69660 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2004 / Notices 

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

2CFR 240.19b–4.

3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6).

5See Exchange Act Release No. 46881 (November 

21, 2002), 67 FR 71224 (November 29, 2002) (Order 

approving SR–PCX–2002–71).

6See Exchange Act Release No. 47872 (May 15, 

2003), 68 FR 28869 (May 27, 2003) (Order 

approving SR–PCX–2003–22).

7See Exchange Act Release No. 48806 (November 

19, 2003), 68 FR 66521 (November 26, 2003) (Order 

approving SR–PCX–2003–61).

8See Exchange Act Release No. 49758 (May 24, 

2004), 69 FR 30734 (May 28, 2004) (Order 

approving SR–PCX–2004–25).

9See Motion for Declaratory Judgment, NASD 

Dispute Resolution, Inc. and New York Stock 

Exchange, Inc., v. Judicial Council of California, 

filed in the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California, No. C 02 3486 SBA 

(July 22, 2002), available on the NASD Web site at: 

www.nasdadr.com/pdf-text/

072202_ca_complaint.pdf.

10See Exchange Act Release No. 46562 

(September 26, 2002), 67 FR 62085 (October 3, 

2002) (Order approving SR–NASD–2002–126). 

Thereafter, the pilot period was extended to 

September 30, 2003. See Exchange Act Release No. 

48187 (July 16, 2003), 68 FR 43553 (July 23, 2003) 

(Order approving SR–NASD–2003–106).

11See Exchange Act Release No. 46816 

(November 12, 2002), 67 FR 69793 (November 19, 

2002) (Order approving SR–NYSE–2002–56). 

Thereafter, the pilot period was extended to 

September 30, 2003. See Exchange Act Release No. 

47836 (May 12, 2003), 68 FR 27608 (May 20, 2003) 

(Order approving SR–NYSE–2003–16).

12See Exchange Act Release No. 48553 

(September 26, 2003), 68 FR 57494 (October 3, 

2003) (Order approving SR–NASD–2003–144). 

Exchange Act Release No. 49452 (March 19, 2004), 

69 FR 17010 (March 31, 2004) (Order approving 

SR–NASD–2004–40). Exchange Act Release No. 

48552 (September 26, 2003), 68 FR 57496 (October 

3, 2003) (Order approving SR–NYSE–2003–28). 

Exchange Act Release No. 49521 (April 2, 2004), 69 

FR 18661 (April 8, 2004) (Order approving SR–

NYSE–2004–18). Exchange Act Release No. 50447 

(September 24, 2004), 69 FR 58567 (September 30, 

2004) (Order approving SR–NASD–2004–126) and 

Exchange Act Release No. 50449 (September 24, 

2004), 69 FR 58985 (October 1, 2004) (Order 

approving SR–NYSE–2004–50).

13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–50731; File No. SR–PC–

2004–104] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice 

of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness 

of Proposed Rule Change by the 

Pacific Exchange, Inc. To Extend for an 

Additional Six-Month Period a Pilot 

Rule Relating to Waiver of California 

Arbitrator Disclosure Standards

DATE: November 23, 2004. 

Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2

notice is hereby given that on October 

25, 2004, the Pacific Exchange, Inc. 

(‘‘PCX’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘SEC’’) the proposed 

rule change as described in items I, II 

and III below, which items have been 

prepared by the self-regulatory 

organization. The PCX 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 change 

from interested persons.

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

The PCX and its wholly owned 

subsidiary PCX Equities, Inc. (‘‘PCXE’’) 

are proposing to extend the pilot rule in 

PCX Rule 12.1(i) and PCXE Rule 12.2(h), 

which requires industry parties in 

arbitration to waive application of 

contested California arbitrator 

disclosure standards, upon the request 

of customers (and, in industry cases, 

upon the request of associated persons 

with claims of statutory employment 

discrimination), for an additional sixmonth pilot period, until May 25, 2005. 

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

In its filing with the Commission, the 

Exchange included statements 

concerning the purpose of and basis for 

the proposed rule change and discussed 

any comments it received on the 

proposed rule change. The text of these 

statements may be examined at the 

places specified in item IV below. The 

Exchange has prepared summaries, set 

forth in sections (A), (B) and (C) below, 

of the most significant aspects of such 

statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

On November 21, 2002, the 

Commission approved, for a six-month 

pilot period, the Exchange’s proposal to 

amend PCX and PCXE arbitration rules 

to require industry parties in arbitration 

to waive application of contested 

California arbitrator disclosure 

standards, upon the request of 

customers or, in employment 

discrimination cases, upon the request 

of associated persons.5 The Commission 

approved an extension of the pilot on 

May 15, 2003,6 November 19, 2003 7 and 

May 24, 2004.8 The pilot period is 

currently set to expire on November 24, 

2004.

On July 1, 2002, the Judicial Council 

of the State of California adopted new 

rules that mandated extensive 

disclosure requirements for arbitrators 

in California (the ‘‘California 

Standards’’). The California Standards 

are intended to address perceived 

conflicts of interest in certain 

commercial arbitration proceedings. As 

a result of the imposition of the 

California Standards on arbitrations 

conducted under the auspices of selfregulatory organizations (‘‘SROs’’), the 

National Association of Securities 

Dealers, Inc. (‘‘NASD’’) and the New 

York Stock Exchange (‘‘NYSE’’) 

suspended the appointment of 

arbitrators for cases pending in 

California and filed ajoint complaint in 

federal court for declaratory relief in 

which they contend that the California 

Standards cannot lawfully be applied to 

NASD and NYSE because the California 

Standards are preempted by federal law 

and are inapplicable to SROs under 

state law.9 Subsequently, in the interest 

of continuing to provide investors with 

an arbitral forum in California pending 

the resolution of the applicability of the 

California Standards, the NASD and 

NYSE filed separate rule proposals with 

the Commission that would temporarily 

require their members to waive the 

California Standards if all non-member 

parties to arbitration have done so. The 

Commission approved the NASD’s rule 

proposal on September 26, 2002 10 and 

the NYSE’s rule proposal on November 

12, 2002.11 Both the NASD and the 

NYSE filed rule proposals to further 

extend the pilot period for additional 

six-month periods.12

Since the NASD’s and NYSE’s lawsuit 

relating to the application of the 

California Standards has not been 

resolved, PCX is now requesting an 

extension of the pilot for an additional 

six months (or until the pending 

litigation has resolved the question of 

whether or not the California Standards 

apply to SROs). PCX requests that the 

pilot be extended for six months 

beginning on November 25, 2004. The 

extension of time permits the Exchange 

to continue the arbitration process using 

PCX rules regarding a4rbitration 

disclosures and not the California 

Standards. No substantive changes are 

being made to the pilot program, other 

than extending the operation of the pilot 

program. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes that the 

proposal is consistent with section 

6(b) 13 of the Act, in general, and 

furthers the objectives of section 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2004 / Notices 69661

14 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

15 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

16 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6).

17 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6)(iii).

18For purposes of accelerating the operative date 

of this proposal, the Commission has considered 

the proposed rule’s impact on efficiency, 

competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 9 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

6(b)(5),14 in particular, in that it is 

designed to promote just and equitable 

principles of trade by ensuring that 

members and member organizations and 

the public have a fair and impartial 

forum for the resolution of their 

disputes.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

The Exchange does not believe that 

the proposed rule change will impose 

any burden on competition that is not 

necessary or appropriate in furtherance 

of the purposes of the Act. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants, or Others 

Written comments on the proposed 

rule change were neither solicited nor 

received. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

PCX has designated the proposed rule 

change as one that: (i) Does not 

significantly affect the protection of 

investors or the public interest; (ii) does 

not impose any significant burden on 

competition; and (iii) does not become 

operative for 30 days from the date on 

which it was filed, or such shorter time 

as the Commission may designate. 

Therefore, the foregoing rule change has 

become effective pursuant to section 

19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 15 and Rule 19b–

4(f)(6) thereunder.16 At any time within 

60 days of the filing of the proposed rule 

change, the Commission may summarily 

abrogate the rule change if it appears to 

the Commission that the action is 

necessary or appropriate in the public 

interest, for the protection of investors, 

or would otherwise further the purposes 

of the Act.

Pursuant to Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii) under 

the Act,17 the proposal may not become 

operative for 30 days after the date of its 

filing, or such shorter time as the 

Commission may designate if consistent 

with the protection of investors and the 

public interest, and the self-regulatory 

organization must file notice of intent to 

file the proposed rule change at least 

five business days beforehand. The PCX 

has requested that the Commission 

waive the five-day pre-filing 

requirements and the 30-day operative 

delay so that the proposed rule change 

will become immediately effective upon 

filing.

The Commission believes that 

waiving the 30-day operative date is 

consistent with the protection of 

investors and the public interest. 18

Waiving the pre-filing requirement and 

accelerating the operative date will 

merely extend a pilot program that is 

designed to provide investors with a 

mechanism to resolve disputes with 

broker-dealers. During the period of this 

extension, the Commission and PCX 

will continue to monitor the status of 

the previously discussed litigation. For 

these reasons, the Commission 

designates that the proposed rule 

change has become effective and 

operative immediately.

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 rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File 

Number SR–PCX–2004–104 on the 

subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20549–0609. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–PCX–2004–104. This file 

number should be included on the 

subject line if e-mail is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 

submission, all subsequent 

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the proposed rule 

change that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule change between the 

Commission and any person, other than 

those that may be withheld from the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 

available for inspection and copying in 

the Commission’s Public Reference 

Section, 450 Fifth Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such 

filing also will be available for 

inspection and copying at the principal 

office of PCX. 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–PCX–

2004–104 and should be submitted on 

or before December 21, 2004.

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated 

authority.9

Margaret H. McFarland, 

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–26383 Filed 11–29–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 4911] 

30-Day Notice of Proposed Information 

Collection: Generic Clearance 

Information Collection for ECA 

Evaluation Program, OMB No. 1405–

XXXX

ACTION: Notice of request for public 

comment and submission to OMB of 

proposed collection of information. 

SUMMARY: The Department of State has 

submitted the following information 

collection request to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

approval in accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

• Title of Information Collection:

Generic Clearance Information 

Collection for ECA Evaluation Program. 

• OMB Control Number: 1405–XXXX. 

• Type of Request: New collection. 

• Originating Office: Bureau of 

Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA), 

Office of Policy and Evaluation (ECA/P). 

• Form Number: None. 

• Respondents: Respondents of 

program evaluation and/or program 

monitoring activities under the 

proposed information collection may 

include U.S. and foreign applicants, 

current grantee exchange visitor 

participants (J–1 visa holders) and 

alumni of the Bureau of Educational and 

Cultural Affairs (ECA) exchange 

programs, domestic grantee 

organizations and program 

administrators, foreign partner 

organizations, U.S. and foreign hosts of