Federal Register / Vol. 71, No.

169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Notices 51879

filing of the proposed rule change, the Number SR–MSRB–2006–06 and should (b) Motions under this rule must be
Commission may summarily abrogate be submitted on or before September 21, made in writing. Unless the parties
such rule change if it appears to the 2006. agree or the panel determines otherwise,
Commission that such action is For the Commission, by the Division of motions under this rule must be served
necessary or appropriate in the public Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated at least 60 days before a scheduled
interest, for the protection of investors, authority.12 hearing, and parties have 45 days to
or otherwise in furtherance of the Nancy M. Morris, respond to the motion.
purposes of the Act.11 Secretary. (c) Motions under this rule will be
IV. Solicitation of Comments [FR Doc. E6–14495 Filed 8–30–06; 8:45 am] decided by the full panel. The panel
Interested persons are invited to BILLING CODE 8010–01–P may not grant a motion under this rule
submit written data, views, and unless a prehearing conference on the
arguments concerning the foregoing, motion is held, or waived by the parties.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
including whether the proposed rule Prehearing conferences to consider
COMMISSION
change is consistent with the Act. motions under this rule will be tape-
Comments may be submitted by any of [Release No. 34–54360; File No. SR–NASD– recorded.
the following methods: 2006–088]
(d) The panel may issue sanctions
Electronic Comments Self-Regulatory Organizations; under Rule 12212 if it determines that
National Association of Securities a party filed a motion under this rule in
• Use the Commission’s Internet
Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing of bad faith.
comment form ([Link]
rules/[Link]); or Proposed Rule Change Relating to * * * * *
• Send an e-mail to rule- Motions To Decide Claims Before a
Hearing on the Merits 13504. Motions To Decide Claims Before
comments@[Link]. Please include File
a Hearing on the Merits
Number SR–MSRB–2006–06 on the August 24, 2006.
subject line. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the (a) Except as provided in Rule 13206,
Paper Comments Securities Exchange Act of 1934 motions to decide a claim before a
(‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 hearing are discouraged and may only
• Send paper comments in triplicate
notice is hereby given that the National be granted in extraordinary
to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. circumstances.
Securities and Exchange Commission, (‘‘NASD’’ or ‘‘Association’’), through its
Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., (b) Motions under this rule must be
wholly owned subsidiary, NASD made in writing. Unless the parties
Washington, DC 20549–1090. Dispute Resolution, Inc. (‘‘NASD
All submissions should refer to File agree or the panel determines otherwise,
Dispute Resolution’’) filed with the
Number SR–MSRB–2006–06. This file motions under this rule must be served
Securities and Exchange Commission
number should be included on the (‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) on July 21, at least 60 days before a scheduled
subject line if e-mail is used. To help the 2006, the proposed rule change as hearing, and parties have 45 days to
Commission process and review your described in Items I, II, and III below, respond to the motion.
comments more efficiently, please use which Items have been prepared by (c) Motions under this rule will be
only one method. The Commission will NASD Dispute Resolution. The decided by the full panel. The panel
post all comments on the Commission’s Commission is publishing this notice to may not grant a motion under this rule
Internet Web site ([Link] solicit comments on the proposed rule unless a prehearing conference on the
rules/[Link]). Copies of the change from interested persons. motion is held, or waived by the parties.
submission, all subsequent Prehearing conferences to consider
amendments, all written statements I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Terms of Substance of motions under this rule will be tape-
with respect to the proposed rule recorded.
change that are filed with the the Proposed Rule Change
Commission, and all written NASD is proposing new Rule 12504 (d) The panel may issue sanctions
communications relating to the and new Rule 13504 of the NASD Code under Rule 13212 if it determines that
proposed rule change between the of Arbitration Procedure to address a party filed a motion under this rule in
Commission and any person, other than motions to decide claims before a bad faith.
those that may be withheld from the hearing on the merits (‘‘dispositive * * * * *
public in accordance with the motions’’). Below is the text of the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be proposed rule change. Proposed new II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
available for inspection and copying in language is Italic; proposed deletions Statement of the Purpose of, and
the Commission’s Public Reference are in brackets. Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
Room. Copies of such filing also will be * * * * * Change
available for inspection and copying at
12504. Motions To Decide Claims Before In its filing with the Commission,
the principal office of the MSRB. All
a Hearing on the Merits NASD included statements concerning
comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does (a) Except as provided in Rule 12206, the purpose of and basis for the
not edit personal identifying motions to decide a claim before a proposed rule change and discussed any
information from submissions. You hearing are discouraged and may only comments it received on the proposed
should submit only information that be granted in extraordinary rule change. The text of these statements
erjones on PROD1PC72 with NOTICES

you wish to make available publicly. All circumstances. may be examined at the places specified
submissions should refer to File in Item IV below. NASD has prepared
12 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). summaries, set forth in Sections (A), (B),
11 See Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). and (C) below, of the most significant
78s(b)(3)(C). 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. aspects of such statements.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:29 Aug 30, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\[Link] 31AUN1
 51880 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Notices

(A) Self-Regulatory Organization’s proposal be approved on an accelerated encourages, rather than discourages, the
Statement of the Purpose of, and basis. making of dispositive motions. The
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule NASD posted the Amendment on its commenters also argued that the
Change Web site shortly after it was filed. As of proposed language could increase
July 19, 2006, the SEC had received 105 investors’ costs in defending against
(1) Purpose comment letters opposing some aspects these types of motions, and could result
(a) Background of the Amendment, and asking the SEC in a loss of the major benefits of the
NASD has filed a series of proposed to deny NASD’s request for accelerated arbitration process—cost effectiveness
rule changes with the SEC to amend the approval.6 Several of the 105 comment and expediency.
NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure letters objected to the Amendment As noted, NASD has been unable to
(‘‘current Code’’). The proposed rule because it proposed to include in the obtain a consensus among its
changes would revise the current Code narrative section of the rule filing constituents as to what constitutes
language in accordance with the SEC’s additional guidance relating to proposed ‘‘extraordinary circumstances’’ for
Plain English initiative, codify current rules 12504 and 13504, including purposes of Proposed Rules 12504 and
practices, implement several substantive examples of ‘‘extraordinary 13504. Therefore, NASD is re-filing the
changes, and reorganize the current circumstances’’ in which a dispositive original text of Proposed Rules 12504
Code into three separate procedural motion could be granted. and 13504 and the associated narrative
codes: one relating to customer disputes (b) Comments Received on the language separately from the Customer
(‘‘Customer Code’’), one relating to Description of Proposed Rules 12504 and Industry Codes, but without the
industry disputes (‘‘Industry Code’’), and 13504 above narrative language that was
and one relating to mediations proposed in the Amendment. NASD
NASD states that, based on some of believes that addressing these
(‘‘Mediation Code,’’ and collectively
the 51 comment letters received on the
with the Customer and Industry Codes, provisions separately will give the
Customer Code 7 and meetings with
the ‘‘Code Rewrite’’). Proposed Rules public additional time to provide its
various constituents, it initially believed
12504 and 13504 initially were input without delaying the
that the term ‘‘extraordinary
proposed as part of the Code Rewrite. Commission’s review and final action
On June 23, 2005, the SEC published circumstances’’ needed to be explained
on the remaining provisions of the
the Code Rewrite for comment in the to clarify when Proposed Rules 12504
Customer and Industry Codes.
Federal Register. 3 The SEC received 51 and 13504 would apply, and to provide
comment letters on the Customer Code, more guidance to arbitrators on the (c) Proposed Rules 12504 and 13504:
one comment letter on the Industry standards to use when deciding a Motions To Dismiss a Claim Before a
Code, and one comment letter on the dispositive motion. NASD states that it Hearing on the Merits
Mediation Code.4 raised this issue with its public and One recurring question in NASD
On May 4, 2006, NASD filed a industry constituents and suggested that arbitrations is whether, and to what
Response to Comments and Amendment they develop language jointly to explain extent, arbitrators should decide
No. 5 (‘‘Amendment’’) to address the the term ‘‘extraordinary circumstances.’’ dispositive motions before a hearing on
commenters’ concerns with the NASD was unable to obtain consensus the merits. In its Follow-up Report on
Customer Code.5 The Amendment among its constituents. Thus, NASD Matters Relating to Securities
summarized the commenters’ concerns proposed to insert the following Arbitration, the General Accounting
and, where appropriate, responded to narrative language in the Dispositive Office (‘‘GAO’’) noted that while
their concerns by proposing to clarify Motions section of the rule filing: NASD’s arbitration rules do not
the meaning of some of the rules and to For purposes of this rule, if a party specifically provide for dispositive
explain arbitration procedure under demonstrates affirmatively the legal defenses motions, case law generally supports the
some of the proposed rules. The of, for example, accord and satisfaction, authority of arbitrators to grant motions
Amendment also requested that the arbitration and award, settlement and release,
or the running of an applicable statute of
to dismiss claims prior to the hearing on
repose, the panel may consider these the merits.8
3 See Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 51856
defenses to be extraordinary circumstances. Generally, NASD believes that parties
(Jun. 15, 2005); 70 FR 36442 (Jun. 23, 2005)
(Customer Code); Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. In such cases, the panel may dismiss the have the right to a hearing in arbitration.
51857 (Jun 15, 2005); 70 FR 36430 (Jun. 23, 2005) arbitration claim before a hearing on the However, NASD also acknowledges that
(Industry Code); and Securities Exchange Act Rel. merits if the panel finds that there are no in certain extraordinary circumstances,
No. 51855 (Jun. 15, 2005); 70 FR 36440 (Jun. 23, material facts in dispute concerning the
2005); (Mediation Code).
it would be unfair to require a party to
defense raised, and there are no
4 The SEC approved the Mediation Code on proceed to a hearing. Thus, the
determinations of credibility to be made
October 31, 2005, and it became effective on concerning the evidence presented. proposed rules would:
January 30, 2006. See Securities Exchange Act Rel. • Provide that, except for motions
No. 52705 (Oct. 31, 2005); 70 FR 67525 (Nov. 7, The proposed narrative language has relating to the eligibility of claims under
2005) (SR–NASD–2004–013). engendered substantial controversy. Of
5 See Reorganization and Revision of NASD Rules the current Code’s six year time limit,
the 105 comment letters received on the motions that would resolve a claim
Relating to Customer Disputes (visited Aug. 2,
2006); [Link] Amendment, 22 specifically opposed before a hearing on the merits are
RuleFilings/2003RuleFilings/NASDW_009306. A the proposed narrative language. In discouraged, and may only be granted in
similar amendment was filed to address the general, these commenters contended
comment letter on the Industry Code. See extraordinary circumstances;
Reorganization and Revision of NASD Arbitration
that the proposed narrative language • Require that a prehearing
Rules Relating to Industry Disputes (visited Aug. 2,
6 See Comments on NASD File No. SR–NASD–
conference before the full panel must be
2006) [Link] held to discuss the motion before the
RuleFilings/2004RuleFilings/NASDW_009295. 2003–158, Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change
erjones on PROD1PC72 with NOTICES

While none of the 51 commenters addressed and Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 Thereto to panel could grant it; and
specifically the Industry Code, many of the issues Amend NASD Arbitration Rules for Customer
raised apply to the Industry Code, because the two Disputes (visited Jul. 19, 2006) [Link] 8 U.S. General Accounting Office, Follow-up

codes contain similar rules and procedures. Thus, rules/sro/nasd/[Link]. Report on Matters Relating to Securities Arbitration
based on these comments, NASD made similar 7 The comment letter received on the Industry (April 11, 2003). GAO has since been renamed
changes to the Industry Code, where applicable. Code did not address dispositive motions. Government Accountability Office.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:29 Aug 30, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\[Link] 31AUN1
 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Notices 51881

• Allow the panel to issue sanctions B. Institute proceedings to determine and/or recommended that the term be
against a party for making a dispositive whether the proposed rule change defined or described in the Code
motion in bad faith. should be disapproved. Rewrite.11 As described in Section
NASD believes that this rule proposal, IV. Solicitation of Comments II.A.1.b, above, NASD proposed in
which was developed over several years Amendment No. 5 to provide
with input from industry and public Interested persons are invited to explanatory language in the narrative
members of the NAMC, will provide submit written data, views, and portion of the Code Rewrite filing to
necessary guidance to parties and arguments concerning the foregoing, clarify the rule language. Since
arbitrators, and make the administration including whether the proposed rule Amendment No. 5 was filed, some
of arbitrations more uniform and change is consistent with the Act. In commenters have opposed providing
transparent. NASD believes that the rule particular, the Commission solicits examples of ‘‘extraordinary
strikes the appropriate balance between comment on whether the proposed rule circumstances’’ if the rule is approved.12
allowing the dismissal of claims in change provides for arbitration Should additional guidance be provided
limited, extraordinary circumstances procedures that are fair and consistent for what constitutes ‘‘extraordinary
and reinforcing the general principle with the protection of investors for the circumstances’’? Why or why not? If so,
that parties are entitled to a hearing in resolution of their disputes. In addition, what type of additional guidance would
arbitration. the Commission solicits comment on
be beneficial? Should a term other than
the questions included below.
(2) Statutory Basis ‘‘extraordinary circumstances’’ be used?
(A) Need for a Dispositive Motions
If so, what would be a more useful term?
NASD believes that the proposed rule Rule: NASD has stated that, because the
change is consistent with the provisions current Code provides no guidance with (D) Standard of Pleading: Some
of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, which respect to whether arbitrators have the commenters have expressed concerns
requires, among other things, that the authority to grant dispositive motions, about dispositive motions being granted
Association’s rules must be designed to arbitrator decisions with respect to these when statements of claim do not meet
prevent fraudulent and manipulative motions lack uniformity. Should the pleading requirements under civil
acts and practices, to promote just and current Code, or the Customer and procedure rules. NASD Rule 10314,
equitable principles of trade, and, in Industry Codes, if adopted, contain a however, requires only that the
general, to protect investors and the dispositive motions rule? Is the absence statement of claim specify ‘‘the relevant
public interest. NASD believes that the or presence of such a rule detrimental facts and the remedies sought.’’ 13
proposed rules will provide some to the arbitration process, and if so, Should the proposed rule provide
guidelines for arbitrators and users of how? Assuming that arbitrator decisions additional guidance in the context of
the forum concerning dispositive with respect to dispositive motions lack dispositive motions concerning the
motions practice and will, thereby, uniformity, are there ways, other than relevant pleading standard in NASD
make administration of arbitrations through the proposed rule, to address arbitration?
more uniform and transparent. this issue? Commenters are specifically (E) Authority of Arbitrators to Limit
invited to share quantifiable costs and
(B) Self-Regulatory Organization’s Filing of Dispositive Motions: The
benefits that they believe may result
Statement on Burden on Competition proposed rules provide that dispositive
should the Commission approve or
motions are ‘‘discouraged.’’ One
NASD does not believe that the disapprove the proposed rules.
(B) Proposed Rules: NASD believes commenter suggested that the
proposed rule change will result in any arbitration panel be given the authority
burden on competition that is not that Proposed Rules 12504 and 13504
strike the appropriate balance between to manage the arbitration proceeding by
necessary or appropriate in furtherance denying leave to make dispositive
of the purposes of the Act, as amended. the parties’ right to have a hearing and
the authority of arbitrators to dismiss motions. Should NASD grant arbitrators
(C) Self-Regulatory Organization’s claims in limited, extraordinary this authority in the proposed rule?
Statement on Comments on the circumstances. Do the proposed rules (F) Additional Suggestions: Are there
Proposed Rule Change Received From strike an appropriate balance, or would other ways in which the proposed rule
Members, Participants, or Others they tend to favor one party over could balance cost effectiveness and
NASD did not solicit written another? efficiency with the general principle
comments. Comments received by the (C) Explanatory Language Regarding that parties are entitled to a hearing in
Commission prior to this filing are ‘‘Extraordinary Circumstances’’: In arbitration?
discussed above. connection with Proposed Rules 12504 Comments may be submitted by any
and 13504, as initially filed with the of the following methods:
III. Date of Effectiveness of the Code Rewrite, some commenters stated
Proposed Rule Change and Timing for that the absence of a definition for 11 See, e.g., Letter from Tim Canning, Law Offices
Commission Action ‘‘extraordinary circumstances’’ would of Timothy A. Canning (Jul. 14, 2005); Letter from
Within 35 days of the date of promote, rather than limit, abusive Scott C. Ilgenfritz (Jul. 14, 2005); Letter from
litigation tactics in arbitration.9 Others Richard A. Karoly, Vice President and Senior
publication of this notice in the Federal Corporate Counsel, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (Jul.
Register or within such longer period (i) stated that the ‘‘extraordinary 14, 2005); and Sonn Letter.
as the Commission may designate up to circumstances’’ standard is too vague,10 12 See, e.g., Letter from David E. Robbins,

90 days of such date if it finds such Kaufmann, Feiner, Yamin, Gildin & Robbins LLP
9 See, e.g., Letter from Jeff Sonn, Esq., Sonn & (May 29, 2006) and Letter from Robert S. Banks, Jr.,
longer period to be appropriate and Erez (Jul. 14, 2005) (‘‘Sonn letter’’); Letter from Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association (May
publishes its reasons for so finding or Steven A. Stolle, Rohde & Van Kampen PLLC (Jul. 26, 2006).
erjones on PROD1PC72 with NOTICES

(ii) as to which the self-regulatory 8, 2005); Letter from Rebecca Davis, Esquire, Tate, 13 See Letters from Jill I. Gross and Barbara Black,

organization consents, the Commission Lazarini & Beall, PLC (Jul. 14, 2005); and Letter Directors of Advocacy, Pace Investor Rights Project
from Mark A. Tepper (Jul. 14, 2005). (Jul. 14, 2005 and Jun. 6, 2006) (‘‘Pace Letters’’) and
will: 10 See, e.g., Letter from Barry D. Estell (May 15, Letter from Brian Lantagne, Chair, NASAA Broker-
A. By order approve such proposed 2006) and Letter from Daniel A. Ball, Selzer Dealer Arbitration Project Group (Jul. 19, 2006)
rule change, or Gurvitch Rabin & Obecny, Chtd. (July 14, 2005). (‘‘NASAA Letter’’).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:29 Aug 30, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\[Link] 31AUN1
 51882 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Notices

Electronic Comments SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE any comments it received on the

COMMISSION proposed rule change. The text of these
• Use the Commission’s Internet statements may be examined at the
comment form ([Link] Release No. 34–54359; File No. SR–NYSE–
2006–53]
places specified in Item IV below. The
rules/[Link]); or Exchange has prepared summaries, set
• Send an e-mail to rule- Self-Regulatory Organizations; New forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of
comments@[Link]. Please include File York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of the most significant aspects of such
Number SR–NASD–2006–088 on the Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of statements.
subject line. Proposed Rule Change Relating to the A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Use of the Revised Uniform Statement of the Purpose of, and
Paper Comments Application for Securities Industry Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
• Send paper comments in triplicate Registration or Transfer (Form U4) and Change
Revised Uniform Termination Notice
to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, 1. Purpose
for Securities Industry Registration
Securities and Exchange Commission,
(Form U5) The purpose of this filing is to adopt,
100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
for use by the Exchange, recently
20549–1090. August 24, 2006.
revised Forms U4 and U5 6 (collectively,
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
All submissions should refer to File the ‘‘Forms’’). These Forms are identical
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Number SR–NASD–2006–088. The file to those filed with the Commission by
(‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2
number should be included on the the National Association of Securities
notice is hereby given that on August 4,
subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Dealers (‘‘NASD’’) in 2005.7
2006, the New York Stock Exchange The revised Forms, which are to be
Commission process and review your LLC (‘‘NYSE’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with
comments more efficiently, please use used by the Exchange as part of its
the Securities and Exchange registration and oversight of persons
only one method. The Commission will Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the associated with member organizations,
post all comments on the Commission’s proposed rule change as described in have been enhanced to provide more
Internet Web site ([Link] Items I and II below, which Items have meaningful and detailed disclosure with
rules/[Link]). Copies of the been prepared by the Exchange. The respect to registration-related functions
submission, all subsequent Exchange filed the proposed rule change processed through the Central
amendments, all written statements as a ‘‘non-controversial’’ rule change Registration Depository (‘‘CRD’’) system.
with respect to the proposed rule pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the The CRD is an industry-wide automated
change that are filed with the Act 3 and Rule 19b–4(f)(6) thereunder,4 system which allows for the efficient
Commission, and all written which renders the proposal effective review and tracking of registered
communications relating to the upon filing with the Commission. The persons in the securities industry, such
proposed rule change between the Commission is publishing this notice to as changes in their work and
Commission and any person, other than solicit comments on the proposed rule disciplinary histories. Further, use of
those that may be withheld from the change from interested persons.5 the revised Forms allows for integration
public in accordance with the I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s of Form U4 and Form U5 information
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be Statement of the Terms of Substance of into branch office registration and
available for inspection and copying in the Proposed Rule Change reporting functions processed through
the Commission’s Public Reference The Exchange submits to the the CRD system by linking registered
Section, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, Commission, for use by the Exchange, persons to their designated branch
DC 20549. Copies of such filing will also the recently revised Uniform office.
be available for inspection and copying Application for Securities Industry 2. Statutory Basis
at the principal office of NASD. All Registration or Transfer (Form U4) and The Exchange believes that, insofar as
comments received will be posted revised Uniform Termination Notice for Forms U4 and U5 and the CRD system
without change; the Commission does Securities Industry Registration (Form are used by the various self-regulatory
not edit personal identifying U5). organizations, including the Exchange,
information from submissions. You II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s their use is consistent with Section
should submit only information that Statement of the Purpose of, and 6(b)(5) of the Act 8 in fostering
you wish to make available publicly. All Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule cooperation and coordination with
submissions should refer to SR–NASD– Change persons engaged in regulating
2006–088 and should be submitted on transactions in securities. Additionally,
In its filing with the Commission, the
or before September 21, 2006. the Exchange believes that the
Exchange included statements
information reported on the Forms will
For the Commission, by the Division of concerning the purpose of and basis for
assist the Exchange in its
Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated the proposed rule change and discussed
authority.14 6 Form U4 is the ‘‘Uniform Application for
1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
Nancy M. Morris, Securities Industry Registration or Transfer’’ and
2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
Secretary. Form U5 is the ‘‘Uniform Termination Notice for
3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). Securities Industry Registration.’’ Form U4 has
[FR Doc. E6–14493 Filed 8–30–06; 8:45 am] 4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). historically been the vehicle for the reporting of
BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 5 Certain additions and technical corrections were events that may reveal that a person is subject to
a statutory disqualification. See Section 3(a)(39) of
erjones on PROD1PC72 with NOTICES

made throughout the discussion of the proposed

rule change pursuant to conversations with NYSE the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(39).
7 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52544
staff. Telephone conversations between Cory
Figman, Senior Special Counsel, Rule and (September 30, 2005), 70 FR 58764 (October 7,
Interpretive Standards, NYSE, and Kate Robbins, 2005) (SR–NASD–2005–030) and NASD Notice to
Attorney, Division of Market Regulation, Members 05–66.
14 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). Commission, on August 10, 2006. 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:29 Aug 30, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\[Link] 31AUN1