circular. The purpose of the COOP Timer is to allow a time period for the markets trading the components of the Complex Order to conduct openings for the components and to establish prices on such markets after the opening. The Exchange believes that the COOP Timer should thus contribute to fair and orderly markets in Complex Orders on the Exchange at the opening or re-opening following a trading halt. Multiple Complex Orders that represent the same Complex Order Strategy would participate in the COOP Timer. The Exchange will establish a maximum number of Complex Order Strategies that can be subject to a COOP Timer at any given time. Such maximum number will be communicated to the membership by Exchange Circular. The purpose of the “maximum number” proposal is to enable the Exchange to better manage system capacity relating to Complex Order Strategies subject to a COOP Timer. The system would “stagger” COOP Timers when the Phlx XL system has received the maximum number of Complex Order Strategies ( *i.e.* , begin another round of COOP Timers that would include Complex Order Strategies that have not yet been the subject of a COOP Timer). Complex Orders received during the COOP Timer and COOP Evaluation will reside on the CBOOK. Complex Orders will be visible to Phlx XL participants during the COOP Timer and COOP Evaluation. The Phlx XL system will not engage the COOP Timer upon re-opening Complex Order trading when:
(a)The Exchange's automated execution system was disengaged and subsequently re-engaged, or
(b)the Phlx XL Risk Monitor Mechanism was engaged and subsequently disengaged. In either event, the Phlx XL system will immediately begin the COOP Evaluation. COOP Evaluation Upon expiration of the COOP Timer, the Phlx XL system will conduct a COOP Evaluation to determine which Complex Order, if any, on the CBOOK will be the “COLA-eligible order” (as defined below) subject to a COLA. The Phlx XL system will establish one single COLA-eligible order 15 for each COLA, against which Phlx XL participants may submit bids and offers. The COLA-eligible order, if any, will be identified by the Phlx XL system among the following Complex Orders: Market and marketable limit Complex Orders (including Complex Orders that cross the cPBBO), and Complex Orders that improve the cPBBO. 15 A single COLA-eligible order would also include multiple orders at the same
(best)price that are aggregated and treated by the system as one COLA-eligible order pursuant to proposed Phlx Rule 1080, Commentary .08(d)(ii)(B)(2)(b). The purpose of the COOP Evaluation is to enable the system to determine, based on a “snap shot” of all Complex Orders on the CBOOK, the manner in which orders received during that time period will be handled. For example, if at the end of the COOP Timer the Phlx XL system determines that no market or marketable limit Complex Orders, Complex Orders that improve the cPBBO, and/or Complex Orders that cross the cPBBO exist on the CBOOK, Complex Orders that were received during the COOP Timer will remain on the CBOOK. COLA-Eligible Order On the other hand, if at the expiration of the COOP Timer, the Phlx XL system determines that there are market or marketable limit Complex Orders (including Complex Orders that cross the cPBBO) and/or Complex Orders that improve the cPBBO in the Phlx XL system, the Phlx XL system will conduct a COOP Evaluation to determine which of those orders will be placed in a COLA as the single “COLA-eligible order” for each particular Complex Order Strategy, against which Phlx XL participants may enter bids and offers. A “COLA-eligible order” means a Complex Order identified by way of a COOP or that improves the cPBBO respecting the specific Complex Order Strategy that is the subject of the Complex Order. • If a single Complex Order exists in the Phlx XL system that improves the cPBBO on one side of the market, that order will be the COLA-eligible order. • If multiple Complex Orders exist in the Phlx XL system that improve the cPBBO on one side of the market, the Complex Order at the best price will be the COLA-eligible order. If there are multiple Complex Orders at the best price, the Phlx XL system will treat the aggregate size at that price as a single COLA-eligible order. Such orders will be executed in the order in which they were received. • If market and/or marketable limit Complex Orders exist in the Phlx XL system on both sides of the market, the Complex Order on the side of the market with the larger marketable size will be the COLA-eligible order. If the market and/or marketable limit Complex Orders have the same size on both sides of the market, the market and/or marketable limit Complex Orders that represent the larger size associated with market orders will be the COLA-eligible order. If the size associated with market Complex Orders is the same on both sides of the market, the side of the market with the first Complex Order establishing the best price will be the COLA-eligible order. The size associated with multiple market and marketable limit Complex Orders at the same price will be aggregated and treated as one COLA-eligible order at the best price by the system. Such orders will be executed in the order in which they were received. • If Complex Orders on opposite sides of the market that cross through the mid-point of the cPBBO exist in the Phlx XL system, the side of the market that is priced at the greater amount through the mid-point of the cPBBO will be the COLA-eligible order. If both sides of the market are priced at an equal amount through the mid-point of the cPBBO, or are priced at the cPBBO, the side of the market with the greater size will be the COLA-eligible order. If both sides of the market have the same size, the side of the market that was first to submit the best price will be a COLA-eligible order. • Orders that are not determined to be the COLA-eligible order may participate in the COLA pursuant to proposed Phlx Rule 1080, Commentary .08(e)(iii), as described below. • If Complex Orders on opposite sides of the market exist in the Phlx XL system that improve the cPBBO but do not cross the mid-point of the cPBBO, there will be no COLA-eligible order. The purpose of these scenarios is to provide a methodology for determining which order in the Phlx XL system would qualify as the COLA-eligible order; the methodology is intended to reward the participant whose COLA-eligible order was either submitted first in time or whose COLA-eligible order would create the narrowest spread in the cPBBO. The Exchange believes that once a COLA has begun, the person submitting the initial COLA-eligible order should be the one to benefit from the auction relating to his or her particular COLA-eligible order during the COLA. Other Complex Orders representing the same Complex Order Strategy on the same side of the market as the COLA-eligible order under the scenarios listed above, regardless of price, would be entitled to executions only after the COLA-eligible order has been executed in full. An order that would otherwise be the COLA-eligible order that is received in the Phlx XL system during the final ten seconds of any trading session would not be the COLA-eligible order. COLA Complex Orders on the CBOOK may be subject to an automated COLA process. A COLA may take place
(1)following a COOP, or
(2)during normal trading if the Phlx XL system receives a Complex Order that improves the cPBBO. If the Phlx XL system identifies the existence of a single COLA-eligible order following a COOP or by way of receipt during normal trading of a Complex Order that improves the cPBBO, such COLA-eligible order will initiate a COLA, during which Phlx XL participants may bid and offer against the COLA-eligible order pursuant to this rule. COLA-eligible orders will be executed without consideration of any prices that might be available on other exchanges trading the same options contracts, unless the Phlx XL participant submitting the COLA-eligible order designates the COLA-eligible order as ineligible for execution during the COLA at a price that is inferior to the NBBO for the individual components of the Complex Order Strategy that is the subject of the COLA-eligible order. The purpose of this provision is to provide a method for Phlx XL participants, upon request, to protect each component of their Complex Order from trading through the NBBO. However, an otherwise “NBBO protected” COLA-eligible order may not be so designated once placed onto the CBOOK. Upon the identification of the COLA-eligible order by the Phlx XL system, the Exchange will send a broadcast message to Phlx XL participants indicating that a COLA has been initiated. The broadcast message will identify the Complex Order Strategy, the size of the COLA-eligible order, and any contingencies, if applicable ( *e.g.* , All-or-None), but will not identify the side of the market or the price of the COLA-eligible order. The purpose of this provision is to maintain a fair and orderly market for Complex Orders on the Exchange by ensuring a “blind” auction in the COLA. COLA Timer Once the Phlx XL system has identified a COLA-eligible order (either through price-improvement or by way of a COOP), the COLA will begin with a timing mechanism (a “COLA Timer”), which is a configurable counting period not to exceed five seconds, during which Phlx XL participants may submit bids or offers that improve on the cPBBO for the particular Complex Order Strategy. In order to be consistent and to avoid confusion, the COLA Timer will be set for the same number of seconds for all options trading on the Exchange as determined by the Exchange and communicated to the membership via Exchange Circular. Complex Orders may be cancelled at any time prior to the commencement of a COLA. To ensure the uninterrupted continuity of the COLA, the proposed rule would provide that no Complex Order(s) in a particular Complex Order Strategy may be cancelled during the COLA for that Complex Order Strategy. Such Complex Orders may be cancelled following the completion of the COLA for that Complex Order Strategy. Bidding and Offering in Response to a COLA Phlx XL participants may bid and/or offer on either or both side(s) of the market during the COLA Timer by submitting one or more electronic bids or offers that improve the cPBBO, known as a “COLA Sweep.” Phlx XL participants may also bid and/or offer electronically using limit orders. Such orders would be handled as described below. A single Phlx XL participant may submit multiple COLA Sweeps at different prices in increments of $0.01 in response to a COLA broadcast, regardless of the minimum trading increment applicable to the specific series. A COLA Sweep may be for a size that is less than the size of the COLA-eligible order, and multiple COLA Sweeps submitted by the same Phlx XL participant may be for different sizes at different price levels. Phlx XL participants may change the size of a previously submitted COLA Sweep at the previously submitted COLA price during the COLA Timer. In the event that a Phlx XL participant submits multiple COLA Sweeps in a particular Complex Order Strategy, the system will use the Phlx XL participant's most recently submitted COLA Sweep at each price level as that participant's response at that price. The Phlx XL participant's most recently submitted COLA Sweep will be included in the allocation algorithm described below, unless the newly submitted COLA Sweep has a size of zero. A COLA Sweep with a size of zero will remove a Phlx XL participant's previously submitted COLA Sweep from the COLA at that price level. The purpose of this provision is to reward Phlx XL participants that are first to bid or offer during the COLA Timer without penalizing them simply because the Phlx XL participant changes the size of his/her COLA Sweep. COLA Sweeps will not be visible to any participant and will not be disseminated by the Exchange. This is to ensure a fair auction during the COLA Timer, such that all participants would submit COLA Sweeps at their best price. The Exchange's rules regarding exposure of Solicited Transactions and orders submitted by Order Entry Firms 16 acting as agent who wish to trade as principal against such orders will apply to complex orders trading on Phlx XL. 17 16 The term “Order Entry Firm” means a member organization of the Exchange that is able to route orders to AUTOM. *See* Phlx Rule 1080(c)(ii)(A)(1). 17 Under Exchange rules, Order Entry Firms may not execute as principal against orders on the limit order book they represent as agent unless:
(a)Agency orders are first exposed on the limit order book for at least three seconds,
(b)the Order Entry Firm has been bidding or offering on the Exchange for at least three seconds prior to receiving an agency order that is executable against such order, or
(c)the Order Entry Firm proceeds in accordance with the crossing rules contained in Phlx Rule 1064. *See* Phlx Rule 1080(c)(ii)(C)(1). Order Entry Firms must expose orders they represent as agent for at least three seconds before such orders may be automatically executed, in whole or in part, against orders solicited from members and non-member broker-dealers to transact with such orders. *See* Phlx Rule 1080(c)(ii)(C)(2). Execution of COLA-Eligible Orders Upon the expiration of the COLA Timer, COLA Sweeps and/or any Complex Orders received during the COLA Timer that improve the cPBBO may be executed against the COLA-eligible order (unless the cPBBO is inferior to the cNBBO and the Phlx XL participant submitting the COLA-eligible order has designated the components of the COLA-eligible order as ineligible for execution at a price that is inferior to the cNBBO). The COLA-eligible order will receive the best price or prices available for the Complex Order Strategy represented by the COLA-eligible order. The components of a COLA-eligible order may be executed in one cent increments, regardless of the minimum quoting increments otherwise appropriate to the individual legs of the order. Executions in the COLA will comply with the requirements of Phlx Rule 1033(d). 18 18 Phlx Rule 1033(d), “Spread Type Priority,” states that when a member holding a hedge order, as defined in Phlx Rule 1066, and bidding or offering on the basis of a total credit or debit for the order has determined that the order may not be executed by a combination of transactions at or within the bids and offers established in the marketplace, then the order may be executed as a hedge order at the total credit or debit with one other member with priority over either the bid or the offer established in the marketplace that is not better than the bids or offers comprising such total credit or debit, provided that the member executes at least one option leg at a better price than the established bid or offer for that option contract AND no option leg is executed at a price outside of the established bid or offer for that option contract. Trade Allocation and Priority As stated above, COLA-eligible orders, COLA Sweeps, and responsive Complex Orders will trade first based on the best price or prices available at the end of the COLA Timer. If no COLA Sweeps or responsive Complex Orders for the same Complex Order Strategy as the COLA-eligible order that improve the initial cPBBO were received during the COLA Timer, each component of the COLA-eligible order may trade at the PBBO with existing quotes and/or limit orders on the limit order book for the individual components of the Complex Order, provided that each component is executed such that the components comprise the Complex Order Strategy with the correct ratio for the desired net debit or credit. Trades pursuant to this paragraph will be allocated in accordance with Phlx Rule 1014(g)(vii), and an SQT or RSQT quoting all components of the Complex Order will have priority over SQTs and RSQTs quoting a single component, but not over customer orders. If the markets for the individual components of a Complex Order Strategy independently improve during the COLA Timer and match the best price of COLA Sweep(s) and/or responsive Complex Order(s), the Phlx XL system will execute such COLA Sweep(s) and/or responsive Complex Orders before executing the individual components of the Complex Order Strategy. A non-broker-dealer customer Complex Order will have priority over specialists, SQTs, RSQTs, and off-floor broker-dealers bidding for and/or offering any component(s) of the Complex Order Strategy at the same price, but not over non-broker-dealer customer orders representing any component(s) of the Complex Order Strategy at the same price. The purpose of this provision is to encourage Phlx XL participants to participate in the Complex Order auction process, in which the Phlx XL system will create opportunities for price improvement of the COLA-eligible order, rather than doing so with individual orders. The Exchange believes that the systemic approach using Complex Orders in the auction process will foster fair and orderly automated markets for Complex Orders, with the potential for price improvement each time the automated auction process is engaged. If multiple customer Complex Orders, COLA Sweeps, Phlx XL participant Complex Orders and/or off-floor broker-dealer Complex Orders are eligible for execution against the COLA-eligible order at the same net price, the trade will be allocated, subject to the size of the COLA-eligible order: • First, to customer marketable Complex Orders on the CBOOK (as defined below) in the order in which they were received; • Second, to COLA Sweeps on a size pro-rata basis; • Third, to SQTs, RSQTs, and non-SQT ROTs who have submitted IOC Complex Orders that are marketable against the COLA-eligible order, on a size pro-rata basis; and • Fourth, to non-market maker off-floor broker-dealers on a size pro-rata basis. Executions in the COLA will comply with the requirements of Phlx Rule 1033(d), as described above. For allocation purposes, the size of a COLA Sweep or responsive Complex Order received during the COLA Timer would be limited to the size of the COLA-eligible order. For example, if the size of a COLA-eligible order is 100 contracts, and a COLA Sweep is received for 500 contracts, the system will calculate the algorithm using a size of 100 contracts for the COLA Sweep. The purpose of this provision is to prevent artificially inflated COLA Sweep and Complex Order sizes intended to increase the size pro rata entitlement applicable to the Phlx XL participant submitting the COLA Sweep or Complex Order. If a COLA-eligible order cannot be filled in its entirety, any remaining balance would be placed on the CBOOK unless the COLA-eligible order has been submitted with other instructions ( *i.e.* , cancel). Enhanced Specialist Participation In the situation where the specialist submits a COLA Sweep during the COLA Timer at the same price as other COLA Sweeps that are eligible for execution against the COLA-eligible order, after customer marketable Complex Orders have been executed against the COLA-eligible order, the specialist would be entitled to receive the greater of the proportion of the aggregate size at the cPBBO associated with such specialist's COLA Sweep, SQT, and RSQT COLA Sweeps, and non-SQT ROT Complex Orders on the CBOOK ( *i.e.* , size pro rata); or 40% of the remainder of the order. The specialist is not entitled to receive an allocation that would exceed the size of the specialist's COLA Sweep. Firm Quote Requirement for COLA-Eligible Orders COLA Sweeps in response to a COLA broadcast would represent non-firm interest that can be modified at any time prior to the end of the COLA Timer. At the end of the COLA Timer, a COLA Sweep would be firm only with respect to the COLA-eligible order for which it is submitted, provided that COLA Sweeps that have size remaining after the COLA-eligible order is exhausted are also eligible to trade with other incoming COLA-eligible orders in the auction queue that are received during the COLA Timer after the initial COLA-eligible order has been executed in its entirety. Any COLA Sweeps not accepted in whole or in a permissible ratio will expire at the end of the COLA Timer. Complex Orders Resting on the CBOOK The proposed rule describes the handling of Complex Orders resting on the CBOOK, and incoming electronic Complex Orders that are received prior to the expiration of the COLA Timer (collectively, for purposes of this rule, “incoming Complex Orders”) representing the same Complex Order Strategy as a COLA-eligible order. At the end of the COLA Timer, the Phlx XL system will determine the price and size of COLA Sweeps and any orders that were received during the COLA Timer that are unrelated to the COLA but nonetheless are eligible to participate in the COLA as set forth below. Same Side of the Market as COLA-Eligible Order Incoming Complex Orders that were received during the COLA Timer for the same Complex Order Strategy as the COLA-eligible order that are on the same side of the market will join the COLA. The original COLA-eligible order has priority at all price points ( *i.e.* , multiple COLA Sweep Prices) over the incoming Complex Order(s), regardless of the price of the incoming Complex Order. Therefore, the incoming Complex Order would not be eligible for execution until the COLA-eligible order is executed in its entirety. The purpose of this provision is to provide incentive for, and to reward, customers who submit initial COLA-eligible orders by systemically completing the COLA for such an order. In this manner, the entire order may benefit from COLA Sweeps and price-improving orders on the opposite side of the market. The Exchange further believes that affording priority to the initial COLA-eligible order at all price points submitted for the same Complex Order Strategy fosters a fair and orderly marketplace, is more technologically sound, and will eliminate the potentially disruptive effect of other market participants bidding or offering in penny increments for the purpose of taking advantage of COLA Sweeps and price-improving orders submitted for execution against the original COLA-eligible order without having submitted an initial Complex Order that improves the cPBBO (and thus becomes a COLA-eligible order). Incoming Complex Orders on the same side of the market as a COLA-eligible order are eligible for execution once the entire COLA-eligible order has been executed. Once the COLA-eligible order has been executed in its entirety, additional Complex Orders on the same side of the market as the COLA-eligible order will be executed (if at all) at each price level in the order in which they were received. If such incoming Complex Orders are not executed in their entirety, any remaining contracts will not be considered a COLA-eligible order and the Phlx XL system will place such remaining bids or offers on the CBOOK, subject to other instructions. If the incoming Complex Order is not executed in its entirety, the system will not initiate a new COLA. Any remaining contracts will be placed on the CBOOK, subject to other instructions. If no COLA Sweeps or Complex Orders for the same Complex Order Strategy as the COLA-eligible order were received during the COLA Timer, each component of the COLA-eligible order may trade at the PBBO with existing quotes and/or limit orders on the limit order book for the individual components of the Complex Order, provided that each component is executed such that the components comprise the Complex Order Strategy with the correct ratio for the desired net debit or credit. Trades involving the individual components of a Complex Order would be allocated in accordance with Exchange Rule 1014(g)(vii). 19 An SQT or RSQT quoting all components of the Complex Order would have priority over SQTs and RSQTs quoting a single component, but not over customer orders. 19 Phlx Rule 1014(g)(vii) is the allocation algorithm applicable to trades executed on Phlx XL. Customer Complex Orders—Opposite Side of the Market Incoming customer Complex Orders that are received during the COLA Timer on the opposite side of the market from the COLA-eligible order with a price equal to or better than the best COLA Sweep Price will be executed against the COLA-eligible order (which will be executed in its entirety first as described in sub-paragraph
(B)above) as follows: • If such incoming customer Complex Order is a limit order at the same price as the best COLA Sweep Price, the incoming Complex Order will be executed at the Sweep Price. • If such incoming Complex Order is a limit order that improved the best COLA Sweep Price, the incoming customer Complex Order will be executed at the mid-point of the best COLA Sweep Price and the limit order price, rounded, if necessary, to the closest minimum trading increment to the benefit of the COLA-eligible order. • If such incoming customer Complex Order is a market order or a limit order that crosses the cPBBO, the incoming Complex Order will be executed at the mid-point of the cPBBO on the same side of the market as the COLA-eligible order and the best Sweep Price, rounded, if necessary, to the closest minimum trading increment to the benefit of the COLA-eligible order. • If multiple customer Complex Orders are received on the opposite side of the market from the COLA-eligible order, such orders will be executed in the order in which they were received at each price level. • If the COLA-eligible order is executed in its entirety and there are remaining bids or offers from the incoming Complex Order(s), the Phlx XL system will place such bids or offers onto the CBOOK, subject to other instructions. Non-Customer Complex Orders—Opposite Side of the Market Incoming non-customer Complex Orders that are received during the COLA Timer on the opposite side of the market from the COLA-eligible order with a price equal to or better than the best COLA Sweep Price will be executed against the COLA-eligible order as follows: • If such incoming non-customer Complex Order is a limit order at the same price as the best COLA Sweep Price, the incoming non-customer Complex Order will be executed at the Sweep Price. • If such incoming non-customer Complex Order is a limit order that improved the best COLA Sweep Price, the incoming non-customer Complex Order will be executed at the limit order price. • If such incoming non-customer Complex Order is a market order or a limit order that crosses the cPBBO, the incoming non-customer Complex Order will be executed at a price of $0.01 better than the cPBBO on the same side of the market as the COLA-eligible order. • If multiple non-customer Complex Orders are received on the opposite side of the market from the COLA-eligible order, such orders will be executed in the order in which they were received at each price level. • If the COLA-eligible order is executed in its entirety and there are remaining bids or offers from the incoming non-customer Complex Order(s), the Phlx XL system will place such bids or offers onto the CBOOK, subject to other instructions. Incoming Complex Orders that were received during the COLA Timer on the opposite side of the market from the COLA-eligible order with a price inferior to any other COLA Sweep Price(s) will be executed against the COLA-eligible order after all interest at the better COLA Sweep Price(s) has/have been executed. The system will treat any unexecuted remaining contracts in the incoming Complex Order as a new Complex Order, and will not initiate a new COLA. Such unexecuted remaining contracts will be placed on the CBOOK, subject to other instructions. CBOOK Non-broker-dealer customer Complex Orders and non-market marker broker-dealer orders are eligible for entry into the CBOOK and may be designated as Day or GTC. Complex Orders may be entered onto the CBOOK in increments of $0.01. The individual components of a Complex Order may be executed in minimum increments of $0.01, regardless of the minimum increments applicable to such components. Such orders will be placed on the CBOOK by the system when the following conditions exist: • The Complex Order does not price-improve upon the cPBBO; • The order is received before the expiration of the COOP; • When the Complex Order is received during a trading halt on the Exchange for any component of the Complex Order; • When the Complex Order is received while the Exchange's automated execution system is disengaged for any component of such Complex Order; • When any component of the Complex Order is a pre-opening order; or • When the Complex Order is received during the final 10 seconds of the trading session. A COLA-eligible order designated as ineligible for execution in the COLA at a price that is inferior to the NBBO at the time of execution for the individual components of the Complex Order Strategy that is the subject of the COLA-eligible order may not be so designated once placed onto the CBOOK. Therefore, any Complex Order initially so designated would lose this designation once placed onto the CBOOK. Execution of Complex Orders in the CBOOK Complex Orders will be automatically executed against orders on the CBOOK in price priority and in time priority at the same price. A Complex Order resting on the CBOOK will execute automatically against:
(i)Quotes or orders on the limit order book for the individual components of the order, provided that the Complex Order can be executed in full or in a permissible ratio by such quotes or orders (allocated in accordance with Phlx Rule 1014(g)(vii), and an SQT or RSQT quoting all components of the Complex Order will have priority over SQTs and RSQTs quoting a single component, but not over customer orders); or
(ii)an incoming marketable Complex Order(s) that do(es) not trigger a COLA Timer, whichever arrives first. An incoming marketable Complex Order that does not trigger a COLA Timer will execute in the following order: • First, against quotes or orders on the limit order book for the individual components of the order (provided that the Complex Order can be executed in full or in a permissible ratio by such quotes or orders). Trades executed pursuant to this provision will be allocated in accordance with current Phlx Rule 1014(g)(vii), which sets forth the allocation algorithm for electronic trades. An SQT or RSQT quoting all components of the Complex Order will have priority over SQTs and RSQTs quoting a single component, but not over customer orders. • Second, against non-broker-dealer customer Complex Orders and non-market maker broker-dealer Complex Orders resting in the CBOOK in price priority and, at the same price, against
(i)non-broker-dealer customer Complex Orders in the order in which they were received; and
(ii)non-market-maker broker-dealer Complex Orders on a size pro rata basis, provided that any execution pursuant to paragraph (f)(iii)(B)(2) complies with the requirements of Phlx Rule 1033(d). 20 20 *See* note 18, *supra.* A non-broker-dealer customer Complex Order will have priority over specialists, SQTs, and RSQTs and off-floor broker-dealers bidding for and/or offering any component(s) of the Complex Order Strategy at the same price, but not over non-broker-dealer customer orders representing any component(s) of the Complex Order Strategy at the same price. Open Outcry Phlx members and Phlx XL participants quoting and trading in open outcry would not be eligible to participate in the electronic Complex Order system. In order to participate, such members and Phlx XL participants must submit COLA Sweeps and/or responsive Complex Orders electronically. Phlx XL Strategy Price Protection The Exchange recognizes two Complex Order Strategies that could cause undue risk to market participants. In order to address these strategies, the Exchange has developed a program in the Phlx XL system known as Phlx XL Strategy Price Protection (“SPP”). SPP is a feature of Phlx XL that prevents certain Complex Order Strategies from trading at prices outside of pre-set standard limits. SPP will apply only to Vertical Spreads and Time Spreads, as defined below. Vertical Spreads have a quantifiable minimum and maximum value. Time Spreads have a quantifiable minimum value. SPP ensures that neither of these strategies will trade outside of these quantifiable values by more than a pre-set amount, as described below. Vertical Spread A Vertical Spread is a Complex Order Strategy consisting of the purchase of one call
(put)option and the sale of another call
(put)option overlying the same security that have the same expiration but different strike prices. The SPP will calculate the maximum possible value of a Vertical Spread by subtracting the value of the lower strike price from the value of the higher strike price as between the two components. For example, a Vertical Spread consisting of the purchase of one January 30 call and the sale of one January 35 call would have a maximum value of $5.00. The minimum possible value of a Vertical Spread is always zero. The SPP will ensure that a Vertical Spread will not trade at a net price of less than the minimum possible value (minus a pre-set value setting an acceptable range) or greater than the maximum possible value (plus a pre-set value setting an acceptable range). The pre-set value and acceptable range will be uniform for all options traded on the Exchange as determined by the Exchange and communicated to the membership by Exchange Circular. Time Spread A Time Spread is a Complex Order Strategy consisting of the purchase of one call
(put)option and the sale of another call
(put)option overlying the same security that have different expirations but the same strike price. The maximum possible value of a Time Spread is unlimited. The minimum possible value of a Time Spread is zero. The SPP will ensure that a Time Spread will not trade at a price of less than zero, minus a pre-set value setting an acceptable range. If the limits set forth above would be violated by an execution, the system will place the Complex Order on the CBOOK. 2. Statutory Basis The Phlx believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 21 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 22 in particular, in that it is 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, by establishing a system and rules that permit the automated handling of Complex Orders, and providing a price improving auction for Complex Orders that is fair, orderly, and results in customers receiving timely and quality executions on the Phlx. 21 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 22 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 not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others No written comments were either solicited or received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period
(i)as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or
(ii)as to which Phlx 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-Phlx-2008-50 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2008-50. 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 Phlx. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2008-50 and should be submitted on or before July 31, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 23 23 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-15698 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-58098; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2008-035] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change Filed by The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC July 3, 2008. On April 21, 2008, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to amend the by-laws (“NASDAQ OMX By-Laws”) of its parent corporation, NASDAQ OMX. The NASDAQ OMX By-Law Proposal was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on May 8, 2008. 3 On June 10, 2008, Nasdaq filed an extension of time for Commission action extending the action date until July 3, 2008. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57761 (May 1, 2008), 73 FR 26182 (SR-NASDAQ-2008-035). Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 4 provides that within thirty-five days of the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or within such longer period as the Commission may designate up to ninety days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change or institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. 4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposal, which relates to the acquisition of the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. and the Boston Stock Exchange Clearing Corporation by NASDAQ OMX. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 5 designates August 6, 2008, as the date by which the Commission should either approve or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change. 5 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 6 6 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31). Florence E. Harmon, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-15627 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [File No. 500-1] In the Matter of: VMT Scientific, Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading July 8, 2008. It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of VMT Scientific, Inc. (“VMT Scientific”) because of questions regarding the accuracy of assertions in press releases concerning, among other things:
(1)The legal status of VMT Scientific;
(2)VMT Scientific's business combinations;
(3)VMT Scientific's current financial condition; and
(4)VMT Scientific's assets. The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT, July 8, 2008 through 11:59 p.m. EDT, on July 21, 2008. By the Commission. Florence E. Harmon, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. 08-1428 Filed 7-8-08; 11:32 am]
Connectionstraces to 64
Traces to 64 documents
U.S. Code
- Interests in nonbanking organizations§ 1843
- Definitions§ 3502
- Enhanced control of dangerous biological agents and toxins§ 262a
- Regulation of certain biological agents and toxins§ 8401
- Authorization for programs for domestic resettlement of and assistance to refugees§ 1522
- Statements or entries generally§ 1001
- Expenditure of appropriations by Bureau§ 13
- Contracts with, and grants to, urban Indian organizations§ 1652
- Definitions§ 1603
- False, fictitious or fraudulent claims§ 287
- Civil actions for false claims§ 3730
- False claims§ 3729
- National Wildlife Refuge System§ 668dd
- Congressional findings, declarations, and purposes§ 4371
- Failure to comply with provisions of lease§ 188
- Unfair practices in import trade§ 1337
- Treatment of certain textiles and apparel§ 3721
- Settlements§ 9622
- Abatement actions§ 9606
- Records maintained on individuals§ 552a
- Departmental regulations§ 301
- Records management by agency heads; general duties§ 3101
- General responsibilities for records management§ 2904
- Federal agency responsibilities§ 3506
- Purposes§ 3501
- Audit requirements§ 78j–1
- Short title§ 78a
- Findings and declaration of policy§ 80a–1
- Registration, responsibilities, and oversight of self-regulatory organizations§ 78s
- National securities exchanges§ 78f
- Definitions and application§ 78c
- Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings§ 552
- National system for clearance and settlement of securities transactions§ 78q–1
CFR
- List of permissible nonbanking activities.§ 225.28
- Requirements as to form, and filing of documents other than correspondence.§ 4.2
- The public record.§ 4.9
- Good guidance practices.§ 10.115
- Termination of investigations.§ 210.21
- Initial determinations.§ 210.42
- Institution of investigation.§ 210.10
- The response.§ 210.13
- Service of process and other documents.§ 201.16
- Petitions for review of initial determinations on matters other than temporary relief.§ 210.43
- Consent judgments in actions to enjoin discharges of pollutants.§ 50.7
- General functions.§ 0.65
- Functions common to heads of organizational units.§ 0.135
- Filing of documents.§ 2.302
- Hearing requests, petitions to intervene, requirements for standing, and contentions.§ 2.309
- Formal requirements for documents; signatures; acceptance for filing.§ 2.304
- Selection of hearing procedures.§ 2.310
- Definitions.§ 2.4
- Interlocutory review of rulings on requests for hearings/petitions to intervene, selection of hearing procedures, and requests by potential parties for access to sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information and safeguards information.§ 2.311
- Contents of applications; technical information.§ 50.34
- Radiological criteria for unrestricted use.§ 20.1402
- Expiration and termination of licenses and decommissioning of sites and separate buildings or outdoor areas.§ 30.36
- Application for specific licenses.§ 30.32
- Registration of product information.§ 32.210
- Definitions.§ 30.4
- Specific exemptions.§ 30.11
- Delegation of authority to Director of Division of Trading and Markets.§ 200.30-3
- Minimum pricing increment.§ 242.612
51 references not yet in our index
- 12 CFR 225
- 16 CFR 453
- 5 CFR 1320
- 44 USC 3501-3521
- 44 USC 3501-3520
- 5 CFR 1320.3(c)
- 16 CFR 425
- Pub. L. 107-188
- 42 CFR 73
- 7 CFR 331
- 9 CFR 121
- 42 CFR 73.16
- 42 CFR 73.19(a)(b)
- 42 CFR 73.5(a)(b)
- 42 CFR 73.5(d)(e)
- 42 CFR 73.3(e)(1)
- 42 CFR 73.10(e)
- 42 CFR 73.9(a)(5)
- 42 CFR 73.15(c)
- 42 CFR 73.20
- 42 CFR 73.17(b)
- 42 CFR 73.18
- 45 CFR 74
- 45 CFR 92
- 490 F. Supp. 2d 278
- 25 CFR 1000.177-178
- 25 CFR 1000.146
- 25 CFR 1000
- Pub. L. 93-638
- 25 USC 458aa-458hh
- 25 USC 450-450n
- 25 CFR 1000.129
- 25 CFR 1000.177
- 43 CFR 3108.2-3(a)
- 29 CFR 547
- 29 CFR 549
- Pub. L. 95-541
- 10 CFR 51
- 10 CFR 2
- 10 CFR 30
+ 11 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice
F. Supp.490 F. Supp. 2d 278
Cite12 CFR 225
Cite16 CFR 453
Cites 115 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources