Notices. Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment

14,206 words·~65 min read·/register/2005/06/06/05-11182

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

BILLING CODE 7036-01-M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)Review; Comment Request AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment. SUMMARY: The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 1. *Type of submission, new, revision, or extension:* Revision. 2. *The title of the information collection:* 10 CFR Part 100, “Reactor Site Criteria”. 3. *The form number if applicable:* Not applicable. 4. *How often the collection is required:* As necessary in order for NRC to assess the adequacy of proposed seismic design bases and the design bases for other geological hazards for nuclear power and test reactors constructed and licensed in accordance with 10 CFR parts 50 and 52 and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. 5. *Who will be required or asked to report:* Applicants and licensees for nuclear power and test reactors. 6. *An estimate of the number of annual responses:* 2. 7. *The estimated number of annual respondents:* .33 (1 respondent every 3 years). 8. *An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request:* 8,711. 9. *An indication of whether section 3507(d), Pub. L. 104-13 applies:* Not applicable. 10. *Abstract:* 10 CFR part 100, “Reactor Site Criteria,” establishes approval requirements for proposed sites for the purpose of constructing and operating stationary power and testing reactors pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR parts 50 or 52. These reactors are required to be sited, designed, constructed, and maintained to withstand geologic hazards, such as faulting, seismic hazards, and the maximum credible earthquake, to protect the health and safety of the public and the environment. Non-seismic siting criteria must also be evaluated. Non-seismic siting criteria include such factors as population density, the proximity of man-related hazards, and site atmospheric dispersion characteristics. NRC uses the information required by 10 CFR part 100 to evaluate whether natural phenomena and potential man-made hazards will be appropriately accounted for in the design of nuclear power and test reactors. A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC Worldwide Web site: *http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html* . The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice. Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer listed below by July 6, 2005. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date. John A. Asalone, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0093), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Comments can also be e-mailed to *John_A._Asalone@omb.eop.gov* or submitted by telephone at

(202)395-4650. The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, 301-415-7233. Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of May, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services. [FR Doc. E5-2867 Filed 6-3-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)Review; Comment Request AGENCY: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment. SUMMARY: The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number. 1. *Type of submission, new, revision, or extension:* Revision. 2. *The title of the information collection:* 10 CFR Part 20—Standards for Protection Against Radiation. 3. *The form number if applicable:* Not applicable. 4. *How often the collection is required:* Annually for most reports and at license termination for reports dealing with decommissioning. 5. *Who will be required or asked to report:* NRC licensees, including those requesting license termination. 6. *An estimate of the number of responses:* 5,019 (507 plus 4,512 recordkeepers). 7. *The estimated number of annual respondents:* 4,512. 8. *An estimate of the number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request:* 128,669 hours (4,909 hours for reporting [9.68 hours per response] plus 123,760 hours for recordkeeping [27.43 hours per recordkeeper]). 9. *An indication of whether section 3507(d), Pub. L. 104-13 applies:* Not applicable. 10. *Abstract:* 10 CFR part 20 establishes standards for protection against ionizing radiation resulting from activities conducted under licenses issued by the NRC. These standards require the establishment of radiation protection programs, maintenance of radiation records, recording of radiation received by workers, reporting of incidents which could cause exposure to radiation, submittal of an annual report to NRC of the results of individual monitoring, and submittal of license termination information. These mandatory requirements are needed to protect occupationally exposed individuals from undue risks of excessive exposure to ionizing radiation and to protect the health and safety of the public. A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F23, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC World Wide Web site: *http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html.* The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice. Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer listed below by July 6, 2005. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date. John Asalone, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0014), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Comments can also be e-mailed to *John_A._Asalone@omb.eop.gov* or submitted by telephone at

(202)395-4650. The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, 301-415-7233. Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of May, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services. [FR Doc. E5-2868 Filed 6-3-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 030-36120] Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment for the Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Betsy Ullrich, Commercial and R&D Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, 19406, telephone

(610)337-5040, fax

(610)337-5269; or by e-mail: *exu@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)is issuing a license amendment to the Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (FDA/CFSAN) for Materials License No. 19-30771-01, to authorize release of its facility in Washington, DC for unrestricted use. NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment

(EA)in support of this action in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. The amendment will be issued following the publication of this Notice. II. EA Summary The purpose of the action is to authorize the release of the licensee's, Washington, DC, facility for unrestricted use. The FDA/CFSAN was authorized by NRC from 1965 to use radioactive materials for research and development purposes at the site. On January 31, 2005, the FDA/CFSAN requested that NRC release the facility for unrestricted use. The FDA/CFSAN has conducted surveys of the facility and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that the site meets the license termination criteria in subpart E of 10 CFR part 20 for unrestricted use. The NRC staff has prepared an EA in support of the license amendment. The facility was remediated and surveyed prior to the licensee requesting the license amendment. The NRC staff has reviewed the information and final status survey submitted by the FDA/CFSAN. Based on its review, the staff has determined that there are no additional remediation activities necessary to complete the proposed action. Therefore, the staff considered the impact of the residual radioactivity at the facility and concluded that since the residual radioactivity meets the requirements in subpart E of 10 CFR part 20, a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The staff has prepared the EA (summarized above) in support of the license amendment to release the facility for unrestricted use. The NRC staff has evaluated the FDA/CFSAN's request and the results of the surveys and has concluded that the completed action complies with the criteria in subpart E of 10 CFR part 20. The staff has found that the radiological environmental impacts from the action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by NUREG-1496, Volumes 1-3, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Facilities” (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). The staff has also found that the non-radiological impacts are not significant. On the basis of the EA, the NRC has concluded that the environmental impacts from the action are expected to be insignificant and has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the action. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for the license amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related to this notice are: The Environment Assessment (ML051430302), Final Status Survey Report, Federal Building 8, 200 C Street, SW., Washington, DC, December 22, 2004, Final Report (ML050340555). 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

(800)397-4209 or

(301)415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . Documents related to operations conducted under this license not specifically referenced in this Notice may not be electronically available and/or may not be publicly available. Persons who have an interest in reviewing these documents should submit a request to NRC under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Instructions for submitting a FOIA request can be found on the NRC's Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/foia/foia-privacy.html.* Dated in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, this 27th day of May, 2005. For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. James Dwyer, Chief, Commercial and R&D Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I. [FR Doc. E5-2866 Filed 6-3-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-51755; File No. 4-208] Intermarket Trading System; Notice of Filing of the Twenty First Amendment to the ITS Plan Relating to the Recognition of the Automatic Generation of Outgoing ITS Commitments May 27, 2005. Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 and Rule 11Aa3-2 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on April 27, 2005, the Intermarket Trading System Operating Committee (“ITSOC”) submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed amendment (“Twenty First Amendment”) to the restated ITS Plan. 3 The purpose of the proposed amendment is to recognize the automatic generation of outgoing ITS commitments in circumstances where members in the Participants' markets send such commitments contemporaneously with trading at inferior prices, disseminating a locking bid/offer in their own market, or a block trade. 1 15 U.S.C. 78k-1. 2 17 CFR 240.11Aa3-2. 3 The ITS Plan is a National Market System (“NMS”) plan, which was designed to facilitate intermarket trading in exchange-listed equity securities based on current quotation information emanating from the linked markets. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 19456 (January 27, 1983), 48 FR 4938 (February 3, 1983). The ITS Participants include the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”), the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (“BSE”); the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (“CBOE”); the Chicago Stock Exchange (“CHX”), Inc., the Cincinnati Stock Exchange, Inc. (“CSE”), the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”), the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NYSE”), the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (“PCX”), and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx”) (“Participants”). I. Description of the Proposed Amendment The ITSOC proposes to amend the restated ITS Plan to recognize the automatic generation of outgoing ITS commitments in circumstances where members in the Participants' markets send such commitments contemporaneously with trading at inferior prices, disseminating a locking bid/offer in their own market, or a block trade. The ITSOC proposes to amend the restated ITS Plan to add a new paragraph

(G)to section 6(a)(ii). Proposed new language is *italicized.*

(G)Description Applicable to Contemporaneous Automatic Formatting and Sending Commitments * Notwithstanding the descriptions set forth in section 6(a)(ii)(A), (B),

(D)and

(F)above, a Participant (and, in the case of the NASD, ITS/CAES Market Makers) may automatically format and automatically send a commitment to trade to one or more other Participants, under the following circumstances: Each such commitment is sent contemporaneously with:

(i)One or more transactions on the market of the sending Participant that, absent the commitment(s), would be considered an Exchange trade-through(s) or a third market participating market center trade-through(s) (both as defined in Exhibit B);

(ii)the dissemination by the sending Participant of a locking bid (offer) (as defined in Exhibit B); or

(iii)a block trade (as defined in Exhibit C). The term “one or more transactions on the market of the sending Participant” used in clause

(i)in the preceding sentence means, in addition to the transaction that would be priced lower than superior priced bid(s) or higher than superior priced offer(s) of another Participant(s), those one or more transactions priced at such superior priced bid(s) or offer(s). * The ITSOC provided the following example that demonstrates the functioning of clause

(i)in subsection G, utilizing the CHX as the sending Participant: a. CHX Receives Order: Buy 2000 at-the-market. Member handling execution of order determines to complete order at 45.56, necessitating satisfaction of superior priced offers on other Participant markets. NBBO: N—45.50, 45.53; B—5x2. Mkt Bid Offer Size B 45.30 45.53 1x2 T 45.30 45.54 3x3 N 45.50 45.55 5x5 X 45.25 45.59 2x5 P 45.20 45.60 1x1 M 45.40 45.65 1x1 b. CHX Executions: Customer buying/member selling as principal 2000 shares: 200 at 45.53; 300 at 45.54; 500 at 45.55; 1000 at 45.56. c. CHX Computer Generated Commitments: Member buying to partially off-set sales on CHX: M to B—Buy—200 at 45.53; M to T—Buy—300 at 45.54; M to N—Buy—500 at 45.55. A. *Governing or Constituent Documents* Not applicable. B. *Implementation of Amendment* The Participants have manifested their approval of the proposed amendment to the Plan by means of their execution of the proposed amendments. The proposed amendment would become effective upon the Commission's approval of the amendment. C. *Development and Implementation Phases* Not applicable. D. *Analysis of Impact on Competition* The Participants believe that the proposed amendment does not impose any burden on competition. E. *Written Understanding or Agreements relating to Interpretation of, or Participation in, Plan* Not applicable. F. *Approval by Sponsors in Accordance with Plan* Under section 4(c) of the restated ITS Plan, the requisite approval of the amendment is achieved by execution of the amendment on behalf of each ITS Participant and by Commission approval. The amendment is so executed. G. *Description of Operation of Facility Contemplated by the Proposed Amendment* Not applicable. II. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed Plan amendment 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 No. 4-208 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 No. 4-208. 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 Plan amendment that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed Plan amendment 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 ITS. 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. 4-208 and should be submitted on or before June 27, 2005. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 4 4 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(27). Margaret H. McFarland, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-2872 Filed 6-3-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-51734; File No. SR-BSE-2005-13] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Its Membership Dues Fee May 24, 2005. 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 29, 2005, the Boston Stock Exchange (“BSE” 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 Exchange. On May 12, 2005, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 3 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 Amendment No. 1 added a sentence to clarify the purpose for the fee change. The effective date of the original proposed rule change is April 29, 2005, and the effective date of the amendment is May 12, 2005. For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change, as amended, under Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period to commence on May 12, 2005, the date on which the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The BSE proposes to amend its Membership Dues fee. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the BSE's Web site ( *http://www.bostonstock.com* ), at the BSE'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 BSE 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 BSE 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 BSE proposes to amend its Membership and Other Fees fee schedule by increasing its Membership Dues fee from $750 per quarter to $1,000 per quarter. These fees will be used to fund the ongoing administration of Membership Services. This change will also better reflect the current value of a seat on the Boston Stock Exchange. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 4 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, 5 in particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members. 4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). 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. 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 The proposed rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 6 and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 7 because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the BSE. 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. 8 6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 7 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). 8 *See supra* note 3. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, 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-2005-13 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-BSE-2005-13. 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 the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the BSE. 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-2005-13 and should be submitted on or before June 27, 2005. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 9 9 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Margaret H. McFarland, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-2876 Filed 6-3-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-51746; File No. SR-CBOE-2005-32] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Relating to Remote Market-Maker Transaction Fees May 26, 2005. 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 20, 2005, 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. On May 18, 2005, the CBOE submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 3 The CBOE has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the CBOE under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act, 4 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 5 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 In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange:

(1)clarified how the fixed annual fee alternative for DPMs and e-DPMs would be applied when an entity that has elected the fixed annual fee alternative merges or combines operations with an entity that has not elected the fixed annual fee alternative; and

(2)revised the date of the Fees Schedule. 4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 5 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to

(i)establish transaction fees for Remote Market-Makers (“RMMs”),

(ii)amend its Designated Primary Market-Maker (“DPM”) and Electronic DPM (“e-DPM”) fixed annual fee program to include a fixed fee alternative for RMM transaction fees, and

(iii)explain how DPM or e-DPM consolidations will affect the fixed annual fee. Below is the text of the proposed rule change, as amended. Proposed new language is *italicized* ; proposed deletions are in [brackets]. CHICAGO BOARD OPTIONS EXCHANGE, INC.—FEES SCHEDULE [MARCH 2] *MAY 18* , 2005 Per contract (cents) 1. OPTIONS TRANSACTION FEES (1)(3)(4)(7): EQUITY OPTIONS (13): I. CUSTOMER .00 II. MARKET-MAKER

(MM)(standard rate)(10) .22 III. MEMBER FIRM PROPRIETARY:(11) FACILITATION OF CUSTOMER ORDER .20 NON-FACILITATION ORDER .24 IV. BROKER-DEALER .25 V. NON-MEMBER MARKET MAKER .26 VI. DESIGNATED PRIMARY MARKET-MAKER

(DPM)(10)(14) .12 VII. ELECTRONIC DPM (e-DPM)

(14).25 VIII. LINKAGE ORDERS

(8).24 *IX. REMOTE MARKET-MAKER (14)* *.26* QQQQ and SPDR OPTIONS: I. CUSTOMER: QQQQ .00 SPDR .15 II. MARKET-MAKER

(MM)AND DPM (standard rate)(10) .24 III. MEMBER FIRM PROPRIETARY:

(11)FACILITATION OF CUSTOMER ORDER .20 NON-FACILITATION ORDER .24 IV. BROKER-DEALER .25 V. NON-MEMBER MARKET MAKER .26 VI. LINKAGE ORDERS

(8).24 *VII. REMOTE MARKET-MAKER* *.26* INDEX OPTIONS: I.-VIII. Unchanged 2. MARKET-MAKER, e-DPM & DPM MARKETING FEE (in option classes in which a DPM has been appointed)(6) Unchanged. 3. FLOOR BROKERAGE FEE (1)(5): Unchanged. 4. RAES ACCESS FEE (RETAIL AUTOMATIC EXECUTION SYSTEM) (1)(4): Unchanged. Notes: (1)-(13) Unchanged.

(14)[Effective October 1, 2004, DPMs and e-DPMs may elect to pay a fixed annual fee of $1.75 million instead of being assessed transaction fees on a per contract basis for their DPM and e-DPM transactions only in all equity option classes. The fixed fee does not cover any floor brokerage fees. DPMs electing to pay the fixed fee will neither be charged CBOE transaction fees for CBOE transactions related to such outgoing P/A orders, nor will they receive the credit back for such fees as set forth in Section 21 of this Fee Schedule. However, pursuant to the second phase of linkage fee set forth in Section 21 of this Fee Schedule, all CBOE DPMs, including those electing the fixed annual fee, who pay transaction fees at other exchanges to execute P/A orders there, will receive a credit of up to 50% of CBOE DPM transaction charges for each such order (currently up to $.06 per contract, with the total of such credits not to exceed the total amount of inbound linkage transaction fees received by CBOE) to help offset the transaction fees of other exchanges that CBOE DPMs incur in filling P/A orders at those exchanges.] *Please see Section 23 for details of the Fixed Annual Fee Alternative for DPMs and e-DPMs.*

(15)Unchanged. 5.-21. Unchanged. *22. Reserved.* *23. FIXED ANNUAL FEE ALTERNATIVE FOR DPMs and e-DPMs * *Effective October 1, 2004, DPMs and e-DPMs may elect to pay a fixed annual fee of $1.75 million instead of being assessed transaction fees on a per contract basis for their DPM and e-DPM transactions only in all equity option classes. The fixed fee does not cover any floor brokerage fees. DPMs electing to pay the fixed fee will neither be charged CBOE transaction fees for CBOE transactions related to outgoing P/A orders, nor will they receive the credit back for such fees as set forth in Section 21 of this Fee Schedule. However, pursuant to the second phase of linkage fee relief set forth in Section 21 of this Fee Schedule, all CBOE DPMs, including those electing the fixed annual fee, who pay transaction fees at other exchanges to execute P/A orders there, will receive a credit of up to 50% of CBOE DPM transaction charges for each such order (currently up to $.06 per contract, with the total of such credits not to exceed the total amount of inbound linkage transaction fees received by CBOE) to help offset the transaction fees of other exchanges that CBOE DPMs incur in filling P/A orders at those exchanges. Effective July 1, 2005, DPMs and e-DPMs who elect the fixed annual fee alternative described above may elect to pay an RMM fixed annual fee of $250,000 instead of being assessed transaction fees on a per contract basis for their RMM transactions only in all equity options.* * If a DPM or e-DPM who has elected the fixed annual fee alternative merges or combines operations with a DPM or e-DPM who has not elected the fixed annual fee alternative, then the fixed annual fee will be increased and assessed to the surviving DPM/e-DPM entity. The amount of the increase will be based on the number of contracts traded and transaction fees paid during the previous twelve months by the DPM or e-DPM organization who had not previously elected the fixed annual fee alternative. The amount of the increase will be prorated based on the amount of time remaining in the then current year of the fixed annual fee program. If two DPMs or e-DPMs who elected the fixed annual fee alternative merge or combine operations, the fixed fee paid to CBOE by these two organizations will be unaffected. No adjustments or refunds will be made to either entity. * 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 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. The 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 The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to

(i)establish transaction fees for RMMs,

(ii)amend its DPM and e-DPM fixed annual fee program to include a fixed fee alternative for RMM transaction fees, and

(iii)explain how DPM or e-DPM consolidations will affect the fixed annual fee. *RMM Transaction Fees* The Commission approved the Exchange's RMM program on March 14, 2005. 6 An RMM is an individual member or member organization registered with the Exchange that makes transactions as a dealer-specialist from a location other than the physical trading station for the subject option class. 6 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51366 (March 14, 2005), 70 FR 13217 (March 18, 2005). The Exchange proposes to set transaction fees for RMMs in equity, QQQQ and SPDR options at $.26 per contract. The Exchange believes the proposed RMM transaction fee is appropriately set higher than those of on-floor market-makers because the Exchange will incur additional systems and other logistical costs both initially and on an ongoing basis in order to establish and maintain the infrastructure needed to enable market participation as an RMM. *RMM Fixed Fee Alternative* On October 1, 2004, the Exchange implemented a fixed annual fee program for DPMs and e-DPMs. 7 The program offers DPMs and e-DPMs the alternative of choosing a fixed annual fee of $1.75 million instead of being assessed transaction fees on a per contract basis for its DPM and e-DPM transactions in equity options classes. 8 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50058 (July 22, 2004), 69 FR 45861 (July 30, 2004). 8 *See* CBOE Fees Schedule, Note 14. The Exchange proposes to amend the program to permit DPMs and e-DPMs who elect the fixed annual fee alternative to pay an additional fixed annual fee of $250,000 as an alternative to being assessed transaction fees on a per contract basis for their RMM transactions. Like the existing program, the RMM fixed fee alternative would apply only to equity options transactions. Since trading by RMMs will not commence until sometime in the second quarter of 2005, the Exchange proposes to begin the RMM fixed fee alternative program on July 1, 2005 and prorate the amount of the fixed annual fee to $125,000 for calendar year 2005. The amount of the RMM fixed annual fee and the option to elect the fixed fee will be reviewed annually and may change from year to year. Any changes to the RMM fixed annual fee would be required to be filed with the Commission. The Exchange proposes to create a new Section 23 in the Fees Schedule that describes the DPM and e-DPM fixed annual fee program (by adding to it the text from Note 14 of the Fees Schedule) and the RMM fixed annual fee alternative. Note 14 is revised to delete the current text and to add a cross reference to Section 23. *Effect of DPM or e-DPM Consolidations on the Fixed Annual Fee * The Exchange also proposes to add to Section 23 of the Fees Schedule an explanation of how the fixed annual fee would be affected when a DPM or e-DPM organization merges or combines operations with another DPM or e-DPM. Specifically, if a DPM or e-DPM who has elected the fixed annual fee alternative merges or combines operations with a DPM or e-DPM who has not elected the fixed annual fee alternative, the fixed annual fee will be increased and assessed to the surviving DPM/e-DPM entity. The amount of the increase will be based on the number of contracts traded and transaction fees paid during the previous twelve months by the DPM or e-DPM organization who had not previously elected the fixed annual fee alternative. For example, if in the previous twelve months a DPM or e-DPM organization who had not previously elected the fixed annual fee alternative traded 4 million equity option contracts and paid $500,000 in transaction fees, the surviving DPM or e-DPM entity would be assessed an increase to their fixed annual fee in the amount of $500,000. The amount of the increase will be prorated based on the amount of time remaining in the then current year of the fixed annual fee program. For example, if the firms in the example above merge six months into the then current year of the program, the surviving DPM or e-DPM entity would be assessed an increase to their fixed annual fee in the amount of $250,000 to cover the remaining six months of the year. The Exchange notes that in any subsequent year of the program, the surviving entity will pay just one fixed annual fee ( *i.e.* , the fixed annual fee that is then in effect). If two DPMs or e-DPMs who elected the fixed annual fee alternative merge or combine operations, the fixed fee paid to the CBOE by these two organizations will be unaffected. No adjustments or refunds will be made to either entity. 2. Statutory Basis The CBOE believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 9 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, 10 in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among CBOE members. 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change, as amended, 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 11 and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. 12 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). 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 13 *See* 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). For 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 May 18, 2005, the date on which the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, 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-2005-32 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-CBOE-2005-32. 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 information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2005-32 and should be submitted on or before June 27, 2005. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 14 14 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Margaret H. McFarland, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-2870 Filed 6-3-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-51754; File No. SR-FICC-2005-07] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Establish a Firm Deadline by which Members of the Government Securities Division Must Satisfy Clearing Fund Deficiencies May 27, 2005. I. Introduction On March 18, 2005, the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposed rule change SR-FICC-2005-07 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”). 1 Notice of the proposal was published in the **Federal Register** on April 21, 2005. 2 No comment letters were received. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is approving the proposed rule change. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51550 (April 15, 2005), 70 FR 20781. II. Description FICC is establishing a firm deadline by which members of FICC's Government Securities Division (“GSD”) must satisfy clearing fund deficiencies. Currently, GSD's rules provide a deadline for a member's satisfaction of a clearing fund deficiency of two hours after GSD has issued a notice of deficiency to that member. Under current practice, GSD issues its clearing fund deficiency notices by telephone calls typically at 8:30 a.m. eastern time and by a facsimile containing

(i)a cover letter summarizing the deficiency status and

(ii)a detailed report reflecting the firm's current clearing fund requirement and collateral on deposit. Therefore, deficiency calls typically must be satisfied by approximately 10:30 a.m. Eastern Time. Notwithstanding GSD's issuance of clearing fund calls, each member has the ability to access a report each day detailing its clearing fund balances and any deficiency thereof generally by 12:30 a.m. Eastern Time. Taking into account members' ready access to clearing fund deficiency information, the rule change establishes a firm deadline of 10:30 a.m. Eastern Time to ensure the timely satisfaction of clearing fund deficiency calls and to eliminate current provisions which correlate the timing of the deadline to the issuance of the notice by FICC. 3 As a result, it will be incumbent upon members to access directly the appropriate report detailing their clearing fund deposit requirements so they might satisfy any deficiencies. 3 Under GSD's rule, FICC may extend this deadline if operational or systems difficulties arise that reasonably prevent members from satisfying the 10:30 a.m. Eastern Time deadline. III. Discussion Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible. 4 The Commission finds that FICC's proposed rule change is consistent with this requirement because it will promote timely satisfaction of clearing fund deficiency calls and will reduce the amount of risk to FICC and its members. 4 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F). IV. Conclusion On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular Section 17A of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 5 that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-FICC-2005-07) be and hereby is approved. 5 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 6 6 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Margaret H. McFarland, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-2875 Filed 6-3-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-51753; File No. SR-NSCC-2005-02] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Enhance Automated Customer Account Transfer Service To Permit the Automated Notification of Changes to the Broker-Dealer of Record for Applicable Insurance Products May 27, 2005. I. Introduction On April 4, 2005, the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) and on April 12, 2005, amended proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2005-02 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”). 1 Notice of the proposal was published in the **Federal Register** on April 20, 2005. 2 No comment letters were received. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is approving the proposed rule change. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51541 (April 13, 2005), 70 FR 20609 (April 20, 2005). II. Description NSCC is enhancing its Automated Customer Account Transfer Service (“ACAT Service”) to permit the automated notification of changes to the broker-dealer of record for applicable insurance products. Information regarding the broker-dealer of record for an annuity or life insurance product is maintained by the insurance company that is the issuer of the product. Currently there is no mechanism within the ACAT Service that can automate notification of changes to the broker-dealer of record. Annuity and life insurance products have a manually-intensive processing stream connected with account transfers relative to the automated processing of assets such as equity and debt securities and mutual fund shares. Under the proposed rule, the delivering and receiving broker-dealers for annuities or life insurance products will be able to communicate information regarding the change of broker-dealer of record through the ACAT Service. The ACAT Service will communicate the information through a link to a new product of NSCC's Insurance Processing Services (“IPS”) called Inforce Transactions (“IFT”). IFT will relay the information to the issuer insurance company and will also provide a means of communicating to the ACAT Service whether the insurance company has confirmed, rejected, or requested a modification of the change. NSCC will not debit or credit a delivering or receiving broker-dealer for the value of any applicable insurance product that is part of a customer account transfer. In order for the receiving and delivering broker-dealers and the issuer insurance company to be able to effect an account change through the ACAT Service, the insurance company must participate in IPS, the receiving broker-dealer must participate in the ACAT Service and IPS, and the delivering broker-dealer must participate in the ACAT Service. NSCC is also making certain technical changes to Rule 50, which governs the ACAT Service. For purposes of bringing efficiencies to the financial marketplace, NSCC's Rule 50 will cover all asset types regardless of whether NSCC has the operational capability to effect the transfer of such assets. NSCC either will undertake to cause the asset transfer or asset reregistration to occur or will issue a document evidencing each delivering firm's obligation and each receiving firm's entitlement that will result from the transfer. Such instructions, regardless of their form, are commonly referred to as receive and deliver instructions. NSCC is adding a definition, “ACAT Receive and Deliver Instruction,” 3 relating to these instructions. NSCC also is making certain technical changes to the ACATS rule. 3 As defined in NSCC Rule 1: The term “ACAT Receive and Deliver Instruction” shall mean such document, form, file, report or other information issued by the Corporation [NSCC] to a Member or to a QSD (as defined in Rule 50), on behalf of such QSD's participants, which identifies Automated Customer Account Transfer receive and deliver obligations. III. Discussion Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions. 4 The Commission finds that NCCC's proposed rule change is consistent with this requirement because by automating and facilitating the change in broker-dealer of record for eligible insurance products associated with account transfers, the enhancements to the ACAT Service and the new IFT product should reduce processing errors and delays that are typically associated with manual processing. 4 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F). IV. Conclusion On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular Section 17A of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NSCC-2005-02) be and hereby is approved. For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 5 5 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Margaret H. McFarland, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-2873 Filed 6-3-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-51759; File No. SR-Phlx-2004-91] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to Amendment No. 1 Thereto To Establish a Directed Order Process for Orders Delivered to the Phlx Via AUTOM May 27, 2005. I. Introduction On December 9, 2004, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx” 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 thereunder, 2 to establish a directed order process for orders delivered to the Exchange via the Automated Options Market (“AUTOM”). The proposed rule change was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on December 22, 2004. 3 The Commission received three comment letters on the proposal. 4 On January 18, 2005, the Phlx sent a response to the comment letters. 5 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50856 (December 14, 2004), 69 FR 76817. 4 *See* letter from Michael J. Simon, General Counsel and Secretary, International Securities Exchange, Inc. (“ISE”), to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission, dated January 13, 2005 (“ISE Letter”); letter from Philip D. DeFeo, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Pacific Exchange, Inc. (“PCX”), to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission, dated March 22, 2005 (“PCX Letter”); and letter from Matthew Hinerfeld, Managing Director and Deputy General Counsel, Citadel Investment Group, L.L.C., on behalf of Citadel Derivatives Group LLC (“Citadel”), to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission, dated April 6, 2005 (“Citadel Letter”). 5 *See* letter from Richard S. Rudolph, Director and Counsel, Phlx, to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission, dated January 18, 2005 (“Phlx Letter”). On April 27, 2005, the Phlx filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 6 This order approves the proposed rule change and simultaneously provides notice of filing and grants accelerated approval of Amendment No. 1. 6 Amendment No. 1 added language to clarify the application of the allocation algorithm and to note that Phlx Rule 707, Just and Equitable Principles of Trade, would prohibit coordinated actions between a Phlx directed participant and an OFP involving Directed Orders. II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change The Phlx proposes to establish, for a one-year pilot period, rules that permit Exchange specialists, Streaming Quote Traders (“SQTs”), and Remote Streaming Quote Traders (“RSQTs”) assigned in options trading on the Phlx XL system (“Streaming Quote Options”) to receive directed orders. The Phlx proposes to define the term “Directed Order” to mean any customer order to buy or sell that has been directed to a particular specialist, SQT, or RSQT by an Order Flow Provider (“OFP”). 7 The Phlx also proposes to establish a trade algorithm for electronically executed and allocated trades involving Directed Orders, which would provide a participation guarantee to the Directed Specialist, SQT, or RSQT (collectively “Phlx directed participants”). 7 The term Order Flow Provider under proposed Phlx Rule 1080(l)(i)(B) would mean any member or member organization that submits, as agent, customer orders to the Exchange. To qualify as a Directed Order, an order must be delivered to the Exchange via AUTOM. AUTOM currently functions to provide automatic executions in Streaming Quote Options only when the Exchange's disseminated bid or offer is the National Best Bid or Offer (“NBBO”). Therefore, to participate in automatic executions of Directed Orders, Phlx directed participants would be required to be quoting the NBBO at the time the Directed Order is received. Currently, an SQT or RSQT must quote continuous, two-sided markets in not less than 60% of the series in each Streaming Quote Option traded on Phlx XL in which such SQT or RSQT is assigned. A specialist must quote continuous, two-sided markets in not less than 100% of the series in each Streaming Quote Option in which such specialist is assigned. 8 Under the proposal, like specialists, Directed SQTs or RSQTs would be required to quote continuous, two-sided markets in not less than 100% of the series in each Streaming Quote Option in which they receive Directed Orders. 8 *See* Phlx Rule 1014(b)(ii)(B). Directed Orders would first be allocated to customer limit orders resting on the limit order book at the execution price. Any remaining contracts would be allocated as follows: • If the specialist were directed an order, it would be allocated a number of contracts that is the greater of:

(1)Its size pro rata share;

(2)the Enhanced Specialist Participation; 9 or

(3)40% of the contracts to be allocated. 9 *See* Phlx Rule 1014(g)(ii). • If an SQT or RSQT were directed an order, it would be allocated a number of contracts that is the greater of:

(1)Its size pro rata share; or

(2)40% of the contracts to be allocated. • After a specialist, SQT, or RSQT is allocated contracts, other market makers quoting at the disseminated price, and non-SQT Registered Options Traders (“ROTs”) that have placed limit orders on the limit order book via electronic interface would be allocated their size pro rata of the remaining contracts. • If any contracts still remain, off-floor broker-dealers that have placed limit orders on the limit order book that represent the Exchange's disseminated price would be allocated contracts on a size pro rata basis. • Finally, if the Directed Order is for a size that is greater than the Exchange's disseminated size, remaining contracts would be allocated manually in accordance with Phlx Rule 1014(g)(v), which sets forth the rules and contract allocation algorithm for trades that are executed in the trading crowd. A market maker directed an order would not be entitled to receive a number of contracts that is greater than the size associated with its quotation, nor would a ROT or off-floor broker-dealer be entitled to receive a number of contracts that is greater than the size associated with its limit order. The allocation algorithm would apply to Directed Orders in lieu of the current allocation algorithm applicable to orders other than Directed Orders contained in Exchange Rule 1014(g)(vii). Specialists that are not Directed Specialists participating in trades involving a Directed SQT or a Directed RSQT would be entitled to receive a number of contracts as specified in proposed rule 1014(g)(viii), and would not be entitled to receive an Enhanced Specialist Participation on the remaining contracts. III. Discussion and Commission Findings The Commission has reviewed carefully the proposed rule change, comment letters, and the Phlx's response and finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of section 6 of the Act 10 and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange 11 and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. 12 section 6(b)(5) requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, 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. 10 15 U.S.C. 78f. 11 In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The Commission received three comment letters regarding the proposal, all of which opposed the proposal. 13 The commenters criticized the proposal because they believe it would allow a Phlx directed participant a guarantee based solely on its relationships with order entry firms rather than on such Phlx directed participant's obligations. 14 The commenters assert that the proposal would reward a Phlx directed participant for its payment for order flow arrangements rather than the quality of its quotes, and therefore the proposal would have a negative impact on price competition. 15 In addition, two commenters note that the proposal would not limit the allocation entitlement to specialists, but extend it to SQTs and RSQTs, which have fewer obligations to the market. 16 Two commenters also believed that the proposal did not address the possibility of coordinated actions between a directed market maker and an OFP. 17 13 *See supra* note 4. 14 *See, e.g.* , ISE Letter, *supra* note 4 at 1-2; PCX Letter, *supra* note 4 at 1-2; Citadel Letter, *supra* note 4 at 2. 15 *Id.* 16 ISE Letter (“The Phlx proposal is not limited to specialist[s], and the Phlx does not attempt to justify this proposal other than as a way to reward market makers that attract order-flow to the Phlx.”), *supra* note 4 at 1, 3-4; Citadel Letter, *supra* note 4 at 2. 17 ISE Letter, *supra* note 4 at 3; PCX Letter, *supra* note 4 at 2. The Commission has previously approved rules that guarantee a Phlx specialist a portion of each order when the specialist's quote is equal to the NBBO. 18 The Commission has closely scrutinized exchange rule proposals to adopt or amend a specialist guarantee where the percentage of specialist participation would rise to a level that could have a material adverse impact on quote competition within a particular exchange. 19 Because the proposal would not increase the overall percentage of an order that is guaranteed to the specialist beyond the currently acceptable threshold, but instead would allow SQTs and RSQTs to share in that guarantee, the Commission does not believe that the proposal will negatively impact quote competition on the Phlx. Under the proposal, the remaining portion of each order will still be allocated based on the competitive bidding of market participants. 18 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34606 (August 26, 1994), 59 FR 45741 (September 2, 1994) (SR-Phlx-94-12) (order approving the enhanced specialist participation in Phlx Rule 1014(g)(ii) for a one-year pilot basis); *see* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 41588 (July 1, 1999), 64 FR 37185 (July 9, 1999) (SR-Phlx-98-56) (order approving the enhanced specialist participation in Phlx Rule 1014(g)(ii) on a permanent basis). 19 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43100 (July 31, 2000), 65 FR 48788 (August 9, 2000). In addition, a Phlx directed participant will have to be quoting at the NBBO at the time the order is received to capitalize on the guarantee. The Commission believes it is critical that the Phlx directed participant cannot step up and match the NBBO after it receives an order, but must be publicly quoting at that price when the order is received. In this regard, the Phlx's proposal prohibits from notifying a Phlx directed participant regarding its intention to submit a Directed Order so that such Phlx directed participant could change its quotation to match the NBBO immediately prior to submission of the preferenced order, and then fade its quote. In response to commenters' concerns that its proposal failed to protect against coordinated actions between a Phlx directed participant and an OFP, the Phlx stated it believes its Rule 707, Just and Equitable Principles of Trade, already provides the necessary protections against that type of conduct, and will proactively conduct surveillance for, and enforce against, such violations. 20 20 *See* Amendment No. 1; letter from Edith Hallahan, Deputy General Counsel, and Edward Deitzel, Vice President, Phlx, to John Roeser, Assistant Director, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, dated May 26, 2005. One commenter states that specialists currently receive participation entitlements based on their obligations to the market. The commenter believes that the proposal, by allowing any directed market maker quoting at the NBBO to receive a guaranteed percentage of an order without in turn increasing the market maker's obligations to the market, would “eliminate the incentive to be a specialist, thereby potentially leaving the obligations of the specialist to the market unfulfilled.” 21 The Commission does not believe that the proposal will result in the role of the specialist going unfulfilled, and notes that it recently approved an options exchange without specialists. 22 Moreover, specialists' obligations to the market have been reduced through other changes, including greater automation of functions previously handled manually by the specialist. While this proposal may reduce the incentive to be a specialist, the Commission does not believe that makes the proposal inconsistent with the Act. Finally, the Commission notes that Phlx specialists and Directed SQTs and RSQTs have greater quoting obligations than other Phlx market makers who cannot be Phlx directed participants. Specifically, Phlx specialists must submit continuous, two-sided quotations in 100% of the series of options in which it is assigned, 23 and a Directed SQTs or RSQTs must submit continuous, two-sided quotations in 100% of the series of options in which it receives Directed Orders. To receive an allocation under this rule filing, the Phlx directed participant must be quoting at the NBBO for the size of the allocation received. 21 Citadel Letter, *supra* note 4 at 2. 22 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49068 (January 13, 2004), 69 FR 2775 (January 20, 2004) (SR-BSE-2002-15) (order approving trading rules for the Boston Options Exchange Facility). 23 *See* Phlx Rule 1014(b)(ii)(B). Two commenters believe that the proposal is similar to facilitation guarantees and other directed order programs approved by the Commission. 24 However, unlike those programs, the commenters criticize that the instant proposal does not include certain protections for customers, such as providing the opportunity for price improvement, or limiting the program to a minimum number of contracts. 25 24 ISE Letter (“There is no distinction between a broker ‘facilitating’ an order and a broker directing an order to a particular market maker for execution. * * *”), *supra* note 4 at 3-4; PCX Letter, *supra* note 4 at 2. 25 ISE Letter, *supra* note 4 at 3-4; PCX Letter, *supra* note 4 at 2. The Commission believes that the proposal is more akin to current participation entitlements, for specialists, than the facilitation guarantee programs and other directed order programs cited by the commenters. Unlike exchange facilitation guarantee programs, 26 under the proposal, the Phlx directed participant would not be eligible for a participation entitlement unless it is publicly quoting at the NBBO at the time an order is received. Instead of changing its facilitation program rules, this proposal allows Phlx directed participants to share in the participation entitlement currently available only for specialists. The Commission believes this reallocation is consistent with the Act and will not affect the incentives of the trading crowd to compete aggressively for orders based on price. 26 *See* CBOE Rule 6.74(d); ISE Rule 716(d); Pacific Exchange, Inc. Rule 6.47(b); American Stock Exchange, Inc. Rule 950(d), Commentary .02(d); and Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. Rule 1064, Commentary .02. The Commission emphasizes that approval of this proposal does not affect a broker-dealer's duty of best execution. A broker-dealer has a legal duty to seek to obtain best execution of customer orders, and any decision to preference a particular specialist, SQT, or RSQT must be consistent with this duty. 27 A broker-dealer's duty of best execution derives from common law agency principles and fiduciary obligations, and is incorporated in SRO rules and, through judicial and Commission decisions, the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. 28 27 27 *See, e.g., Newton* v. *Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.* , 135 F.3d 266, 269-70, 274 (3d Cir.), *cert. denied* , 525 U.S. 811 (1998); *Certain Market Making Activities on Nasdaq* , Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40900 (Jan. 11, 1999) (settled case) (citing *Sinclair* v. *SEC,* 444 F.2d 399 (2d Cir. 1971); *Arleen Hughes* , 27 SEC 629, 636 (1948), *aff'd sub nom. Hughes* v. *SEC* , 174 F.2d 969 (D.C. Cir. 1949)). *See also* Order Execution Obligations, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 37619A (Sept. 6, 1996), 61 FR 48290 (Sept. 12, 1996) (“Order Handling Rules Release”). 28 Order Handling Rules Release, 61 FR at 48322. *See also Newton* , 135 F.3d at 270. Failure to satisfy the duty of best execution can constitute fraud because a broker-dealer, in agreeing to execute a customer's order, makes an implied representation that it will execute it in a manner that maximizes the customer's economic gain in the transaction. *See Newton* , 135 F.3d at 273 (“[T]he basis for the duty of best execution is the mutual understanding that the client is engaging in the trade—and retaining the services of the broker as his agent—solely for the purpose of maximizing his own economic benefit, and that the broker receives her compensation because she assists the client in reaching that goal.”); *Marc N. Geman* , Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43963 (Feb. 14, 2001) (citing *Newton* , but concluding that respondent fulfilled his duty of best execution). *See also* Payment for Order Flow, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34902 (Oct. 27, 1994), 59 FR 55006, 55009 (Nov. 2, 1994) (“Payment for Order Flow Final Rules”). If the broker-dealer intends not to act in a manner that maximizes the customer's benefit when he accepts the order and does not disclose this to the customer, the broker-dealer's implied representation is false. *See Newton* , 135 F.3d at 273-274. The duty of best execution requires broker-dealers to execute customers' trades at the most favorable terms reasonably available under the circumstances, *i.e.* , at the best reasonably available price. 29 The duty of best execution requires broker-dealers to periodically assess the quality of competing markets to assure that order flow is directed to the markets providing the most beneficial terms for their customer orders. 30 Broker-dealers must examine their procedures for seeking to obtain best execution in light of market and technology changes and modify those practices if necessary to enable their customers to obtain the best reasonably available prices. 31 In doing so, broker-dealers must take into account price improvement opportunities, and whether different markets may be more suitable for different types of orders or particular securities. 32 29 *Newton,* 135 F.3d at 270. *Newton* also noted certain factors relevant to best execution—order size, trading characteristics of the security, speed of execution, clearing costs, and the cost and difficulty of executing an order in a particular market. *Id.* at 270 n. 2 (citing Payment for Order Flow, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 33026 (Oct. 6, 1993), 58 FR 52934, 52937-38 (Oct. 13, 1993) (Proposed Rules)). *See In re E.F. Hutton & Co.* (“Manning”), Securities Exchange Act Release No. 25887 (July 6, 1988). *See also* Payment for Order Flow Final Rules, 59 FR at 55008-55009. 30 Order Handling Rules Release, 61 FR at 48322-48333 (“In conducting the requisite evaluation of its internal order handling procedures, a broker-dealer must regularly and rigorously examine execution quality likely to be obtained from different markets or market makers trading a security.”). *See also Newton,* 135 F.3d at 271; Market 2000: An Examination of Current Equity Market Developments V-4 (SEC Division of Market Regulation January 1994) (“Without specific instructions from a customer, however, a broker-dealer should periodically assess the quality of competing markets to ensure that its order flow is directed to markets providing the most advantageous terms for the customer's order.”); Payment for Order Flow Final Rules, 59 FR at 55009. 31 Order Handling Rules, 61 FR at 48323. 32 Order Handling Rules, 61 FR at 48323. For example, in connection with orders that are to be executed at a market opening price, “[b]roker-dealers are subject to a best execution duty in executing customer orders at the opening, and should take into account the alternative methods in determining how to obtain best execution for their customer orders.” Disclosure of Order Execution and Routing Practices, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43590 (Nov. 17, 2000), 65 FR 75414, 75422 (Dec. 1, 2000) (adopting new Exchange Act Rules 11Ac1-5 and 11Ac1-6 and noting that alternative methods offered by some Nasdaq market centers for pre-open orders included the mid-point of the spread or at the bid or offer). The Commission notes that the proposed rule change would be implemented on a pilot basis for one year. During this time, the Commission intends to evaluate the impact of the proposal on the options markets to determine whether it would be beneficial to customers and to the options markets as a whole before approving any request for permanent approval of the pilot program. For these reasons, the Commission believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 33 and will not jeopardize market integrity or the incentive for market participants to post competitive quotes. 34 33 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 34 Approval of this proposal is in no way an endorsement of payment for order flow by the Commission. IV. Accelerated Approval of Amendment No. 1 Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 35 the Commission may not approve any proposed rule change, or amendment thereto, prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of notice of the filing thereof, unless the Commission finds good cause for so doing and publishes its reasons for so finding. The Commission hereby finds good cause for approving Amendment No. 1 to the proposal, prior to the 30th day after publishing notice of Amendment No. 1 in the **Federal Register** . 35 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). The Commission believes that it has received and fully considered meaningful comments with respect to the proposal, and that Amendment No. 1 does not raise any new regulatory issues that warrant further delay. In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange added language to clarify the application of the allocation algorithm. In addition, Amendment No. 1 added language to note that Phlx Rule 707, Just and Equitable Principles of Trade, prohibits coordinated actions between the Phlx directed participant and the OFP involving Directed Orders. The Commission believes that the addition of the language is appropriate to clarify the proposed Directed Order process. V. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 1 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-Phlx-2004-91 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-Phlx-2004-91. 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 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 publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2004-91 and should be submitted on or before June 27, 2005. VI. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 36 that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2004-91) be, and hereby is, approved, and that Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change be, and hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis, for a pilot period to expire on May 27, 2006. 36 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 37 37 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Margaret H. McFarland, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-2871 Filed 6-3-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Fund Availability Under the VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans Affairs

(VA)is announcing the availability of funds for currently operational VA Per Diem Only Recipients (projects that were originally awarded in 2002, 2003, and 2004 that are currently providing services and receiving per diem payments as of May 15, 2005) to make reapplication for assistance for their existing project number under the Per Diem Only Grant Component of VA's Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem

(GPD)Program. The focus of this Notice of Funds Availability

(NOFA)is to provide previous recipients that have demonstrated performance in the delivery of services to the homeless veteran population an opportunity to seek re-application. This Notice contains information concerning the program, re-application process, and the amount of funding available. DATES: An original request for re-application letter, on agency letterhead for assistance under the VA's Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program, must be received in the Grant and Per Diem Field Office, by 4 p.m. Eastern Time on October 5, 2005. Requests for re-application may not be sent by facsimile (FAX). In the interest of fairness to all competing applicants, this deadline is firm as to date and hour, and VA will treat as ineligible for consideration any request for re-application that is received after the deadline. Applicants should take this practice into account and make early submission of their material to avoid any risk of loss of eligibility brought about by unanticipated delays or other delivery-related problems. *For a Copy of the Application Package:* An application package is not needed for this NOFA. Applicants submitting a letter requesting re-application on their agency's letterhead agree to VA using their previously awarded Per Diem Only application for scoring purposes ( *see* re-application requirements in this NOFA). *Submission of Application:* An original and complete letter requesting re-application with project number ( *see* re-application requirements in this NOFA) must be submitted to the following address: VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Field Office, 10770 N. 46th Street, Suite C-200, Tampa, FL, 33617. Letters of re-application must be received in the Grant and Per Diem Field office by the re-application deadline. Any additional materials arriving separately will not be included in the re-application package for consideration. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Guy Liedke, VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program, Department of Veterans Affairs, 10770 N. 46th Street, Suite C-200, Tampa, FL, 33617; (toll-free) 1-877-332-0334. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Notice announces the availability of funds for assistance under VA's Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program for eligible currently operational programs that have previously received a VA Per Diem Only grant in 2002, 2003, and 2004 under VA's Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program. The Final Rule, published in the **Federal Register** , September 26, 2003, secs. 61.0 through 61.82. Public Law 107-95, § 5(a)(1) the Homeless Veterans Comprehensive Assistance Act of 2001 codified at 38 U.S.C. 2011, 2012, 2061, and 2064 authorizes this program. Funding applied for under this Notice may be used for aid for service centers and supportive housing. Funding will be in the form of per diem payments issued to eligible entities beginning on 1/31/06 and will continue so long as the grantee meets the requirements of 38 CFR part 61. Per diem payments are also subject to availability of funds and will run concurrently with the reauthorization period of the Grant and Per Diem Program. Capital grant recipients who received capital grant funding under VA's Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2003 for acquisition, renovation or new construction should not respond to this NOFA. Per diem for those portions of their programs that were created with capital grant funds is requested in the capital grant application and paid at the time of capital grant project completion and inspection. VA is pleased to issue this NOFA for the Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program. The Department expects to award approximately $38 million annually under this NOFA. Funding available under this NOFA is being offered to help offset the operating expenses of existing state and local governments, Indian Tribal governments, faith-based, and community-based organizations that are capable of providing supported housing and/or supportive service center services for homeless veterans. It should be noted that VA payment is limited to the applicant's cost of care per eligible veteran minus other sources of payments to the applicant for furnishing services to homeless veterans up to the per day rate VA pays for State Home Domiciliary care, which is currently $27.44. Awardees will be required to support their request for per diem payment with adequate fiscal documentation as to program income and expenses. It is important to be aware that VA places great emphasis on responsibility and accountability. VA has procedures in place to monitor services provided to homeless veterans and outcomes associated with the services provided in grant and per diem-funded programs. VA is also implementing new procedures to further this effort. Applicants should be aware of the following: All awardees that are selected in response to *this NOFA* must meet the Life Safety Code of the National Fire and Protection Association as it relates to their specific facility. VA will conduct an inspection prior to awardees being able to submit a request for per diem payment under this NOFA to ensure this requirement is met. Note: 2002 Per Diem Only awardees that have a project co-located at a facility that has been given an extension to meet the Life Safety Code by Public Law 107-95 have until December 21, 2006, to do so. If selected for refunding and the project does not meet the Life Safety Code by that date, per diem funding will be stopped as per the requirement set forth in Section 5(a)(1) of Public Law 107-95. Per Diem Only programs that have received a “Special Needs Grant” in conjunction with their Per Diem Only Project are advised that “Special Needs” funding is also subject to reauthorization of the special need component and may not continue if not reauthorized. Each per diem-funded program will have a liaison appointed from a nearby VA medical facility to provide oversight and monitor services provided to homeless veterans in the per diem-funded program. Monitoring will include at least an annual review of each per diem program's progress toward meeting internal goals and objectives in helping veterans attain housing stability, adequate income support, and self sufficiency as identified in each per diem program's original application. Monitoring will also include a review of the agency's income and expenses as they relate to this project to ensure per diem payment is accurate. Each per diem-funded program will participate in VA's national program monitoring and evaluation system administered by VA's Northeast Program Evaluation Center (NEPEC). It is the intention of VA to develop specific performance targets with respect to housing for homeless veterans. NEPEC's monitoring procedures will be used to determine successful accomplishment of these housing outcomes for each per diem-funded program. *Authority:* VA's Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program is authorized by Public Law 107-95, § 5(a)(1) the Homeless Veterans Comprehensive Assistance Act of 2001 codified at 38 U.S.C. 2011, 2012, 2061, 2064 and has been extended through Fiscal Year 2005. The program is implemented by the final rule codified at 38 CFR part 61.0. The final rule was published in the **Federal Register** on September 26, 2003, the regulations can be found in their entirety in 38 CFR, sec. 61.0 through 61.82. Funds made available under this notice are subject to the requirements of those regulations. *Allocation:* Approximately $38 million annually is available for the per diem only award component of this program. This funding is expected to be available from 1/31/06 subject to the availability of funds and reauthorization of the program past September 30, 2005. *Funding Priorities:* None. Methodology: VA will review all previously awarded operational Per Diem Only grant recipients applications that request reapplication in response to this notice of funding availability. Applicants will then be ranked based on score and any ranking criteria set forth only if the applicant scores at least 500 cumulative points from paragraphs

(e)and

(i)of 38 CFR 61.13. The highest-ranked application for which funding is available, will be conditionally selected for eligibility to receive per diem payment in accordance with its ranked order until VA reaches the projected funding allowance for this NOFA. *Reapplication Requirements:* The specific grant re-application requirements are: An original request for reapplication letter on agency letterhead for assistance under the VA's Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program requesting that the previous Per Diem Only project number be considered for reapplication. Applicants that do not know or are not sure of their project number should contact the Grant and Per Diem Field Office (toll-free) at 1-877-332-0334 to obtain their existing project number. *A new application package is not needed for this NOFA* . Applicants submitting a letter requesting reapplication on agency letterhead agree to VA using their previously awarded Per Diem Only application for scoring purposes. Selections will be made based on criteria described in the original application, final rule, and NOFA. Applicants who are selected will be notified of any additional information needed to confirm or clarify information provided in the reapplication. Applicants will then be notified of the deadline to submit such information. If an applicant is unable to meet any conditions for grant award within the specified time frame, VA reserves the right to not award funds and to use the funds available for other grant and per diem applicants. Dated: May 31, 2005. R. James Nicholson, Secretary of Veterans Affairs. [FR Doc. 05-11182 Filed 6-3-05; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 10

Traces to 10 documents

U.S. Code