26430 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 9, 2007 / Notices 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

facsimile transmission addressed to the 

Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC, Attention: Rulemakings and 

Adjudications Staff at (301) 415–1101, 

verification number is (301) 415–1966. 

A copy of the request for hearing and 

petition for leave to intervene should 

also be sent to the Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, and it is requested that copies be 

transmitted either by means of facsimile 

transmission to 301–415–3725 or by email to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy 

of the request for hearing and petition 

for leave to intervene should also be 

sent to A. H. Gutterman, Esq., Morgan, 

Lewis & Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004, 

the attorney for the licensee. 

For further details with respect to this 

action, see the application for 

amendments dated April 4, 2006, which 

is available for public inspection at the 

Commission’s PDR, located at One 

White Flint North, File Public Area 

O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 

floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly 

available records will be accessible from 

the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading 

Room on the Internet at the NRC Web 

site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

adams.html. Persons who do not have 

access to ADAMS or who encounter 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, should contact the 

NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone 

at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or 

by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day 

of May 2007. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Mohan C. Thadani, 

Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing 

Branch IV, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. E7–8911 Filed 5–8–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Advisory Committee on Reactor 

Safeguards (ACRS)Subcommittee 

Meeting on Thermal-Hydraulic 

Phenomena; Revised 

The ACRS Subcommittee meeting on 

Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena 

scheduled for May 23–24, 2007 has been 

rescheduled to May 24–25, 2007 at 8:30 

a.m. in Room T–2B3, 11545 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland. 

The entire meeting will be open to 

public attendance, with the exception of 

portions that may be closed to discuss 

General Electric proprietary information 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4). 

The Subcommittee will review the 

staff evaluation of the MELLLA+, GE 

Methods, and GE DSS–CD Topical 

Reports. The Subcommittee will gather 

information, analyze relevant issues and 

facts, and formulate proposed positions 

and actions, as appropriate, for 

deliberation by the full Committee. 

Notice of this meeting was published 

in the Federal Register on Wednesday, 

April 18, 2007 (72 FR 19553). All other 

items pertaining to this meeting remain 

the same as previously published. 

For Further Information Contact: Mr. 

Ralph Caruso, Senior Staff Engineer 

(telephone 301–415–8065 or e-mail: 

rxc@nrc.gov) between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 

p.m. (ET). 

Dated: May 3, 2007. 

Cayetano Santos, 

Branch Chief, ACRS. 

[FR Doc. E7–8890 Filed 5–8–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE 

Notice with Respect to List of 

Countries Denying Fair Market 

Opportunities for Government-Funded 

Airport Construction Projects 

AGENCY: Office of the United States 

Trade Representative. 

ACTION: Notice with respect to a list of 

countries denying fair market 

opportunities for products, suppliers or 

bidders of the United States in airport 

construction projects. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: Date of Publication. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dawn Shackleford, Director for 

International Procurement, Office of the 

United States Trade Representative, 

(202) 395–9461, or Behnaz Kibria, 

Assistant General Counsel, Office of the 

United States Trade Representative, 

(202) 395–9589. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 533 of the 

Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 

1982, as amended (49 U.S.C. 50104), the 

United States Trade Representative 

(USTR) has determined not to include 

any countries on the list of countries 

that deny fair market opportunities for 

U.S. products, suppliers, or bidders in 

foreign government-funded airport 

construction projects. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

533 of the Airport and Airway 

Improvement Act of 1982, as amended 

by section 115 of the Airport and 

Airway Safety and Capacity Expansion 

Act of 1987, Public Law 100–223 

(codified at 49 U.S.C. 50104) (‘‘the 

Act’’), requires USTR to decide whether 

any foreign countries have denied fair 

market opportunities to U.S. products, 

suppliers, or bidders in connection with 

airport construction projects of $500,000 

or more that are funded in whole or in 

part by the governments of such 

countries. The list of such countries 

must be published in the Federal 

Register. For the purposes of the Act, 

USTR has decided not to include any 

countries on the list of countries that 

deny fair market opportunities for U.S. 

products, suppliers, or bidders in 

foreign government-funded airport 

construction projects. 

Susan C. Schwab, 

United States Trade Representative. 

[FR Doc. E7–8891 Filed 5–8–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3190–W7–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–55677; File No. SR–CBOE–

2007–32] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

Chicago Board Options Exchange, 

Incorporated; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed 

Rule Change Relating to Transaction 

Fees for Certain Electronically 

Executed Orders 

April 27, 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 March 29, 

2007, 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 

substantially prepared by the CBOE. 

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 Exchange proposes to amend the 

CBOE Fees Schedule (‘‘Fees Schedule’’) 

to increase transaction fees for certain 

electronically executed orders. The text 

of the proposed rule change is available 

at the CBOE, on the Exchange’s Web site 

at http://www.cboe.org/legal, and in the 

Commission’s Public Reference Room. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 9, 2007 / Notices 26431 

3OEX, MVR and SPX are currently non-Hybrid 

classes. 

4See CBOE Fees Schedule, Section 4. 

5See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54309 

(August 11, 2006), 71 FR 48571 (August 21, 2006) 

(SR–NYSEArca–2006–25). 

6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 

7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). 

8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 

9 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2). 

10 Id. 

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 

Currently, the Exchange charges $.25 

per contract for broker-dealer 

transactions and $.26 per contract for 

non-member market-maker transactions, 

except for such transactions in options 

on the S&P 100 Index (‘‘OEX’’ and 

‘‘XEO’’) and options on the S&P 500 

(‘‘SPX’’), which are charged $.30 per 

contract for broker-dealer and marketmaker transactions and $.40 per contract 

for broker-dealer and market-maker 

transactions, respectively. The purpose 

of this proposed rule change is to amend 

the Fees Schedule to establish a higher 

fee for ‘‘electronically executed’’ brokerdealer and non-member market-maker 

orders, i.e., broker-dealer and nonmember market-maker orders that are 

automatically executed on the CBOE 

Hybrid Trading System (‘‘Hybrid’’). 

The Exchange proposes to assess 

electronically executed broker-dealer 

and non-member market-maker orders a 

transaction fee of $.45 per contract. 

Manually executed broker-dealer and 

non-member market-maker orders 

would be assessed a transaction fee of 

$.25 per contract. The $.26 per contract 

non-member market-maker transaction 

fee would be deleted from the Fees 

Schedule. OEX, XEO and SPX brokerdealer and non-member market-maker 

fees would remain unchanged. Brokerdealer and non-member market-maker 

orders for options on the Morgan 

Stanley Retail Index (‘‘MVR’’) would be 

charged $.25 per contract.3 A new 

Footnote 16 is proposed to be added to 

the Fees Schedule clarifying that the 

broker-dealer manual and electronic 

transaction fees apply to broker-dealer 

orders (orders with ‘‘B’’ origin code), 

non-member market-maker orders 

(orders with ‘‘N’’ origin code), and 

orders from specialists in the underlying 

security (orders with ‘‘Y’’ origin code). 

No changes are proposed to Linkage 

order fees. The proposed broker-dealer 

electronic transaction fee is comparable 

to the RAES Access Fee assessed by the 

Exchange on certain orders executed 

through the RAES system in non-Hybrid 

classes, which is a fee assessed in 

addition to standard transaction fees.4

Like the RAES Access Fee, the Exchange 

believes the proposed broker-dealer 

electronic transaction fee will help 

allocate to such orders a fair share of the 

costs of running the automatic 

execution feature of Hybrid and related 

Exchange systems. 

The proposed fees are modeled after 

the broker-dealer transaction fees of the 

NYSE Arca, Inc. (‘‘NYSE Arca’’).5 The 

Exchange believes its proposed $.45 per 

contract fee is reasonable in that it is 

less than the $.50 per contract fee 

assessed by NYSE Arca on 

electronically executed broker-dealer 

and non-member market-maker orders. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The proposed rule change is 

consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,6

in general, and furthers the objectives of 

Section 6(b)(4) 7 of the Act, in particular, 

in that it is designed to provide for the 

equitable allocation of reasonable dues, 

fees, and other charges among CBOE 

members and other persons using its 

facilities. 

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 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 8 and 

subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b–49

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.10

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–CBOE–2007–32 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–CBOE–2007–32. 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 CBOE. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change; the Commission does 

not edit personal identifying 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
26432 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 9, 2007 / Notices 

11 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3 15 U.S.C. 78ee. 

4NASD’s rule also previously referred to this fee 

as an ‘‘SEC Transaction Fee.’’ The SEC stated in its 

release adopting new Rule 31 and Rule 31T that ‘‘it 

is misleading to suggest that a customer or [selfregulatory organization] member incurs an 

obligation to the Commission under Section 31.’’

See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49928 

(June 28, 2004), 69 FR 41060, 41072 (July 7, 2004). 

In response to this statement, NASD amended its 

rule to refer to this fee as a ‘‘Regulatory Transaction 

information from submissions. You 

should submit only information that 

you wish to make available publicly. All 

submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–CBOE–2007–32 and should 

be submitted on or before May 30, 2007. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated 

authority.11

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7–8812 Filed 5–8–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–55697; File No. SR–NASD–

2007–027] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

National Association of Securities 

Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing of 

Proposed Rule Change to NASD ByLaws Relating to SEC Section 31—

Related Fees 

May 2, 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 April 17, 

2007, the 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 

NASD. The Commission is publishing 

this notice to solicit comments on the 

proposal from interested persons. 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

NASD is proposing to allow member 

firms to voluntarily submit, within six 

months of the effective date of this rule 

proposal, funds previously accumulated 

by member firms to satisfy their, and 

subsequently NASD’s, obligation to 

remit SEC Section 31-related fees, to 

NASD. Below is the text of the proposed 

rule change. Proposed new language is 

in italics. 

* * * * * 

SCHEDULE A TO NASD BY-LAWS 

Assessments and fees pursuant to the 

provisions of Article VI of the By-Laws 

of NASD shall be determined on the 

following basis. 

* * * * * 

Section 3—Regulatory Transaction Fee 

Each member shall be assessed a 

regulatory transaction fee. The amount 

shall be determined periodically in 

accordance with Section 31 of the Act. 

Transactions assessable under this 

Section 3 that must be reported to 

NASD shall be reported in an automated 

manner. 

IM-Section 3—Temporary Program to 

Address Accumulated Funds 

Pursuant to Section 3 of Schedule A, 

NASD makes an assessment on member 

firms that NASD uses to pay fees owing 

to the SEC in accordance with Section 

31 of the Act (‘‘the Section 3 

assessment’’). The Section 31 fees 

payable by NASD to the SEC is 

determined based on the aggregate 

dollar amount of ‘‘covered sales,’’ as 

defined by SEC Rule 31, effected 

otherwise than on an exchange by or 

through any member of the NASD. 

Members, in many cases, have passed 

along the Section 3 assessment on a 

trade-by-trade basis to their customers 

or correspondent firms. For certain 

reasons, including the difference 

between the calculation of the Section 3 

assessment on an aggregate basis and its 

collection by member firms from 

customers or correspondent firms on a 

disaggregated trade-by-trade basis, there 

has been an historical accumulation of 

funds collected by members that are in 

excess of their Section 3 assessment. 

Consequently, these funds were not 

remitted to NASD. 

NASD has determined that it is 

appropriate for these accumulated 

funds, if remitted to the NASD, to be 

used to pay NASD’s current Section 31 

fees, which conforms the use of those 

funds with the stated purpose for which 

they were collected. Consequently, 

members may voluntarily remit all or 

part of historically accumulated funds 

that were collected and are in surplus to 

the Section 3 assessment of such firms 

in accordance with the terms of this 

Interpretive Material. 

This temporary program will 

automatically sunset six months after 

the effective date, and thereafter may 

not be utilized by members after a date 

certain. Members are reminded that the 

SEC stated in its release adopting new 

Rule 31 and Rule 31T that ‘‘it is 

misleading to suggest that a customer or 

[self-regulatory] member incurs an 

obligation to the Commission under 

Section 31.’’ Further, NASD has issued 

guidance to members in the form of two 

Notices to Members to ensure there is no 

confusion in the marketplace between 

NASD’s ‘‘Regulatory Transaction Fee’’

and the ‘‘SEC’s Section 31 Fee.’’

* * * * * 

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

In its filing with the Commission, 

NASD 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. NASD has prepared 

summaries, set forth in sections A, B, 

and C below, of the most significant 

aspects of such statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and the 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

Pursuant to Section 31 of the Act 3

and SEC Rule 31, NASD and the 

national securities exchanges 

(collectively ‘‘SROs’’) are required to 

pay a transaction fee to the SEC that is 

designed to recover the costs related to 

the government’s supervision and 

regulation of the securities markets and 

securities professionals. To offset this 

obligation, NASD assesses its clearing 

and self-clearing members a regulatory 

fee in accordance with Section 3 of 

Schedule A of the NASD By-Laws, 

which mirrors the SEC Section 31 fee in 

scope and amount. Clearing members 

may in turn seek to charge a fee to their 

customers or correspondent firms. Any 

allocation of the fee between the 

clearing member and its correspondent 

firm or customer is the responsibility of 

the clearing member. 

Reconciling the amounts billed by 

NASD and the amounts collected from 

the customers historically had been 

difficult for member firms, causing 

surpluses to accumulate at some brokerdealer firms (referred to as 

‘‘accumulated funds’’). These 

accumulated funds were not remitted to 

NASD, despite the fact that these 

charges may have been previously 

identified as ‘‘Section 31 Fees’’ or ‘‘SEC 

Fees’’ by certain firms.4


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES