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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2008-07-28 · Office of National Drug Control Policy [ONDCP] · Notices

Notices. Notice of appointments

30,873 words·~140 min read·/register/2008/07/28/08-1468

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

BILLING CODE 7050-01-P NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION Renewal of Advisory Committee on Presidential Libraries This notice is published in accordance with the provisions of section 9(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.) and advises of the renewal of the National Archives and Records Administration's
(NARA)Advisory Committee on Presidential Libraries. In accordance with Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)Circular A-135, OMB approved the inclusion of the Advisory Committee on Presidential Libraries in NARA's ceiling of discretionary advisory committees. NARA has determined that the renewal of the Advisory Committee is in the public interest due to the expertise and valuable advice the Committee members provide on issues affecting the functioning of existing Presidential libraries and library programs and the development of future Presidential libraries. NARA will use the Committee's recommendations in its implementation of strategies for the efficient operation of the Presidential libraries. NARA's Committee Management Officer is Mary Ann Hadyka. She can be reached at 301-837-1782. Dated: July 21, 2008. Allen Weinstein, Archivist of the United States. [FR Doc. E8-17316 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7515-01-P OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY Appointment of Members of Senior Executive Services Performance Review Board AGENCY: Office of National Drug Control Policy [ONDCP]. ACTION: Notice of appointments. SUMMARY: The following persons have been appointed to the ONDCP Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board: Mr. Thomas Riley, Ms. Michele Marx, Mr. Robert Denniston, and Mr. Patrick Ward. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please direct any questions to Linda V. Priebe, Assistant General Counsel
(202)395-6622, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC 20503. Linda V. Priebe, Assistant General Counsel. [FR Doc. E8-17200 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3180-02-P NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request AGENCY: National Science Foundation. ACTION: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request. SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation
(NSF)has submitted the following information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. The full submission may be found at: *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain* . This is the second notice for public comment; the first was published in the **Federal Register** at 73 FR 24615, and no comments were received. NSF is forwarding the proposed renewal submission to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance simultaneously with the publication of this second notice. Comments regarding
(a)whether the 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 burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)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 should be addressed to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, *Attention:* Desk Officer for National Science Foundation, 725—17th Street, NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, and to Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 295, Arlington, Virginia 22230 or send e-mail to *splimpto@nsf.gov* . Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission may be obtained by calling 703-292-7556. NSF may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title of Collection:* 2008 Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering. *OMB Approval Number:* 3145-0062. *Type of Request:* Intent to seek approval to extend an information collection for three years. 1. Abstract The Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering
(GSS)has been conducted since 1966. The GSS is a census of all eligible academic institutions and all departments in science and engineering and health
(SEH)programs in the United States. The GSS is the only national survey that collects information on the characteristics of graduate enrollment for specific science, engineering, and health disciplines at the department level. It collects information on race/ethnicity, citizenship, gender, sources of support, mechanisms of support, and enrollment status for graduate students; and gender, citizenship and sources of support for postdoctorates. It also collects counts by gender of other nonfaculty research staff with doctorates. The National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as subsequently amended, includes a statutory charge to “* * * provide a central clearinghouse for the collection, interpretation, and analysis of data on scientific and engineering resources, and to provide a source of information for policy formulation by other agencies of the Federal Government.” The GSS is designed to comply with these mandates by providing information on the characteristics of academic graduate enrollment and postdoctoral components in science, engineering and health fields. The Foundation uses this information to prepare congressionally mandated reports such as *Women, Minorities and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering and Science and Engineering Indicators* . Survey results are made available in a variety of formats. A four-page InfoBrief and selected summary tables are published. All tables and reports are made available in various electronic formats on the Web ( *http://www.nsf/gov/statistics/* ). The results are also in the Web-based Computer-Aided Science Policy Analysis and Research (WebCASPAR) database system. The URL for WebCASPAR is *http://caspar.nsf.gov/webcaspar* . A public release file is also made available on the World Wide Web. RTI International
(RTI)will conduct the study for NSF. Data collection will begin in October 2008 primarily by Web survey (with paper worksheets available upon request). All information will be used for statistical purposes only. Participation in the survey is voluntary. 2. Expected Respondents In 2008, the number of departments is expected to grow by 5 percent resulting in a total number of 13,253 departments. In addition, the 2008 GSS will be conducting pilot studies with 80 potentially eligible institutions and with 40 institutions where undercoverage (not all eligible departments are being listed) may be occurring. Finally, in 2008-2010 the GSS will be including the Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) as part of the GSS in order to gather information about the number and characteristics of postdoctoral appointments in these centers. 3. Burden on the Public The amount of time to complete the GSS varies and depends to a large degree on the extent to which the school's records are centrally stored and computerized. On average, it takes 2.5 hours to complete the GSS. Based on estimates provided by the respondents to the 2007 GSS, the total estimated burden for the 2008 GSS will be 36,721 hours. This estimate includes the 33,133 annual burden hours for the 2008 GSS; 2,800 annual burden hours for the pilot study of the newly eligible institutions; 600 burden hours for the undercoverage pilot study; and 188 burden hours for FFRDC study. The total estimated burden for the three years of this clearance (2008-2010) will be 127,423 hours, including 360 hours for field testing of data collection instruments prior to implementation. Dated: July 23, 2008. Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation. [FR Doc. E8-17182 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Notice of Availability of Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability of Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Uranium milling facilities. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), with the cooperation of the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division, is issuing for public comment a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (Draft GEIS) that identifies and evaluates on a programmatic basis, the potential environmental impacts from the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning at *in-situ* leach
(ISL)uranium milling facilities located in particular regions of the western United States. The Draft GEIS addresses environmental issues common to ISL milling facilities to aid in making more efficient environmental reviews of individual site-specific ISL license applications. The NRC anticipates that nearly 75 percent of new license applications for uranium milling received by the agency within the next several years will propose use of the ISL process. By addressing common issues associated with environmental reviews of ISL facilities, the NRC will use the GEIS to provide a starting point in the staff's National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)analyses for site-specific license applications for new ISL facilities. Additionally, the NRC staff plans to use the GEIS, along with applicable previous site-specific environmental review documents, in its NEPA analysis for the restart or expansions of existing ISL facilities. In its review of individual ISL license applications, the NRC would evaluate the site-specific data to determine whether relevant sections of the GEIS could be incorporated by reference into the site-specific environmental review. Additionally, the NRC would determine whether aspects of the site and/or the applicant's proposed activities are consistent with those evaluated in the GEIS or are such that additional analysis in specific topic areas would be required. As such, the subsequent site-specific NEPA reviews (i.e., either environmental assessments or environmental impact statements) will tier from the analyses of common issues evaluated in the GEIS and address the unique attributes of individual sites. To encourage broad participation in the preparation of the GEIS, the NRC staff has scheduled a series of public meetings in potentially affected regions of the four states (Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, and New Mexico) where uranium milling companies have indicated to the NRC their desire to pursue uranium recovery using the ISL process. The purpose of these meetings will be for the NRC staff to present an overview of the Draft GEIS and to accept oral and written public comments on the Draft GEIS from interested members of the public. The meeting dates, times, and locations are listed below: *Meeting Date:* August 25, 2008, 7 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. *Meeting Location:* Holiday Inn Hotel & Convention Center, 305 N. 27th Street, Spearfish, SD 57783, Phone
(605)642-4683. *Meeting Date:* August 27, 2008, 7 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. *Meeting Location:* Chadron State College, Student Center Ballroom, 1000 Main Street, Chadron, NE., 69337, Phone
(308)432-6380. *Meeting Date:* August 29, 2008, 7 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. *Meeting Location:* Weston Senior Center, 627 Pine Street, Newcastle, WY 82701, Phone
(307)746-4903. *Meeting Date:* September 8, 2008, 7 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. *Meeting Location:* Best Western Inn & Suites, 3009 West Highway 66, Gallup, NM, Phone
(505)722-2221. *Meeting Date:* September 9, 2008, 7 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. *Meeting Location:* Best Western Inn & Suites, 1501 East Santa Fe Ave., Grants, NM, 87020, Phone
(505)287-7901. *Meeting Date:* September 11, 2008, 7 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. *Meeting Location:* Hilton Albuquerque, 1901 University Boulevard NE., Albuquerque, NM, Phone
(505)884-2500. *Meeting Date:* September 23, 2008, 7 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. *Meeting Location:* Best Western Ramkota Hotel, 800 N. Poplar, Casper, WY, Phone
(307)266-6000. *Meeting Date:* September 25, 2008, 7 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. *Meeting Location:* Best Western Tower West Lodge, 109 North U.S. Highway 14 &16, Gillette, WY, 82716, Phone
(307)686-2210. For each meeting, members of the NRC staff will be available for informal discussions with members of the public from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. The formal meeting and associated NRC presentation will begin at 7 p.m. For planning purposes, those who wish to present oral comments at a particular meeting are encouraged to pre-register no later than one week (7 days) prior to the meeting by contacting either Tarsha Moon of the NRC at 1-800-368-5642, extension 7843 or Antoinette Walker-Smith of the NRC at 1-800-368-5642, Extension 6390. Interested persons also may register to speak at the meetings. Depending on the number of speakers for a meeting, each speaker may be limited in the amount of time allocated for their comments so that all speakers will have an opportunity to offer comments. The NRC will issue a Final GEIS after considering both oral and written public comments on the Draft GEIS. DATES: The public comment period on the Draft GEIS begins with publication of this notice and continues until October 7, 2008. Written comments should be submitted as described in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The NRC will consider comments received or postmarked after that date to the extent practical. ADDRESSES: Members of the public are invited and encouraged to submit comments on the Draft GEIS to the Chief, Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch, Mailstop: T6-D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The NRC encourages comments submitted electronically to be sent to *NRCREP.Resource@nrc.gov* . Please include “Uranium Recovery GEIS” in the subject line when submitting written comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information on the NRC's NEPA process, or the environmental review process related to the Draft GEIS, please contact James Park, Project Manager, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection (DWMEP), Mail Stop T-8F5, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555-001, by phone at 1
(800)368-5642, extension 6935. For general or technical information associated with the safety and licensing of uranium milling facilities, please contact William Von Till, Branch Chief, Uranium Recovery Branch, DWMEP, Mail Stop T-8F5, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by phone at 1
(800)368-5642, extension 0598. The NRC maintains an Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of the NRC's public documents. The Draft GEIS and its appendices may be accessed through the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on the internet at: *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* , under the accession numbers ML082030184 and ML082000997 for Volumes 1 and 2, respectively, of the Draft GEIS. If you either do not have access to ADAMS or if there is a problem accessing documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room
(PDR)reference staff at 1
(800)397-4209, 1
(301)415-4737 or by email to *PDR.Resource@nrc.gov* . Information and documents associated with the Draft GEIS are also available for public review through the NRC Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* and at the NRC's Web site for the GEIS, *http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/licensing/geis.html* . Both information and documents associated with the Draft GEIS also are available for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, U.S. NRC's Headquarters Building, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. For those without access to the Internet, paper copies of any electronic documents may be obtained for a fee by contacting the NRC's Public Document Room at 1-800-397-4209. The draft GEIS and related documents may also be found at the following public libraries: Albuquerque Main Library, 501 Copper NW., Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102, 505-768-5141. Mother Whiteside Memorial Library, 525 West High Street, Grants, New Mexico 87020, 505-287-4793. Octavia Fellin Public Library, 115 W Hill Avenue, Gallup, New Mexico 87301, 505-863-1291. Natrona County Public Library, 307 East Second Street, Casper, Wyoming 82601, 307-332-5194. Carbon County Public Library, 215 W Buffalo Street, Rawlins, Wyoming 82301, 307-328-2618. Campbell County Public Library, 2101 South 4J Road, Gillette, Wyoming 82718, 307-687-0009. Weston County Library, 23 West Main Street, Newcastle, Wyoming 82701, 307-746-2206. Chadron Public Library, 507 Bordeaux Street, Chadron, Nebraska 69337, 308-432-0531. Rapid City Public Library, 610 Quincy Street, Rapid City, South Dakota 57701, 605-394-4171. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In cooperation with the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (Land Quality Division), the NRC staff and its contractor, the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses, prepared this draft GEIS to facilitate the NRC staff's environmental review of new ISL uranium milling license applications. The NRC staff will use the GEIS to ensure a consistent approach in conducting the reviews and to focus the staff's efforts on unique site characteristics that will be addressed in the site-specific environmental evaluations as part of ISL application reviews. The Draft GEIS was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)and the NRC's regulations for implementing NEPA (10 CFR Part 51). The NRC staff published a Notice of Intent to prepare the GEIS, in the **Federal Register** on July 24, 2007 (72 FR 40344). The public scoping comment period for the GEIS closed on November 30, 2007. The NRC staff has prepared a summary report of the comments received, and this report is available through the NRC Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* , under the accession number ML081560476. The NRC is expecting numerous license applications for in-situ leach
(ISL)uranium milling facilities in the coming 2-3 years. This Draft GEIS is intended to address the common issues associated with environmental reviews of such milling facilities located in specific regions of the western United States. Due to environmental issues common to ISL milling facilities, the NRC staff is addressing these common issues in a programmatic manner to aid in a more efficient environmental review for each individual license application, if and when these applications are submitted. ISL milling facilities recover uranium from low grade ores that may not be economically recoverable by other methods. In this process, a leaching agent, such as oxygen with sodium bicarbonate, is added to native ground water for injection through wells into the subsurface ore body to dissolve the uranium. The leach solution, containing the dissolved uranium, is pumped back to the surface and sent to the processing plant, where ion exchange is used to separate the uranium from the solution. The underground leaching of the uranium also frees other metals and minerals from the host rock. Operators of ISL facilities are required to restore the ground water affected by the leaching operations. The milling process concentrates the recovered uranium into the product known as “yellowcake” (U <sup>3</sup> O <sup>8</sup> ). This yellowcake is then shipped to uranium conversion facilities for further processing in the overall uranium fuel cycle. In the Draft GEIS, the proposed action is the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning at an ISL uranium milling facility in each of four identified regions in the western U.S. Implementation of the proposed action would require the issuance of an NRC license under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 40. The GEIS also addresses the no-action alternative. Under this alternative, the NRC would not approve new ISL license applications in the four regions and so new ISL uranium milling facilities would not constructed nor operated in those regions. The no-action alternative serves as a baseline for comparison of the potential environmental impacts. Conventional mining/milling and the heap leach process are two other methods of uranium recovery. However, inasmuch as the suitability and practicality of using these alternative milling methodologies depends upon site-specific conditions, a generic discussion of these methodologies is not appropriate. Accordingly, the Draft GEIS does not contain a detailed analysis of alternative milling methodologies to the ISL process. A detailed analysis of such alternative milling methodologies that can be applied at a specific site will be addressed in the NRC's site-specific environmental review for individual ISL license applications. The Draft GEIS is structured in the following manner. The NRC staff began by identifying four uranium milling regions in the western U.S. to use as a framework for discussions in the document. Two regions are found in Wyoming, one in New Mexico, and a final region encompasses portions of Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming. These regions were identified based on several considerations, including: • Past and existing uranium milling sites are located within States where the NRC has regulatory authority over uranium recovery; • Potential new sites are identified based on the NRC's understanding of where the uranium recovery industry has plans to develop uranium deposits using ISL technology; and • Locations of historical uranium deposits within portions of Wyoming, Nebraska, South Dakota, and New Mexico. Additionally, in defining these regions, the NRC considered aspects of the affected environment (e.g., regional ground water characteristics, regional demographics) such that potential future ISL milling sites within each region would more likely share those aspects for the purpose of evaluating potential environmental impacts. Therefore, the NRC considers that these regions reasonably bound the geographic scope of the Draft GEIS for describing the affected environment and for assessing potential environmental impacts within each region. Next, the Draft GEIS provides a description of the ISL process and addresses the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning at an ISL facility. Financial assurance is also discussed, whereby the ISL licensee or applicant establishes a bond or other financial mechanism prior to operations to ensure that sufficient funds are available to complete aquifer restoration, decommissioning, and reclamation activities. Then, the Draft GEIS describes the affected environment in each uranium milling region, using the environmental resource areas and topics identified through public scoping comments on the GEIS and from NRC guidance to its staff found in NUREG-1748, “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated With NMSS Programs,” issued by the NRC in 2003. Finally, the Draft GEIS provides an evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of constructing, operating, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning at an ISL facility in each of the four uranium milling regions. In essence, this involves placing an ISL facility with the characteristics described previously within each of the four regional areas and describing and evaluating the potential impacts in each region separately. Impacts are examined for the following resource areas: • Land use. • Transportation. • Geology and soils. • Water resources. • Ecology. • Air quality. • Noise. • Historical and cultural resource. • Visual and scenic resources. • Socioeconomic. • Public and occupational health. Following the discussion of potential environmental impacts, the Draft GEIS addresses cumulative impacts; environmental justice; practices, measures, and actions to mitigate potential impacts; environmental monitoring activities; and the consultation process with federal and tribal entities. As stated previously, the NRC is accepting comments on the Draft GEIS. Following the end of the public comment period, the NRC staff will publish a Final GEIS that addresses, as appropriate, the public comments on the Draft GEIS. The NRC expects to publish the Final GEIS by June 2009. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of July, 2008. For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Patrice M. Bubar, Deputy Director, Environmental Protection and Performance Assessment Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. [FR Doc. E8-17246 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-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:* Form S-4; OMB Control No. 3235-0324; SEC File No. 270-287. Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Securities and Exchange Commission (‘Commission’) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below. Form S-4 (17 CFR 239.25) is the registration form used to register securities issued in business combination transactions under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a *et seq.* ). The information collected is intended to ensure the adequacy of information available to investors in connection with business combination transactions. Form S-4 is a public document and all information provided is mandatory. Form S-4 takes approximately 4,064 hours per response to prepare and is filed by 619 registrants annually. We estimate that 25% of the 4,064 hours per response (1,016 hours) is prepared by the registrant for an annual reporting burden of 628,904 hours (1,016 hours per response × 619 responses). 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 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/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* . Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice. Dated: July 22, 2008. Florence E. Harmon, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-17214 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-58205; File No. 4-443] Joint Industry Plan; Order Granting Permanent Approval to Amendment No. 1 to the Plan for the Purpose of Developing and Implementing Procedures Designed To Facilitate the Listing and Trading of Standardized Options July 22, 2008. I. Introduction On May 15, 2008, May 15, 2008, May 13, 2008, May 6, 2008, May 13, 2008, May 7, 2008, May 13, 2008, and May 8, 2008, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”), the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (“BSE”), Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE”), the International Securities Exchange, LLC (“ISE”), The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”), NYSE Arca Inc. (“NYSE Arca”), the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx”), and the Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) respectively, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act 1 of 1934 (“Act”) and Rule 608 thereunder, 2 Amendment No. 1 to the Plan for the Purpose of Developing and Implementing Procedures Designed to Facilitate the Listing and Trading of Standardized Options (“the Options Listing Procedures Plan” or “OLPP”). 3 Amendment No. 1 would provide a uniform time frame for the introduction of new Long-term Equity AnticiPation (“LEAP” or “LEAPS”) series on equity option classes, options on Exchange Traded Funds (“ETFs”), or options on Trust Issued Receipts (“TIRs”). 1 15 U.S.C. 78k-1. 2 17 CFR 242.608. 3 On July 6, 2001, the Commission approved the OLPP, which was originally proposed by the Amex, CBOE, ISE, OCC, Phlx, and Pacific Exchange, Inc. (k/n/a NYSE Arca). *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44521, 66 FR 36809 (July 13, 2001). On February 5, 2004, BSE was added as a sponsor to the OLPP. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49199, 69 FR 7030 (February 12, 2004). On March 21, 2008, Nasdaq was added as a sponsor to the OLPP. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57546 (March 21, 2008), 73 FR 16393 (March 27, 2008). On May 22, 2008, the Commission issued notice of and approved Amendment No. 1 on a temporary basis not to exceed 120 days, and solicited comment on the proposal. 4 The Commission received no comment letters in response to the Temporary Approval Order. This order approves Amendment No. 1 on a permanent basis. 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57848 (May 22, 2008), 73 FR 30985 (May 29, 2008) (“Temporary Approval Order”). II. Description of the Proposal Currently, new January LEAPS are introduced shortly after the groups of LEAPS with the least time to expiration are converted to a conventional expiration symbol, generally when they have less than nine months to expiration. The proposal provides for a uniform time frame for the introduction of new LEAP series on equity option classes, options on ETFs, or options on TIRs. By agreeing to a uniform time frame for the introduction of new LEAP series, the Participants to the OLPP intend to mitigate the number of option series available for trading during certain times of the year. The Participants to the OLPP intend that this will in turn lessen the rate of increase in quote traffic, because quotes will not be generated in the not-yet-available series. The Participants to the OLPP represent that, for example, in 2007, if this proposal had been in effect, the industry would have eliminated one and a half billion (1,500,000,000) quotes over the three months of June, July, and August, out of just less than 100 billion quotes over all, for a savings of 1.5%. The affected series, however, generated less than three million (3,000,000) contracts traded in the same period, out of more than seven hundred eighty million (780,000,000) contracts total industry volume, or approximately .38%. The exchanges agree that the benefit from reduced quoting levels greatly exceeds the small cost in missed business. In addition, the Participants to the OLPP may coordinate the date of introduction of new LEAP classes, so as to provide the least disruption on the options industry by having the flexibility to avoid holidays, expiration periods, and industry-wide tests which are scheduled from time to time. III. Discussion After careful review, the Commission finds that Amendment No. 1 is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. 5 Specifically, the Commission finds that Amendment No. 1 to the OLPP is consistent with Section 11A of the Act 6 and Rule 608 thereunder 7 in that it is in the public interest and appropriate for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets. Specifically, the Commission believes that by adopting a uniform time frame for the introduction of new LEAP series on equity option classes, options on ETFs, and options on TIRs, the options exchanges should reduce the number of option series available for trading during certain times of the year, and thus may reduce increases in the options quote rate because market participants would not be submitting quotes in the not-yet-available LEAP series. Accordingly, the Commission believes that it is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect mechanisms of, a national market system to approve Amendment No. 1 to the OLPP on a permanent basis. 5 In approving this proposed OPRA Plan Amendment, the Commission has considered its impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 6 15 U.S.C. 78k-1. 7 17 CFR 242.608. IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to Section 11A of the Act, 8 and Rule 608 thereunder, 9 that proposed Amendment No. 1 to the OLPP be, and it hereby is, approved on a permanent basis. 8 15 U.S.C. 78k-1. 9 17 CFR 242.608. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 10 10 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(29). Florence E. Harmon, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-17213 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on July 30, 2008 at 10 a.m., in the Auditorium, Room L-002. The subject matter of the Open Meeting will be: 1. The Commission will consider whether to publish an interpretive release to provide guidance regarding the use of company Web sites under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. 2. The Commission will consider whether to publish for comment a proposed rule change by the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board to establish the continuing disclosure service of the MSRB's Electronic Municipal Market Access
(EMMA)system. The Commission will also consider whether to propose amendments to Rule 15c2-12 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to enhance the disclosure of information regarding municipal securities. 3. The Commission will consider whether to issue proposed guidance to investment company boards of directors to assist them in fulfilling their oversight responsibilities with respect to an investment adviser's trading of fund portfolio securities, including the use of fund brokerage commissions to purchase brokerage and research services. At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the Secretary at
(202)551-5400. Dated: July 23, 2008. Florence E. Harmon, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-17306 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-58199; File No. SR-Amex-2008-44] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change Modifying the Provisions Governing Contacts Between Specialists and Issuers July 21, 2008. I. Introduction On May 20, 2008, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposal to amend Amex Rule 27 to
(i)modify the provisions governing contacts between specialists and issuers or, in the case of exchange traded funds (“ETFs”) and structured products, sponsors, and
(ii)clarify other procedures applicable to the allocation of securities to specialists. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on June 18, 2008. 3 The Commission received no comments regarding the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57952 (June 11, 2008), 73 FR 34809. II. Description The purpose of the proposed rule change is to revise Amex Rule 27 in order to better reflect the different treatment that is afforded ETFs and structured products in connection with the allocation of securities to specialists. This is reflected in the fact that ETFs and structured products are typically allocated to a specialist within a few days after approval of the issuer's application for listing on the Exchange. However, in the case of other equity securities, the allocation process may take a longer period of time so that allocation to a specialist may not occur within a few days of approval of the issuer's listing application. Amex Rule 27 sets forth the procedures and policies pursuant to which the Allocations Committee allocates securities listing on the Exchange to specialists. In particular, paragraph
(e)describes the Exchange's “issuer choice” program under which issuers or, in the case of an ETF or structured product, sponsors, select their specialists from a list of the most qualified specialists prepared by the Allocations Committee and is designed to be read in conjunction with Commentaries .02 and .03 thereto. Commentaries .02 and .03 contain guidelines for communications between specialists and issuers or, in the case of ETFs and structured products, sponsors that have not yet listed a security on the Exchange, have applied to list a security on the Exchange and/or have a security that has been approved for listing on the Exchange.
(i)Commentary .02 Commentary .02 applies to equity securities other than ETFs and structured products, and prohibits specialists and other members from making direct or indirect contact with an issuer that has requested a listing qualification review 4 for the purpose of influencing the issuer's choice of a specialist. In addition, any communication between equity specialists and issuers is prohibited once an issuer has been approved for listing and the Allocations Committee has prepared the list of qualified specialists. The exception to such prohibition is Exchange-arranged interviews between an issuer approved for listing and any specialist(s) the issuer requests to interview. 4 The listing qualification review is the process whereby an issuer undergoes review by the Exchange's Listing Qualifications Department. The listing qualification review will commence once the listing application is submitted to the Exchange. The interviews are closely monitored by the Exchange and the Exchange will take appropriate action in the event an inappropriate communication is deemed by the Exchange to have occurred during the interview. The Exchange proposes to clarify that such appropriate action may include the disqualification of a specialist for the allocation. The Exchange also proposes adding a provision to Commentary .02 addressing post-interview communications between specialists and issuers approved for listing on the Exchange. The proposed rule change would prohibit post-interview contacts between specialists and issuers and provide a means for issuers to obtain further information from the specialists through the Exchange's Equity Sales Group. Finally, the Exchange proposes to simplify the description of the procedures set forth in Commentary .02 by adding defined terms and moving the provision concerning an issuer's ability to request specialists to be placed on the list of qualified specialists to paragraph (e)(i) of Rule 27.
(ii)Commentary .03 Current Commentary .03 applies only to ETFs and structured products and contains provisions governing contacts between specialists and other members and sponsors and issuers prior to such sponsor or issuer deciding to list a security on the Exchange. Pursuant to current Commentary .03, specialists and other members must notify the Exchange in writing before any planned contact with a potential sponsor or issuer for the purpose of listing the ETFs or structured products of such sponsor or issuer on the Exchange, or within five
(5)business days of unanticipated contact where discussions regarding the listing occur. Exchange approval of planned contact is required and the Exchange will grant such approval where it appears that the contact will assist rather than impede the Exchange's effort to list the new ETF or structured product. ETF and structured product specialists are also currently required to promptly report to the Exchange any representations or commitments that they, or an individual acting on their behalf, have made to an employee of, or any individual acting on behalf of, an issuer or sponsor. The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .03 to require specialists to only disclose in their applications to be allocated an ETF or structured product representations or commitments that relate to the prospective listing of the ETF or structured product and that are made within the six
(6)months preceding the date allocation applications are solicited with respect to that ETF or structured product. The Exchange further proposes, in the event an ETF or structured product is not allocated within five
(5)days of the allocation application, to require specialists and other members to update their applications accordingly to report all representations or commitments since last reported to the Exchange. Commentary .03 also includes procedures related to the interview process. The Exchange proposes to clarify that such procedures apply to issuers and sponsors whose securities have been approved for listing on the Exchange in accordance with Rule 27(e)(i).
(iii)Other Changes Finally, the Exchange proposes to make technical revisions to paragraphs
(c)and (e)(i) of Rule 27 in order to consistently use the term “issuer” as opposed to “company”, clarify the applicability of the provisions to equity, ETF and structured product listings and, in general, to simplify the reading of the text. III. Discussion After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 5 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 6 which requires, among other things, that a national securities exchange's rules be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 5 In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). Specifically, the Exchange is proposing, among other things, to amend Commentary .03 to Amex Rule 27 to eliminate the requirement that specialists and other members notify the Exchange in writing before any planned contact with a potential sponsor or issuer for the purpose of listing the ETFs or structured products of such sponsor or issuer on the Exchange, or within five business days of unanticipated contact where discussions regarding the listing occur. As noted above, under current Commentary .03, the Exchange will grant such approval where it appears that the contact will assist rather than impede the Exchange's effort to list the new ETF or structured product. The Exchange has stated that it no longer believes this restriction is necessary because it is unlikely that such contact would impede the Exchange's effort to list an issuer. The Commission believes this is a reasonable modification of the Exchange's allocation procedures. As discussed below, representations or commitments that relate to the prospective listing still must be disclosed on the listing application. The Exchange also proposes to shorten the disclosure timeframe in Commentary .03 to require specialists to only disclose in their applications to be allocated an ETF or structured product representations or commitments that relate to the prospective listing of the ETF or structured product and that are made within the six months preceding the date allocation applications are solicited with respect to that ETF or structured product. The Commission believes that this shorter timeframe should be sufficient to enable the Exchange to continue to monitor the appropriateness of such representations and/or commitments, without impairing the allocation process by requiring specialists to disclose every representation or commitment that they have ever made to the issuer or sponsor. The Commission also notes that ETFs and structured products are generally allocated to the specialist very quickly after approval of the listing application. However, in the event an ETF or structured product is not allocated within five days of the allocation application, specialists and other members would be required to update their applications to report all representations or commitments since last reported to the Exchange, which should help to ensure the integrity of the allocation process. In addition, the Exchange proposes a change to Commentary .03 to clarify that the Exchange may arrange telephone or in-person interviews on the Exchange's premises, if an issuer or sponsor wishes to interview one or more specialists once the Allocation Committee has prepared the list of qualified specialists. Because ETFs and structured products are typically allocated to a specialist within a few days after (and often the same day as) approval of the issuer's application for listing on the Exchange, the Commission would expect such interviews to occur infrequently. Should an interview occur, the Commission notes that Commentary .03 permits the Performance Committee to disqualify any specialist that has made inappropriate representations. Finally, in addition to other minor changes to Rule 27 and Commentaries .02 and .03 thereto, the proposal amends Commentary .02 to clarify that the Exchange's Performance Committee may disqualify for allocation any specialist that is deemed to have made an inappropriate communication to an issuer of an equity security that has been approved for listing on the Exchange. The Commission notes that this proposed change would make Commentary .02 more consistent with Commentary .03. The Exchange also proposes adding a provision to Commentary .02 that would prohibit post-interview contacts between specialists and issuers and provide a means for issuers to obtain further information from the specialists through the Exchange's Equity Sales Group. The Commission believes that these proposed changes to Commentary .02 are reasonable modifications of, and should further the public interest by helping to promote the integrity of, the allocation process. IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 7 that the proposed rule change (SR-Amex-2008-44) 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. E8-17141 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-58195; File No. SR-BSE-2008-39] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend a Pilot Program That Allows No Minimum Size Order Requirement and Certain Premature Terminations Under the Price Improvement Period Process on the Boston Options Exchange Facility Until November 18, 2008 July 18, 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 18, 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 and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Exchange filed the 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 from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend the Supplementary Material to section 18 (The Price Improvement Period “PIP”) of Chapter V of the Rules of the Boston Options Exchange Group, LLC (“BOX”) to extend a pilot program that permits BOX to have no minimum size requirement for orders entered into the PIP and under certain circumstances permits the premature termination of the PIP process (“PIP Pilot Program”). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the BSE's Web site: *http://www.bostonstock.com* , 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 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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend the PIP Pilot Program under the BOX Rules for four
(4)additional months. The PIP Pilot Program allows BOX to have no minimum size requirement for orders entered into the PIP process and under certain circumstances permits the premature termination of the PIP process. 5 The proposed rule change retains the text of Supplementary Material .01 to section 18 of Chapter V of the BOX Rules and seeks to extend the operation of the PIP Pilot Program until November 18, 2008. 5 The Pilot Program is currently set to expire on July 18, 2008. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55999 (July 2, 2007), 72 FR 37549 (July 10, 2007) (SR-BSE-2007-27); *see also* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54066 (June 29, 2006), 71 FR 38434 (July 6, 2006) (SR-BSE-2006-24); *see also* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52149 (July 28, 2005), 70 FR 44704 (August 3, 2005) (SR-BSE-2005-22); *see also* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49068 (January 13, 2004), 69 FR 2775 (January 20, 2004) (SR-BSE-2002-15) (“Original PIP Pilot Program Approval Order”). *See also* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51821 (June 10, 2005), 70 FR 35143 (June 16, 2005) (SR-BSE-2004-51) (Order approving, among other things, under certain circumstances the premature termination of a PIP process). The Exchange notes that the PIP Pilot Program provides small customer orders with benefits not available under the rules of some other exchanges. One of the important factors of the PIP Pilot Program is that it guarantees Participants the right to trade with their customer orders that are less than 50 contracts. In particular, any order entered into the PIP is guaranteed an execution at the end of the auction at a price at least one penny better than the national best bid or offer. In further support of this proposed rule change, and as required by the Original PIP Pilot Program Approval Order, the Exchange represents that it has been submitting to the Commission a monthly PIP Pilot Program Report, offering detailed data from, and analysis of, the PIP Pilot Program. To aid the Commission in its evaluation of the PIP Pilot Program, BSE represents that BOX will provide the following additional information each month:
(1)The number of orders of 50 contracts or greater entered into the PIP auction;
(2)The percentage of all orders of 50 contracts or greater sent to BOX that are entered into BOX's PIP auction;
(3)The spread in the option, at the time an order of 50 contracts or greater is submitted to the PIP auction;
(4)For PIP trades for orders of fewer than 50 contracts, the percentage executed at the National Best Bid or Offer (“NBBO”) plus $.01, plus $.02, plus $.03, etc.;
(5)For PIP trades for orders of 50 contracts or greater, the percentage executed at the NBBO plus $.01, plus $.02, plus $.03, etc.;
(6)The number of orders submitted by Order Flow Providers (“OFPs”) when the spread was $.05, $.10, $.15, etc. For each spread, BOX will specify the percentage of contracts in orders of fewer than 50 contracts submitted to BOX's PIP that were traded by:
(a)The OFP that submitted the order to the PIP;
(b)BOX Market Makers assigned to the class;
(c)other BOX Participants;
(d)Public Customer Orders (including Customer PIP Orders (“CPOs”)); and
(e)unrelated orders (orders in standard increments entered during PIP). For each spread BOX will also specify the percentage of contracts in orders of 50 contracts or greater submitted to BOX's PIP that were traded by:
(a)the OFP that submitted the order to the PIP;
(b)BOX Market Makers assigned to the class;
(c)other BOX Participants;
(d)Public Customer Orders (including CPOs); and
(e)unrelated orders (orders in standard increments entered during PIP);
(7)For the first Wednesday of each month:
(a)The total number of PIP auctions on that date;
(b)the number of PIP auctions where the order submitted to the PIP was fewer than 50 contracts;
(c)the number of PIP auctions where the order submitted to the PIP was 50 contracts or greater;
(d)the number of PIP auctions (for orders of fewer than 50 contracts) with 0 participants (excluding the initiating participant), 1 participant (excluding the initiating participant), 2 participants (excluding the initiating participant), 3 participants (excluding the initiating participant), 4 participants (excluding the initiating participant), etc., and
(e)the number of PIP auctions (for orders of 50 contracts or greater) with 0 participants (excluding the initiating participant), 1 participant (excluding the initiating participant), 2 participants (excluding the initiating participant), 3 participants (excluding the initiating participant), 4 participants (excluding the initiating participant), etc.; and
(8)For the third Wednesday of each month:
(a)The total number of PIP auctions on that date;
(b)the number of PIP auctions where the order submitted to the PIP was fewer than 50 contracts;
(c)the number of PIP auctions where the order submitted to the PIP was 50 contracts or greater;
(d)the number of PIP auctions (for orders of fewer than 50 contracts) with 0 participants (excluding the initiating participant), 1 participant (excluding the initiating participant), 2 participants (excluding the initiating participant), 3 participants (excluding the initiating participant), 4 participants (excluding the initiating participant), etc., and
(e)the number of PIP auctions (for orders of 50 contracts or greater) with 0 participants (excluding the initiating participant), 1 participant (excluding the initiating participant), 2 participants (excluding the initiating participant), 3 participants (excluding the initiating participant), 4 participants (excluding the initiating participant), etc. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of section 6(b) of the Act, 6 in general, and section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 7 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that the data demonstrates that there is sufficient investor interest and demand to extend the PIP Pilot Program for an additional four
(4)months. The Exchange represents that the Pilot Program is designed to provide investors with real and significant price improvement regardless of the size of the order. 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition 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 Because the foregoing proposed rule change:
(1)Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(2)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and
(3)by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) 8 of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 9 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 9 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange requests that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay, which would make the rule change operative upon filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver will allow the PIP pilot program to continue without interruption. 10 Accordingly, the Commission designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing with the Commission. 11 10 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). 11 As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of the filing of the proposed rule change. At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-BSE-2008-39 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-BSE-2008-39. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BSE-2008-39 and should be submitted on or before August 18, 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. E8-17119 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-58196; File No. SR-CBOE-2008-76] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend Two Pilot Programs Related to the Exchange's Automated Improvement Mechanism Until July 18, 2009 July 18, 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 17, 2008, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“Exchange” or “CBOE”) 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 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 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 CBOE proposes to extend two pilot programs related to the Exchange's Automated Improvement Mechanism (“AIM”) for one year, until July 18, 2009. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site ( *http://www.cboe.com* ), 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 those 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 the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose In February 2006, CBOE obtained approval of a filing adopting the AIM auction process. 5 AIM exposes certain orders electronically to an auction process to provide such orders with the opportunity to receive an execution at an improved price. The AIM auction is available only for orders that an Exchange member represents as agent and for which a second order of the same size as the “Agency Order” (and on the opposite side of the market) is also submitted (effectively stopping the Agency Order at a given price). 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53222 (February 3, 2006), 71 FR 7089 (February 10, 2006) (SR-CBOE-2005-60). Two components of AIM were approved on a pilot basis:
(1)That there is no minimum size requirement for orders to be eligible for the auction, and
(2)that the auction will conclude prematurely anytime there is a quote lock on the Exchange pursuant to Rule 6.45A(d). 6 In connection with the pilot programs, the Exchange has submitted to the Commission reports providing detailed AIM auction and order execution data. In July 2006, the Exchange extended the pilot program until July 18, 2007. 7 In July 2007, the Exchange extended the pilot program until July 18, 2008. 8 The proposed rule change merely extends the duration of the pilot programs until July 18, 2009. Extending the pilots for an additional year will allow the Commission more time to consider the impact of the pilot programs on AIM order executions. To further aid the Commission in its evaluation of the pilot program, CBOE represents that it will provide the following additional information each month: 6 That rule relates to situations where a Market-Maker's quote interacts with the quote of another CBOE Market-Maker ( *i.e.,* when internal quotes lock). 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54147 (July 14, 2006), 71 FR 41487 (July 21, 2006) (SR-CBOE-2006-64). 8 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56094 (July 18, 2007), 72 FR 40910 (July 25, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2007-80).
(1)For the first Wednesday of each month:
(a)The total number of AIM auctions on that date;
(b)the number of AIM auctions where the order submitted to the AIM was fewer than 50 contracts;
(c)the number of AIM auctions where the order submitted to the AIM was 50 contracts or greater;
(d)the number of AIM auctions (for orders of fewer than 50 contracts) with 0 participants (excluding the Initiating Member), 1 participant (excluding the Initiating Member), 2 participants (excluding the Initiating Member), 3 participants (excluding the Initiating Member), 4 participants (excluding the Initiating Member), etc., and
(e)the number of AIM auctions (for orders of 50 contracts or greater) with 0 participants (excluding the Initiating Member), 1 participant (excluding the Initiating Member), 2 participants (excluding the Initiating Member), 3 participants (excluding the Initiating Member), 4 participants (excluding the Initiating Member), etc.
(2)For the third Wednesday of each month:
(a)The total number of AIM auctions on that date;
(b)the number of AIM auctions where the order submitted to the AIM was fewer than 50 contracts;
(c)the number of AIM auctions where the order submitted to the AIM was 50 contracts or greater;
(d)the number of AIM auctions (for orders of fewer than 50 contracts) with 0 participants (excluding the Initiating Member), 1 participant (excluding the Initiating Member), 2 participants (excluding the Initiating Member), 3 participants (excluding the Initiating Member), 4 participants (excluding the Initiating Member), etc., and
(e)the number of AIM auctions (for orders of 50 contracts or greater) with 0 participants (excluding the Initiating Member), 1 participant (excluding the Initiating Member), 2 participants (excluding the Initiating Member), 3 participants (excluding the Initiating Member), 4 participants (excluding the Initiating Member), etc. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) 9 of the Act in general and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) 10 in particular in that by allowing the Commission additional time to evaluate the AIM pilot programs, it should serve to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and protect investors and the public interest. 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 10 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition 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 proposed rule change:
(1)Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(2)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and
(3)by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) 11 of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 12 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange requests that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay, which would make the rule change operative upon filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver would allow the AIM pilot programs to continue without interruption. 13 Accordingly, the Commission designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing with the Commission. 14 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). 14 Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to provide the Commission with written notice of its intention to file the proposed rule change along with a brief description of the text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to filing the proposal with the Commission, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Commission has determined to waive the five business day period in this case. At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-CBOE-2008-76 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-CBOE-2008-76. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2008-76 and should be submitted on or before August 18, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 15 15 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-17120 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-58200; File No. SR-CBOE-2008-77] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Interim Trading Permit Access Fee July 21, 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 18, 2008, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the CBOE. CBOE has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange under section 19(b)(3)(A), 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 parties. 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 CBOE proposes to adopt a monthly access fee for Interim Trading Permit holders. 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, CBOE 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. CBOE 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 CBOE Rule 3.27(f)(ii) provides that Interim Trading Permit holders shall pay to the Exchange a monthly access fee set by the Exchange and that the access fee shall be implemented through the submission of a proposed rule change to the Commission under section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act. 5 The purpose of this rule filing is to propose that the access fee for Interim Trading Permit holders be set at $12,387 per month. 5 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). The amount of the proposed access fee is equal to the current indicative lease rate. Under Rule 3.27(b), the “indicative lease rate” is the highest clearing firm floating monthly rate 6 of the CBOE Clearing Members that assist in facilitating at least 10% of the CBOE transferable membership leases. The Exchange determined the current indicative lease rate by polling each of these Clearing Members and obtaining the clearing firm floating monthly rate designated by each of these Clearing Members for the month of July 2008. 6 Rule 3.27(b) defines the term “clearing firm floating monthly rate” as the floating monthly rate that a Clearing Member designates, in connection with transferable membership leases that the Clearing Member assisted in facilitating, for leases that utilize that monthly rate. The Exchange believes that the proposed access fee constitutes an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among persons using its facilities because it is equivalent to the current lease rate paid by a large percentage of lessees of CBOE transferable memberships and is equivalent to the current access fee assessed by the Exchange to persons granted temporary CBOE membership status (“Temporary Members”) pursuant to Interpretation and Policy .02 under CBOE Rule 3.19. 7 Additionally, by setting the proposed access fee at the indicative lease rate, the Exchange is utilizing a benchmark that is used for other purposes under various provisions of Rule 3.27. For example, the Exchange may issue Interim Trading Permits under Rule 3.27(b) only if, among other things, the Exchange determines that there are insufficient transferable memberships available for lease at that time at a rate reasonably related to the indicative lease rate. In addition, Rule 3.27(d) provides that, under specified circumstances, the Exchange will make a payment to lessors of CBOE transferable memberships that notify the Exchange that their memberships remain unleased while Interim Trading Permits are outstanding, and the amount of that payment is the indicative lease rate (assuming the number of Interim Trading Permits exceeds the number of these open leases). Setting the proposed access fee equal to the indicative lease rate therefore is consistent with these other provisions. 8 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58073 (July 1, 2008), 73 FR 39357 (July 9, 2008) (SR-CBOE-2008-71), which set the current access fee for Temporary Members at $12,387 per month. 8 Because Interim Trading Permit holders possess a feature that does not exist in the typical lease arrangement for a CBOE transferable membership, the Exchange also believes that it would be equitable to assess Interim Trading Permit holders an access fee that is higher than the indicative lease rate if the Exchange chose to do so in the future through the submission of a subsequent proposed rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). Under Rule 3.27(c), an Interim Trading Permit can be terminated only
(1)if the holder terminates the Interim Trading Permit,
(2)as a result of regulatory action against the holder,
(3)in the event of a demutualization, or
(4)through a rule change approved by the Commission. On the other hand, the typical lease arrangement for a transferable membership can be terminated by the lessor upon a month's notice to the lessee. As a result, Interim Trading Permit holders enjoy more certainty than lessees with respect to their trading access to the Exchange and the Exchange could determine to assess them a higher access fee to reflect that certainty. The Exchange may, and likely will, further adjust the proposed access fee in the future through the submission of a further rule filing pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 9 if the Exchange determines that it would be appropriate to do so, such as to take into consideration changes in the indicative lease rate. 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). Rule 3.27(f)(ii) provides that the access fee for Interim Trading Permit holders shall be due and payable in accordance with the provisions of the Exchange Fee Schedule and shall be the same for all Interim Trading Permit holders. The Exchange proposes to include in the Exchange Fee Schedule the following procedural provisions related to the assessment of the proposed access fee. The proposed access fee will be assessed to each Interim Trading Permit holder for each Interim Trading Permit issued to the holder. Consistent with Rule 3.27(c), the proposed access fee and any other applicable monthly fees will be assessed for each calendar month unless an Interim Trading Permit holder provides written notice to the CBOE Membership Department on or before the fifteenth day of the preceding calendar month that the holder is terminating the Interim Trading Permit effective no later than the last day of that preceding calendar month. 10 The proposed access fee will be due and payable for each calendar month on the first day of that calendar month. If an Interim Trading Permit is issued during a calendar month after the first day of the month, the proposed access fee for that calendar month will be prorated and will be assessed as of the date of the issuance of the Interim Trading Permit. The proposed access fee will be non-refundable and will be assessed through the integrated billing system. 10 For example, an Interim Trading Permit holder that did not wish to be assessed the proposed access fee and any other applicable monthly fees for the month of September 2008 would need to provide notice to the Membership Department on or before August 15, 2008 that the holder was terminating the Interim Trading Permit effective no later than August 31, 2008. 2. Statutory Basis For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 11 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, 12 in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among persons using its facilities. 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others 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 rule change establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange, it has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 13 and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 14 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. 13 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 14 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-CBOE-2008-77 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-CBOE-2008-77. 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-CBOE-2008-77 and should be submitted on or before August 18, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 15 15 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-17142 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-58204; File No. SR-CBOE-2008-64] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Amending CBOE Rules 5.3 and 5.4 To Enable the Listing and Trading of Options on Index-Linked Securities July 22, 2008. On June 19, 2008, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 2 thereunder to amend CBOE Rules 5.3 and 5.4 to list and trade options on equity index-linked securities, commodity-linked securities, currency-linked securities, fixed income index-linked securities, futures-linked securities, and multifactor index-linked securities (collectively referred to as “Index-Linked Securities”) that are principally traded on a national securities exchange and an “NMS stock” as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS. 3 The proposed rule change was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on July 1, 2008 for a 15-day comment period. 4 On July 1, 2008, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 5 The Commission received no comment letters regarding the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change, as modified. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* 17 CFR 242.600(b)(47). 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58007 (June 23, 2008), 73 FR 37516. 5 Amendment No. 1 corrects a minor typographical omission. Because the amendment is technical in nature, the Commission is not publishing it for comment. Index-Linked Securities are designed for investors who desire to participate in a specific market segment by providing exposure to one or more identifiable underlying securities, commodities, currencies, derivative instruments or market indexes of the foregoing. Index-Linked Securities are the non-convertible debt of an issuer that have a term of at least one year but not greater than thirty years. Despite the fact that Index-Linked Securities are linked to at least one underlying index or asset (“Reference Asset”), each trade as a single, exchange-listed security. Accordingly, rules pertaining to the listing and trading of standard equity options would apply to options on Index-Linked Securities. 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 6 and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6 of the Act. 7 Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 8 which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed 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. 6 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 7 15 U.S.C. 78f. 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). In addition, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 9 for approving the proposed rule change, as modified, prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice in the **Federal Register** . The Commission notes this proposed rule change, as modified, is substantively identical to that of NYSE Arca, Inc., which was published for a 21-day comment period and generated no comments. 10 Therefore, the Commission does not believe that this proposal raises any new regulatory issues different from that of the NYSE Arca, Inc. proposal. 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 10 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57950 (June 11, 2008), 73 FR 34815 (June 18, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2008-57). Listing and Trading of Options on Index-Linked Securities As set out more fully in the Exchange's notice of its proposal, CBOE's proposed rules include requirements regarding initial and continued listing standards, the creation/redemption process for Index-Linked Securities, and trading halts. Index-Linked Securities must be traded through a national securities exchange or through the facilities of a national securities association, and must be “NMS stock” as defined under Rule 600 of Regulation NMS. 11 11 17 CFR 242.600(b)(47). The Commission notes that, pursuant to the proposed Interpretation and Policy .13(3) to CBOE Rule 5.3 and Interpretation and Policy .16 to CBOR Rule 5.4, Index-Linked Securities will be subject to the initial and continuing eligibility standards for underlying securities provided in CBOE Rules 5.3 and 5.4, as applicable. In particular, to be options eligible, an Index-Linked Security must either meet the criteria and guidelines for underlying securities set forth in Interpretation and Policy .01 to CBOE Rule 5.3, or alternately, the Index-Linked Securities must be redeemable at the option of the holder at least on a weekly basis through the issuer at a price related to the applicable underlying Reference Asset, and the issuing company must be obligated to issue or repurchase the securities in aggregation units for cash or cash equivalents satisfactory to the issuer of Index-Linked Securities which underlie the option as described in the Index-Linked Securities prospectus. To continue to be options eligible, the Index-Linked Security must remain an NMS stock listed on a national securities exchange. The Exchange will also consider the suspension of opening transactions in any series of options of the class covering Index-Linked Securities where the Index-Linked security does not satisfy the requirements set out in proposed Interpretation and Policy .16 to CBOE Rule 5.4. These include:
(1)Continued compliance with Interpretation and Policy .13 to CBOE Rule 5.3;
(2)compliance with Interpretation and Policy .01 to CBOE Rule 5.4 or, for options covering Index-Linked Securities approved pursuant to Interpretation and Policy .13(3)(B) to CBOE Rule 5.3, continuing to be an NMS stock listed on a national securities exchange; and
(3)the value of the underlying Reference Asset continues to be calculated and available. In addition, the Exchange retains discretion to suspend opening transactions in options on Index-Linked Securities where conditions make further dealings in such options inadvisable. The Exchange represented that the addition of options on Index-Linked Securities will not have any effect on Exchange rules pertaining to position and exercise limits 12 or margin. 13 12 *See* CBOE Rules 4.11 and 4.12. 13 *See* CBOE Rule 12.3. Surveillance The Commission notes that Exchange has represented that it will implement surveillance procedures for options on Index-Linked Securities, including adequate comprehensive surveillance sharing agreements with markets trading in non-U.S. components, as applicable. CBOE further represented that these procedures will be adequate to properly monitor Exchange trading of options on Index-Linked Securities and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules. This order is based on these representations. *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 14 that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2008-64), as modified by Amendment No. 1, is hereby approved on an accelerated basis. 14 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 15 15 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-17212 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-58206; File No. SR-FINRA-2008-022] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Membership Waive-In Process for Certain New York Stock Exchange Members July 22, 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 May 23, 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 amend NASD IM-1013-1, to address the applicability of the consolidated FINRA rules to member firms of the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”) that became members of FINRA pursuant to the membership waive-in process set forth in IM-1013-1. 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 On July 30, 2007, NASD and NYSE consolidated their member firm regulation operations into a combined organization, FINRA. To achieve the transaction's goal to eliminate duplicative member firm regulation and enable FINRA to meet its new regulatory responsibilities, the NYSE amended NYSE Rule 2(b) to require FINRA membership as a condition of being an NYSE member organization (“Mandatory FINRA Membership filing”). 3 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56654 (October 12, 2007), 72 FR 59129 (October 18, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-67) (amending the definition of “member organization” in NYSE Rule 2(b) to make FINRA membership a condition of being an NYSE member organization with a 60-day grace period for compliance); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56953 (December 12, 2007), 72 FR 71990 (December 19, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-115) (extending the grace period for NYSE-only member organizations to apply for and be approved as FINRA members to June 30, 2008); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58096 (July 3, 2008), 73 FR 39764 (July 10, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-54) (extending the grace period for NYSE-only member organizations to apply for and be approved as FINRA members to December 31, 2008). *See also* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56751 (November 6, 2007), 72 FR 64098 (November 14, 2007) (SR-FINRA-2007-19) (amending the definition of “member organization” in FINRA's NYSE Rule 2(b) to make FINRA membership a condition of being an NYSE member organization). As part of the transaction, FINRA incorporated into its existing rulebook NYSE rules related to member firm conduct (“Incorporated NYSE Rules”). Thus, the current FINRA rulebook consists of two sets of rules:
(1)NASD rules and
(2)the Incorporated NYSE Rules (together referred to herein as the “Transitional Rulebook”). 4 The Incorporated NYSE Rules apply only to Dual Members. 5 4 Pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act, NASD, NYSE and NYSE Regulation Inc. entered into an agreement to reduce regulatory duplication for firms that are members of both FINRA and the NYSE (“Dual Members”) by allocating regulatory responsibilities for the Incorporated NYSE Rules to FINRA. FINRA has assumed examination, enforcement and surveillance responsibilities under the agreement relating to compliance by Dual Members to the extent such responsibilities involve member firm regulation. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56148 (July 26, 2007), 72 FR 42146 (August 1, 2007) (File No. 4-544). 5 The Incorporated NYSE Rules continue to apply to persons affiliated with Dual Members to the same extent and in the same manner as they did before the consolidation. In applying the Incorporated NYSE Rules to Dual Members and such affiliated persons, FINRA has incorporated the related interpretative positions set forth in the NYSE Rule Interpretations Handbook and NYSE Information Memos. In furtherance of the consolidation, FINRA adopted NASD IM-1013-1 to enable eligible NYSE member organizations to become FINRA members through an expedited process. 6 Under the process outlined in IM-1013-1, certain NYSE firms were eligible to automatically become FINRA members and to register all associated persons whose registrations were approved with NYSE in registration categories recognized by FINRA upon submission to FINRA's Member Regulation Department of a signed waive-in membership application. As provided in IM-1013-1, the NYSE firms admitted pursuant to IM-1013-1 (the “Waive-in Firms”) currently are subject to the Incorporated NYSE Rules, FINRA's By-Laws and Schedules to By-Laws, including Schedule A (Assessments and Fees), and the NASD Rule 8000 (Investigations and Sanctions) and Rule 9000 (Code of Procedure) Series, provided that their securities business is limited to floor brokerage on the NYSE, or routing away to other markets orders that are ancillary to their core floor business under NYSE Rule 70.40 (“permitted floor activities”). 7 If a Waive-In Firm seeks to expand its business operations beyond the permitted floor activities, the firm must apply for and receive approval to engage in such business activity pursuant to NASD Rule 1017 (Application for Approval of Change in Ownership, Control, or Business Operations). Upon approval of such business expansion, the firm would become subject to all NASD rules, in addition to the Incorporated NYSE Rules. 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56653 (October 12, 2007); 72 FR 59127 (October 18, 2007) (SR-NASD-2007-056). 7 For purposes of IM-1013-1, activities that are ancillary to a Floor broker's core business include
(i)routing orders in NYSE-traded securities to an away market for any reason relating to their ongoing Floor activity, including regulatory compliance or meeting best-execution obligations, or
(ii)provided that the majority of transactions effected by the firm are effected on the NYSE, sending to other markets orders in NYSE-traded or non-NYSE-traded securities and/or futures if such orders relate to hedging positions in NYSE-traded securities, or are part of arbitrage or program trade strategies that include NYSE-traded securities. FINRA has established a process to develop a new consolidated rulebook (“Consolidated FINRA Rulebook”), which will consist only of FINRA Rules and will apply to all FINRA members, unless such rules have a more limited application by their terms. 8 With limited exceptions specified in the Act, the Commission must approve the FINRA Rules prior to their becoming effective in the new Consolidated FINRA Rulebook. FINRA intends to obtain those approvals through a series of rule filings with the Commission. As the Commission approves new rules for inclusion in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook and they become effective, FINRA members will become subject to those rules. Members also will remain subject to the rules remaining in the Transitional Rulebook. (The Incorporated NYSE Rules in the Transitional Rulebook will continue to apply only to Dual Members.) As the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook expands with Commission-approved final FINRA Rules, the Transitional Rulebook will be reduced by the elimination of those rules, or sections thereof, that address the same subject matter of regulation. When the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook is completed, the Transitional Rulebook will have been eliminated in its entirety. 8 FINRA issued an *Information Notice* on March 12, 2008 that describes the rulebook consolidation process in greater detail. The proposed rule change would amend NASD IM-1013-1 to address the applicability of consolidated FINRA rules to the Waive-In Firms. FINRA believes that the Waive-In Firms should be subject to all consolidated FINRA Rules, unless the rules have a more limited application by their terms. In addition, this amendment is essential because all of the existing Incorporated NYSE Rules currently applicable to the Waive-In Firms are scheduled to be eliminated from the Transitional Rulebook as the consolidated FINRA Rules are adopted and implemented (although it may be the case concepts or parts of Incorporated NYSE Rules will become adopted as part of the consolidated FINRA rules). Absent the proposed rule change, the elimination of the those legacy rules in the Transitional Rulebook applicable to the Waive-In Firms would result in a gap in regulation for such firms. Accordingly, the proposed rule change would amend IM-1013-1 to specify that the Waive-In Firms will be subject to FINRA's By-Laws and Schedules to By-Laws, including Schedule A, the consolidated FINRA rules and the Incorporated NYSE Rules, provided that their securities business is limited to the permitted floor activities. If a Waive-In Firm seeks to expand its business operations to include any activities other than the permitted floor activities, the firm must continue to apply for and receive approval pursuant to NASD Rule 1017. Upon approval of such expansion, the firm would be subject to all NASD rules, in addition to the consolidated FINRA rules and the Incorporated NYSE Rules (as is the case with the Incorporated NYSE Rules, when the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook is completed, all NASD rules would be eliminated; although it may be the case that concepts or parts of NASD rules will become adopted as part of the consolidated FINRA rules). FINRA is proposing to continue to require the Waive-In Firms to comply with the Incorporated NYSE Rules and, as applicable, NASD Rule 1017 until such time as these rules are eliminated as part of the adoption of the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook. 8 8 FINRA notes that the Waive-In Firms will continue to be subject to the content of the NASD Rule 8000 and 9000 Series, insofar as FINRA has filed a rule change to transfer these two rule series, without substantive change, to the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook. *See* Securities Exchange Release No. 58176 (July 16, 2008) (SR-FINRA-2008-021). FINRA will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule change in a *Regulatory Notice* to be published no later than 60 days following Commission approval. 2. Statutory Basis FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A of the Act, including Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, 9 in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, promote just and equitable principles of trade and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change will ensure that members eligible for the waive-in process continue to meet appropriate regulatory standards, resulting in effective and efficient regulation of brokers and dealers, thereby enhancing investor protection. 9 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 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-2008-022 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-2008-022. 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-2008-022 and should be submitted on or before August 18, 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. E8-17209 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-58197; File No. SR-ISE-2008-60] Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Extension of the Price Improvement Mechanism Pilot Program July 18, 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 July 17, 2008, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the “Exchange” or “ISE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the ISE. The ISE has designated the proposed rule change as a “non-controversial” rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange is proposing to extend two pilot programs related to its Price Improvement Mechanism (“PIM”). The text of the proposed rule amendment is as follows, with proposed deletions in [brackets], and proposed additions *italicized:* Rule 723. Price Improvement Mechanism for Crossing Transactions Supplementary Material to Rule 723 .01-.02 No Change. .03 Initially, and for at least a Pilot Period expiring on July 18, *2009* [2008], there will be no minimum size requirements for orders to be eligible for the Price Improvement Mechanism. During the Pilot Period, the Exchange will submit certain data, periodically as required by the Commission, to provide supporting evidence that, among other things, there is meaningful competition for all size orders within the Price Improvement Mechanism, that there is significant price improvement for all orders executed through the Price Improvement Mechanism, and that there is an active and liquid market functioning on the Exchange outside of the Price Improvement Mechanism. Any data which is submitted to the Commission will be provided on a confidential basis. .04 No Change. .05 Paragraphs (c)(5), (d)(5) and (d)(6) will be effective for a Pilot Period expiring on July 18, *2009* [2008]. During the Pilot Period, the Exchange will submit certain data relating to the frequency with which the exposure period is terminated by unrelated orders. Any data which is submitted to the Commission will be provided on a confidential basis. .06-.07 No Change. 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 currently has two pilot programs related to its PIM. 5 The current pilot period provided in paragraphs .03 and .05 of the Supplementary Material to Rule 723 is set to expire on July 18, 2008. 6 Paragraph .03 provides that there is no minimum size requirement for orders to be eligible for the Price Improvement Mechanism. Paragraph .05 concerns the termination of the exposure period by unrelated orders. In accordance with the Approval Order, the Exchange recently submitted certain data in support of extending the current pilot programs. The Exchange proposes to extend these pilot programs in their present form for an additional year, through July 18, 2009, to give the Exchange and the Commission additional time to evaluate the effects of these pilot programs before requesting permanent approval of the rules. To aid the Commission in its evaluation of the PIM Functionality, ISE represents that it will provide additional PIM-related data as requested. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 50819 (December 8, 2004), 69 FR 75093 (December 15, 2004) (approving the PIM Pilot (the “Approval Order”)); 52027 (July 13, 2005), 70 FR 41804 (July 20, 2005) (Extending the PIM Pilot for an Additional Year). 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56156 (July 27, 2007), 72 FR 43305 (August 3, 2007) (SR-ISE-2007-66). 2. Statutory Basis The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is found in Section 6(b)(5), 7 in that the proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, 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. Since the Price Improvement Mechanism has been operating for a relatively short period of time, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to extend the pilot periods to provide the Exchange and Commission more data upon which to evaluate the rules. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the foregoing proposed rule change:
(1)Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(2)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and
(3)by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 8 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. 9 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)A). 9 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 10 normally may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 11 permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The ISE requests that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay, as specified in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), 12 which would make the rule change operative upon filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver will allow the pilot periods to continue without interruption. 13 Accordingly, the Commission designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing with the Commission. 14 10 *Id* . 11 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). 12 *Id* . 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). 14 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. At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-ISE-2008-60 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-2008-60. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2008-60 and should be submitted on or before August 18, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 15 15 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-17121 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-58201; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2008-043] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Amend the Definition of “Non-Industry Director” in the By-Laws of The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC July 21, 2008. On May 12, 2008, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” 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, a proposed rule change to amend the definition of “Non-Industry Director” in The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc.'s by-laws (“NASDAQ OMX By-Laws”) and Nasdaq's by-laws (“Nasdaq By-Laws”). On May 28, 2008, Nasdaq filed Amendment No. 1. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on June 9, 2008. 2 The Commission received no comments regarding the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57911 (June 3, 2008), 73 FR 32615. Nasdaq proposes to amend NASDAQ OMX By-Laws and Nasdaq By-Laws to clarify that a director of an issuer of securities may be considered an “issuer representative” for purposes of provisions in these by-laws that require issuer representation on NASDAQ OMX's board of directors (“NASDAQ OMX Board”) and Nasdaq's board of directors (“Nasdaq Board”), respectively. Section 4.3 of the NASDAQ OMX By-Laws currently provides that the number of Non-Industry Directors, 3 including at least one issuer representative, must equal or exceed the number of Industry Directors, 4 unless the NASDAQ OMX Board consists of ten or more directors, in which case at least two directors must be issuer representatives. Likewise, Article III, Section 2(a) of the Nasdaq By-Laws provides that the number of Non-Industry Directors, 5 including at least one issuer representative, must equal or exceed the number of Industry Directors 6 and Member Representative Directors, 7 unless the Nasdaq Board consists of ten or more directors, in which case at least two directors shall be issuer representatives. 3 *See* Article I(m), NASDAQ OMX By-Laws. 4 *See* Article I(j), NASDAQ OMX By-Laws. 5 *See* Article I(v), Nasdaq By-Laws. 6 *See* Article I(l), Nasdaq By-Laws. 7 *See* Article I(q), Nasdaq By-Laws. The term “issuer representative,” however, is not defined in either the NASDAQ OMX By-Laws or the Nasdaq By-Laws. Instead, NASDAQ OMX By-Laws provide that “Non-Industry Director” means a director who is a Public Director, 8 an officer or employee of an issuer of securities listed on a national securities exchange operated by any Self-Regulatory Subsidiary, 9 or any other individual who would not be an Industry Director or Industry committee member. Similarly, Nasdaq By-Laws provide that “Non-Industry Director” means a director who is a Public Director, 10 an officer or employee of an issuer of securities listed on the national securities exchange operated by Nasdaq, or any other individual who would not be an Industry Director. 8 *See* Article I(n), NASDAQ OMX By-Laws. 9 *See* Article I(o), NASDAQ OMX By-Laws. 10 *See* Article I(y), Nasdaq By-Laws. Because these definitions of Non-Industry Director could be construed to require that an issuer representative must be an officer or employee of an issuer but not a director, Nasdaq proposes to clarify the NASDAQ OMX By-Laws' and Nasdaq By-Laws' definitions of Non-Industry Director to include a reference to “director” so that these definitions could not preclude a director of an issuer from serving as an issuer representative. 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. 11 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(3) of the Act, 12 which requires that the rules of the exchange assure a fair representation of its members in the selection of its directors and administration of its affairs and provide that one or more directors shall be representative of issuers and investors and not be associated with a member of the exchange, broker, or dealer. The Commission believes that the proposed rule change is appropriate, because it would clarify that the director of a Nasdaq issuer could serve as an issuer representative on the NASDAQ OMX Board and Nasdaq Board. 11 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). 12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 13 that the proposed rule change (SR-NASDAQ-2008-043), as modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and it hereby is, approved. 13 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 14 14 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-17210 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-58203; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2008-57] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Arca Rule 5.3 and Rule 5.4 To Enable the Listing and Trading of Options on Index-Linked Securities July 22, 2008. On May 29, 2008, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 2 thereunder to amend NYSE Arca Rules 5.3 and 5.4 to list and trade options on equity index-linked securities, commodity-linked securities, currency-linked securities, fixed income index-linked securities, futures-linked securities, and multifactor index-linked securities (collectively referred to as “Index-Linked Securities”) 3 that are principally traded on a national securities exchange and an “NMS stock” as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS. 4 The proposed rule change was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on June 18, 2008 for a 21-day comment period. 5 The Commission received no comment letters regarding 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* NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6). 4 *See* 17 CFR 242.600(b)(47). 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57950 (June 11, 2008), 73 FR 34815. Index-Linked Securities are designed for investors who desire to participate in a specific market segment by providing exposure to one or more identifiable underlying securities, commodities, currencies, derivative instruments or market indexes of the foregoing. Index-Linked Securities are the non-convertible debt of an issuer that have a term of at least one year but not greater than thirty years. Despite the fact that Index-Linked Securities are linked to at least one underlying index or asset (“Reference Asset”), each trade as a single, exchange-listed security. Accordingly, rules pertaining to the listing and trading of standard equity options would apply to options on Index-Linked Securities. 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 6 and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6 of the Act. 7 Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 8 which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed 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. 6 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 7 15 U.S.C. 78f. 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). Listing and Trading of Options on Index-Linked Securities As set out more fully in the Exchange's notice of its proposal, NYSE Arca's proposed rules include requirements regarding initial and continued listing standards, the creation/redemption process for Index-Linked Securities, and trading halts. Index-Linked Securities must be traded through a national securities exchange or through the facilities of a national securities association, and must be “NMS stock” as defined under Rule 600 of Regulation NMS. 9 9 17 CFR 242.600(b)(47). The Commission notes that, pursuant to the proposed NYSE Arca Rules 5.3(j)(3) and 5.4(m), Index-Linked Securities will be subject to the initial and continuing eligibility standards for underlying securities provided in NYSE Arca Rules 5.3 and 5.4, as applicable. In particular, to be options eligible, an Index-Linked Security must either meet the criteria and guidelines for underlying securities set forth in NYSE Arca Rule 5.3(a), or alternately, the Index-Linked Securities must be redeemable at the option of the holder at least on a weekly basis through the issuer at a price related to the applicable underlying Reference Asset, and the issuing company must be obligated to issue or repurchase the securities in aggregation units for cash or cash equivalents satisfactory to the issuer of Index-Linked Securities which underlie the option as described in the Index-Linked Securities prospectus. To continue to be options eligible, the Index-Linked Security must remain an NMS stock listed on a national securities exchange. The Exchange will also consider the suspension of opening transactions in any series of options of the class covering Index-Linked Securities where the Index-Linked Security does not satisfy the requirements set out in proposed NYSE Arca Rule 5.4(m). These include:
(1)Continued compliance with NYSE Arca Rule 5.3(j);
(2)compliance with NYSE Arca 5.4(b) or, for options covering Index-Linked Securities approved pursuant to NYSE Arca Rule 5.3(j)(3)(B), continuing to be an NMS stock listed on a national securities exchange; and
(3)the value of the underlying Reference Asset continues to be calculated and available. In addition, the Exchange retains discretion to suspend opening transactions in options on Index-Linked Securities where conditions make further dealings in such options inadvisable. The Exchange represented that the addition of options on Index-Linked Securities will not have any effect on Exchange rules pertaining to position and exercise limits 10 or margin. 11 10 *See* NYSE Arca Rules 6.8 and 6.9. 11 *See* NYSE Arca Rule 5.25. Surveillance The Commission notes that Exchange has represented that it will implement surveillance procedures for options on Index-Linked Securities, including adequate comprehensive surveillance sharing agreements with markets trading in non-U.S. components, as applicable. NYSE Arca further represented that these procedures will be adequate to properly monitor Exchange trading of options on Index-Linked Securities and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules. This order is based on these representations. *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 12 that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2008-57) is hereby approved. 12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-17211 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #11311 and #11312] Missouri Disaster Number MO-00030 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Amendment 2. SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Missouri (FEMA-1773-DR), dated 06/28/2008. *Incident:* Severe Storms and Flooding. *Incident Period:* 06/01/2008 and continuing. *Effective Date:* 07/18/2008. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 08/27/2008. *EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:* 03/30/2009. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of Missouri, dated 06/28/2008 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties: (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans):* Andrew, Cass, Greene, Holt, Johnson, Nodaway, Stone, Taney, Vernon, Webster. *Contiguous Counties: (Economic Injury Loans Only):* Missouri: Atchison, Barry, Barton, Bates, Buchanan, Cedar, Christian, Dade, Dallas, Douglas, Henry, Jackson, Laclede, Lafayette, Lawrence, Ozark, Pettis, Polk, Saint Clair, Wright. Arkansas: Boone, Carroll, Marion. Iowa: Page, Taylor. Kansas: Bourbon, Crawford, Doniphan, Johnson, Linn, Miami. Nebraska: Nemaha, Richardson. All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-17201 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #11337] Nebraska Disaster #NE-00023 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Nebraska (FEMA-1779-DR), dated 07/18/2008. *Incident:* Severe Storms, Straight-line Winds, and Flooding. *Incident Period:* 06/27/2008. *Effective Date:* 07/18/2008. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 09/16/2008. *Economic Injury
(EIDL)Loan Application Deadline Date:* 04/20/2009. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 07/18/2008, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: Primary Counties: Dodge, Douglas, Sarpy, Saunders. Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only) Nebraska: Burt, Butler, Cass, Colfax, Cumming, Lancaster, Seward, Washington. Iowa: Mills, Pottawattamie. The Interest Rates are: Percent Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere 5.250 Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage and for economic injury is 11337. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-17203 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #11327] Oklahoma Disaster Number OK-00022 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Amendment 1. SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Oklahoma (FEMA-1775-DR), dated 07/09/2008. *Incident:* Severe Storms and Flooding. *Incident Period:* 06/03/2008 through 06/20/2008. *Effective Date:* 07/18/2008. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 09/08/2008. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Oklahoma, dated 07/09/2008, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster. Primary Counties: Choctaw, Nowata. All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E8-17202 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [License No. 06/76-0330] SunTx Fulcrum Fund II—SBIC, L.P.; Notice Seeking Exemption Under Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest Notice is hereby given that SunTx Fulcrum Fund II—SBIC, L.P., Two Lincoln Centre, 5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1000, Dallas, TX 75240, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under section 312 of the Act and section 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) rules and regulations (13 CFR 107.730 (2002)). SunTx Fulcrum Fund II—SBIC, L.P. proposes to provide preferred equity security financing to Interface Security Holdings, Inc., 3773 Corporate Center Drive, Earth City, MO 63045. The financing is contemplated to provide the company with the necessary working capital. The financing is brought within the purview of Sec. 107.730(a)(1) of the Regulations because SunTx Fulcrum Fund, L.P. and SunTx Fulcrum Dutch Investors, L.P., an Associate of SunTx Fulcrum Fund II—SBIC, L.P., own in the aggregate 47% of the outstanding ownership of Interface. Therefore, this transaction is considered a financing of an Associate requiring prior SBA approval. Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction, within 15 days of the date of this publication, to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416. Dated: July 9, 2008. A. Joseph Shepard, Associate Administrator for Investment. [FR Doc. E8-17205 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION National Small Business Development Center Advisory Board AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). ACTION: Notice of open Federal advisory committee meeting. SUMMARY: The SBA is issuing this notice to announce the location, date, time and agenda for the next meeting of the National Small Business Development Center
(SBDC)Advisory Board. DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, August 19, 2008 at 1 p.m. ET. ADDRESSES: This meeting will be held via conference call. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), SBA announces the meeting of the National SBDC Advisory Board. This Board provides advice and counsel to the SBA Administrator and Associate Administrator for Small Business Development Centers. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the following issues pertaining to the SBDC Advisory Board: —Introduction of two new board members. —SBA Update from AA/OSBDC. —Annual Association of Small Business Development Center (ASBDC) Conference on September 2-5 in Chicago, IL. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The meeting is open to the public; however, advance notice of attendance is requested. Anyone wishing to attend and/or make a presentation to the Board must contact Alanna Falcone by Friday, August 15, 2008, by fax or e-mail in order to be placed on the agenda. Alanna Falcone, Program Analyst, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416, Phone 202-619-1612, Fax 202-481-0134, e-mail *alanna.falcone@sba.gov* . Additionally, if you need accommodations because of a disability or require additional information, please contact Alanna Falcone at the information above. Cherylyn H. Lebon, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E8-17204 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B (Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending June 27, 2008. The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 *et seq* .). The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate cases a final order without further proceedings. *Docket Number:* DOT-OST-2003-16843 and DOT-OST-2008-0199. *Date Filed:* June 24, 2008. *Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope:* July 15, 2008. *Description:* Supplement of Aero Services—Executive S.A. to its application for a foreign air carrier permit to allow it to engage in:
(i)Charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail from any point or points behind any Member State and via intermediate points to any point of points in the United States and beyond;
(ii)foreign charter air transportation of persons, property and mail between any point or points in the United States and any point or points in any member of the European Common Aviation Area;
(iii)other charters pursuant to prior approval; and transportation authorized by any additional rights granted to European Community carrier in the future. *Docket Number:* DOT-OST-1997-2166. *Date Filed:* June 25, 2008. *Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope:* July 16, 2008. *Description:* Application of Thomas Cook Airlines Scandinavia A/S requesting an amended foreign air carrier permit and exemption authority to conduct:
(a)Foreign charter air transportation of persons, property and mail from any point or points behind any Member State of the European Union via any point or points in any Member State and via intermediate points to any point or points in the United States and beyond;
(b)foreign charter air transportation of persons, property and mail between any point or points in the United States and any point or points in any member of the European Common Aviation Area;
(c)foreign charter cargo air transportation between any point or points in the United States and any other point or points;
(d)other charters pursuant to the prior approval; and
(e)charter transportation consistent with any future, additional rights that may be granted to foreign air carriers of the Member States of the European Union. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison. [FR Doc. E8-17266 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Consensus Standards, Light-Sport Aircraft AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice of availability; request for comments. SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of three new consensus standards and a revision to a previously accepted consensus standard relating to the provisions of the Sport Pilot and Light-Sport Aircraft rule issued July 16, 2004, and effective September 1, 2004. ASTM International Committee F37 on Light Sport Aircraft developed the new and revised standards with Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)participation. By this notice, the FAA finds the new and revised standards acceptable for certification of the specified aircraft under the provisions of the Sport Pilot and Light-Sport Aircraft rule. DATE: Comments must be received on or before September 26, 2008. ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to: Federal Aviation Administration, Small Airplane Directorate, Programs and Procedures Branch, ACE-114, Attention: Terry Chasteen, Room 301, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Comments may also be e-mailed to: *9-ACE-AVR-LSA-Comments@faa.gov* . All comments must be marked: Consensus Standards Comments, and must specify the standard being addressed by ASTM designation and title. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Chasteen, Light-Sport Aircraft Program Manager, Programs and Procedures Branch (ACE-114), Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone
(816)329-4147; e-mail: *terry.chasteen@faa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces the availability of three new consensus standards and a revision to a previously accepted consensus standard relating to the provisions of the Sport Pilot and Light-Sport Aircraft rule. ASTM International Committee F37 on Light Sport Aircraft developed the new and revised standards. The FAA expects a suitable consensus standard to be reviewed at least every two years. The two-year review cycle will result in a standard revision or reapproval. A standard is issued under a fixed designation (i.e., F2244); the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A reapproval indicates a two-year review cycle completed with no technical changes. A superscript epsilon (ε) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval. A notice of availability
(NOA)will only be issued for new or revised standards. Reapproved standards issued with no technical changes or standards issued with editorial changes only (i.e., superscript epsilon (ε)) are considered accepted by the FAA without need for a NOA. *Comments Invited:* Interested persons are invited to submit such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Communications should identify the consensus standard number and be submitted to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be forwarded to ASTM International Committee F37 for consideration. The standard may be changed in light of the comments received. The FAA will address all comments received during the recurring review of the consensus standard and will participate in the consensus standard revision process. *Background:* Under the provisions of the Sport Pilot and Light-Sport Aircraft rule, and revised Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)Circular A-119, “Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities”, dated February 10, 1998, industry and the FAA have been working with ASTM International to develop consensus standards for light-sport aircraft. These consensus standards satisfy the FAA's goal for airworthiness certification and a verifiable minimum safety level for light-sport aircraft. Instead of developing airworthiness standards through the rulemaking process, the FAA participates as a member of Committee F37 in developing these standards. The use of the consensus standard process assures government and industry discussion and agreement on appropriate standards for the required level of safety. Comments on Previous Notices of Availability In the Notice of Availability
(NOA)issued on December 19, 2006, and published in the **Federal Register** on January 3, 2007, the FAA asked for public comments on the new and revised consensus standards accepted by that NOA. The comment period closed on March 5, 2007. No public comments were received regarding the standards accepted by this NOA. Consensus Standards in This Notice of Availability The FAA has reviewed the standards presented in this NOA for compliance with the the regulatory requirements of the rule. Any light-sport aircraft, issued a special light-sport airworthiness certificate, which has been designed, manufactured, operated and maintained, in accordance with this and previously accepted ASTM consensus standards, provides the public with the appropriate level of safety established under the regulations. Manufacturers who choose to produce these aircraft and certificate these aircraft under 14 CFR part 21, 21.190 or 21.191 are subject to the applicable consensus standard requirements. The FAA maintains a listing of all accepted standards on the FAA Web site. The Revised Consensus Standard and Effective Period of Use The following previously accepted consensus standard has been revised, and this NOA is accepting the later revision. Either the previous revision or the later revision may be used for the initial certification of special light-sport aircraft until January 1, 2009. This overlapping period of time will allow aircraft that have started the initial certification process using the previous revision level to complete that process. After January 1, 2009, manufacturers must use the later revision and must identify the later revision in the Statement of Compliance for initial certification of special light-sport aircraft unless the FAA publishes a specific notification otherwise. The following Consensus Standard may not be used after January 1, 2009: ASTM Designation F 2245-06, titled: Standard Specification for Design and Performance of a Light Sport Airplane. The Consensus Standards The FAA finds the following new and revised consensus standards acceptable for certification of the specified aircraft under the provisions of the Sport Pilot and Light-Sport Aircraft rule. The consensus standards listed below may be used unless the FAA publishes a specific notification otherwise. a. *ASTM Designation F 2245-07a, titled:* Standard Specification for Design and Performance of a Light Sport Airplane. b. *ASTM Designation F 2506-07, titled:* Standard Specification for Design and Testing of Fixed-Pitch or Ground Adjustable Light Sport Aircraft Propellers. c. *ASTM Designation F 2538-07a, titled:* Standard Practice for Design and Manufacture of Reciprocating Compression Ignition Engines for Light Sport Aircraft. d. *ASTM Designation F 2626-07, titled:* Standard Terminology for Light Sport Aircraft. Availability These consensus standards are copyrighted by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. Individual reprints of a standard (single or multiple copies, or special compilations and other related technical information) may be obtained by contacting ASTM at this address, or at
(610)832-9585 (phone),
(610)832-9555 (fax), through *service@astm.org* (e-mail), or through the ASTM Web site at *http://www.astm.org* . To inquire about standard content and/or membership or about ASTM International Offices abroad, contact Daniel Schultz, Staff Manager for Committee F37 on Light Sport Aircraft:
(610)832-9716, *dschultz@astm.org* . Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on July 1, 2008. John Colomy, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-17251 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration [Summary Notice No. PE-2008-31] Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received. SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition. DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before August 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2008-0348, using any of the following methods: • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Send comments to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:* Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at 202-493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Bring comments to the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. *Privacy:* We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78). Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* at any time or to the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenna Sinclair
(425)227-1556, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-113, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue, SE., Renton, WA 98055-4056, or Frances Shaver
(202)267-9681, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-204, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85. Pamela Hamilton-Powell, Director, Office of Rulemaking. Petition for Exemption *Docket No.:* FAA-2008-0348. *Petitioner:* The Boeing Company. *Section of 14 CFR Affected:* Sections 25.785(d), 25.807(c)(1), 25.807(c)(5), 25.807(d)(1), 25.809(f)(1), 25.813(b), 25.857(e), and 25.1447(c)(1). *Description of Relief Sought:* The Boeing Company requests exemption from the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes that would allow up to six
(6)supernumeraries on a Boeing Model 747-8F airplane to access the main deck cargo compartment for all types of cargo operations, namely:
(1)Cargo only,
(2)live animals only, and
(3)mixed cargo consisting of live animals and regular cargo. [FR Doc. E8-16983 Filed 7-24-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0137] Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of final disposition. SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt fifty-six individuals from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus
(ITDM)from operating commercial motor vehicles
(CMVs)in interstate commerce. The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce. DATES: The exemptions are effective July 28, 2008. The exemptions expire on July 28, 2010. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical Programs,
(202)366-4001, *fmcsamedical@dot.gov* , FMCSA, Room W64-224, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System
(FDMS)at: *http://www.regulations.gov* . *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and/or Room W12-140 on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. *Privacy Act:* Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments received into any of DOT's dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, or other entity). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** (65 FR 19476, Apr. 11, 2000). This statement is also available at *http://Docketsinfo.dot.gov* . Background On June 11, 2008, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of applications for exemption from the Federal diabetes standard from fifty-six individuals, and requested comments from the public (73 FR 33144). The public comment period closed on July 10, 2008, and no comments were received. FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the fifty-six applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3). Diabetes Mellitus and Driving Experience of the Applicants The Agency established the current standard for diabetes in 1970 because several risk studies indicated that diabetic drivers had a higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The diabetes rule provides that “A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control” (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)). FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency's July 2000 study entitled “A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act for the 21st Century.” The report concluded that a safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs is feasible. The 2003 Notice (68 FR 52442) in conjunction with the November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777), **Federal Register** Notice provides the current protocol for allowing such drivers to operate CMVs in interstate commerce. These fifty-six applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 33 years. These applicants report no hypoglycemic reaction that resulted in loss of consciousness or seizure, that required the assistance of another person, or that resulted in impaired cognitive function without warning symptoms in the past 5 years (with one year of stability following any such episode). In each case, an endocrinologist has verified that the driver has demonstrated willingness to properly monitor and manage his or her diabetes, received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable insulin regimen. Each driver reported no other disqualifying conditions, including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the June 11, 2008, **Federal Register** Notice (73 FR 33144). Therefore, they will not be repeated in this notice. Basis for Exemption Determination Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce. To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision and reviewed the treating endocrinologist's medical opinion related to the ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin. Consequently, FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption. Conditions and Requirements The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the applicants in the exemption document and they include the following:
(1)That each individual submits to FMCSA a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation;
(2)that each individual reports to FMCSA within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not they are related to an episode of hypoglycemia;
(3)that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and
(4)that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. Discussion of Comments FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding. Conclusion After considering the comments to the docket, and based upon its evaluation of the fifty-six exemption applications, FMCSA exempts, Timothy R. Abraham, Mark A. Arndt, David D. Canady, William M. Camp, Scott A. Cary, Eugene W. Clark, Jr., Jeffrey D. Crabtree, David C. Crawford, David W. Dawley, Adam F. Demeter, Henry D. Dyer, Stephen E. Foltz, Randall A. Ford, Larry A. Fritz, Clayton L. Funk, Bruce A. Gay, Jarret L. Gerber, Frederick G. Gillespie, Jose L. Gonzales, Kevin Gumbrell, Danny E. Helton, Robert G. Hemeon, Marcus L. Jackson, Richard S. Jackson, William J. Jackson, Alan L. Johnson, Nathan S. Kelley, Angela M. King, Scott M. Lowry, Ramon A. Mateo, Robert L. Mills, Jr., Richard Murphy, Edward F. Murray, Peter H. Palen, Jr., Travis L. Ploman, Nicholas W. Pomnitz, Thomas G. Riley, Jr., Melvin D. Robertson, Robert A. Roskamp, Brandon M. Ross, Ulysses A. Santiago, Jr., Jeremy S. Samiec, Patrick D. Schiller, Bruce D. Schmoyer, Joseph E. Sobiech, John J. Sorce, Donald J. Stabler, Ronald L. Stigall, Cory C. Struble, James L. Swedenburg, Jr., Lawrence M. Tanner, Robert D. Tarkington, Richard L. Thistle, Travis A. Udulutch, Joshua C. Webb, and Robert C. Whitney, from the ITDM standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), subject to the conditions listed under “Conditions and Requirements” above. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if:
(1)The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption;
(2)the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or
(3)continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time. Issued on: July 18, 2008. Larry W. Minor, Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development. [FR Doc. E8-17190 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA-99-5578, FMCSA-99-6156, FMCSA-99-6480, FMCSA-01-10578, FMCSA-01-11426, FMCSA-05-22727, FMCSA-05-23099, FMCSA-05-23238, FMCSA-06-23773, FMCSA-06-24015] Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Renewals; Vision AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of final disposition. SUMMARY: FMCSA previously announced its decision to renew the exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for 24 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has reviewed the comment submitted in response to the previous announcement and concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety that will be equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle
(CMV)drivers. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical Programs,
(202)366-4001, *fmcsamedical@dot.gov* , FMCSA, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System
(FDMS)at *http://www.regulations.gov* . Background Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The notice was published on May 12, 2008 (FR 73 27014), and the comment period ended on June 11, 2008. Discussion of Comments FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. The comment was considered and discussed below. Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) expressed opposition to FMCSA's policy to grant exemptions from the FMCSR, including the driver qualification standards. Specifically, Advocates:
(1)Objects to the manner in which FMCSA presents driver information to the public and makes safety determinations;
(2)objects to the Agency's reliance on conclusions drawn from the vision waiver program;
(3)claims the Agency has misinterpreted statutory language on the granting of exemptions (49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315); and finally
(4)suggests that a 1999 Supreme Court decision affects the legal validity of vision exemptions. The issues raised by Advocates were addressed at length in 64 FR 51568 (September 23, 1999), 64 FR 66962 (November 30, 1999), 64 FR 69586 (December 13, 1999), 65 FR 159 (January 3, 2000), 65 FR 57230 (September 21, 2000), and 66 FR 13825 (March 7, 2001). We will not address these points again here, but refer interested parties to those earlier discussions. Conclusion The Agency has not received any adverse evidence on any of these drivers that indicates that safety is being compromised. Based upon its evaluation of the 24 renewal applications, FMCSA renews the Federal vision exemptions for Juan D. Adame, Louis N. Adams, Paul D. Crouch, Thomas G. Danclovic, John M. Doney, Curtis N. Fulbright, Joshua G. Hansen, Daniel W. Henderson, Edward W. Hosier, Burt A. Hughes, Craig T. Jorgensen, Jose A. Lopez, Earl E. Martin, Bobby L. Mashburn, Brian E. Monaghan, William P. Murphy, Roy J. Oltman, Albert K. Remsburg, III, Willard L. Riggle, Robert H. Rogers, George L. Silvia, Darwin J. Thomas, Kenneth E. Walker, and Frankie A. Wilborn. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each renewal exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if:
(1)The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption;
(2)the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or
(3)continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315. Issued on: July 21, 2008. Larry W. Minor, Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development. [FR Doc. E8-17189 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA-99-5748, FMCSA-99-6480, FMCSA-01-11426, FMCSA-02-11714, FMCSA-05-23099, FMCSA-06-23773] Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Renewals; Vision AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of final disposition. SUMMARY: FMCSA previously announced its decision to renew the exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for 17 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has reviewed the comment submitted in response to the previous announcement and concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety that will be equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle
(CMV)drivers. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical Programs,
(202)366-4001, *fmcsamedical@dot.gov* , FMCSA, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System
(FDMS)at *http://www.regulations.gov* . Background Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The notice was published on May 12, 2008 (FR 73 27017), and the comment period ended on June 11, 2008. Discussion of Comments FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. The comment was considered and discussed below. Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) expressed opposition to FMCSA's policy to grant exemptions from the FMCSR, including the driver qualification standards. Specifically, Advocates:
(1)Objects to the manner in which FMCSA presents driver information to the public and makes safety determinations;
(2)objects to the Agency's reliance on conclusions drawn from the vision waiver program;
(3)claims the Agency has misinterpreted statutory language on the granting of exemptions (49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315); and finally
(4)suggests that a 1999 Supreme Court decision affects the legal validity of vision exemptions. The issues raised by Advocates were addressed at length in 64 FR 51568 (September 23, 1999), 64 FR 66962 (November 30, 1999), 64 FR 69586 (December 13, 1999), 65 FR 159 (January 3, 2000), 65 FR 57230 (September 21, 2000), and 66 FR 13825 (March 7, 2001). We will not address these points again here, but refer interested parties to those earlier discussions. Conclusion The Agency has not received any adverse evidence on any of these drivers that indicates that safety is being compromised. Based upon its evaluation of the 17 renewal applications, FMCSA renews the Federal vision exemptions for Guy M. Alloway, Joe W. Brewer, James D. Coates, Donald D. Dunphy, James W. Ellis, IV., John E. Engstad, David W. Grooms, Walter D. Hague, Jr., David A. Inman, Alfred G. Jeffus, Teddie W. King, Aaron C. Lougher, Lawrence C. Moody, Stanley W. Nunn, Roberto G. Serna, Bobby C. Spencer, and Kevin R. Stoner. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each renewal exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if:
(1)The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption;
(2)the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or
(3)continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315. Issued on: July 21, 2008. Larry W. Minor, Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development. [FR Doc. E8-17191 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Notice of Date for Submission of Requests for Confidential Treatment of Certain Early Warning Reporting Data AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice establishes a submission date for those manufacturers that choose to submit requests for confidential treatment of Early Warning Reporting data on incidents involving a death or an injury, property damage claims or light vehicle production to send the requests to NHTSA's Chief Counsel. DATES: Requests for confidential treatment of previously submitted Early Warning Reporting data on incidents involving a death or an injury, on property damage claims and on light vehicle production must be submitted to NHTSA's Chief Counsel by August 27, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Andrew J. DiMarsico, NHTSA Office of the Chief Counsel, W41-227, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 ( *Telephone* : 202-366-5263) ( *Fax* : 202-366-3820). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act, which was enacted in 2000, required NHTSA to prescribe rules establishing early warning reporting
(EWR)requirements. 49 U.S.C. 30166(m). On July 10, 2002, NHTSA published regulations implementing the early warning reporting provisions. 49 CFR part 579 Subpart C, 67 FR 45822. In general, the EWR regulations require manufacturers of motor vehicles (producing 500 or more vehicles annually), all manufacturers of child restraint systems and manufacturers of tires above a specified volume to report, on a quarterly basis, information on production, incidents involving fatalities and injuries based on claims and notices, claims for property damage, consumer complaints, warranty claims and field reports, and to submit copies of certain field reports. *See* 49 CFR 579.21-26. Manufacturers of motor vehicles that produce less than 500 vehicles annually, and all other equipment manufacturers, do not provide quarterly reports, but are required to report information on incidents involving death(s) based on claims or notices. *See* 49 CFR 579.27. Additionally, manufacturers were required to file initial reports containing historical data. *See* 49 CFR 579.28(c). The EWR rule did not address whether the information submitted by manufacturers would be released to the public. On July 28, 2003, NHTSA published an appendix to its Confidential Business Information
(CBI)rule that addressed the confidentiality of EWR data. *See* 49 CFR part 512 App. C, 68 FR 44209. The rule established class determinations that EWR information on production numbers (except for light vehicles), consumer complaints, warranty claims and field reports (including copies of reports) were confidential. NHTSA subsequently amended the rule to add a class determination that common green tire data are confidential. 69 FR 21409 (April 21, 2004). During the rulemaking, NHTSA declined to adopt a request by commenters that EWR data on deaths and injuries and on property damage claims (collectively, “EWR claims data”) be accorded confidentiality. Instead, manufacturers could submit individualized requests for confidential treatment of their EWR claims data. If a manufacturer did not submit a request for confidential treatment of its EWR claims data, the agency would be free to disclose it. Litigation over the provisions in NHTSA's rule on the confidentiality of EWR data was instituted in March of 2004. Public Citizen challenged the class determinations and sought to have them set aside. The Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA), a trade association that includes tire manufacturers, intervened contending that all EWR information including EWR claims data is exempt from disclosure. This was based on the legal theory that the TREAD Act precluded the disclosure of the data and thus under Exemption 3 of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3), 1 NHTSA could not release EWR data. In addition, some RMA members submitted requests for confidentiality of EWR claims data, which NHTSA denied. RMA's complaint as an intervenor challenged those denials as well as the rule. 1 Exemption 3 incorporates the various nondisclosure provisions contained in other Federal statutes. It provides for the withholding of information specifically exempted from disclosure by statute, provided that such statute “(A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or
(B)establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld.” 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3). In light of the RMA claim in the lawsuit, NHTSA stayed the processing of requests for confidential treatment of EWR information until the matters in litigation were resolved. The agency further advised manufacturers that until further notice they should not request confidential treatment of EWR information. In its resolution of the litigation, the District Court issued two opinions. In the first, the Court found that NHTSA had the authority to make the class determinations of confidentiality but had failed to follow proper notice and comment procedures when it did so. It remanded the matter back to NHTSA. *See Public Citizen, Inc.* v. *Mineta,* 427 F.Supp.2d 7 (D.D.C. 2006). In a subsequent decision, the Court rejected RMA's contention that the TREAD Act precluded NHTSA from releasing EWR data. *See Public Citizen, Inc.* v. *Mineta,* 444 F.Supp.2d 12 (D.D.C. 2006). RMA appealed. On July 22, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court on RMA's claim that the TREAD Act precluded the release of all EWR data. *Public Citizen, Inc.,* v. *Rubber Manufacturers Association,* No. 06-5304, _ F.3d _ (DC Cir. 2008). While RMA's appeal was pending, in response to the District Court's remand of the 2003 rule, NHTSA published a rule on the confidentiality of EWR data. *See* 72 FR 59434 (Oct. 19, 2007). The 2007 rule contained class determinations that EWR information on production numbers (except for light vehicles), consumer complaints, warranty claims, field reports (including copies of field reports) and common green tire data are confidential. Significantly, under the 2007 rule, EWR claims data is not covered by any class determinations. Accordingly, manufacturers seeking confidential treatment for EWR claims data may do so by submitting individual requests for confidential treatment pursuant to 49 CFR part 512. This notice addresses the timing of submission of requests for confidentiality of EWR claims data and production data for light vehicles. The agency's EWR CBI rule did not resolve the confidentiality of those data. Instead, as noted above, this was left to individual requests for confidentiality, if manufacturers chose to submit them. And, if a manufacturer did not submit a request covering EWR claims data or, for light vehicles, production data, NHTSA was free to release those data submitted by the manufacturer. However, NHTSA issued an administrative stay of the release of the EWR claims data pending the resolution of the litigation and advised manufacturers not to submit requests for confidentiality while the stay was in effect. In view of the decision and judgment by the Court of Appeals, the stay is no longer operative. NHTSA is providing manufacturers a limited opportunity to request confidentiality for previously submitted EWR claims data (information on incidents involving death or injury or property damage claims) and, for light vehicles, production data. There are two general groups of EWR data at issue. The first is EWR claims data and light vehicle production data previously submitted to the agency pursuant to the EWR rule. NHTSA's naming convention rules for the submission of electronic EWR quarterly reports require manufacturers to denominate their EWR submissions with a “C” in the Confidentiality Request Identifier to indicate that the manufacturer contends that the EWR claims data and/or light vehicle production data is confidential. However, the “C” in the file naming convention alone does not confer confidential treatment for EWR claims data and light vehicle production data. Manufacturers seeking confidential treatment for this information must submit a request pursuant to 49 CFR part 512 to the Chief Counsel of NHTSA by mail, express courier (e.g., Fed Ex, UPS, DHL), or hand delivery, which is due by August 27, 2008. A request for confidential treatment may be made even if an EWR report was submitted without the “C” designation. If a request for confidential treatment is not submitted by the above date, the agency will be free to disclose the data regardless if a “C” is included in the file name of the EWR report. The second group of EWR data at issue is EWR claims data and light vehicle production data submitted in the future. Consistent with 49 CFR part 512, manufacturers choosing to request confidential treatment for such data are required to submit individual requests for confidential treatment to NHTSA's Chief Counsel in connection with their electronic submissions of EWR quarterly reports. While quarterly EWR reports are submitted electronically and require a “C” in the file naming convention to indicate a request for confidential treatment, an individualized request under 49 CFR part 512 must also be sent by mail, express courier or hand delivery to the Chief Counsel of NHTSA. Issued on: July 23, 2008. Lloyd S. Guerci, Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation and Enforcement. [FR Doc. E8-17237 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Docket No. AB-33 (Sub-No. 269X)]; [STB Docket No. AB-486 (Sub-No. 4X)] Union Pacific Railroad Company—Abandonment Exemption—in Osborne and Rooks Counties, KS; Kyle Railroad Company—Discontinuance of Service Exemption—in Osborne and Rooks Counties, KS Union Pacific Railroad Company
(UP)and Kyle Railroad Company
(Kyle)(collectively, applicants) have jointly filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1152 Subpart F— *Exempt Abandonments and Discontinuances of Service* for UP to abandon, and for Kyle to discontinue service over, a 30.13-mile portion of a line of railroad known as the Solomon Branch Line, extending between west of Osborne, KS (milepost 550.5), and west of Stockton, KS, at the end of the line (milepost 580.63), in Osborne and Rooks Counties, KS. 1 The line traverses United States Postal Service Zip Codes 67473, 67474, 67623, 67675, and 67669. 1 Applicants originally filed their verified notice of exemption on July 8, 2008, but filed a supplement to their notice on July 11, 2008, certifying applicants' compliance with the notice requirements of 49 CFR 1105.11. Applicants have certified that:
(1)No local traffic has moved over the line for at least 2 years;
(2)any overhead traffic on the line can be rerouted over other lines;
(3)no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the 2-year period; and
(4)the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7 (environmental report), 49 CFR 1105.8 (historic report), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met. As a condition to these exemptions, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment or discontinuance shall be protected under *Oregon Short Line R. Co.—Abandonment—Goshen,* 360 I.C.C. 91 (1979). To address whether this condition adequately protects affected employees, a petition for partial revocation under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) must be filed. Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance
(OFA)has been received, these exemptions will be effective on August 27, 2008, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues, 2 formal expressions of intent to file an OFA under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2), 3 and trail use/rail banking requests under 49 CFR 1152.29 must be filed by August 7, 2008. Petitions to reopen or requests for public use conditions under 49 CFR 1152.28 must be filed by August 18, 2008, 4 with: Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. 2 The Board will grant a stay if an informed decision on environmental issues (whether raised by a party or by the Board's Section of Environmental Analysis
(SEA)in its independent investigation) cannot be made before the exemptions' effective date. *See Exemption of Out-of-Service Rail Lines,* 5 I.C.C.2d 377 (1989). Any request for a stay should be filed as soon as possible so that the Board may take appropriate action before the exemptions' effective date. 3 Each OFA must be accompanied by the filing fee, which is currently set at $1,500. The filing fee for an OFA increased from $1,300 to $1,500, effective July 18, 2008. *See Regulations Governing Fees for Services Performed in Connection with Licensing and Related Services—2008 Update,* STB Ex Parte No. 542 (Sub-No. 15) (STB served June 18, 2008), which amends 49 CFR Part 1002 of the *Code of Federal Regulations.* 4 Applicants note, however, that they do not believe that the line of railroad is suitable for other public purposes. A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to applicants' representatives:
(1)Mack H. Shumate, Jr., Senior General Attorney, Union Pacific Railroad Company, 101 North Wacker Drive, Room 1920, Chicago, IL 60606; and
(2)Louis E. Gitomer, Esq., Law Offices of Louis E. Gitomer, 600 Baltimore Avenue, Suite 301, Towson, MD 21204. If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemptions are void *ab initio.* Applicants have filed a joint combined environmental and historic report, which addresses the effects, if any, of the abandonment and discontinuance on the environment and historic resources. SEA will issue an environmental assessment
(EA)by August 1, 2008. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to SEA (Room 1100, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001) or by calling SEA at
(202)245-0305. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339.] Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public. Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision. Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), UP shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the line. If consummation has not been effected by UP's filing of a notice of consummation by July 28, 2009, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire. Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at *http://www.stb.dot.gov.* Decided: July 18, 2008. By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings. Anne K. Quinlan, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-16872 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Docket No. AB-33 (Sub-No. 270X); STB Docket No. AB-486 (Sub-No. 5X)] Union Pacific Railroad Company—Abandonment Exemption—in Osborne and Smith Counties, KS; Kyle Railroad Company—Discontinuance of Service Exemption—in Osborne and Smith Counties, KS Union Pacific Railroad Company
(UP)and Kyle Railroad Company
(Kyle)(collectively, applicants) have jointly filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1152 Subpart F— *Exempt Abandonments and Discontinuances of Service* for UP to abandon, and for Kyle to discontinue service over, a 12.4-mile portion of a line of railroad known as the Lenora Branch Line, extending between milepost 540.3, west of Downs, KS, and milepost 552.7, west of Portis, KS, at the end of the line, in Osborne and Smith Counties. 1 The line traverses United States Postal Service Zip Codes 67437, 67474, and 67638. 1 Applicants originally filed their verified notice of exemption on July 8, 2008, but filed a supplement to their notice on July 11, 2008, certifying applicants' compliance with the notice requirements of 49 CFR 1105.11. *Applicants have certified that:*
(1)No local traffic has moved over the line for at least 2 years;
(2)any overhead traffic on the line can be rerouted over other lines;
(3)no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the 2-year period; and
(4)the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7 (environmental report), 49 CFR 1105.8 (historic report), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met. As a condition to these exemptions, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment or discontinuance shall be protected under *Oregon Short Line R. Co.—Abandonment—Goshen,* 360 I.C.C. 91 (1979). To address whether this condition adequately protects affected employees, a petition for partial revocation under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) must be filed. Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance
(OFA)has been received, these exemptions will be effective on August 27, 2008, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues, 2 formal expressions of intent to file an OFA under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2), 3 and trail use/rail banking requests under 49 CFR 1152.29 must be filed by August 7, 2008. Petitions to reopen or requests for public use conditions under 49 CFR 1152.28 must be filed by August 18, 2008, 4 with: Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. 2 The Board will grant a stay if an informed decision on environmental issues (whether raised by a party or by the Board's Section of Environmental Analysis
(SEA)in its independent investigation) cannot be made before the exemptions' effective date. *See Exemption of Out-of-Service Rail Lines,* 5 I.C.C.2d 377 (1989). Any request for a stay should be filed as soon as possible so that the Board may take appropriate action before the exemptions' effective date. 3 Each OFA must be accompanied by the filing fee, which is currently set at $1,500. The filing fee for an OFA increased from $1,300 to $1,500, effective July 18, 2008. *See Regulations Governing Fees for Services Performed in Connection With Licensing and Related Services—2008 Update,* STB Ex Parte No. 542 (Sub-No. 15) (STB served June 18, 2008), which amends 49 CFR Part 1002 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 4 Applicants note, however, that they do not believe that the line of railroad is suitable for other public purposes. Applicants also state that, if the abandonment is authorized, they may reclassify 2.7 miles of the line between milepost 540.3 and milepost 543.0 as side track for storage and staging. A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to applicants' representatives:
(1)Mack H. Shumate, Jr., Senior General Attorney, Union Pacific Railroad Company, 101 North Wacker Drive, Room 1920, Chicago, IL 60606; and
(2)Louis E. Gitomer, Esq., Law Offices of Louis E. Gitomer, 600 Baltimore Avenue, Suite 301, Towson, MD 21204. If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemptions are void *ab initio* . Applicants have filed a joint combined environmental and historic report, which addresses the effects, if any, of the abandonment and discontinuance on the environment and historic resources. SEA will issue an environmental assessment
(EA)by August 1, 2008. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to SEA (Room 1100, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001) or by calling SEA, at
(202)245-0305. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339.] Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public. Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision. Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), UP shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the line. If consummation has not been effected by UP's filing of a notice of consummation by July 28, 2009, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire. Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at *http://www.stb.dot.gov* . Decided: July 21, 2008. By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings. Anne K. Quinlan, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-16953 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Docket No. AB-33 (Sub-No. 262X)] Union Pacific Railroad Company—Abandonment Exemption—in Fulton and Peoria Counties, IL Union Pacific Railroad Company
(UP)has filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1152 Subpart F— *Exempt Abandonments* to abandon a 24.7-mile line of railroad on UP's Elm Industrial Lead from milepost 461.5, near Middle Grove, to milepost 486.2, at Molitor Junction, in Fulton and Peoria Counties, IL. The line traverses United States Postal Service Zip Codes 61529, 61531, 61536, 61569 and 61604. UP has certified that:
(1)No local traffic has moved over the line for at least 2 years;
(2)there is no overhead traffic on the line;
(3)no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the 2-year period; and
(4)the requirements of 49 CFR 1105.7 (environmental report), 49 CFR 1105.8 (historic report), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met. As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment shall be protected under *Oregon Short Line R. Co.—Abandonment—Goshen* , 360 I.C.C. 91 (1979). To address whether this condition adequately protects affected employees, a petition for partial revocation under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) must be filed. Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance
(OFA)has been received, this exemption will be effective on August 22, 2008, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues, 1 formal expressions of intent to file an OFA under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2), 2 and trail use/rail banking requests under 49 CFR 1152.29 must be filed by August 4, 2008. Petitions to reopen or requests for public use conditions under 49 CFR 1152.28 must be filed by August 12, 2008, with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. 1 The Board will grant a stay if an informed decision on environmental issues (whether raised by a party or by the Board's Section of Environmental Analysis
(SEA)in its independent investigation) cannot be made before the exemption's effective date. *See Exemption of Out-of-Service Rail Lines* , 5 I.C.C.2d 377 (1989). Any request for a stay should be filed as soon as possible so that the Board may take appropriate action before the exemption's effective date. 2 Each OFA must be accompanied by the filing fee, which will be $1,500 on the date of service and publication of this notice. *See* 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25). A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to UP's representative: Gabriel S. Meyer, Assistant General Attorney, 1400 Douglas Street, STOP 1580, Omaha, NE 68179. If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void *ab initio* . UP has filed environmental and historic reports which address the effects, if any, of the abandonment on the environment and historic resources. SEA will issue an environmental assessment
(EA)by July 25, 2008. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to SEA (Room 1100, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001) or by calling SEA, at
(202)245-0305. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339.] Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public. Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision. Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), UP shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the line. If consummation has not been effected by UP's filing of a notice of consummation by July 23, 2009, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire. Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at *http://www.stb.dot.gov* . Decided: July 11, 2008. By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings. Anne K. Quinlan, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-17140 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY United States Mint Notification of American Eagle Platinum Proof Coin Price Increases SUMMARY: The United States Mint is adjusting prices for its American Eagle Platinum Proof Coins. Pursuant to the authority that 31 U.S.C. 5111(a) and 5112(k) grant the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and issue platinum coins, and to prepare and distribute numismatic items, the United States Mint mints and issues 2008 American Eagle Platinum Proof Coins in four denominations with the following weights: One-ounce, one-half ounce, one-quarter ounce, one-tenth ounce. The United States Mint also produces American Eagle Platinum Proof four-coin sets that contain one coin of each denomination. In accordance with 31 U.S.C. 9701(b)(2)(B), the United States Mint is changing the price of these coins to reflect increases in the market price of platinum. Effective July 23, 2008, the United States Mint will commence selling the following 2008 American Eagle Proof Coins according to the following price schedule: Description Price American Eagle Platinum Proof Coins: One-ounce platinum coin $2,509.95 One-half ounce platinum coin 1,279.95 One-quarter ounce platinum coin 664.95 One-tenth ounce platinum coin 279.95 Four-coin platinum set 4,589.95 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gloria C. Eskridge, Associate Director for Sales and Marketing, United States Mint, 801 Ninth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220, or call 202-354-7500. Authority: 31 U.S.C. 5111, 5112 & 9701. Dated: July 23, 2008. Edmund C. Moy, Director, United States Mint. [FR Doc. E8-17231 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-02-P 73 145 Monday, July 28, 2008 Presidential Documents Title 3— The President Proclamation 8275 of July 23, 2008 60th Anniversary of the Integration of the United States Armed Forces By the President of the United States of America A Proclamation The United States is founded upon the belief that every person has unalienable rights and matchless value. Throughout our Nation's history, brave patriots have made great sacrifices to protect this ideal and to advance the cause of freedom around the world. On the 60th anniversary of the integration of the United States Armed Forces, we pay tribute to all our service members and veterans, and we underscore our Nation's commitment to equality. On July 26, 1948, President Harry Truman signed Executive Order 9981, declaring “that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin.” Today, members of our Armed Forces come from many different backgrounds and cultures and are answering the call to service with bravery, decency, and resolve. Our Nation has long drawn strength from the diversity of its citizens. Groups such as the Buffalo Soldiers, the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, the Tuskegee Airmen, and the “Borinqueneers” risked their lives while proudly wearing the uniform of the United States. By performing their missions with integrity and honor, they highlighted the power of liberty, helped open the door of opportunity, and earned the respect and admiration of a grateful Nation. On this anniversary, we celebrate the legacy of those who refused to allow adversity to diminish their spirit or extinguish their drive to help America live up to its promise of equality for all people. We also commemorate our veterans and service members whose noble and selfless actions have inspired generations of men and women to follow in their footsteps and made our country a more hopeful place. NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim July 26, 2008, as the 60th Anniversary of the Integration of the United States Armed Forces and urge all Americans to observe this day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-third day of July, in the year of our Lord two thousand eight, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third. GWBOLD.EPS [FR Doc. 08-1468 Filed 07-25-08; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 18
Traces to 18 documents
32 references not yet in our index
  • Pub. L. 92-463
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 10 CFR 51
  • 10 CFR 40
  • Pub. L. 94-409
  • 17 CFR 240.19
  • 15 USC 78(f)(b)(5)
  • 15 USC 78
  • 14 CFR 301.201
  • 14 CFR 21
  • 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)
  • 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)
  • 49 CFR 579
  • 49 CFR 579.21-26
  • 49 CFR 579.27
  • 49 CFR 579.28(c)
  • 49 CFR 512
  • 427 F. Supp. 2d 7
  • 444 F. Supp. 2d 12
  • 49 CFR 1152
  • 49 CFR 1105.11
  • 49 CFR 1105.7
  • 49 CFR 1105.8
  • 49 CFR 1105.12
  • 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1)
  • 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2)
  • 49 CFR 1152.29
  • 49 CFR 1152.28
  • 49 CFR 1002
  • 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2)
  • 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25)
  • EO 9981
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of appointments
U.S.C.§ 3501
C.F.R.§ 239.25
U.S.C.§ 77a
U.S.C.§ 78k–1
C.F.R.§ 242.608
U.S.C.§ 78c
C.F.R.§ 200.30-3
U.S.C.§ 78s
U.S.C.§ 78f
F. Supp.427 F. Supp. 2d 7
F. Supp.444 F. Supp. 2d 12
Pub. L.Pub. L. 92-463
Cites 50 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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