13338 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Notices 

4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 

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

6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(7). 

7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

8 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(73). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

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

4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). 

5 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

6 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

7Russell 2000 is a trademark and service mark 

of the Frank Russell Company, used under license. 

Neither Frank Russell Company’s publication of the 

Russell Indexes nor its licensing of its trademarks 

for use in connection with securities or other 

For example, the Exchange has a March 

2007 ABCD futures contract, which has 

a trading unit of 100 shares of ABCD. 

ABCD announces a spin-off in which an 

entity PQRS has been created and the 

spin-off ratio is one share of PQRS for 

every 10 shares of ABCD. The spin-off 

will occur (‘‘the Ex date’’) before the 

expiration of the March 2007 ABCD 

futures contract. After the Ex date, the 

trading unit or deliverable shares for the 

March 2007 ABCD futures contracts 

would be 100 shares of ABCD and 10 

shares of PQRS. The minimum block 

trade size for the March 2007 ABCD 

futures contract after the Ex date would 

be 91. Another example would be when 

a corporate event results in a three for 

two split of shares. In that case, the 

trading unit or deliverable shares would 

be 150 (provided the trading unit for the 

futures contract was 100 shares), making 

the minimum block trade size 67 

contracts. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes that the 

proposed rule change is consistent with 

Section 6(b) of the Act 4 in general and 

Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 5 in particular 

in that it is designed to prevent 

fraudulent and manipulative acts and 

practices, to promote just and equitable 

principles of trade, and, in general, to 

protect investors and the public interest. 

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

OneChicago 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 

Comments on the proposed rule 

change have not been solicited and none 

have been received. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

The foregoing proposed rule change 

has become effective pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(7) of the Act.6 Within 60 

days of the date of effectiveness of the 

proposed rule change, the Commission, 

after consultation with the CFTC, may 

summarily abrogate the proposed rule 

change and require that the proposed 

rule change be refiled in accordance 

with the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) 

of the Act.7

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–OC–2007–02 on the subject 

line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 

20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–OC–2007–02. 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. Copies of such filing also will be 

available for inspection and copying at 

the principal office of OneChicago. 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–OC–2007–02 and should be 

submitted on or before April 11, 2007. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated 

authority.8

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7–5114 Filed 3–20–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–55473; File No. SR–Phlx–

2007–12] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; 

Notice of Filing and Immediate 

Effectiveness of Proposed Rule 

Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto 

Relating to Fees for Full Value Russell 

Index and Reduced Value Russell 

Index 

March 14, 2007. 

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

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

notice is hereby given that on February 

16, 2007, the Philadelphia Stock 

Exchange, Inc. (‘‘Phlx’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) 

filed with the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the 

proposed rule change as described in 

Items I, II and III below, which Items 

have been substantially prepared by the 

Exchange. On March 8, 2007, the Phlx 

submitted Amendment No. 1 to the 

proposed rule change. The Phlx has 

designated this proposal as one 

changing a due, fee, or other charge 

under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 3

and Rule 19b–4(f)(2) thereunder,4 which 

renders the proposal effective upon 

filing with the Commission. The 

Commission is publishing this notice to 

solicit comments on the proposed rule 

change, as amended, from interested 

persons. 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

The Phlx, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 

of the Act 5 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,6

proposes to assess equity option 

charges, as opposed to index option 

charges on: (1) Options on the Russell 

2000 Index 7 traded under the symbol 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Notices 13339 

financial products derived from a Russell Index in 

any way suggests or implies a representation or 

opinion by Frank Russell Company as to the 

attractiveness of investment in any securities or 

other financial products based upon or derived 

from any Russell Index. Frank Russell Company is 

not the issuer of any such securities or other 

financial products and makes no express or implied 

warranties of merchantability or fitness for any 

particular purpose with respect to any Russell 

Index or any data included or reflected therein, nor 

as to results to be obtained by any person or any 

entity from the use of the Russell Index or any data 

included or reflected therein. 

8See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55305 

(February 15, 2007), 72 FR 8240 (February 23, 2007) 

(SR–Phlx–2006–65) (order approving listing and 

trading equity and FLEX options on the Russell 

Products, and LEAPS on the Full Value Russell 

Index). FLEX options are customized or flexible 

index and equity options and LEAPS are Long-term 

Equity Anticipation Securities or long term options 

series. See Phlx Rules 1079, 1012 and 1101A. 

9Specifically, ‘‘firm-related’’ charges include 

equity option firm/proprietary comparison charges, 

equity option firm/proprietary transaction charges, 

equity option firm/proprietary facilitation 

transaction charges, index option firm (proprietary 

and customer executions) comparison charges, 

index option firm/proprietary transaction charges, 

and index option firm/proprietary facilitation 

transaction charges (collectively, the ‘‘firm-related 

charges’’). 

10The Exchange currently imposes a license fee 

of $0.10 per contract side for equity option and 

index option ‘‘firm’’ transactions on certain 

licensed products (collectively, ‘‘licensed 

products’’) after the $60,000 cap per member 

organization on all ‘‘firm-related’’ equity option and 

index option comparison and transaction charges 

combined is reached. Therefore, when a member 

organization exceeds the $60,000 cap (comprised of 

combined firm-related charges), the member 

organization is charged $60,000, plus the applicable 

license fee per contract side for any contracts in 

licensed products (if any) over those that were 

included in reaching the $60,000 cap. Thus, such 

firm-related charges in the aggregate for one billing 

month may not exceed $60,000 per month per 

member organization. For a complete list of the 

licensed products that are assessed a $0.10 license 

fee per contract side after the $60,000 cap is 

reached, see $60,000 ‘‘Firm Related’’ Equity Option 

and Index Option Cap on the Exchange’s fee 

schedule. Consistent with current practice, when 

calculating the $60,000 cap, the Exchange first 

calculates all equity option and index option 

transaction and comparison charges for products 

without license fees and then equity option and 

index option transaction and comparison charges 

for products with license fees that are assessed by 

the Exchange after the $60,000 cap is reached. See 

Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50836 

(December 10, 2004), 69 FR 75584 (December 17, 

2004) (SR–Phlx–2004–70); and see e.g., Securities 

Exchange Act Release No. 53287 (February 14, 

2006), 71 FR 9186 (February 22, 2006) (SR–Phlx–

2006–10). 

11The Exchange does not currently assess a 

comparison charge on specialist transactions. 

Therefore, the proposed cap will apply to ROT 

comparison and transaction charges combined and 

separately to specialist transaction charges. 

12For purposes of this fee, orders delivered via 

the Floor Broker Management System shall be 

deemed to be non-AUTOM delivered orders. See 

Phlx Rule 1063. 

13See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54659 

(October 27, 2006), 71 FR 64603 (November 2, 2006) 

(SR–Phlx–2006–67) (capping ROT comparison 

charges and ROT and specialist transaction charges 

when certain requirements are met. For equity 

options, ROT transaction and comparison charges 

and specialist transaction charges are not assessed 

on additional qualifying transactions on option 

contracts that number greater than 14,000, 

calculated per day per equity option overlying the 

same underlying security). 

14For a complete list of the licensed products that 

will be assessed a license fee per contract side after 

the 14,000 equity option contract cap is reached, 

see $60,000 ‘‘Firm Related’’ Equity Option and 

Index Option Cap on the Exchange’s fee schedule. 

15See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 

51858 (June 16, 2005), 70 FR 36218 (June 22, 2005) 

(SR–ISE–2005–26) (establishing fees for 

transactions in options on RUT and RMN). 

16See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 

55099 (January 12, 2007), 72 FR 2720 (January 22, 

2007) (SR–NYSEArca–2006–91) (adopting a $0.15 

per contract Royalty Fee on options traded on RUT); 

55000 (December 21, 2006), 71 FR 78479 (December 

29, 2006) (SR–BSE–2006–47) (establishing a $0.15 

surcharge fee for transactions in options on RUT); 

53968 (June 9, 2006), 71 FR 34971 (June 16, 2006) 

(SR–Amex–2006–56) (adopting a per contract 

licensing fee for the orders of specialists, registered 

options traders, firms, non-member market makers, 

and broker-dealers in connection with options 

transactions on the RUT); and 51858 (June 16, 

2005), 70 FR 36218 (June 22, 2005) (SR–ISE–2005–

26) (adopting a surcharge fee of $0.10 per contract 

for trading in RUT and RMN). 

RUT (the ‘‘Full Value Russell Index’’); 

and (2) options on the one-tenth value 

Russell 2000 Index traded under the 

symbol RMN (the ‘‘Reduced Value 

Russell Index’’)(the Full Value and the 

Reduced Value Russell Indexes together 

are referred to herein as the ‘‘Russell 

Products’’).8 Therefore, the Exchange 

proposes to charge the Russell Products, 

which are index options, in the same 

manner that it charges for equity 

options. 

In addition, the Exchange proposes to 

adopt a $0.15 per side license fee on 

‘‘firm-related’’ comparison and 

transaction charges.9 This license fee 

will be imposed only after the 

Exchange’s $60,000 ‘‘firm-related’’

equity option and index option 

comparison and transaction charge cap 

is reached.10

The Exchange also proposes to amend 

its Summary of Equity Option Charges 

to reflect that a $0.15 license fee on the 

Russell Products will be assessed in 

connection with the Exchange’s current 

cap on Registered Options Traders 

(‘‘ROT’’) comparison charges and ROT 

and specialist transaction charges 11 on 

non-AUTOM delivered equity option 

contracts 12 when an ROT or specialist 

executes over 14,000 contracts 

calculated on a daily basis. These terms 

apply only to transactions when an ROT 

or specialist is the contra-party to a 

customer order.13 Therefore, after the 

14,000 non-AUTOM delivered contract 

level is reached in a specific option, 

additional comparison and transaction 

charges are not assessed on subsequent 

option contracts in excess of 14,000 that 

are executed on that day in that specific 

option when the ROT or specialist is the 

contra-party to a customer order. Even 

when the 14,000 cap is reached, the 

license fee of $0.10 per contract side (or 

$0.15 per contract side for each of the 

Russell Products) will be imposed on 

applicable ROTs and specialists for 

equity option transactions on those 

licensed products that carry a license 

fee.14

This proposal is scheduled to become 

effective for transactions settling on or 

after February 20, 2007. 

The text of the proposed rule change 

is available on the Exchange’s Web site 

at http://www.Phlx.com, at the Phlx, 

and at the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room. 

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

In its filing with the Commission, the 

Exchange included statements 

concerning the purpose of, and basis for, 

the proposed rule change and discussed 

any comments it received on the 

proposed rule change. The text of these 

statements may be examined at the 

places specified in Item IV below. The 

Exchange has prepared summaries, set 

forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of 

the most significant aspects of such 

statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

The purpose of this proposal is to 

assess equity option charges, including 

payment for order flow charges, which 

are competitive with charges assessed 

on these same products by other 

exchanges.15 Thus, the Russell Products 

will not be assessed customer 

comparison or transaction charges in 

accordance with the Exchange’s equity 

option fee schedule. 

The purpose of assessing the Russell 

Products a license fee of $0.15 per 

contract side after reaching the $60,000 

cap and the 14,000 cap as described in 

this proposal is to help defray licensing 

costs associated with the trading of 

these products, while still capping 

member organizations’ fees enough to 

attract volume from other exchanges.16

The caps operate this way in order to 

offer an incentive for additional volume 

without leaving the Exchange with 

significant out-of-pocket costs. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes that its 

proposal to amend its schedule of dues, 

fees and charges is consistent with 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
13340 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Notices 

17 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 

18 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). 

19For purposes of calculating the 60-day period 

within which the Commission may summarily 

abrogate the proposed rule change under Section 

19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers 

the period to commence on March 8, 2007, the date 

on which the Phlx filed Amendment No. 1. See 15 

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

20 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 

21 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). 22 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

Section 6(b) of the Act,17 in general, and 

furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) 

of the Act,18 in particular, in that it is 

an equitable allocation of reasonable 

dues, fees and other charges among 

Exchange members and issuers and 

other persons using its facilities.19

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

The Exchange does not believe that 

the proposed rule change will impose 

any burden on competition that is not 

necessary or appropriate in furtherance 

of the purposes of the Act. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants, or Others 

No written comments were either 

solicited or received. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

The foregoing proposed rule change 

has been designated as a fee change 

pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the 

Act 20 and Rule 19b–4(f)(2) 

thereunder,21 because it establishes or 

changes a due, fee or other charge 

imposed by the Exchange. Accordingly, 

the proposal will take effect upon filing 

with the Commission. 

At any time within 60 days of the 

filing of the proposed rule change the 

Commission may summarily abrogate 

such rule change if it appears to the 

Commission that such action is 

necessary or appropriate in the public 

interest, for the protection of investors, 

or otherwise in furtherance of the 

purposes of the Act. 

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–Phlx–2007–12 on the 

subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–Phlx–2007–12. 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. Copies of such filing also will be 

available for inspection and copying at 

the principal office of the Phlx. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change; the Commission does 

not edit personal identifying 

information from submissions. You 

should submit only information that 

you wish to make available publicly. All 

submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–Phlx–2007–12 and should 

be submitted on or before April 11, 

2007. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated 

authority.22

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7–5060 Filed 3–20–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

Data Collection Available for Public 

Comments and Recommendations 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this 

notice announces the Small Business 

Administration’s intentions to request 

approval on a new and/or currently 

approved information collection. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

May 21, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Send all comments 

regarding whether this information 

collection is necessary for the proper 

performance of the function of the 

agency, whether the burden estimates 

are accurate, and if there are ways to 

minimize the estimated burden and 

enhance the quality of the collection, to 

Frank Lalumiere, Director, Office of 

Surety Bonds, Small Business 

Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 8th 

Floor, Wash., DC 20416. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Frank Lalumiere, Director, Office of 

Surety Bonds 202–401–8275 

frank.lalumiere@sba.gov, Curtis B. Rich, 

Management Analyst, 202–205–7030 

curtis.rich@sba.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: ‘‘Small Business Administration 

(SBA) Surety Bond Guarantee Customer 

Survey’’

Description of Respondents: Small 

Businesses within the Construction 

Industry. 

Form No: N/A. 

Annual Responses: 600. 

Annual Burden: 13.33. 

Jacqueline White, 

Chief, Administrative Information Branch. 

[FR Doc. E7–5083 Filed 3–20–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

[License No. 09/79–0450] 

Rustic Canyon Ventures SBIC, L.P.; 

Notice Seeking Exemption Under 

Section 312 of the Small Business 

Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest 

Notice is hereby given that Rustic 

Canyon Ventures SBIC, L.P., 2425 

Olympic Blvd., Suite 6050W, Santa 

Monica, CA 90404, 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 

(2006)). Rustic Canyon Ventures SBIC, 

L.P. proposes to provide equity security 

financing to Meximerica Media, Inc., 

115 E. Travis #800, San Antonio, TX 

78205. The financing is contemplated 

for operating expenses and for general 

corporate purposes. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES