Notices. Notice of license renewal application, and opportunity to request a hearing

55,359 words·~252 min read·/register/2005/12/29/05-24632

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

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Application for a License To Export High-Enriched Uranium Pursuant to 10 CFR 110.70(b)(2) “Public notice of receipt of an application,” please take notice that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received the following request for an export license. Copies of the request can be accessed through the Public Electronic Reading Room

(PERR)link *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* at the NRC Homepage. A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene may be filed within 30 days after publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . Any request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene shall be served by the requestor or petitioner upon the applicant, the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555; the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; and the Executive Secretary, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20520. In its review of the application for a license to export special nuclear material as defined in 10 CFR Part 110 and noticed herein, the Commission does not evaluate the health, safety or environmental effects in the recipient nation of the material to be exported. The information concerning the application follows. NRC Export License Application For High-Enriched Uranium Name of applicant date of application date received application number docket number Material type End use Country of destination DOE/NNSA—Y12 November 30, 2005 High-Enriched Uranium The material is to be exported to Chalk River Laboratories in Canada, and used to fabricate targets needed to produce medical isotopes Canada December 6, 2005, XSNM03427 11005591 For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Dated this 19th day of December 2005 at Rockville, Maryland. Margaret M. Doane, Deputy Director, Office of International Programs. [FR Doc. E5-8060 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50-266 AND 50-301] Nuclear Management Company, LLC Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Issuance of Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27 for an Additional 20-Year Period Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has issued Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27 to Nuclear Management Company, LLC (licensee), the operator of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP), Units 1 and 2. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-24 authorizes operation of PBNP, Unit 1, by the licensee at reactor core power levels not in excess of 1540 megawatts thermal (516 megawatts electric), in accordance with the provisions of the PBNP renewed license and its technical specifications. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-27 authorizes operation of PBNP, Unit 2, by the licensee at reactor core power levels not in excess of 1540 megawatts thermal (516 megawatts electric), in accordance with the provisions of the PBNP renewed license and its Technical Specifications. PBNP Units 1 and 2 are pressurized water reactors located in Two Rivers, Wisconsin. The licensee's application for the renewed licenses complied with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations. As required by the Act and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Chapter 1, the Commission has made appropriate findings, which are set forth in each license. Prior public notice of the action involving the proposed issuance of the renewed licenses and of an opportunity for a hearing regarding the proposed issuance of the renewed licenses was published in the **Federal Register** on April 13, 2004 (69 FR 19559). For further details with respect to this action, see

(1)Nuclear Management Company, LLC's license renewal application for Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, dated February 25, 2004, as supplemented by letters dated through August 23, 2005;

(2)the Commission's safety evaluation report (NUREG-1839), published in December 2005; and

(3)the Commission's final environmental impact statement (NUREG-1437, Supplement 23), published in August 2005. These documents are available at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, and can be viewed from the NRC Public Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* Copies of Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27 may be obtained by writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Director, Division of License Renewal. Copies of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 safety evaluation report (NUREG-1839) and the final environmental impact statement (NUREG-1437, Supplement 23) may be purchased from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, Virginia 22161 ( *http://www.ntis.gov* ), 703-605-6000, or Attention: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 371954 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15250-7954 ( *http://www.gpoaccess.gov* ), 202-512-1800. All orders should clearly identify the NRC publication number and the requestors Government Printing Office deposit account number or a VISA or MasterCard number and expiration date. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of December 2005. For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Pao-Tsin Kuo, Deputy Director, Division of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-8061 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 70-1151] Notice of License Renewal Request of Westinghouse Electric Company, Columbia, SC, and Opportunity To Request a Hearing AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of license renewal application, and opportunity to request a hearing. DATES: A request for a hearing must be filed by February 27, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Adams, Senior Project Manager, Fuel Cycle Facilities Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone:

(301)415-7249; fax number:

(301)415-5955; e-mail: *mta@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)has received, by letter dated September 29, 2005, a license renewal application from Westinghouse Electric Company (WEC), requesting renewal of License No. SNM-1107 at its Columbia Fuel Fabrication Facility site located in Columbia, South Carolina. License No. SNM-1107 authorizes the licensee to possess and use special nuclear material for the manufacture of fuel for nuclear power plants. The Columbia Fuel Fabrication Facility has been licensed by the Atomic Energy Commission and its successor, the NRC, to manufacture low-enriched uranium fuel for nuclear power plants. The license was renewed in 1995 for a period of 10 years, expiring on November 30, 2005. By applications dated September 29 and October 5, 2005, WEC requested renewal of their license for a period of 20 years. The NRC will review the license renewal application for compliance with applicable sections of regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)—Energy, Chapter I—Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The license renewal application included an Environmental Report (Enclosure 4 to the license renewal application), which the NRC will review and use to prepare an environmental assessment to assist in the NRC's determination on the license renewal application, as required by 10 CFR part 51, Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions, and the National Environmental Policy Act. An NRC administrative review, documented in a letter to WEC dated November 2, 2005 (ML052980594), found the application acceptable to begin a technical review. Because WEC filed the application for renewal not less than 30 days before the expiration of the date stated in the existing license, the existing license will not expire until the Commission makes a final determination on the renewal application, in accordance with the timely renewal provision of 10 CFR 70.38(a)(1). If the NRC approves the renewal application, the approval will be documented in NRC License No. SNM-1107. However, before approving the proposed renewal, the NRC will need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and NRC's regulations. These findings will be documented in a Safety Evaluation Report and an Environmental Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement. II. Opportunity To Request a Hearing The NRC hereby provides notice that this is a proceeding on an application for a license renewal. In accordance with the general requirements in Subpart C of 10 CFR Part 2, as amended on January 14, 2004 (69 FR 2182), any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who desires to participate as a party must file a written request for a hearing and a specification of the contentions which the person seeks to have litigated in the hearing. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.302 (a), a request for a hearing must be filed with the Commission either by: 1. First class mail addressed to: Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff; 2. Courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Federal workdays; 3. E-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, *hearingdocket@nrc.gov;* or 4. By facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, at

(301)415-1101; verification number is

(301)415-1966. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(b), all documents offered for filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all parties to the proceeding or their attorneys of record as required by law or by rule or order of the Commission, including: 1. The applicant, Westinghouse Electric Company, P.O. Drawer R, Columbia, South Carolina, 29250, Attention: Nancy Parr; and 2. The NRC staff, by delivery to the Office of the General Counsel, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, or by mail addressed to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Hearing requests should also be transmitted to the Office of the General Counsel, either by means of facsimile transmission to

(301)415-3725, or via e-mail to *ogcmailcenter@nrc.gov.* The formal requirements for documents contained in 10 CFR 2.304(b), (c), (d), and (e), must be met. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.304 (f), a document filed by electronic mail or facsimile transmission need not comply with the formal requirements of 10 CFR 2.304(b), (c), and (d), as long as an original and two

(2)copies otherwise complying with all of the requirements of 10 CFR 2.304(b), (c), and

(d)are mailed within two

(2)days thereafter to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(b), a request for a hearing must be filed by February 27, 2006. In addition to meeting other applicable requirements of 10 CFR 2.309, the general requirements involving a request for a hearing filed by a person other than an applicant must state: 1. The name, address, and telephone number of the requester; 2. The nature of the requester's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; 3. The nature and extent of the requester's property, financial or other interest in the proceeding; 4. The possible effect of any decision or order that may be issued in the proceeding on the requester's interest; and 5. The circumstances establishing that the request for a hearing is timely in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(b). In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(1), a request for hearing or petitions for leave to intervene must set forth with particularity the contentions sought to be raised. For each contention, the request or petition must: 1. Provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted; 2. Provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention; 3. Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is within the scope of the proceeding; 4. Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is material to the findings that the NRC must make to support the action that is involved in the proceeding; 5. Provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions which support the requester's/petitioner's position on the issue and on which the requester/petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue; and 6. Provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. This information must include references to specific portions of the application (including the applicant's environmental report and safety report) that the requester/petitioner disputes and the supporting reasons for each dispute, or, if the requester/petitioner believes the application fails to contain information on a relevant matter as required by law, the identification of each failure and the supporting reasons for the requester's/petitioner's belief. In addition, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(2), contentions must be based on documents or other information available at the time the petition is to be filed, such as the application, supporting safety analysis report, environmental report or other supporting documents filed by an applicant or licensee, or otherwise available to the petitioner. On issues arising under the National Environmental Policy Act, the requester/petitioner shall file contentions based on the applicant's environmental report. The requester/petitioner may amend those contentions or file new contentions if there are data or conclusions in the NRC draft, or final environmental impact statement, environmental assessment, or any supplements relating thereto, that differ significantly from the data or conclusions in the applicant's documents. Otherwise, contentions may be amended or new contentions filed after the initial filing only with leave of the presiding officer. Each contention shall be given a separate numeric or alpha designation within one of the following groups: 1. Technical—primarily concerns issues relating to matters discussed or referenced in the Safety Evaluation Report for the proposed action. 2. Environmental—primarily concerns issues relating to matters discussed or referenced in the Environmental Report for the proposed action. 3. Emergency Planning—primarily concerns issues relating to matters discussed or referenced in the Emergency Plan as it relates to the proposed action. 4. Physical Security—primarily concerns issues relating to matters discussed or referenced in the Physical Security Plan as it relates to the proposed action. 5. Miscellaneous—does not fall into one of the categories outlined above. If the requester/petitioner believes a contention raises issues that cannot be classified as primarily falling into one of these categories, the requester/petitioner must set forth the contention and supporting bases, in full, separately for each category into which the requester/petitioner asserts the contention belongs with a separate designation for that category. Requesters/petitioners should, when possible, consult with each other in preparing contentions and combine similar subject matter concerns into a joint contention, for which one of the co-sponsoring requesters/petitioners is designated the lead representative. Further, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(3), any requester/petitioner that wishes to adopt a contention proposed by another requester/petitioner must do so in writing within ten days of the date the contention is filed, and designate a representative who shall have the authority to act for the requester/petitioner. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(g), a request for hearing and/or petition for leave to intervene may also address the selection of the hearing procedures, taking into account the provisions of 10 CFR 2.310. III. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for 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: Document ADAMS Accession No. Date Transmittal letter ML052790078 09/29/2005 License renewal application public version ML052990073 09/29/2005 Renewal application references ML053250289 10/05/2005 NRC acceptance letter ML052980594 11/02/2005 Environmental Report ML052790081 12/2004 If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room

(PDR)Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O-1-F-21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of December, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Gary Janosko, Chief, Fuel Cycle Facilities Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety And Safeguards. [FR Doc. E5-8062 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Notice of Meeting The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste

(ACNW)will hold its 167th meeting on January 10-12, 2006, Room T-2B3, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The schedule for this meeting is as follows: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 *8:30 a.m.-8:45 a.m.: Opening Statement (Open)* —The ACNW Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of today's sessions. *8:45 a.m.-10:15 a.m.: Status of Risk-Informed Decisionmaking for Nuclear Materials and Waste Application (Open)* —The Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff regarding draft staff guidance on the application of risk insights in the waste and materials areas. *10:30 a.m.-11:30 a.m.: Fabrication of Pressurized Water Reactor

(PWR)Uncanistered Fuel Waste Package (Open)* —The Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff regarding fabrication of a pressurized water reactor uncanistered fuel waste package prototype for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. *1 p.m.-2 p.m.: Spent Fuel Transportation Package Response to the Baltimore Tunnel Fire Scenario (NUREG/CR-6886) (Open)* —The Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff regarding a study involving the 2001 Baltimore tunnel fire. The study involves the 3-dimensional modeling of the behavior of three different transportation cask types under thermal conditions similar to those that existed in the Baltimore tunnel fire event. The staff will also summarize comments received from the public on NUREG/CR-6886. *2 p.m.-3 p.m.: White Paper on Transportation (Open)* —The Committee will discuss a proposed white paper on transportation of nuclear waste. *3:15 p.m.-5:30 p.m.: Preparation of ACNW Reports/Letters (Open)* —The Committee will discuss proposed ACNW reports on matters considered during this and/or previous meetings. Wednesday, January 11, 2006 *9:30 a.m.-9:35 a.m.: Opening Statement (Open)* —The ACNW Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of today's sessions. *9:35 a.m.-10:30 a.m.: Source Characterization (Spatial Analysis and Decision Assistance Code) (Open)* —The Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff regarding the capabilities of Version 4.1 of the Spatial Analysis and Decision Assistance

(SADA)Bayesian subsurface analysis code. *10:30 a.m.-11:30 a.m.: Use of Dedicated Trains for Transportation of High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel (Open)* —The Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with a representative of the Federal Railroad Administration regarding their study on the use of dedicated trains for transportation of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel to the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. *1 p.m.-2 p.m.: Preparation for Commission Briefing (Open)* —The Committee will review the final presentations in preparation for the Commission briefing on January 11, 2006. *2 p.m.-4 p.m.: Meeting with the NRC Commissioners, Commissioners' Conference Room, One White Flint North, Rockville, MD (Open)* —The Committee will meet with the NRC Commissioners to discuss recent and planned activities. *4:15 p.m.-5:30 p.m.: Preparation of ACNW Reports/Letters (Open)* —The Committee will discuss proposed ACNW reports on matters considered during this and/or previous meetings. Thursday, January 12, 2006 *8:30 a.m.-8:35 a.m.: Opening Remarks by the ACNW Chairman (Open)* —The ACNW Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of today's sessions. *8:35 a.m.-11:45 a.m.: Discussion of ACNW Reports/Letters (Open)* —The Committee will discuss prepared draft letters and determine whether letters would be written on topics discussed during the meeting. *11:45 a.m.-12:45 p.m.: Miscellaneous (Open)* —The Committee will discuss matters related to the conduct of ACNW activities, and specific issues that were not completed during previous meetings, as time and availability of information permit. Discussions may include future Committee Meetings. Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACNW meetings were published in the **Federal Register** on October 11, 2005 (70 FR 59081). In accordance with these procedures, oral or written statements may be presented by members of the public. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Persons desiring to make oral statements should notify Mr. Michael P. Lee (Telephone 301-415-6887), between 8:15 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, as far in advance as practicable so that appropriate arrangements can be made to schedule the necessary time during the meeting for such statements. Use of still, motion picture, and television cameras during this meeting will be limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined by the ACNW Chairman. Information regarding the time to be set aside for taking pictures may be obtained by contacting the ACNW office prior to the meeting. In view of the possibility that the schedule for ACNW meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should notify Mr. Lee as to their particular needs. Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, the Chairman's ruling on requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and the time allotted, therefore can be obtained by contacting Mr. Lee. ACNW meeting agenda, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are available through the NRC Public Document Room

(PDR)at *pdr@nrc.gov* , or by calling the PDR at 1-800-397-4209, or from the Publicly Available Records System component of NRC's document system (ADAMS) which is accessible from the NRC Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* or *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/* (ACRS & ACNW Mtg schedules/agendas). Video Teleconferencing service is available for observing open sessions of ACNW meetings. Those wishing to use this service for observing ACNW meetings should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACNW Audiovisual Technician (301-415-8066), between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 p.m. ET, at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the availability of this service. Individuals or organizations requesting this service will be responsible for telephone line charges and for providing the equipment and facilities that they use to establish the video teleconferencing link. The availability of video teleconferencing services is not guaranteed. Dated: December 22, 2005. Andrew L. Bates, Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E5-8088 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee Meeting on Planning and Procedures; Notice of Meeting The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will hold a meeting on January 26-27, 2006, Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, Oakley Room , 5701 Marinelli Road, North Bethesda, Maryland. The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the exception of certain portions that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b ( c)

(2)and

(6)to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to internal personnel rules and practices of ACRS, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Thursday, January 26, 2006-8:30 a.m. Until the Conclusion of Business The Subcommittee will discuss ACRS business processes, anticipated workload, future technical expertise needed on the ACRS, strategy for handling anticipated heavy workload, proactive initiatives, knowledge management, ACRS subcommittee structure, and other activities related to the conduct of ACRS business. Friday, January 27, 2006-8:30 a.m. Until 1 p.m. The Subcommittee will discuss stakeholders' comments received during ACRS self-assessment survey, significant technical challenges in certain areas, including advanced reactor designs, early site permits, extended power uprates, and risk-informing 10 CFR part 50, and other activities related to the conduct of ACRS business. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee. Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Dr. John T. Larkins (telephone: 301-415-7360) between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.

(ET)five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes in the agenda. Dated: December 22, 2005. Michael L. Scott, Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW. [FR Doc. E5-8090 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION Submission of Information Collection for OMB Review; Comment Request; Survey of Nonparticipating Single Premium Group Annuity Rates AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. ACTION: Notice of request for extension of OMB approval. SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (“PBGC”) is requesting that the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) extend approval, under the Paperwork Reduction Act, of a collection of information (OMB control number 1212-0030; expires January 31, 2006). This voluntary collection of information is a quarterly survey of insurance company rates for pricing annuity contracts. The survey is conducted by the American Council of Life Insurers for the PBGC. This notice informs the public of the PBGC's request and solicits public comment on the collection of information. DATES: Comments should be submitted by January 30, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, Washington, DC 20503. Copies of the request for extension (including the collection of information) may be obtained without charge by writing to the PBGC's Office of the General Counsel, Disclosure Division, suite 11-102, 1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-4026, or by visiting that office or calling 202-326-4040 during normal business hours. (TTY and TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and request connection to 202-326-4040.) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas H. Gabriel, Attorney, Legislative & Regulatory Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-4026, 202-326-4024. (TTY and TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and request connection to 202-326-4024). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's regulations prescribe actuarial valuation methods and assumptions (including interest rate assumptions) to be used in determining the actuarial present value of benefits under single-employer plans that terminate (29 CFR Part 4044) and under multiemployer plans that undergo a mass withdrawal of contributing employers (29 CFR Part 4281). Each month the PBGC publishes the interest rates to be used under those regulations for plans terminating or undergoing mass withdrawal during the next month. The interest rates are intended to reflect current conditions in the investment and annuity markets. To determine these interest rates, the PBGC gathers pricing data from insurance companies that are providing annuity contracts to terminating pension plans through a quarterly “Survey of Nonparticipating Single Premium Group Annuity Rates.” The survey is distributed by the American Council of Life Insurers and provides the PBGC with “blind” data (i.e., is conducted in such a way that the PBGC is unable to match responses with the companies that submitted them). The information from the survey is also used by the PBGC in determining the interest rates it uses to value benefits payable to participants and beneficiaries in PBGC-trusteed plans for purposes of the PBGC's financial statements. The survey is directed at insurance companies that have volunteered to participate, most or all of which are members of the American Council of Life Insurers. The survey is conducted quarterly and will be sent to approximately 22 insurance companies. Based on experience under the current approval, the PBGC estimates that 11 insurance companies will complete and return the survey. The PBGC further estimates that the average annual burden of this collection of information is 41 hours and $110. The collection of information has been approved by OMB under control number 1212-0030 through January 31, 2006. The PBGC is requesting that OMB extend its approval for another three years. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Issued in Washington, DC, this 19th day of December, 2005. Rick Hartt, Chief Technology Officer, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. [FR Doc. E5-8006 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7708-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Proposed Collection; Comment Request Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549. *Extension:* Rule 22d-1, Sec File No. 270-275, OMB Control No. 3235-0310. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. 3501-3520], the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collections of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit these existing collections of information to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for extension and approval. Rule 22d-1 [17 CFR 270.22d-1] under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) provides registered investment companies that issue redeemable securities (“funds”) an exemption from section 22(d) of the Investment Company Act to the extent necessary to permit scheduled variations in or elimination of the sales load on fund securities for particular classes of investors or transactions, provided certain conditions are met. The rule imposes an annual burden per series of a fund of approximately 15 minutes, so that the total annual burden for the approximately 5,015 series of funds that might rely on the rule is estimated to be 1,254 hours. The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Written comments are requested on:

(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information has practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden[s] of the collection of information;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

(a)the name of the customer,

(b)the name, amount, and price of the security, and

(c)the date and time when such transaction took place. The Commission estimates that 500 respondents collect information annually under Rule 15c1-7 and that approximately 33,333 hours would be required annually for these collections. Written comments are invited on:

(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication. Direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Office of Information Technology, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F St. NE., Washington, DC 20549. Dated: December 20, 2005. Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-8058 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Proposed Collection; Comment Request Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549. *Extension:* Rule 2a-7, SEC File No. 270-258, OMB Control No. 3235-0268. Notice is hereby given that under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. 3501], the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) is soliciting public comments on the collections of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit these existing collections of information to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for extension and approval. Rule 2a-7 [17 CFR 270.2a-7] under the Investment Company Act of 1940 [15 U.S.C. 80a] (the “Act”) governs money market funds. Money market funds are open-end management investment companies that differ from other open-end management investment companies in that they seek to maintain a stable price per share, usually $1.00. The rule exempts money market funds from the valuation requirements of the Act, and, subject to certain risk-limiting conditions, permits money market funds to use the “amortized cost method” of asset valuation or the “penny-rounding method” of share pricing. Rule 2a-7 imposes certain recordkeeping and reporting obligations on money market funds. The board of directors of a money market fund, in supervising the fund's operations, must establish written procedures designed to stabilize the fund's net asset value (“NAV”). The board also must adopt guidelines and procedures relating to certain responsibilities it delegates to the fund's investment adviser. These procedures typically address various aspects of the fund's operations. The fund must maintain and preserve for six years a written copy of both these procedures and guidelines. The fund also must maintain and preserve for six years a written record of the board's considerations and actions taken in connection with the discharge of its responsibilities, to be included in the board's minutes. In addition, the fund must maintain and preserve for three years written records of certain credit risk analyses, evaluations with respect to securities subject to demand features or guarantees, and determinations with respect to adjustable rate securities and asset backed securities. If the board takes action with respect to defaulted securities, events of insolvency, or deviations in share price, the fund must file with the Commission an exhibit to Form N-SAR describing the nature and circumstances of the action. If any portfolio security fails to meet certain eligibility standards under the rule, the fund also must identify those securities in an exhibit to Form N-SAR. After certain events of default or insolvency relating to a portfolio security, the fund must notify the Commission of the event and the actions the fund intends to take in response to the situation. The recordkeeping requirements in rule 2a-7 are designed to enable Commission staff in its examinations of money market funds to determine compliance with the rule, as well as to ensure that money market funds have established procedures for collecting the information necessary to make adequate credit reviews of securities in their portfolios. The reporting requirements of rule 2a-7 are intended to assist Commission staff in overseeing money market funds. Commission staff estimates that each of 847 1 money market funds spends a total of approximately 1220 hours 2 of professional time (at $76 per hour) 3 to record credit risk analyses and determinations regarding adjustable rate securities, asset backed securities and securities subject to a demand feature or guarantee, for a total of approximately $79 million. The staff further estimates that each of 24 new money market funds spends a total of 21 hours of director, legal, and support staff time at a total cost of approximately $126,216 to adopt procedures designed to stabilize the fund's NAV and guidelines regarding the delegation of certain responsibilities to the fund's adviser. 4 The staff further estimates that on average each of 212 money market funds spends a total of 4.5 hours of director and legal time at a total cost of approximately $916,370 to review and amend written procedures and guidelines each year. 5 Finally, the staff estimates that one money market fund that experiences a change in certain eligibility standards for portfolio securities or an event of default or insolvency relating to portfolio securities spends a total of one and a half hours of professional legal time (at $109.97 per hour) documenting board determinations and notifying the Commission regarding the event, for a total of $165. Thus, the Commission estimates the total annual burden of the rule's information collection requirements are 1,034,800 hours at an annual cost of $80 million. 6 1 These include registered money market funds and series of registered funds. This estimate is based on information from Lipper Inc.'s Lana database as of September 30, 2005. 2 This average is based on discussions with individuals at money market funds and their advisers. The actual number of burden hours may vary significantly depending on the type and number of portfolio securities held by individual funds. 3 The estimated hourly cost of professional time was based on the weighted average annual salaries reported for senior business analysts, floor managers and portfolio managers in New York City in Securities Industry Association, *Management and Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry*

(2003)and Securities Industry Association, *Office Salaries in the Securities Industry*

(2003)(collectively, the “SIA Salary Guides”). 4 This estimate is based on information from iMoneyNet's database. During the past three years, an average of 24 new money market funds have been created annually. In calculating industry costs for complying with the information collection requirements of rule 2a-7, the Commission staff estimate that fund boards' hourly rate is $2000 per hour. The estimated costs for professional and support staff time were based on the average annual salaries reported in the SIA Salary Guides. The estimated costs for legal time was based on the weighted average of associate general counsel salaries reported in the SIA Salary Guides and New York law firm attorney salaries (outside counsel) based on a survey conducted by the National Law Journal available at *http://www.law.com/special/professionals/nlj/2002/firm_by_firm_ sampling_of_billing_rates_nationwide.shtml.* 5 For Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) purposes we assumed that on average 25% of money market funds would review and update their procedures on an annual basis. 6 A significant portion of the recordkeeping burden involves organizing information that the funds already collect when initially purchasing securities. In addition, when a money market fund analyzes a security, the analysis need not be presented in any particular format. Money market funds therefore have a choice of methods for maintaining these records that vary in technical sophistication and formality ( *e.g.* handwritten notes, computer disks, etc.). Accordingly, the cost of preparing these documents may vary significantly among individual funds. The burden hours associated with filing reports to the Commission as an exhibit to Form N-SAR are included in the PRA burden estimate for that form. Based on these estimates, Commission staff estimates the total burden of the rule's paperwork requirements for money market funds to be 1,034,800 hours. 7 This is an increase from the previous estimate of 480,830 hours. The increase is attributable to updated information from money market funds regarding hourly burdens and the significant differences in burden hours reported by the funds selected at random to be surveyed in different submission years. 7 This estimate is based on the following calculation: ((847 × 1220) + (1 × 1.5) + (24 × 21) + (212 × 4.5) = 1,034,800. These estimates of burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimates are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of Commission rules. In addition to the burden hours, Commission staff estimates that money market funds will incur costs to preserve records required under rule 2a-7. These costs will vary significantly for individual funds, depending on the amount of assets under fund management and whether the fund preserves its records in a storage facility in hard copy or has developed and maintains a computer system to create and preserve compliance records. 8 Commission staff estimates that the amount an individual fund may spend ranges from $100 per year to $300,000. Based on a cost of $0.0000204 per dollar of assets under management for small fund, $0.0000005 per dollar assets under management for medium funds, and $0.0000046 per dollar of assets under management for large funds, 9 the staff estimates compliance with rule 2a-7 costs the fund industry approximately $7.6 million per year. 10 Based on responses from individuals in the money market fund industry, the staff estimates that some of the largest fund complexes have created computer programs for maintaining and preserving compliance records for rule 2a-7. Based on a cost of $0.0000231 per dollar of assets under management for large funds, the staff estimates that total annualized capital/startup costs range from $0 for small funds to $37.5 million for all large funds. Commission staff further estimates that, even absent the requirements of rule 2a-7, money market funds would spend at least half of the amount for capital costs ($19 million) and for record preservation ($3.8 million) to establish and maintain these records and the systems for preserving them as a part of sound business practices to ensure diversification and minimal credit risk in a portfolio for a fund that seeks to maintain a stable price per share. 8 The amount of assets under management in individual money market funds ranges from approximately $400,000 to $109 billion. 9 For purpose of this PRA submission, Commission staff used the following categories for fund sizes:

(i)Small—money market funds with $50 million or less in assets under management,

(ii)medium—money market funds with more than $50 million up to and including $1 billion in assets under management; and

(iii)large—money market funds with more than $1 billion in assets under management. 10 The staff estimated the annual cost of preserving the required books and records by identifying the annual costs incurred by several funds and then relating this total cost to the average net assets of these funds during the year. With a total of $2.2 billion under management in small funds, $174.1 billion under management in medium funds and $1623.8 billion under management in large funds, the costs of preservation were estimated as follows: ((0.0000204 × $2.2 billion) + (0.0000005 × $174.1) + (0.0000046 × $1623.8 billion) = $7.6 million. See supra note 9 regarding sizes of large, medium, and small funds. The collections of information required by rule 2a-7 are necessary to obtain the benefits described above. Notices to the Commission will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Written comments are requested on:

(a)Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information has practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burdens of the collection of information;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collected; and

(202)551-6810, SEC, Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-0504. Amerindo Funds Inc. [File No. 811-7531] *Summary:* Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On October 24, 2005, applicant transferred its assets to Munder Internet Fund, a series of Munder Series Trust, based on net asset value. Expenses of $133,000 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by applicant and Munder Capital Management, applicant's investment adviser. *Filing Dates:* The application was filed on November 23, 2005, and amended on December 14, 2005. *Applicant's Address:* 599 Lexington Ave., New York, NY 10022. Scudder Floating Rate Fund [File No. 811-9269] *Summary:* Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On December 20, 2002, applicant made a liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value. Expenses of $146,339 incurred in connection with the liquidation were paid by Deutsche Investment Management Americas, Inc., applicant's investment adviser. *Filing Date:* The application was filed on November 29, 2005. *Applicant's Address:* 222 South Riverside Plaza, Chicago, IL 60606. Scudder International Research Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-8395] *Summary:* Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On May 17, 2002, applicant made a liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value. Expenses of $7,055 incurred in connection with the liquidation were pay by Deutsche Investment Management Americas, Inc., applicant's investment adviser. *Filing Date:* The application was filed on November 29, 2005. *Applicant's Address:* 222 South Riverside Plaza, Chicago, IL 60606. Star Lane Trust [File No. 811-9795] *Summary:* Applicant, a unit investment trust, seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On September 30, 2005, applicant made a liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value. Applicant incurred no expenses in connection with the liquidation. *Filing Date:* The application was filed on November 18, 2005. *Applicant's Address:* 11901 Olive Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63141. Strong High-Yield Municipal Bond Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-7930] *Summary:* Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On December 29, 2004, applicant's Investor Class shares were redeemed for cash based on net asset value. On December 31, 2004, applicant's SCM Class shares were redeemed in-kind based on net asset value. Strong Capital Management, Inc. (“SCM”), applicant's investment adviser, has agreed to distribute any gains arising from the subsequent sale of the securities it received in the in-kind redemption of all shares of the SCM Class to Investor Class shareholders as of the liquidation date. Expenses of approximately $926,962 incurred in connection with the liquidation were paid by Strong Financial Corporation, the parent of SCM. Certain contingent rights, claims and liabilities of applicant relating to shareholder class actions and derivative actions involving late trading and market timing allegations were transferred to a liquidating trust for the benefit of applicant's former shareholders. Upon resolution of these claims by the liquidating trust, the trustees will distribute any net proceeds to former shareholders in a manner consistent with applicable law and the fiduciary duties of the trustees. In addition, applicant's former shareholders may be entitled to certain amounts paid pursuant to regulatory settlements of market-timing and related investigations. An independent distribution consultant was retained by SCM to oversee the distribution of these amounts to shareholders. *Filing Dates:* The application was filed on April 21, 2005, and amended on October 24, 2005. *Applicant's Address:* 100 Heritage Reserve, Menomonee Falls, WI 53051. The Brazilian Equity Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-6555] *Summary:* Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On November 14, 2005, applicant made a final liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value. Applicant had paid $66,000 in expenses in connection with the liquidation. Applicant has retained $19,463 in cash to pay certain additional accrued expenses. *Filing Dates:* The application was filed on November 1, 2005, and amended on November 23, 2005. *Applicant's Address:* c/o Credit Suisse Asset Management, LLC, 466 Lexington Ave., 16th Floor, New York, NY 10017. BBH Common Settlement Fund II, Inc. [File No. 811-10421] *Summary:* Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. By March 28, 2005, all shareholders of applicant had voluntarily redeemed their shares, based on net asset value. Applicant incurred no expenses in connection with the liquidation. *Filing Dates:* The application was filed on August 19, 2005, and amended on November 23, 2005. *Applicant's Address:* 40 Water St., Boston, MA 02109. Pictet Funds [File No. 811-9050] *Summary:* Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On September 15, 2004, applicant transferred its assets to Forward Global Emerging Markets Fund, a series of Forward Funds, Inc., based on net asset value. Expenses of $66,348 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by Forward Management, LLC, investment adviser to the acquiring fund. *Filing Dates:* The application was filed on September 12, 2005, and amended on November 18, 2005. *Applicant's Address:* c/o PFPC, Inc., 760 Moore Rd., King of Prussia, PA 19406. Bankers Life Insurance Company of New York Separate Account 1 [File No. 811-8725] *Summary:* Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. Applicant requests deregistration based on abandonment of registration. At the time of filing, Applicant had no shareholders or contractholders. *Filing Date:* The application was filed on November 22, 2005. *Applicant's Address:* 65 Froehlich Farm Blvd., Woodbury, NY 11797. For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority. Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-8054 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [File No. 1-09700] Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application of The Charles Schwab Corporation To Withdraw Its Common Stock, $.01 Par Value, From Listing and Registration on the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. December 22, 2005. On December 16, 2005, The Charles Schwab Corporation, a Delaware corporation (“Issuer”), filed an application with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 12d2-2(d) thereunder, 2 to withdraw its common stock, $.01 par value (“Security”), from listing and registration on the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NYSE”). 1 15 U.S.C. 78 *l* (d). 2 17 CFR 240.12d2-2(d). On December 9, 2005, the Board of Directors (“Board”) of the Issuer unanimously approved a resolution to withdraw the Security from listing and registration on NYSE and to continue to list the Security on the Nasdaq National Market (“Nasdaq”). The Issuer stated that it has determined that Nasdaq's electronic trading platform is the preferred marketplace for investors trading the Security. The Issuer stated that it has complied with the requirements of NYSE's rules governing an issuer's voluntary withdrawal of a security from listing and registration by obtaining approval from the Board and by providing NYSE with a copy of the Board resolution prior to filing the application. The Issuer's application relates solely to the withdrawal of the Security from listing on NYSE and from registration under Section 12(b) of the Act, 3 and shall not affect its obligation to be registered under Section 12(g) of the Act. 4 3 15 U.S.C. 78 *l* (b). 4 15 U.S.C. 78 *l* (g). Any interested person may, on or before January 17, 2006, comment on the facts bearing upon whether the application has been made in accordance with the rules of NYSE, and what terms, if any, should be imposed by the Commission for the protection of investors. All comment letters may be submitted by either of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/delist.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include the File Number 1-09700 or; Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number 1-09700. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us 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/delist.shtml* ). Comments are also available for public inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. All comments received will be posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, will issue an order granting the application after the date mentioned above, unless the Commission determines to order a hearing on the matter. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 5 5 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(1). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-8049 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [File No. 1-07616] Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application of Pioneer Kabushiki Kaisha (English Translation, Pioneer Corporation) To Withdraw Its Common Stock (Each Represented by One American Depositary Share), From Listing and Registration on the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. December 22, 2005. On December 13, 2005, Pioneer Kabushiki Kaisha (English translation, Pioneer Corporation), a company incorporated under the laws of Japan (“Issuer”), filed an application with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 12d2-2(d) thereunder, 2 to withdraw its common stock (each represented by one American Depositary Share) (“Security”), from listing and registration on the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NYSE”). 1 15 U.S.C. 78 *l* (d). 2 17 CFR 240.12d2-2(d). On December 8, 2005, the Board of Directors (“Board”) of the Issuer approved a resolution to withdraw the Security from listing and registration on the NYSE. The Issuer stated that the Board decided to withdraw the Security from listing on NYSE as part of a global restructuring of the Issuer's operations which includes, among other initiatives, maintaining the listing of the Security solely on the Tokyo Stock Exchange. The Issuer stated that the Security will continue to list on the Tokyo Stock Exchange, its principal trading market. The Issuer stated in its application that it has complied with the NYSE's rules governing an issuer's voluntary withdrawal of a security from listing and registration by complying with all applicable laws in effect in Japan, and by providing the NYSE with the required documents governing the removal of securities from listing and registration on the NYSE. The Issuer's application relates solely to the withdrawal of the Security from listing on NYSE and from registration under Section 12(b) of the Act, 3 and shall not affect its obligation to be registered under Section 12(g) of the Act. 4 3 15 U.S.C. 78 *l* (b). 4 15 U.S.C. 78 *l* (g). Any interested person may, on or before January 17, 2006, comment on the facts bearing upon whether the application has been made in accordance with the rules of NYSE, and what terms, if any, should be imposed by the Commission for the protection of investors. All comment letters may be submitted by either of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/delist.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include the File Number 1-07616 or; 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 1-07616. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us 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/delist.shtml* ). Comments are also available for public inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. All comments received will be posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, will issue an order granting the application after the date mentioned above, unless the Commission determines to order a hearing on the matter. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 5 5 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(1). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-8057 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [File No. 1-15196] Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application of Provident Energy Trust To Withdraw Its Trust Units, No Par Value, From Listing and Registration on the American Stock Exchange LLC December 22, 2005. On December 8, 2005, Provident Energy Trust, an Alberta Trust, (“Issuer”), filed an application with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 12d2-2(d) thereunder, 2 to withdraw its trust units, no par value (“Security”), from listing and registration on the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”). 1 15 U.S.C. 78 *l* (d). 2 17 CFR 240.12d2-2(d). On October 11, 2005, the Board of Directors (“Board”) of the Issuer unanimously approved a resolution to withdraw the Security from listing on Amex and list the Security on the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NYSE”). The Issuer stated that the Board believes moving to NYSE will provide greater access to capital markets, improve the visibility and liquidity of the Security, and provide a platform for anticipated future growth. The Issuer stated in its application that it has met the requirements of Amex Rule 18 by complying with all applicable laws in effect in the Province of Alberta, Canada, in which it is organized, and by providing written notice of withdrawal to Amex. The Issuer's application relates solely to the withdrawal of the Security from listing on Amex, and shall not affect its continued listing on NYSE or its obligation to be registered under Section 12(b) of the Act. 3 3 15 U.S.C. 78 *1* (b). Any interested person may, on or before January 17, 2006, comment on the facts bearing upon whether the application has been made in accordance with the rules of Amex, and what terms, if any, should be imposed by the Commission for the protection of investors. All comment letters may be submitted by either of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/delist.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include the File Number 1-15196 or; Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number 1-15196. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us 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/delist.shtml* ). Comments are also available for public inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. All comments received will be posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, will issue an order granting the application after the date mentioned above, unless the Commission determines to order a hearing on the matter. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 4 4 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(1). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-8051 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52994; File No. SR-Amex-2005-122] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change and Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto Relating to Exchange Traded Fund Transaction Charges December 21, 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 November 29, 2005, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” 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 December 14, 2005, the Amex submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. On December 21, 2005, the Amex submitted Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change. The Amex has designated this proposal, as amended, as one changing a fee imposed by the Amex under section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Amex proposes to revise a variety of transaction fees that Exchange members are charged for executions on the Exchange in connection with transactions in exchange traded fund shares (“ETFs”) and trust issued receipts (“TIRs”) (collectively, “Exchange Traded Funds”). The text of the proposed rule change, as amended, is available on the Amex's Web site ( *http://www.amex.com* ), at the Amex'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 Amex included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change, as amended, 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 Amex 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 Amex proposes to revise its Equity Fee Schedule and its Exchange Traded Funds and Trust Issued Receipts Fee Schedule (the “ETF/TIR Fee Schedule”) to revise the transaction fees applicable to Exchange members in connection with Exchange Traded Funds. The Amex states that these fee changes will be assessed on Exchange members commencing December 1, 2005. For the purpose of clarity, the Exchange proposes to eliminate in the Equity Fee Schedule references to Exchange Traded Funds, as applicable. Those sections of the Equity Fee Schedule that relate solely to Exchange Traded Funds will be deleted and, if necessary, added to the ETF/TIR Fee Schedule. In this manner, equities and Exchange Traded Funds will now have separate and distinct fee schedules. The Exchange proposes the following changes to the ETF/TIR Fee Schedule:

(i)adoption of transaction charges for all market participants of $0.34 per 100 shares per trade for all Exchange Traded Funds (except the SPDR O-Strip);

(ii)adoption of transaction charges for all market participants of $0.50 per 100 shares per trade in connection with the SPDR O-Strip;

(iii)elimination of customer transaction charge fee waivers for the ETFs listed in Note 2 to the Equity Fee Schedule and Note 3 of the ETF/TIR Fee Schedule;

(iv)elimination of the fee suspensions for specialists, registered traders and broker-dealers in connection with iShares Lehman 1-3 Year Treasury Bond Fund (“SHY”), iShares Lehman 7-10 Year Treasury Bond Fund (“IEF”), iShares Lehman 20+ Year Treasury Bond Fund (“TLT”) and iShares Goldman Sachs InvestTop Corporate Bond Fund (“LQD”);

(v)elimination of the transaction fee waivers in connection with ETFs that are executed as part of an exchange-for-physical transaction (“EFP”);

(vi)addition of the “Order Cancellation Fee” previously set forth only in the Equity Fee Schedule;

(vii)reduction of the current exemption for transaction charges for electronic orders from up to 5,099 shares to up to 2,400 shares; and

(viii)renaming of the “Regulatory Fee” as the “Value Based Fee.” The Amex currently charges members transaction fees on a per trade basis for Exchange Traded Funds transactions executed on the Exchange. The current transaction charges are shown in the table below. Specialists Registered traders Customer/broker-dealer (off-floor) I. Transaction Charges for ETFs Without Unreimbursed Fees to a Third Party Per Share Side $0.0033 ($0.33 per 100 shares) $0.0036 ($.36 per 100 shares) $0.0060 ($.60 per 100 shares) Subject to the following per trade maximums $300 (90,909 shares) $300 (83,333 shares) $100 (16,667 shares). II. Transaction Charges for ETFs for which the Exchange Pays Unreimbursed Fees to a Third Party Per Share Side $0.0037 ($0.37 per 100 shares) $0.0038 ($0.50 per 100 shares) $0.0060 ($.60 per 100 shares) Subject to the following per trade maximums $300 (81,081 shares) $300 (78,947 shares) $100 (16,667 shares). III. Transaction Charges for SPDR O-Strip Per Share Side $0.0050 ($0.50 per 100 shares $0.0050 ($0.50 per 100 shares) $0.0060 Subject to the following per trade maximums $300 (60,000 shares) $300 (60,000 shares) $100 (16,667 shares). IV. Transaction Charges for iShares FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index Fund Per Share Side $0.0039 ($0.39 per 100 shares) $0.0042 ($0.42 per 100 shares) $0.0060 Subject to the following per trade maximums $300 (76,923 shares) $300 (71,428 shares) $100 (16,667 shares). The proposed revision to the per trade transaction charge in connection with Exchange Traded Funds executed on the Exchange are set forth below. I. Transaction Charges for ETFs/TIRs (except the SPDR O-Strip) Per Share Side $0.0034 ($0.34 per 100 shares) $0.0034 ($.34 per 100 shares) $0.0034 ($.34 per 100 shares) Subject to the following per trade maximums $300 (88,235 shares) $300 (88,235 shares) $100 (29,411 shares). II. Transaction Charges for SPDR O-Strip Per Share Side $0.0050 ($0.50 per 100 shares) $0.0050 ($.50 per 100 shares) $0.0050 ($.50 per 100 shares) Subject to the following per trade maximums $300 (60,000 shares) $300 (60,000 shares) $100 (20,000 shares). The Exchange is proposing to clarify and simplify transaction charges applicable to Exchange Traded Funds that affect members and market participants. In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposal will attract additional order flow as a result of the reduction in the per share rate charge, especially in connection with customer and broker-dealer orders. Currently, the per share rate charge for customers and broker-dealer orders is $0.0060, or $0.60 per 100 shares. The proposal will significantly reduce this charge by $0.0026 per share to $0.0034 per share, or $0.34 per 100 shares. The Exchange believes that order flow providers will find this transaction fee reduction attractive. The Exchange is proposing to adopt a uniform Exchange Traded Fund transaction fee that is attractive to market participants and easier to calculate and administer. As stated above, the proposed transaction fee applicable to Exchange Traded Funds (except the SPDR O-Strip) will be $0.0034 per share, or $0.34 per 100 shares, subject to the existing fee cap per trade. The current transaction charge per trade is capped at $300 for specialists and registered traders and $100 for broker-dealers and customers. In connection with the SPDR O-Strip, the Exchange states that it proposes to levy a higher transaction charge due to a more expensive license agreement than is typically found in other ETFs. Specifically, the proposed transaction fee applicable to the SPDR O-Strip will be $0.0050 per share, or $0.50 per 100 shares, subject to the existing fee cap per trade. The current transaction charge per trade is capped at $300 for specialists and registered traders and $100 for broker-dealers and customers. In addition, specialist transaction charges will continue to be capped at $400,000 per month per specialist unit. For clarity and ease of administration, the Exchange believes that the elimination of various transaction fee waivers is warranted. As a result, customer transaction charge fee waivers for the ETFs listed in Note 2 of the Equity Fee Schedule and Note 3 of the ETF/TIR Fee Schedule; fee suspensions for specialists, registered traders, and broker-dealers in connection with SHY, IEF, TLT, and LQD; and transaction fee waivers in connection with ETFs that are executed as part of an EFP will be terminated in connection with this proposal. The existing specialist fee waiver in connection with QQQQ trades will continue to apply and will expire as expected on December 31, 2005. 5 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52736 (November 4, 2005), 70 FR 69171 (November 14, 2005). The “Order Cancellation Fee” applicable to Exchange Traded Funds is currently set forth in the Equity Fee Schedule. 6 In order to provide a “stand alone” fee schedule for Exchange Traded Funds, the “Order Cancellation Fee” section in the Equity Fee Schedule will also be set forth in the ETF/TIR Fee Schedule. 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52533 (September 29, 2005), 70 FR 58496 (October 6, 2005) (SR-Amex-2005-085). The Exchange further proposes that orders entered electronically into the Amex Order File from off the Floor (“System Orders”) for up to 2,400 shares in Exchange Traded Funds will not be assessed a transaction charge. The current ETF/TIR Fee Schedule provides that up to 5,099 shares in Exchange Traded Funds are not assessed a transaction charge. As is the case in the existing Fee Schedule, this provision does not apply to System Orders of a member or member organization trading as an agent for the account of a non-member competing market maker. 7 Therefore, this limited fee exemption is not available to non-member competing market makers. 8 The Amex states that this limited fee exemption was originally intended to attract “smaller orders” to the Exchange. However, as the size of orders that are deemed “small” continues to decrease, the Exchange believes that the proposed modification to the transaction fee exemption will reflect this reality. In addition, the Exchange submits that reducing the fee exemption for System Orders from 5,099 shares to 2,400 shares should help generate additional revenue to fund Exchange operations. 7 The Amex states that a “competing market maker” is defined as a specialist or market maker registered as such on a registered stock exchange (other than the Amex), or a market maker bidding and offering over-the-counter, in an Amex-traded security. 8 The Exchange states that it intends to revise its rules to conform to Rule 610 of Regulation NMS prior to the compliance date of such rule. The Exchange has also proposed to change the name of the “Regulatory Fee” to “Value Based Fee.” 9 As with the current “Regulatory Fee,” the Amex states that the “Value Based Fee” will only be applied to System Orders entered by a member or member organization trading as agent for the account of a non-member competing market maker. 10 The rate of the fee (.000075) also will not change. The Exchange submits that changing the name of the “Regulatory Fee” to “Value Based Fee” better reflects the intent and type of this fee. The System Orders of all other market participants will continue to not be subject to this Value Based Fee. The Exchange states that the proposed language set forth under the “Value Based Fee” Section is identical in operation and meaning to the existing text of the “Regulatory Fee.” Accordingly, the Exchange states that the operation of the “Value Based Fee” will be applied identically to the current “Regulatory Fee” in the ETF/TIR Fee Schedule. 9 The Exchange submits that its regulatory obligations are funded by numerous sources. 10 The Exchange states that it intends to revise its rules to conform to Rule 610 of Regulation NMS prior to the compliance date of such rule. The Exchange believes that the proposed revision to Exchange Traded Funds transaction fees will benefit the Exchange by providing greater incentive for market participants to send order flow to the Amex. In addition, the revision also clarifies the transaction fees that market participants will be charged for transactions in Exchange Traded Funds due to the elimination of various fee waivers that are currently part of the ETF/TIR Fee Schedule. The Exchange submits that this proposal to revise Exchange Traded Funds transaction fees applicable to Exchange members is consistent with section 6(b)(4) of the Act. 11 The Exchange believes that the proposal provides for an equitable allocation of reasonable fees among Exchange members largely through the adoption of a uniform transaction fee for Exchange Traded Funds and the elimination of various fee waivers. In addition, the Exchange expects the proposal to attract additional order flow largely due to the simplification and reduction of per share fee rates, especially in connection with customer and broker-dealer orders. Therefore, the Exchange maintains that the proposed Exchange Traded Funds transaction fee changes, in the aggregate, are an equitable allocation of reasonable fees among Exchange members. 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act, 12 in general, and furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(4) of the Act, 13 in particular, in that it is intended to assure the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. 12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 13 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, as amended, will impose any inappropriate burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others No written comments were either solicited or received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing proposed rule change, as amended, has been designated as a fee change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 14 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) 15 thereunder, because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange. Accordingly, the proposal, as amended, will take effect upon filing with the Commission. At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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. 16 14 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 15 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). 16 The effective date of the original proposed rule change is November 29, 2005, the effective date of Amendment No. 1 is December 14, 2005, and the effective date of Amendment No. 2 is December 21, 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 December 21, 2005, the date on which the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 2. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). 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-Amex-2005-122 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2005-122. 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, as amended, 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 Amex. 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-Amex-2005-122 and should be submitted on or before January 19, 2006. 17 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 17 Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-8059 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53015; File No. SR-BSE-2005-52] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to the Directed Orders Process on the Boston Options Exchange December 22, 2005. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on November 25, 2005, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (“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 BSE. On December 20, 2005, BSE 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 amends the rule text to include additional language in Chapter V, Section 14(e) of the BOX Rules clarifying that the identities of Options Participants that send Directed Orders to the Trading Host are not anonymous. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend the rules of the Boston Options Exchange (“BOX”) to clarify the information contained in a “Directed Order” on BOX. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the BOX's Web site ( *http://www.bostonoptions.com* ), at the principal office of BOX, 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 BSE seeks to clarify the information contained in a “Directed Order” on BOX. Market Makers are able to handle orders on an agency basis directed to them by Order Flow Providers (“OFPs”). In Chapter I, Section 1 of the BOX Rules, a Directed Order is defined as a Customer order directed to a Market Maker by an OFP. An OFP sends a Directed Order to BOX with a designation of the Market Maker to whom the order is to be directed. BOX then routes the Directed Order to the appropriate Market Maker. Under Chapter VI, Section 5(c)(ii) of the BOX Rules, a Market Maker only has two choices when he receives a Directed Order:

(1)Submit the order to the PIP process; or

(2)send the order back to BOX for placement onto the BOX Book. The BSE proposes to amend Chapter V, Section 14(e) and Chapter VI, Section 5(c)(i) of the BOX Rules to clarify that unlike all other orders submitted to the BOX Trading Host, Directed Orders are not anonymous. 4 The Options Participant identification number (“Participant ID”) of the OFP sending the Directed Order will be revealed to the Market Maker recipient. The Market Maker must submit this Participant ID to BOX whenever the Market Maker chooses to submit the Directed Order and his Primary Improvement Order to the PIP process. However, once the Directed Order is submitted to the PIP process or the BOX Book, the Participant ID is not shown to any market participant and the identity of the OFP will be anonymous pursuant to Chapter V, Section 14(e) of the BOX Rules. 4 Telephone conversation between Jan Woo, Attorney, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, and William C. Meehan, Head of Regulation & Compliance, BOX, on December 22, 2005. Chapter VI, Section 5(c)(i) of the BOX Rules prohibits a Market Maker from rejecting a Directed Order. The BSE wishes to clarify that upon systematically indicating its desire to accept Directed Orders, a Market Maker that receives a Directed Order is not permitted, under any circumstances, to reject the receipt of the Directed Order from the BOX Trading Host nor reject the Directed Order back to the OFP who sent it. A Market Maker who desires to accept Directed Orders must systemically indicate that it is an Executing Participant (“EP”) whenever the Market Maker wishes to receive Directed Orders from the BOX Trading Host. If a Market Maker does not systemically indicate that it is an EP, then the BOX Trading Host will not forward any Directed Orders to that Market Maker. In such a case, the BOX Trading Host will send the order directly to the BOX Book. Other Clarifying Rule Change Relating to Directed Orders Currently, Chapter V, Section 14(e) of the BOX Rules states that the identity of Options Participants who submit orders to the Trading Host will remain anonymous to market participants at all times, except during error resolution or through the normal clearing process as set forth in Chapter V, Section 16(a)(vi) of the BOX Rules. The BSE proposes to amend Chapter V, Section 14(e) of the BOX Rules and add new Supplementary Material .01 to Chapter V, Section 14(e) to clarify that the Participant ID of an OFP who submits orders to the Trading Host for use in the Directed Order process will be revealed to the Market Maker who receives such Directed Orders as set forth in Chapter VI, Section 5(c) of the BOX Rules. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, is designed to clarify the information contained in a Directed Order. This clarification will allow Options Participants to make better informed decisions in determining when and how to use the Directed Order process. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, 5 in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 6 in particular, in that it is designed to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transaction in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 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 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 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 Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period

(i)as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or

(ii)as to which BSE consents, the Commission shall:

(a)by order approve such proposed rule change, or

(b)institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. 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 No. SR-BSE-2005-52 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BSE-2005-52. 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 BOX. 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-2005-52 and should be submitted on or before January 19, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 7 7 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-8043 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53016; File No. SR-CBOE-2005-107] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to its Marketing Fee Program December 22, 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 December 9, 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 Exchange. 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 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The CBOE proposes to amend its Fees Schedule and its marketing fee program. The Exchange states that these changes to the marketing fee program would be effective December 12, 2005, and would continue until June 2, 2006. Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language is in *italics* ; proposed deletions are in [brackets]. Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc.—Fees Schedule [December 1] *December 9* , 2005 1. No Change. 2. MARKETING FEE (6)(16): $[.22] *.65* 3.-4. No Change. FOOTNOTES: (1)-(5) No Change.

(6)*Commencing on December 12, 2005* , [T] *t* he Marketing Fee will be assessed only on transactions of Market-Makers, RMMs, e-DPMs, DPMs, and LMMs *resulting from orders for less than 1,000 contracts

(i)from payment accepting firms, or

(ii)that have designated a “Preferred Market-Maker” under CBOE Rule 8.13* at the rate of [$.22] *$.65* per contract on all classes of equity options, options on HOLDRs, options on SPDRs, and options on DIA. The fee will not apply to Market-Maker-to-Market-Maker transactions *or transactions resulting from P/A orders.* This fee shall not apply to index options and options on ETFs (other than options on SPDRs and options on DIA). If less than 80% of the marketing fee funds are paid out by the DPM/ *LMM* or [LMM] *Preferred Market-Maker* in a given month, then the Exchange would refund such surplus at the end of the month on a pro rata basis based upon contributions made by the Market-Makers, RMMs, e-DPMs, DPMs and LMMs. However, if 80% or more of the accumulated funds in a given month are paid out by the DPM/ *LMM* or [LMM] *Preferred Market-Maker* , there will not be a rebate for that month and the funds will carry over and will be included in the pool of funds to be used by the DPM/ *LMM* or [LMM] *Preferred Market-Maker* the following month. At the end of each quarter, the Exchange would then refund any surplus, if any, on a pro rata basis based upon contributions made by the Market-Makers, RMMs, DPMs, e-DPMs and LMMs. CBOE's marketing fee program as described above will be in effect until June 2, 2006. Remainder of Fees Schedule—No change. 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 On November 2, 2005, the CBOE amended its marketing fee program in a number of respects in light of the recent adoption of its Preferred Market-Maker program. 5 In particular, the CBOE amended its marketing fee program to provide that a Market-Maker will have access to the marketing fee funds generated by orders sent to the Exchange designating that Market-Maker as a “Preferred Market-Maker.” The CBOE now proposes to amend its marketing fee program, which changes would be effective December 12, 2005, and would continue until June 2, 2006 (which is the same date that the CBOE's Preferred Market-Maker program is scheduled to expire, unless extended). 6 5 The Exchange states that, under its Preferred Market-Maker program, order providers can send an order to the Exchange designating any CBOE Market-Maker (including any DPM, e-DPM, LMM, RMM, and Market-Maker) as a Preferred Market-Maker. If the Preferred Market-Maker is quoting at the NBBO at the time the order is received on CBOE, the Preferred Market-Maker is entitled to a participation entitlement of 50% when there is one Market-Maker also quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange and 40% when there are two or more Market-Makers quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52506 (September 23, 2005), 70 FR 57340 (September 30, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2005-58). 6 *See* CBOE Rule 8.13. Current Marketing Fee Program The current marketing fee is assessed upon Designated Primary Market-Makers (“DPMs”), Electronic DPMs (“e-DPMs”), Remote Market-Makers (“RMMs”), Lead Market-Makers (“LMMs”), and Market-Makers at a rate of $0.22 for every contract they enter into on the Exchange other than Market-Maker-to-Market-Maker transactions (which includes all transactions between any combination of DPMs, e-DPMs, RMMs, LMMs, and Market-Makers). 7 The marketing fee is assessed in all equity option classes and options on HOLDRs®, options on SPDRs®, and options on DIA. The following is a description of the three-step process by which the entire pool of funds generated by the marketing fee is apportioned between the DPM or LMM, and Preferred Market-Makers. 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52818 (November 22, 2005), 70 FR 71568 (November 29, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2005-91). First, each month all funds generated by the marketing fee are collected by the Exchange and recorded according to the DPM or LMM, as applicable, station, and class where the option classes subject to the fee are traded. If a Market-Maker (including any DPM, e-DPM, LMM, and RMM) is designated as a Preferred Market-Maker on an order from a payment accepting firm (“PAF”), the Market-Maker will be given access to the marketing fee funds generated from that order, even if the Preferred Market-Maker did not participate in the execution of the order because the Market-Maker was not quoting at the NBBO at the time the order was received on the CBOE. Second, the DPM or LMM, as applicable, are given access to the marketing fee funds generated from all other orders from PAFs in its appointed classes in a particular trading station. Third, the marketing fee funds generated by orders from non-PAFs, if any, are apportioned monthly among the DPM or LMM, and Preferred Market-Makers on a on a pro-rata basis, based on the percentage of contracts traded by each DPM or LMM, and Preferred Market-Maker against orders from PAFs during the month in the option classes located at a particular trading station. Revised Marketing Fee Program—Effective December 12, 2005 Effective December 12, 2005, the CBOE proposes to amend the fee such that it is assessed upon DPMs, LMMs, e-DPMs, RMMs, and Market-Makers at the rate of $.65 per contract on transactions of Market-Makers, RMMs, e-DPMs, DPMs, and LMMs resulting from orders for less than 1,000 contracts

(i)from payment accepting firms (“PAF”), or

(ii)that have designated a “Preferred Market-Maker” under CBOE Rule 8.13 (“Preferred orders”). The Exchange states that Market-Maker-to-Market-Maker transactions (which include all transactions between any combination of DPMs, e-DPMs, RMMs, LMMs, and Market-Makers) would continue to be excluded from the fee, and the CBOE would also now exclude transactions of Market-Makers, RMMs, e-DPMs, DPMs, and LMMs resulting from inbound P/A orders. The marketing fee would also continue to be assessed in all equity option classes and options on HOLDRs®, options on SPDRs®, and options on DIA. The following is a description of the manner in which funds generated by the marketing fee would be allocated between the DPM or LMM, and Preferred Market-Makers. First, if a Market-Maker (including any DPM, e-DPM, LMM, and RMM) is designated as a Preferred Market-Maker on an order for less than 1,000 contracts, the Market-Maker would be given access to the marketing fee funds generated from the Preferred order, even if the Preferred Market-Maker did not participate in the execution of the Preferred order because the Market-Maker was not quoting at the NBBO at the time the Preferred order was received on the CBOE. 8 8 For example, assume a Market-Maker is designated as a Preferred Market-Maker on an order for 50 contracts which is executed on CBOE. Under this first step, the Preferred Market-Maker would be given access to a total of $32.50 (50 contracts × $.65), whether or not the Preferred Market-Maker traded with the order or not. Second, the DPM or LMM, as applicable, would be given access to the marketing fee funds generated from all other orders for less than 1,000 contracts from PAFs in its appointed classes in a particular trading station. The Exchange states that, as in the current program, the money collected would be disbursed by the Exchange according to the instructions of the DPM, LMM, or Preferred Market-Maker. These funds could only be used to attract order flow to CBOE, and the funds made available to the DPM or LMM could only be used to attract orders in the option classes located at the trading station where the fee was assessed. Thus, a member organization appointed as the DPM at a particular trading station on the trading floor could not use the funds from that trading station to attract order flow to another trading station on the trading floor where that member organization serves as the DPM. With respect to the rebate provisions of its marketing fee program, the Exchange states that currently, if a Preferred Market-Maker does not disburse all of the funds generated by the marketing fee in a given month, then the funds the Preferred Market-Maker does not disburse are made available to the DPM or LMM, as applicable, for the following month to attract orders in the classes of options where the DPM or LMM is appointed. Going forward, the CBOE proposes to allow the Preferred Market-Maker to carry-over any funds it does not disburse in a given month to the same extent a DPM or LMM is permitted to do so. Thus, the Exchanges states that its marketing fee program as amended would provide that if less than 80% of the marketing fee funds are paid out by the DPM/LMM or Preferred Market-Maker in a given month, then the Exchange would refund such surplus at the end of the month on a pro rata basis based upon contributions made by the Market-Makers, RMMs, e-DPMs, DPMs, and LMMs. However, if 80% or more of the accumulated funds in a given month are paid out by the DPM/LMM or Preferred Market-Maker, there would not be a rebate for that month and the funds will carry over and would be included in the pool of funds to be used by the DPM/LMM or Preferred Market-Maker the following month. At the end of each quarter, the Exchange states that it would then refund any surplus, if any, on a pro rata basis based upon contributions made by the Market-Makers, RMMs, DPMs, e-DPMs, and LMMs. The Exchange states that it would not be involved in the determination of the terms governing the orders that qualify for payment or the amount of any such payment. The Exchange states that it would provide administrative support for the program in such matters as maintaining the funds, keeping track of the number of qualified orders each firm directs to the Exchange, and making the necessary debits and credits to reflect the payments that are made. The CBOE states that its Market-Makers, RMMs, DPMs, e-DPMs, and LMMs would have no way of identifying prior to execution whether a particular order is from a PAF or is an order designating a Preferred Market-Maker. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that its proposal 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 its members and other persons using its facilities. 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 Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any inappropriate burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others No written comments were either solicited or received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 11 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) 12 thereunder, because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange. Accordingly, the proposal will take effect upon filing with the Commission. At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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. 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-CBOE-2005-107 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2005-107. 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-2005-107 and should be submitted on or before January 19, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-8047 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53008; File No. SR-CBOE-2005-95] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Complex Orders on the Hybrid System December 22, 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 December 19, 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 and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The CBOE has filed this proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. 5 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 5 The CBOE has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay, as specified in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii). 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The CBOE proposes to amend CBOE Rule 6.53C, “Complex Orders on the Hybrid System,” to better describe the routing of complex orders and to include orders from Market-Makers and specialists on an options exchange as additional order categories eligible to be routed to the Hybrid System complex order book (“COB”) from PAR workstations or directly to the COB. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site ( *http://www.cboe.com* ), at the Exchange'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 Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Commission recently approved CBOE Rule 6.53C, which sets forth the procedures used to trade complex orders on the CBOE's COB system. 6 Currently, CBOE Rule 6.53C provides that the appropriate Exchange committee may determine whether to allow complex orders to route to PAR or to the COB and whether to allow complex orders from non-broker-dealer public customers and from broker-dealers that are not Market-Makers or specialists on an options exchange to route from PAR workstations to the COB. 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51271 (February 28, 2005), 70 FR 10712 (March 4, 2005) (order approving File No. SR-CBOE-2004-45). The CBOE proposes to amend CBOE Rule 6.53C to better describe the routing of complex orders. The CBOE intended at all times and built its COB in such a way that, depending on committee determination, complex orders could be routed directly to the COB (which facilitates more automated handling of complex orders), to the PAR workstation (where complex orders are announced to the trading crowd and are traded in open outcry), and/or from the PAR workstation to the COB. 7 Accordingly, the revised rule more clearly states the routing alternatives for complex orders. 7 The appropriate committee may determine that more than one of these routing alternatives is available. Thus, for example, if the appropriate committee determines that the routing alternatives available for public customer complex orders in a particular class are to:

(i)Route directly to the COB,

(ii)route to PAR, and

(iii)route from PAR to the COB, a member representing a public customer complex order could elect whether to route that order directly to the COB or to a PAR workstation and, if routed to a PAR workstation, whether the order would be represented in open outcry or routed from the PAR workstation to the COB for electronic handling. The CBOE also proposes to include orders from Market-Makers and specialists on an options exchange as additional order categories that are eligible to be entered in the COB. As part of the original CBOE Rule 6.53C proposal and text, the CBOE never intended to route these types of orders to the COB (either directly to the COB or from PAR to the COB). Instead, the CBOE intended that such orders would be routed to PAR workstations for handling. However, the CBOE is now proposing to make these orders eligible for entry into the COB, subject to committee determination. The CBOE also proposes to make corresponding changes to the rule text to clarify that, in addition to routing to PAR workstations, as determined by the appropriate Exchange committee, such orders would be eligible for routing from PAR workstations to the COB and/or routing to the COB directly. 2. Statutory Basis The CBOE believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act 8 and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act. 9 Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) 10 in that it is designed to facilitate transactions in securities, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to enhance competition and to protect investors and the public interest. 8 15 U.S.C. 78a *et seq.* 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition 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 The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposal. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one that:

(i)Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;

(ii)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and

(iii)does not become operative for 30 days from the date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. In addition, as required under rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), 11 the CBOE provided the Commission with written notice of its intention to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to filing the proposal with the Commission. Therefore, the foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 12 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 13 11 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). 12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 13 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). Pursuant to rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act, a proposal does not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The CBOE has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The CBOE believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because the proposal clarifies the CBOE's existing rule and amends the rule to allow orders from Market Makers and options exchange specialists to be eligible for entry into the COB, which could facilitate more automated handling of complex orders and allow CBOE participants to access potentially larger pools of liquidity located on the CBOE. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because the proposal clarifies the CBOE's existing rule and because allowing orders from Market Makers and options exchange specialists to be eligible for entry into the COB could facilitate the execution of complex orders entered into the COB. 14 For these reasons, the Commission designates that the proposed rule change become operative immediately. 14 For purposes of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-CBOE-2005-95 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-2005-95. 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 office of the Exchange. 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. SR-CBOE-2005-95 and should be submitted on or before January 19, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 15 15 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-8052 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52987; File No. SR-CBOE-2005-108] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to a Session Fee Increase for the Regulatory Element of the Continuing Education Requirements of CBOE Rule 9.3A December 20, 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 December 12, 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 CBOE. The Exchange has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by CBOE under section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act, 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change CBOE proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to increase the session fee for the Regulatory Element of the Continuing Education requirements of CBOE Rule 9.3A. Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language is in *italics;* proposed deletions are in [brackets]. Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc.—Fees Schedule December [1] *12* , 2005 1.-4. Unchanged. FOOTNOTES: (1)-(18) Unchanged. 5.-11. Unchanged. 12. REGULATORY FEES (A)-(E) Unchanged. *(F) Continuing Education Fee:* *There shall be a session fee of $75.00 assessed as to each individual who is required to complete the Regulatory Element of the Continuing Education Requirements pursuant to CBOE Rule 9.3A.* 13.-23. Unchanged. Remainder of Fees Schedule—Unchanged. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, 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. 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 Regulatory Element, a computer-based education program administered by The National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) to help ensure that registered persons are kept up-to-date on regulatory, compliance, and sales practice matters in the industry, is a component of the Securities Industry Continuing Education Program (“Program”) under CBOE Rule 9.3A. The Securities Industry/Regulatory Council on Continuing Education (“Council”) 5 was organized in 1995 to facilitate cooperative industry/regulatory coordination of the administration and future development of the Program in keeping with applicable industry regulations and changing industry needs. Its roles include recommending and helping develop specific content and questions for the Regulatory Element, defining minimum core curricula for the Firm Element component of the Program, and developing and updating information about the Program for industry-wide dissemination. 5 The Council currently consists of 20 individuals, 14 of whom are securities industry professionals associated with NASD member firms and six of whom represent self-regulatory organizations (the American Stock Exchange LLC, CBOE, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, NASD, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc., and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.). It is the Council's responsibility to maintain the Program on a revenue neutral basis while maintaining adequate reserves for unanticipated future expenditures. 6 In December 2003, the Council voted to reduce the Regulatory Element session fee from $65 to $60 effective January 1, 2004, in order to reduce the reserves to a level necessary to support current and expected programs and expenses. The Council decided to review the reserve level and evaluate the Regulatory Element session fee on an annual basis. The 2004 financial review and evaluation produced no change in the Regulatory Element session fee. In September 2005, the Council's annual financial review and evaluation revealed that unless the Regulatory Element session fee were adjusted, the Council's reserves were likely to be insufficient in 2006. The reasons for the declining surplus are:

(1)Lower than projected session volume resulting in a significant decrease in actual revenue over projected revenue;

(2)higher delivery-related expenses beginning in 2006; and

(3)costs associated with the rebuilding of PROCTOR®. 7 At its September 2005 meeting, the Council voted unanimously to increase the Regulatory Element session fee from $60 to $75, effective January 1, 2006, in order to meet costs and maintain an adequate reserve in 2006. 6 The Regulatory Element session fee was initially set at $75 when NASD established the continuing education requirements in 1995. The session fee was reduced in 1999 to $65 and again in 2004 to $60. The proposed fee increase returns the Regulatory Element session fee to its 1995 level. 7 PROCTOR® is a technology system that supports computer-based testing and training. The Regulatory Element program uses PROCTOR® to package content, deliver, score and report results, and maintain and generate statistical data related to the Program. The proposed implementation date is January 1, 2006. 2. Statutory Basis The CBOE believes the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act, 8 in general, and furthers the objectives of sections 6(b)(4) 9 and 6(b)(5) 10 of the Act in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among CBOE members and other persons using its facilities, and that CBOE rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. CBOE believes that the proposed rule change is designed to accomplish these ends by enabling the Program to be maintained on a revenue neutral basis while maintaining adequate reserves for unanticipated future expenditures. 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others CBOE 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 foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 11 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 12 because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the CBOE. Accordingly, the proposal will take effect upon filing with the Commission. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-CBOE-2005-108 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2005-108. 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 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-2005-108 and should be submitted on or before January 19, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-8063 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53007; File No. SR-ISE-2005-48] Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change and Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto Relating to Market Maker Quote Interaction December 22, 2005. I. Introduction On October 3, 2005, the International Securities Exchange, Inc. (“ISE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to amend ISE Rule 804(d) regarding a delay of up to one second before two market maker quotations interact. On October 21, 2005, the ISE submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 3 On November 3, 2005, the ISE submitted Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change. 4 The proposed rule change and Amendments No. 1 and 2 were published for comment in the **Federal Register** on November 10, 2005. 5 The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change, as amended. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Form 19b-4 dated October 21, 2005, which replaced the original filing in its entirety (“Amendment No. 1”). 4 *See* partial amendment dated November 3, 2005, which corrected a minor omission in the current rule text and a typographical error in the filing (“Amendment No. 2”). 5 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52729 (November 3, 2005), 70 FR 68485 (“Notice”). II. Description Currently, ISE Rule 804(d) provides for a one-second delay before the quotations of ISE market makers interact. 6 As noted in SR-ISE-2004-24, the ISE treats orders and quotations differently, with ISE Rule 804(a) stating that only market makers may enter quotations on the ISE. Market makers use quotations to input and update prices on multiple series of options at the same time. Quotations generally are based on pricing models that rely on various factors, including the price and volatility of the underlying security. The ISE stated that as these variables change, a market maker's pricing model automatically updates quotations for some or all of an option's series. In contrast, an order is an interest to buy a stated number of contracts of one specific options series. The ISE noted that all ISE members, including ISE market makers, can enter orders. 7 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49931 (June 28, 2004), 69 FR 40696 (July 6, 2004) (“SR-ISE-2004-24”). 7 ISE Rule 717 imposes various limitations on orders that Electronic Access Members may enter on the ISE, while ISE Rule 805 governs market maker orders. According to the ISE, the purpose of the one-second delay was to allow a market maker to update its quotations to reflect price changes in an underlying stock before another market maker's quotation could “hit” the updating market maker's quotation. In SR-ISE-2004-24, the ISE represented that it promptly processes quotation updates when it receives them, but that there is invariably a lag between the time the underlying stock price first changes and the time by which the ISE can process all the corresponding quotation changes. In SR-ISE-2004-24, the ISE also stated its belief that the one-second delay would allow the ISE the time to process quotation updates, without effecting multiple executions during the update process. In the Notice, the ISE noted, however, that the one-second delay may no longer be necessary as the ISE trading system and its market maker members' quoting systems continue to advance technologically. Accordingly, the ISE proposes an amendment to ISE Rule 804(d) to give the ISE the flexibility to remove the one-second delay. In making a determination to remove the one-second delay, the ISE stated that it would take into consideration input from its market maker members, particularly through the ISE's Market Maker Advisory Committee. The ISE also noted that any change made to the one-second delay would be implemented on a uniform, market-wide basis (as opposed to, for example, a class-by-class basis). Further, the ISE stated that it would inform its members of any changes made to the one-second delay by distributing a Regulatory Information Circular prior to the implementation of any such change. III. Discussion The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange 8 and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act 9 and the rules and regulations thereunder. Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 10 in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 8 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). 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). In SR-ISE-2004-24, the Commission noted the ISE's belief that, without the proposed one-second “timer” function, pricing inefficiencies would result on the Exchange, and ISE market makers would widen their quotations or limit size to avoid multiple executions against other market makers. 11 To the extent the ISE trading system and its market maker members' quoting systems continue to advance technologically to reduce the likelihood of market maker quotes interacting, the one-second delay may no longer be necessary. Accordingly, the Commission believes that granting the ISE the flexibility to remove the one-second delay in such circumstance is consistent with the Act. Additionally, the Commission believes that permitting the ISE to determine to reinstate the one-second delay also is consistent with the Act, if the reinstatement of the delay is necessary to avoid the interaction of market maker quotations. In determining whether to remove the one-second delay, the Commission understands that the ISE would consult with its market maker members, particularly through the Exchange's Market Maker Advisory Committee. Regardless of whether the ISE makes any changes to the one-second delay, the Commission notes that ISE market makers would be required to be firm for their quotations for the same size to customers and broker-dealer orders, including orders for the account of other ISE market makers. 11 In connection with the approval of SR-ISE-2004-24, the Commission granted ISE's request for a limited exemption from Rule 602 of Regulation NMS under the Act (“Quote Rule”). Specifically, the Commission granted ISE market makers an exemption from their obligations under paragraph (c)(2) of the Quote Rule with respect to trades with matching ISE market maker quotations for no more than one second, provided that the quotations are locked or crossed for no more than one second, and that such ISE market maker is firm to all other customer and broker-dealer orders, including orders for the accounts of other ISE market makers. *See* letter from Robert Colby, Deputy Director, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, to Michael Simon, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, ISE, dated June 24, 2004. IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 12 that the proposed rule change (SR-ISE-2005-48), as amended, is approved. 12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-8071 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53005; File No. SR-NASD-2005-147] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Fees for NASD Members Using Nasdaq's INET Facility December 22, 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 December 9, 2005, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”), through its subsidiary, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (“Nasdaq”), 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 Nasdaq. Nasdaq has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the self-regulatory organization under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) 3 of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of the Substance of the Proposed Rule Change Nasdaq proposes to make additions and corrections to the fees governing Nasdaq's INET Facility for NASD members. Nasdaq states that it will implement the proposed rule change immediately. The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is in *italics;* proposed deletions are in [brackets]. 7010. System Services (a)-(v) No Change.

(w)INET System Order Execution

(1)For a period of time not to exceed 60 days after INET becomes a facility of Nasdaq, the following charges shall apply to the use of the order execution services of Nasdaq's INET System by Participants for: **NASDAQ-Listed Securities** Order Execution: Non-Directed Order that accesses the Quote/Order of a market Participant through Nasdaq's INET System: Charge to Participant entering order: Average daily shares of liquidity provided through Nasdaq's INET System by the Participant during the month: Greater than 60 million shares accessed or routed and 5 million shares provided $0.0027 per share executed. Greater than 40 million shares but less than 60 million shares accessed or routed and 5 million shares provided $0.0028 per share executed. Less than 5 million shares provided or less than 40 million shares accessed or routed $0.0030 per share executed. Credit to Participant providing liquidity: Average daily shares of liquidity provided through Nasdaq's INET System by the Participant during the month: Greater than 30 million shares provided or greater than 30 million shares accessed or routed or greater than 50 million shares combined provided, accessed or routed $0.0025 per share executed. Less than or equal to 30 million shares provided and less than or equal to 30 million shares accessed or routed and less than or equal to 50 million shares combined provided, accessed, or routed $0.002 per share executed. Any order that matches against another order of the same Participant $0.00025 per share per side. Routed Orders: Any other order entered by a Participant that is routed outside of Nasdaq's INET System $0.0025 per share executed. *Any other order entered by a Participant that is routed to the NASDAQ Opening or Closing Cross* *$0.001 per share executed* . **AMEX-Listed Stocks** Order Execution: Non-Directed Order that accesses the Quote/Order of a market Participant through Nasdaq's INET System: Credit to Participant entering order: *$0.0009* [$0.001] per share executed. Charge to Participant providing liquidity: *$0.001* [$0.0009] *per share executed.* Any order that matches against another order of the same Participant No charge. Routed Orders: Any order entered by a Participant that is routed outside of Nasdaq's INET System through DOT $0.01 per share executed. Any order entered by a Participant that is routed outside of Nasdaq's INET System other than through DOT $0.0035 per share executed. **AMEX-Listed ETFs** Order Execution: Non-Directed Order that accesses the Quote/Order of a market Participant through Nasdaq's INET System: Charge to Participant entering order: Average daily shares of liquidity provided through Nasdaq's INET System by the Participant during the month: Greater than 60 million shares accessed or routed and 5 million shares provided $0.0027 per share executed. Greater than 40 million shares but less than 60 million shares accessed or routed and 5 million shares provided $0.0028 per share executed. Less than 5 million shares provided or less than 40 million shares accessed or routed $0.0030 per share executed. Credit to Participant providing liquidity: Average daily shares of liquidity provided through Nasdaq's INET System by the Participant during the month: Greater than 30 million shares provided or greater than 30 million shares accessed or routed or greater than 50 million shares combined provided, accessed or routed $0.0025 per share executed. Less than or equal to 30 million shares provided and less than or equal to 30 million shares accessed or routed and less than or equal to 50 million shares combined provided, accessed, or routed $0.002 per share executed. Any order that matches against another order of the same Participant $0.00025 per share per side. Routed Orders: Any order entered by a Participant that is routed outside of Nasdaq's INET System [through DOT] *to the AMEX* $0.01 per share executed. Any order entered by a Participant that is routed outside of Nasdaq's INET System [other than through DOT] *other than to the AMEX* $0.0035 per share executed. **NYSE-Listed stocks** Order Execution: Non-Directed Order that accesses the Quote/Order of a market Participant through Nasdaq's INET System: Credit to Participant entering order: *$0.0009* [$0.001] per share executed. Charge to Participant providing liquidity: [$0.0009]. *$0.001 per share executed.* Any order that matches against another order of the same Participant No charge. Routed Orders: [Any order entered by a Participant that is routed outside of Nasdaq's INET System through DOT] *Any order entered by a Participant that is routed outside of Nasdaq's INET System through DOT that is charged a fee by the specialist (billable)* [$0.0005] *$0.01* per share executed *Charge to any order entered by a Participant that is routed outside of Nasdaq's INET System through DOT that is not charged a fee by the specialist (non-billable):* *Average daily shares of billable and non-billable NYSE DOT shares:* *Greater than 30 million shares* *$0.0001.* *Greater than 2 million shares but less than or equal to 30 million shares* *$0.0003.* *Greater than 250,000 shares but less than or equal to 2 million shares* *$0.0005.* *Greater than 100,000 shares but less than or equal to 250,000 shares* *$0.001.* *Less than or equal to 100,000 shares* *$0.01.* Any order entered by a Participant that is routed outside of Nasdaq's INET System other than through DOT $0.0015 per share executed. *Upon Participant's request, added liquidity among Participants that are wholly owned by a common parent may be aggregated.* Market Data Revenue Sharing for AMEX Listed (Tape B) Securities *Subscribers that add liquidity to the INET limit order book in Tape B securities (e.g. AMEX listed securities) will receive 50% of the market data revenue paid by the Consolidated Tape Association. INET will distribute the market data revenue based on the number of tape reportable transactions executed by the Participant, as paid to INET.* *Port Fees:* *Connectivity to Harborside Financial Center and Secaucus Datacenters* *• $400 per month for each OUCH®/FIX pair* *• $400 per month for each ITCH® data feed pair* *• $400 per month for each DROP® pair* *• $400 per month for each Compressed ITCH® data feed pair* *• $1000 per month for each Multicast ITCH® data feed pair* *• Internet Ports: An additional $200 per month for each Internet port that requires additional bandwidth.* *Connectivity to Chicago Datacenter* *• $800 per month for each OUCH®/FIX pair* *• $800 per month for each ITCH® data feed pair* *• $800 per month for each DROP® pair* *All port fees, not including Internet Bandwidth surcharges, will be waived for Subscribers that for a calendar month have an average daily share volume for executed orders exceeding 30 million shares of added liquidity.* *INET Terminal Fees:* *• Each ID is subject to a minimum commission fee of $50 per month unless it executes a minimum of 100,000 shares.* *• Each ID receiving market data is subject to pass-through fees for use of these services. Pricing for these services is determined by the exchanges and/or market center.* *• Each ID that is given web access is subject to a $50 monthly fee.* *Portal Fees:* *• Each ID is subject to a monthly user fee of $150* * • Each ID receiving market data is subject to pass-through fees for use of these services. Pricing for these services is determined by the exchanges and/or market center. * II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq 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. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose On December 7, 2005, the Commission approved rules and fees governing Nasdaq's INET Facility. 5 This filing corrects, codifies, and establishes fee and rebate practices for INET subscribers that are NASD members. In summary, Nasdaq states that the filing:

(1)Corrects the credit and fee schedule for American Stock Exchange (“Amex”) and New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) order executions that were incorrectly inverted in the original fee schedule;

(2)codifies current INET fees for orders executed as part of the Nasdaq Opening or Closing Cross Process;

(3)codifies current INET fee practices of revenue sharing for Tape B securities;

(4)codifies the current INET fee structure governing connectivity and terminal charges for its facilities; and

(5)establishes a new uniform, tiered fee-structure for orders routed to the NYSE through DOT. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52902 (December 7, 2005), 70 FR 73810 (December 13, 2005). 2. Statutory Basis Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A of the Act, 6 in general, and with Section 15A(b)(5) of the Act, 7 in particular, in that the proposed rule change provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facility or system which the NASD operates or controls. 6 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3. 7 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in 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 Nasdaq states that written comments were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change is subject to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 8 and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 9 thereunder because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the self-regulatory organization. Accordingly, the proposal is effective upon Commission receipt of the filing. At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 10 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 9 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-NASD-2005-147 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2005-147. 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 NASD. 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-NASD-2005-147 and should be submitted on or before January 19, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 11 11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-8042 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53013; File No. SR-BSE-2005-49] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to the Market Opening Procedures of the Boston Options Exchange Facility December 22, 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 November 4, 2005, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (“BSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by BSE. The Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change on December 13, 2005. 3 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons and is approving the proposal on an accelerated basis. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(l). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 In Amendment No. 1, BSE modified the proposed rule text to clarify the timing of the opening process and also requested accelerated approval of the proposal. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change BSE is proposing to amend its rules governing its market opening procedures on the Boston Options Exchange (“BOX”). The Exchange is proposing specifically to revise Chapter V, Section 9, of the BOX Rules to

(1)amend the timeframe in which the BOX Trading Host will start opening the market and the intervals in which option classes in a series may be opened to provide a quicker, more efficient, fair, and orderly market opening; and

(2)to require BOX Market Makers to provide continuous, two-sided quotes at the opening of the market. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change, as amended, and discussed any comments it received on the proposal. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item III below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Internet Web site ( *http://www.bostonstock.com* ), at the Exchange's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The purpose of this proposed rule is to create a quicker, more efficient, fair, and orderly market opening, and to require BOX Market Makers to provide continuous, two-sided quotes at the opening of the market. The BOX Trading Host currently opens classes starting at the first round minute of trading of the underlying security in the primary market, and at each round minute thereafter. Due to enhancements to BOX technology, the BOX Trading Host would be capable of opening an individual options class within seconds after the opening of trading of the underlying security and opening additional classes in successive seconds. This ability of the BOX Trading Host to start opening the market sooner would allow BOX to open individual classes quicker than it currently does today and to complete the opening process in a shorter timeframe. The BOX Trading Host could facilitate a quicker opening than it currently provides if it could facilitate the opening of options classes closer to the opening for the underlying security and spread the opening of classes over seconds rather than minutes. BOX Market Maker obligations during the Pre-Opening Phase are currently to provide continuous, two-sided quotes according to BOX minimum standards commencing the minute preceding the scheduled opening of the market for the underlying security. The BOX Trading Host only needs Market Maker quotes at the opening of the underlying security to be calculated into the Theoretical Opening Price (“TOP”) and subsequently to be included in the Opening Match price. This proposed rule change does not affect the ability of BOX Market Makers to maintain a fair and orderly market, nor does it relieve them of that obligation. However, the proposed rule requires Market Makers to be quoting at the open and should encourage Market Makers to provide tighter quotes prior to the Opening Match. The BOX Trading Host will still continue to accept continuous, two-sided quotes and broadcast the TOP during the Pre-Opening Phase. 2. Statutory Basis The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) 4 that an exchange have rules that are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will provide a quicker, more efficient, fair, and orderly market opening process. 4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 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 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 The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change. III. 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 No. SR-BSE-2005-49 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BSE-2005-49. 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 Commissions 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 office of 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-2005-49 and should be submitted on or before January 19, 2006. IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 5 Specifically, the Commission believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 6 which requires, among other things, that the rules of national securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 5 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). 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The Commission notes that, on account of enhancements to BOX's technology, BSE is proposing to allow BOX to open trading in an options series promptly following the opening of the underlying security and to complete the opening of all the classes in that series without the existing mandated one-minute opening increments for each class. The Exchange represents that the absence of such specified intervals for opening each class of options in a series would allow the opening to be completed within seconds, rather than minutes. The Commission believes that a faster opening should benefit investors because it would allow them to begin trading closer to the time of the opening of the underlying security, thus allowing investors to manage their risks better as well as enhancing competition among the options markets. The Commission notes that the proposal would also modify the requirement regarding when BOX Market Makers must begin quoting in accordance with BOX minimum standards. Specifically, the proposal would require BOX Market Makers to start quoting at the actual opening of the market for the underlying security, rather than one minute preceding the scheduled opening of the market for the underlying security. The Exchange represents that BOX Market Maker quotes are not needed until the actual opening of the underlying security, and that requiring Market Makers to quote at the opening, rather than earlier, should encourage BOX Market Makers to provide tighter quotes. The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 7 for approving the proposed rule change, as amended, prior to the 30th day of the date of publication of the notice thereof in the **Federal Register** . The Commission notes that the proposed rule change seeks to provide a faster opening on BOX. The Commission believes that granting accelerated approval to this proposal would allow BOX to more quickly begin to conduct faster openings, thus affording investors the benefits that should flow from the proposal sooner. 8 7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 8 The Commission notes that Chapter V, Section 9 of the BOX Rules, which govern BOX's opening process, was approved as a pilot program scheduled to expire on August 6, 2006. The proposed changes to this rule in the instant filing, while modifying the opening process, would not extend or otherwise affect the duration of the pilot, which is scheduled to end on August 6, 2006. V. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 9 that the proposed rule change (SR-BSE-2005-49), as amended, is hereby approved on an accelerated basis. 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 10 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 10 Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-8045 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53006; File No. SR-NASD-2005-148] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Fees for Non-NASD Members Using Nasdaq's INET Facility December 22, 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 December 9, 2005, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”), through its subsidiary, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (“Nasdaq”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by Nasdaq. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons, and at the same time is granting accelerated approval of the proposed rule change. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change Nasdaq proposes to modify the pricing for non-members using Nasdaq's INET Facility. Nasdaq requests approval to implement the proposed rule change retroactively to December 9, 2005. The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is in *italics* . 7010. System Services (a)-(v) No Change.

(w)INET System Order Execution

(1)No Change. *(2) The fees applicable to non-members using Nasdaq's INET Facility shall be the fees established for members under Rule 7010(w), as established by SR-NASD-2005-128 and amended by SR-NASD-2005-147, and as applied to non-members by SR-NASD-2005-128 and SR-NASD-2005-148.* II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq 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 III below. Nasdaq 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 In SR-NASD-2005-147, 3 which applies to NASD members, Nasdaq modified the fee schedule for its INET Facility. In this filing, Nasdaq is proposing to apply the same modification to non-NASD members that use Nasdaq's INET Facility. In summary, SR-NASD-2005-147:

(1)Corrected the credit and fee schedule for American Stock Exchange (“Amex”) and New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) order executions that were incorrectly inverted in the original fee schedule;

(2)codified current INET fees for orders executed as part of the Nasdaq Opening or Closing Cross Process;

(3)codified current INET fee practices of revenue sharing for Tape B securities;

(4)codified the current INET fee structure governing connectivity and terminal charges for its facilities; and

(5)established a new uniform, tiered fee-structure for orders routed to the NYSE through DOT. Nasdaq states that an important objective of this proposal is to ensure uniform treatment under NASD's rules of members and non-members alike. Nasdaq requests that the Commission approve this filing retroactively as of December 9, 2005, and that the approval be granted on an accelerated basis. 3 SR-NASD-2005-147, which Nasdaq filed with the Commission on December 9, 2005, was effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder. 2. Statutory Basis Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A of the Act, 4 in general, and with Section 15A(b)(5) of the Act, 5 in particular, in that the proposed rule change provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facility or system which the NASD operates or controls. Nasdaq states that an important objective of this proposal is to ensure uniform treatment under the NASD's rules of members and non-members alike. 4 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3. 5 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in 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 Nasdaq states that written comments were neither solicited nor received. III. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-NASD-2005-148 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2005-148. 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 NASD. 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-NASD-2005-148 and should be submitted on or before January 19, 2006. IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a self-regulatory organization. 6 Specifically, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(5) of the Act, 7 which requires that the rules of the self-regulatory organization provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facilities or system which it operates or controls. 6 The Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 7 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3(b)(5). The Commission notes that this proposal would retroactively modify pricing for non-NASD members using Nasdaq's INET Facility to December 9, 2005. This proposal would permit the schedule for non-NASD members to mirror the schedule applicable to NASD members that became effective December 9, 2005, pursuant to SR-NASD-2005-147. The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change prior to the 30th day of the date of publication of the notice thereof in the **Federal Register.** The Commission notes that the proposed fees for non-NASD members are identical to those in SR-NASD-2005-147, which implemented those fees for NASD members and which became effective as of December 9, 2005. The Commission notes that this change will promote consistency in Nasdaq's fee schedule by applying the same pricing schedule with the same date of effectiveness for both NASD members and non-NASD members. Therefore, the Commission finds that there is good cause, consistent with Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 8 to approve the proposed change on an accelerated basis. 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). V. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 9 that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NASD-2005-148), is approved on an accelerated basis. 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 10 10 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-8053 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52997; File No. SR-NASD-2005-143] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Allow Nasdaq Capital Market Issuers That Transfer Their Listing to the Nasdaq National Market To Apply the Amount of the Capital Market Entry Fee Toward the Entry Fee Payable for Listing on the National Market, and To Make Other Clarifying Changes December 22, 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 December 1, 2005, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”), through its subsidiary, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (“Nasdaq”), 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 Nasdaq. Nasdaq filed the proposal as a “non-controversial” proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. 5 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 5 As required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Nasdaq submitted written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change Nasdaq proposes to add new language to NASD Rules 4510(a) and 4520(a) to allow Nasdaq Capital Market issuers that transfer their listing to the Nasdaq National Market to apply the amount of the Capital Market entry fee previously paid to the entry fee payable for listing on the National Market, and to make other clarifying changes. The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed additions are in *italics.* 4510. The Nasdaq National Market

(a)Entry Fee (1)-(8) No change. *(9) An issuer that transfers its listing from The Nasdaq Capital Market to The Nasdaq National Market shall pay the entry fee described in this Rule 4510(a) less the entry fee that was previously paid by the issuer to Nasdaq in connection with listing on The Nasdaq Capital Market. Such issuer is not required to pay the application fee described in Rule 4510(a) in connection with the application to transfer listing.* *(10) An issuer that submits an application for listing on The Nasdaq Capital Market, but prior to listing revises its application to seek listing on The Nasdaq National Market, is not required to pay the application fee described in Rule 4510(a) in connection with the revised application.* (b)-(e) No change. 4520. The Nasdaq Capital Market

(a)Entry Fee (1)-(7) No change. *(8) An issuer that submits an application for listing on The Nasdaq National Market, but prior to listing revises its application to seek listing on The Nasdaq Capital Market, is not required to pay the application fee described in Rule 4520(a) in connection with the revised application.* (b)-(d) No change. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposal. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The purpose of the proposed rule change is to permit existing Nasdaq issuers that seek to transfer their listing from the Nasdaq Capital Market to the Nasdaq National Market to apply the amount of the Capital Market entry fee previously paid to the entry fee payable for listing on the National Market. Currently, issuers listing a class of securities on the Nasdaq Capital Market pay an entry fee based on total shares outstanding that ranges from $25,000 to $50,000. 6 Under the existing rules, an issuer that later applies to “phase up” its listing from the Capital Market to the National Market is required to pay the applicable entry fee for new issuers listing on the National Market, which currently ranges from $100,000 to $150,000. 7 6 NASD Rule 4520(a)(1). This fee includes a $5,000 non-refundable application fee that is submitted with the issuer's initial listing application. The remainder of the entry fee is assessed on the date of entry on the Capital Market. 7 NASD Rule 4510(a)(1). This fee includes a $5,000 non-refundable application fee that is submitted with the issuer's initial listing application. The remainder of the entry fee is assessed on the date of entry on the National Market. Under Rule 4510(a)(3), Closed-End Funds pay an entry fee of $5,000 per class of securities (of which $1,000 is a non-refundable application fee). Under the proposed rule change, a Capital Market issuer that applies to “phase up” its listing would pay the applicable National Market entry fee less the amount of the entry fee that it paid to list on the Capital Market. Because the issuer previously paid a non-refundable application fee when applying to list on the Capital Market, the issuer would not be required to pay an additional application fee in connection with the transfer to the National Market. For example, an issuer that paid an entry fee of $50,000 (of which $5,000 was a non-refundable application fee) upon inclusion of a class of securities in the Capital Market would receive a $45,000 credit toward the applicable National Market entry fee upon phase up and the application fee would be waived. Nasdaq believes that the reduction in fees resulting from the entry fee credit is justified by the corresponding reduction in time and effort needed to review a phase up application. Nasdaq's experience has shown that the review process for phase up applications generally is less time-consuming for the staff than the review required for issuers that list on the National Market after an initial public offering or through other means. Furthermore, the proposed rule change creates an incentive for issuers that list on the Capital Market to transfer to the National Market rather than seek a listing elsewhere, thereby promoting competition between Nasdaq and exchange markets. Nasdaq also proposes to clarify that an issuer that applies for listing on one tier of Nasdaq, but prior to listing decides to apply to list instead on the other tier, is not required to pay an additional application fee in connection with its revised application. For example, an issuer that submits an application for inclusion of a class of securities in the Nasdaq National Market is required to pay a $5,000 nonrefundable application fee that is submitted with the issuer's application. If prior to listing the issuer decides to apply to list on the Nasdaq Capital Market instead, the issuer would not be required to pay an additional $5,000 application fee in connection with its revised application. 2. Statutory Basis Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A of the Act, 8 in general, and with Sections 15A(b)(5) 9 and 15A(b)(6) 10 of the Act, in particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees, dues, and other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facility or system which the Nasdaq operates or controls, and is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. Nasdaq believes the proposed rule change provides for an equitable allocation of reasonable fees because, although Capital Market issuers that transfer their listing to the National Market would continue to pay an entry fee for each class of securities listed, such fee would be reduced in recognition that these issuers already paid an entry fee upon listing on the Capital Market, and that there is a corresponding reduction in the time and effort necessary to process listing applications of such companies. In addition, the proposed rule change should enhance competition among markets by allowing issuers to better evaluate the benefits of maintaining a listing on Nasdaq. 8 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3. 9 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3(b)(5). 10 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3(b)(6). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others Nasdaq 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 Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:

(i)Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;

(ii)impose any significant burden on competition; and

(iii)become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, and Nasdaq provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five days prior to the filing date, 11 the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 12 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 13 11 *See* footnote 5, *supra* . 12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 13 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-NASD-2005-143 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2005-143. 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 office of the NASD. 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-NASD-2005-143 and should be submitted on or before January 19, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 14 14 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-8055 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52998; File No. SR-NASD-2005-139] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend NASD Rule 2111 to Eliminate References to NASD Rule 6440(f)(2), Which Will Be Repealed December 22, 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 December 1, 2005, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the NASD. The NASD filed the proposal as a “non-controversial” proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. 5 The NASD proposes to implement the proposed rule change on January 9, 2006. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 5 As required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the NASD submitted written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The NASD proposes to amend NASD Rule 2111 to delete two references to NASD Rule 6440(f)(2) in light of SR-NASD-2004-045, 6 which repealed that rule and will be implemented January 9, 2006. Correspondingly, the NASD will implement the instant proposed rule change on January 9, 2006. The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed deletions are in [brackets]. 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52226 (August 9, 2005), 70 FR 48219 (August 16, 2005) (SR-NASD-2004-045). 2111. Trading Ahead of Customer Market Orders This version of the rule does not become effective until January 9, 2006. (a)-(d) No change.

(e)This rule applies to limit orders that are marketable at the time they are received by the member or become marketable at a later time. Such limit orders shall be treated as market orders for purposes of this rule, however, these orders must continue to be executed at their limit price or better. If a customer limit order is not marketable when received, the limit order must be provided the full protections of IM-2110-2 [ or Rule 6440(f)(2), as applicable]. In addition, if the limit order was marketable when received and then becomes non-marketable, once the limit order becomes non-marketable, it must be provided the full protections of IM-2110-2 [or Rule 6440(f)(2), as applicable]. (f)-(g) No change. 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 NASD included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposal. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The NASD has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose On August 9, 2005, the Commission approved proposed rule change SR-NASD-2004-045 adopting NASD Rule 2111 (“Trading Ahead of Customer Market Orders”), which will be implemented on January 9, 2006. NASD Rule 2111 prohibits a member from trading for its own account at prices that would satisfy a customer market order in a Nasdaq or exchange-listed security, unless the member immediately thereafter executes the customer market order. In addition, NASD Rule 2111 provides that if a customer limit order is not marketable when received, or if the limit order is marketable when received and then becomes non-marketable, the limit order must be provided the full protections of IM-2110-2 (the “Manning Rule”) or Rule 6440(f)(2), as applicable. 7 7 At the time that the NASD filed SR-NASD-2004-045 in March of 2004, the Manning Rule afforded limit order protection to Nasdaq securities and NASD Rule 6440(f)(2) afforded a similar protection to exchange-listed securities. In August of 2005, the Commission approved SR-NASD-2004-089, which extended the Manning Rule to exchange-listed securities. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52210 (August 4, 2005), 70 FR 46897 (August 11, 2005) (SR-NASD-2004-089). On October 24, 2005, the NASD filed SR-NASD-2005-124 seeking to repeal NASD Rule 6440(f) because it overlaps and is generally duplicative of new NASD Rule 2111 and the Manning Rule, as amended. 8 SR-NASD-2005-124 was filed for immediate effectiveness and the implementation date is January 9, 2006. In light of the repeal of NASD Rule 6440(f), the references to NASD Rule 6440(f)(2) in NASD Rule 2111 should be deleted. 8 NASD Rule 6440(f) generally prohibits a member from buying (selling) an exchange-listed security for its own account while such member holds an unexecuted market order or unexecuted limit order to buy

(sell)such security for a customer. 2. Statutory Basis The NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, which requires, among other things, that NASD rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The NASD believes that the proposed rule change will further the goals of improving the treatment of market orders and enhancing the integrity of the market by bringing consistency and clarity to its conduct rules. B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The NASD believes that the proposed rule change will not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others The NASD 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 Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:

(i)significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;

(ii)impose any significant burden on competition; and

(iii)become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 9 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 10 At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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. 11 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 10 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-NASD-2005-139 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and NASD Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2005-139. 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 NASD. 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-NASD-2005-139 and should be submitted on or before January 19, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 12 12 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-8064 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53017; File No. SR-NASD-2005-150] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify Nasdaq's Minimum Pricing Increment Rules December 22, 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 December 22, 2005, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”), through its subsidiary, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (“Nasdaq”), 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 Nasdaq. Nasdaq filed this proposal pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 therefore making the proposed rule change effective immediately upon filing. Nasdaq intends for this rule change to become operative on January 31, 2006. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of the Substance of the Proposed Rule Change Nasdaq proposes to modify NASD Rules 4613, 4701, 4710, 4901, 4904, and 6330 to align Nasdaq's rules on minimum pricing increments with the corresponding provisions in the Commission's Regulation NMS. The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is in *italics;* proposed deletions are in brackets. 4613. Character of Quotations

(a)Quotation Requirements and Obligations

(1)Two-Sided Quote Obligation. For each security in which a member is registered as a market maker, the member shall be willing to buy and sell such security for its own account on a continuous basis and shall enter and maintain a two-sided quotation (“Principal Quote”), which is attributed to the market maker by a special maker participant identifier (“MPID”) and is displayed in the Nasdaq Quotation Montage at all times, subject to the procedures for excused withdrawal set forth in Rule 4619.

(A)No change

(B)Minimum Price Variation [for Decimal-based Quotations]—The minimum quotation increment for Nasdaq *National Market and Capital Market* securities [authorized for decimal pricing] shall be $0.01 *for quotations priced at or above $1.00 per share and $0.0001 for quotations priced below $1.00 per share; provided, however, that if the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) permits, with respect to any security, the display, rank or acceptance of quotations priced at or above $1.00 per share in an increment smaller than $0.01, then the minimum quotation increment for such a security shall be the minimum permitted by the SEC or $0.0001, whichever is greater.* Quotations failing to meet this standard shall be rejected.

(2)and

(3)No change

(b)through

(e)No change * * * 4701. Definitions Unless stated otherwise, the terms described below shall have the following meaning:

(a)through

(ll)No change

(mm)The term “Pegged” shall mean, for priced limit orders so designated, that after entry into the Nasdaq Market Center, the price of the order is automatically adjusted by the Nasdaq Market Center in response to changes in either the Nasdaq Market Center inside bid or offer or the national best bid or offer, as appropriate. A Nasdaq Market Center Participant may enter either a Regular Pegged Order or a Reverse Pegged Order. A Nasdaq Market Center Participant entering a Regular Pegged Order may specify that the price of the order will deviate from either the Nasdaq inside quote on the same side of the market or the national best bid or offer on the same side of the market by an offset amount of $0 to $0.99. A Nasdaq Market Center Participant entering a Reverse Pegged Order may specify that the price of the order will deviate from either the Nasdaq inside quote on the contra side of the market or the national best bid or offer on the contra side of the market by an offset amount of $0.01 to $0.99. The market participant entering a Pegged Order may (but is not required to) specify a cap price, to define a price at which pegging of the order will stop and the order will be permanently converted into an unpegged limit order. Pegged Orders shall not be available for ITS Securities. Pegged orders shall not be eligible for routing as set out in Rule 4714. *Offset amounts for Pegged Orders are priced in $0.01 increments. However, if at any time an offset amount specified by a Nasdaq Market Center Participant does not result in an offer or a bid that is fully compliant with the minimum price variation provisions of Rule 4613, then, for an offer, the applicable offset amount will be the smallest amount that results in a compliant order and is greater than the specified offset amount, and, for a bid, the applicable offset amount will be the largest amount that results in a compliant order and is smaller than the specified offset amount.*

(nn)The term “Discretionary” shall mean,

(1)for priced limit orders in Nasdaq listed securities so designated, an order that when entered into the Nasdaq Market Center has both a displayed bid or offer price, as well as a non-displayed discretionary price range in which the participant is also willing to buy or sell, if necessary. The displayed price may be fixed or may be pegged to deviate from the Nasdaq inside quote or the national best bid or offer on the same side of the market by an offset amount of $0 to $0.99. The pegging of the Discretionary Order may be capped in the same manner as that of a Pegged Order. The discretionary price range of a Discretionary Order that is pegged will be adjusted to follow the pegged displayed price. *Discretionary price ranges (and offset amounts, if any) for Discretionary Orders are priced in $0.01 increments. Compliance with the minimum price variation provisions of Rule 4613 in connection with range adjustments and pegging in Discretionary Orders will be ensured in the same manner as for Pegged Orders.* Discretionary Orders for Nasdaq listed securities shall be eligible for routing as set out in Rule 4714.

(2)No change

(oo)through

(vv)No change * * * 4710. Participant Obligations in the Nasdaq Market Center

(a)No change

(b)Non-Directed Orders

(1)through

(4)No change

(5)If a Nasdaq Market Maker's Attributable Quote/Order is reduced to less than a round-lot amount on one side of the market due to Nasdaq Market Center executions, the Nasdaq Market Center will close the Market Maker's quote in the Nasdaq Market Center on that side of the market, and the Nasdaq Market Maker will be permitted a grace period of 30 seconds within which to take action to restore its Attributable Quote/Order, if the market maker has not authorized use of the AQR functionality or does not otherwise have an Attributable Quote/Order on both sides of the market in the system. A Nasdaq Market Maker that fails to transmit an Attributable Quote/Order in a security within the allotted time will have the exhausted side of its quotation restored by the system at a price $0.01 inferior to the lowest displayed bid price or the highest displayed offer price in that security as appropriate. If all bids and/or offers are exhausted so that there are no longer any Quote/Orders displayed on the bid and/or offer side of the market, the system will refresh a market maker's exhausted bid or offer quote to a normal unit of trading priced $0.01 inferior to the lesser of either: a) the last valid displayed inside bid/offer in the security before all such bids/offers were exhausted; or b) the market maker's last displayed bid/offer before exhaustion. If the resulting bid/offer quote would create a locked or crossed market, the Nasdaq Market Center will instead re-open the exhausted market maker's bid/offer quote at a price $0.01 inferior to the unexhausted inside bid/offer in that security. *If at any time an offer derived pursuant to this paragraph would not be fully compliant with the minimum price variation provisions of Rule 4613, then the system will create an offer that is priced higher than the non-compliant offer by the smallest amount necessary to make such an offer compliant with Rule 4613.* If at any time this automatic quote restoration process would result in the creation of a bid/offer of less than $0.01, the system will refresh that bid/offer to a price of $0.01. Except as provided in subparagraph (b)(6) of this rule, a Nasdaq Market Maker that withdraws from a security may not re-register in the system as a market maker in that security for twenty

(20)business days.

(6)through

(8)No change

(c)through

(e)No change * * * 4901. Definitions Unless stated otherwise, the terms described below shall have the following meaning:

(a)through

(q)No change

(r)The term “Pegged” shall mean, for priced limit orders so designated, that after entry into the System, the price of the order is automatically adjusted by the System in response to changes in the Nasdaq inside bid or offer (for Nasdaq-listed securities) or the national best bid or offer (for ITS securities), as appropriate. The Participant entering a Pegged Order can specify that order's price will either equal the inside quote or improves the inside quote by an amount set by the entering party on the same side of the market (a “Regular Pegged Order”) or offset the inside quote on the contra side of the market by an amount (the “Offset Amount”) set by the Participant (e.g., $0.01 less than the inside offer or $0.02 more than the inside bid) (a “Reverse Pegged Order”). The Participant entering a Pegged Order may (but is not required to) specify a limit price, to define a price at which pegging of the order will stop and the order will be permanently converted into an un-pegged limit order at limit price. This order type is available for Nasdaq-listed and Exchange-listed securities. *Offset amounts for Pegged Orders are priced in $0.01 increments. However, if at any time an offset amount specified by a Participant does not result in an offer or a bid that is fully compliant with the minimum price variation provisions of Rule 4904, then, for an offer, the applicable offset amount will be the smallest amount that results in a compliant order and is greater than the specified offset amount, and, for a bid, the applicable offset amount will be the largest amount that results in a compliant order and is smaller than the specified offset amount.*

(s)through

(w)No change * * * 4904. Entry and Display of Orders

(a)No change

(b)Display of Orders—The System will display orders submitted to the System as follows:

(1)and

(2)No change

(3)*Minimum Price Variation—The minimum quotation increment for System Securities shall be $0.01 for quotations priced at or above $1.00 per share and $0.0001 for quotations priced below $1.00 per share; provided, however, that if the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) permits, with respect to any security, the display, rank or acceptance of quotations priced at or above $1.00 per share in an increment smaller than $0.01, then the minimum quotation increment for such a security shall be the minimum permitted by the SEC or $0.0001, whichever is greater. Quotations failing to meet this standard shall be rejected.* *(4)* Exceptions—The following exceptions shall apply to the display parameters set forth in paragraphs

(1)and

(2)above:

(A)No change

(B)[Minimum Increments and Rounding—The minimum trading increment for System quotations priced $1.00 and above is $.01. For quotations priced below $1.00 the minimum increment is $.0001.

(i)For System display purposes, quotations in sub-penny increments $1.00 and above will be rounded down (for bids) or up (for offers) by the System to the nearest $.01 increment. Orders so rounded shall have no superior execution priority compared to orders previously submitted at the relevant $.01 increment.

(ii)For Nasdaq Market Center display purposes, any quotations in sub-penny increments shall be rounded down (for bids) and up (for offers) to the nearest $.01 increment. Sub-penny quotations that are rounded for display purposes shall be executed at their actual price, rather than the rounded price at which they are displayed. (C)] Reserve Size—Reserve Size shall not be displayed in the System, but shall be accessible as described in Rule 4905. [(D)] *(C)* Discretionary & Hunter Orders—Hunter Orders, and the discretionary portion of Discretionary Orders shall be available for execution only upon the appearance of contra-side marketable trading interest, and shall be executed pursuant to Rule 4905. * * * 6330. Obligations of CQS Market Makers

(a)through

(c)No change

(d)Minimum Price Variation [for Decimal-based Quotations]

(1)The minimum quotation increment [for securities authorized for decimal pricing as part of the SEC-approved Decimals Implementation Plan for the Equities and Options Markets] shall be $0.01 *for quotations priced at or above $1.00 per share and $0.0001 for quotations priced below $1.00 per share; provided, however, that if the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) permits, with respect to any security, the display, rank or acceptance of quotations priced at or above $1.00 per share in an increment smaller than $0.01, then the minimum quotation increment for such a security shall be the minimum permitted by the SEC or $0.0001, whichever is greater. Quotations failing to meet this standard shall be rejected.* *(2) When a quotation properly (not in violation of paragraph

(1)above) priced in an increment of less than $0.01 is routed for execution via the ITS System to a market that does not accept quotations in increments of less than $0.01, such a quotation is rounded down (for bids) or up (for offers) to the nearest $0.01 increment.* II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq 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. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The purpose of this change is to align Nasdaq's rules with Rule 612 of the Commission's Regulation NMS. 5 Consistent with that rule, neither Nasdaq nor Nasdaq's Brut facility will accept sub-penny quotes 6 priced at $1.00 or above, except for sub-penny quotes in securities for which sub-penny quoting is authorized by the Commission at higher price levels. For quotes priced below $1.00 (and for quotes in securities exempted by the Commission), Nasdaq and Brut 7 will accept sub-penny quotes but only in increments of at least $0.0001, as specified in Rule 612. 5 17 CFR 242.612. 6 In this filing, “quote” or “quotation” is used to denote both quotations and orders. 7 This filing does not contain any changes to the rules of the INET System. If any such changes are necessary, they will be made in a separate filing at a later date. The proposed rule language also clarifies how Nasdaq will handle several special situations that will arise in implementing Rule 612. First, if a proper sub-penny quote submitted to Nasdaq is routed via the ITS System to a different market for execution, and such market does not accept sub-penny orders, then such quote will be rounded up (for offers) or down (for bids) to the nearest one cent increment. However, Nasdaq notes that any market routing an order to any facility of Nasdaq must be prepared to accept a sub-penny execution even if such market itself does not accept sub-penny orders. A proper execution priced in an increment of less than a cent would remain valid even if the sending market failed to meet its responsibilities in this regard (and the sending market would then have to assume full responsibility for any resulting losses and other harm). Second, for pegged and discretionary orders, the new rule language clarifies that participants must continue to specify the offset amounts and the discretionary price ranges in whole cents. This will remain the case even when the stock can be properly priced in sub-penny increments. Third, in the case of pegged or discretionary orders, when changes in the underlying price being “pegged” would result in a sub-penny order priced over $1.00, the rule language provides that the “offset” amount be deemed slightly higher (for offers) or lower (for bids) than specified by the market participant, as necessary to create a compliant quote. For example, if the offset amount specified by a market participant for a pegged offer is $0.01 and the national best offer is $0.995, this would result in a pegged offer of $1.005, which would violate Rule 612. The proposed rule states that in this situation Nasdaq should deem the offset amount to be higher than specified by the smallest amount necessary to produce a quote priced in whole cents. Therefore, in this example, under the proposed rule the offset amount would be deemed $0.015, producing a pegged offer of $1.01. In the case of discretionary orders, this same logic and approach will apply in determining the discretionary price range vis-à-vis the displayed price and in determining the offset amount if the displayed price is “pegged” to the national best bid or offer. In each case, the discretionary price range limit amount and the offset amount will be deemed higher (for offers) or lower (for bids) by the smallest amount necessary to produce a Rule 612-compliant quote. Fourth, the same approach will be used when automatically refreshing the quotes of a market participant that has authorized the use of the Auto Quote Refresh (“AQR”) functionality. NASD Rule 4710(b)(5) describes the algorithm used to determine AQR pricing, and it could result in a sub-penny offer priced over $1.00 (generally, if the stock is trading in sub-penny increments just below the $1 threshold). In such a situation, the AQR-generated offer price will be adjusted upwards to the next whole penny. Nasdaq notes that while it generally (subject to any security-specific exemptions the Commission may grant) will not accept sub-penny quotes priced above $1.00, it will, consistent with Rule 612, still permit trade executions at such prices. For example, trades in sub-penny increments priced above $1.00 could be produced in Nasdaq's Opening Cross or Closing Cross. Nasdaq will permit such trades to proceed. At the same time, Nasdaq notes that, because of technological limitations, trades will never be executed in increments below $0.0001, but will always be rounded up to the nearest $0.0001 increment. Such a situation could arise, for example, in the Opening or Closing Cross if the bids and offers for a stock are priced below $1.00 in $0.0001 increments. Under such a scenario, the system would round the execution price up to the next $0.0001 increment. 2. Statutory Basis Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A of the Act, 8 in general and with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, 9 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market. Specifically, the proposal aligns Nasdaq's rules on sub-penny trading with the Commission's Regulation NMS. 8 15 U.S.C. 78o-3. 9 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others Written comments were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action This proposal has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 10 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder 11 because the proposal:

(1)Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest,

(2)does not impose any significant burden on competition, and

(3)by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. 12 Nasdaq intends for this rule change to become operative on January 31, 2006. 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 11 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 12 Pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) of the Act, a proposed rule change does not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory organization has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. Nasdaq complied with the five day pre-filing requirement. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, 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-NASD-2005-150 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2005-150. 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 NASD. 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-NASD-2005-150 and should be submitted on or before January 19, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-8069 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53014; File No. SR-NYSE-2005-89] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Pilot for NYSE Direct+® Until December 23, 2006 December 22, 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 December 13, 2005, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by NYSE. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change This proposal is to extend until December 23, 2006, the effectiveness of the pilot (the “Pilot”) for NYSE Direct+® (“Direct +”). The Pilot was approved initially on a one-year basis and extended for several additional years, and now expires on December 23, 2005. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose In light of the fact that the Commission is still considering the Exchange's filing on proposed enhancements to NYSE Direct+® (the NYSE HYBRID MARKETS SM —“Hybrid Market”) as described in SR-NYSE-2004-05 and subsequent amendments thereto 3 , the Exchange hereby is filing to renew its Pilot, as it currently operates, for an additional year. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50173 (August 10, 2004), 69 FR 50407 (August 16, 2004) (Amendment No. 1 to SR-NYSE-2004-05); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50667 (November 15, 2004), 69 FR 67980 (November 22, 2004) (Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 to SR-NYSE-2004-05); (The Exchange withdrew Amendment No. 4 and replaced it with Amendment No. 5); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51906 (June 22, 2005), 70 FR 37463 (June 29, 2005) (Amendment No. 5 to SR-NYSE-2004-05). *See also* Amendment No. 6 to SR-NYSE-2004-05 (September 16, 2005) and Amendment No. 7 to SR-NYSE-2004-05 (October 11, 2005). Background NYSE Direct+® was originally approved as a one-year pilot in SR-NYSE-2000-18, 4 ending on December 21, 2001. The Exchange then extended the Pilot for an additional one-year, ending December 23, 2002. 5 The Pilot was subsequently extended for an additional one-year, ending December 23, 2003. 6 It was again extended for two additional one-year periods and now expires on December 23, 2005. 7 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43767 (December 22, 2000), 66 FR 834 (January 4, 2001) (SR-NYSE-2000-18). 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 45331 (January 24, 2002), 67 FR 5024 (February 1, 2002) (SR-NYSE-2001-50). 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46906 (November 25, 2002), 67 FR 72260 (December 4, 2002) (SR-NYSE-2002-47). 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48772 (November 12, 2003), 68 FR 65756 (November 21, 2003) (SR-NYSE-2003-30). *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50828 (December 9, 2004), 69 FR 75579 (December 17, 2004) (SR-NYSE-2004-66). The NYSE Direct+® pilot provides for the automatic execution of limit orders of 1,099 shares or less (“auto ex” orders) against trading interest reflected in the Exchange's published quotation. It is not mandatory that all limit orders of 1,099 shares be entered as auto ex orders; rather, the member organization entering the order, or its customer if enabled by the member organization, can choose to enter an auto ex order when such member organization (or customer) believes that the speed and certainty of an execution at the Exchange's published bid or offer price is in its customer's best interest. The Exchange proposes to extend this Pilot for an additional year (from December 24, 2005 until December 23, 2006). Five filings which impact NYSE Direct+® have been filed with or approved by the Commission during the current Pilot are now part of the Pilot. 8 These include: 8 *See* telephone conversation between Steve L. Kuan, Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation (“Divison”), Commission, and Jeffrey Rosenstrock, Principal Rule Counsel, NYSE, on December 21, 2005. In addition, SR-NYSE-2003-20 proposed to disengage NYSE Direct+® in five-actively traded stocks. However, this pilot expired on June 20, 2003 and therefore, does not impact the Pilot as proposed to be extended. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47965 (June 2, 2003), 68 FR 34691 (June 10, 2003) (SR-NYSE-2003-20).

(a)A filing which amended Rule 1000 to provide that NYSE Direct+® executions will not be available if the resulting trade would be more than five cents away from the last sale. 9 The amendment also provided that during the process for completing Rule 127 transactions, the specialist should publish a bid and/or offer that is more than five cents away from the last reported transaction price in the subject security on the Exchange. 9 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47463 (March 7, 2003), 68 FR 12122 (March 13, 2003) (SR-NYSE-2002-44).

(b)A filing which amended Exchange Rules 13 and 1005 in order to eliminate size and frequency restrictions for orders entered through NYSE Direct+® (“Direct +”) in Investment Company Units, as defined in paragraph 703.16 of the Listed Company Manual, Trust Issued Receipts (such as HOLDRs), as defined in Rule 1200, and streetTRACKS® Gold Shares, as defined in Rule 1300, (collectively “ETFs”). 10 10 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52160 (July 28, 2005), 70 FR 44963 (August 4, 2005) (SR-NYSE-2005-49).

(c)A filing which amended Rule 1002 to include ETFs and HOLDRs and provide that ETFs trade until 4:15 p.m. and amended Rule 1005 to reflect that the rule applies to ETFs and HOLDRs. 11 11 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47024 (December 18, 2002), 67 FR 79217 (December 27, 2002) (SR-NYSE-2002-37). The expansion of the Direct+ order size eligibility described in this filing (for up to 10,000 shares) was superseded by SR-NYSE-2005-49.

(d)A filing which amended Rule 1005 to permit entry of limit orders up to 1,099 shares within 30 seconds for an account in which the same person has an interest, provided that the orders are entered from different terminals and that the member or member organization responsible for the entry of the orders to the trading floor (“Floor”) has procedures to monitor compliance with the separate terminal requirement. 12 12 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47353 (February 12, 2003), 68 FR 8318 (February 20, 2003) (SR-NYSE-2002-58).

(e)A filing which amended Rules 1000 and 1001 in connection with the NYSE LiquidityQuote SM initiative. 13 In conjunction with autoquoting of bids and offers, Rule 1000 has been amended to provide that a NYSE Direct+® order equal to or greater than the size of the published bid/offer exhausts the entire bid/offer, rather than decreases it to 100 shares. 14 Rule 1001(c) provided that if executions of auto ex orders have traded with all trading interest reflected in the Exchange's published bid or offer, the Exchange will disseminate a bid or offer at that price of 100 shares until the specialist requotes that market. Rule 1001(c) has been deleted. 13 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47614 (April 2, 2003), 68 FR 17140 (April 8, 2003) (SR-NYSE-2002-55). 14 *See* telephone conversation between Steve L. Kuan, Special Counsel, Division, Commission, and Jeffrey Rosenstrock, Principal Rule Counsel, NYSE, on December 21, 2005. The above-mentioned filings became part of the NYSE Direct+® rules and were incorporated into the Pilot upon their respective filing or approval by the Commission. 15 Therefore, they are extended as part of the Pilot. 15 *See id.* If, however, the Commission approves the Hybrid Market proposal during the extension of the Pilot period (December 24, 2005-December 23, 2006), the Hybrid Market proposal would supersede this filing. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 16 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 17 in particular, because it is designed 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. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is designed to support the principles of Section 11A(a)(1) of the Act 18 in that it seeks to assure economically efficient execution of securities transactions, makes it practicable for brokers to execute investors' orders in the best market and provides an opportunity for investors' orders to be executed without the participation of a dealer. 16 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 17 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 18 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the foregoing proposed rule does not

(i)significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;

(ii)impose any significant burden on competition; and

(iii)become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory organization has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as designated by the Commission, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 19 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 20 At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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. 21 19 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 20 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 21 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). The Exchange requests that the Commission waive the five business days pre-filing requirement and the 30-day operative delay under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii). 22 The Exchange believes that the continuation of the Pilot is in the public interest as it will avoid inconvenience and interruption to the public. 22 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). The Commission believes that waiver of the 30 day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, 23 because it will allow the Exchange to continue, without interruption, the existing operation of the Pilot for an additional year, while the Commission considers the Hybrid Market. Accordingly, the Commission designates that the proposal shall become operative as of the date of this notice. 23 For purposes only of accelerating the operative date of this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-NYSE-2005-89 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2005-89. 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 Exchange. 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-NYSE-2005-89 and should be submitted on or before January 19, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 24 24 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-8066 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53018; File No. SR-NYSE-2005-78] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Amendments to New York Stock Exchange Rules 35 (“Floor Employees to be Registered”) and 301 (“Proposed Transfer or Lease of Membership”) December 23, 2005. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 2 thereunder, notice is hereby given that on December 13, 2005, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The proposed change consists of amendments to NYSE Rules 35 (“Floor Employees to be Registered”) and 301 (“Proposed Transfer or Lease of Membership”) which would limit access to the Exchange Floor until fingerprint reports have been properly processed and approved and would require an alternative background check for persons whose fingerprints are deemed illegible. The text of the proposed rule change is available on NYSE's Web site ( *http://www.nyse.com* ), at NYSE'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, NYSE 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. NYSE 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 NYSE Rule 35 governs the issuance of Floor tickets ( *e.g.* , Regular Tickets and Special Tickets) to Floor employees, which enables them to enter upon the trading Floor. NYSE Rule 35.70 requires the fingerprinting of prospective employees of members and member organizations. Similarly, NYSE Rule 301.23 requires that prospective members be fingerprinted. Security concerns have suggested a tightening of these rules in two respects:

(1)That access to the Floor be denied for persons fingerprinted for the first time until the fingerprinting results have properly been processed and accepted; and

(2)that those persons whose fingerprints cannot be read ( *i.e.* , are illegible) be subject to an alternative background check acceptable to the Exchange to cover the same criminal convictions included by fingerprint type. In order for a background check to be acceptable to the Exchange, it would, at a minimum, have to disclose the same arrest records which the fingerprint check would for all fifty states and, where the applicant is foreign, through the records of Interpol. Amendments are also proposed to reflect the fact that the Exchange no longer accepts fingerprint cards, but rather processes them through agents. 3 3 *See* NYSE Information Memo 04-53, dated October 8, 2004 (announcing that as of October 29, 2004, the Exchange would stop accepting new fingerprints from its members and member organizations and other persons and entities subject to a fingerprinting requirement under Section 17 of the Exchange Act, but noting that certain members unable to submit fingerprints through another SRO would still be able to receive Exchange fingerprint services). Upon the completion of the reorganization of the Exchange proposed for January of 2006, NYSE believes that there should no longer be members unable to utilize another SRO. Background Rule 17f-2 4 under the Exchange Act sets out the requirements for the fingerprinting of persons employed in the securities industry. The Exchange has adopted procedures to comply with the regulations in order to assure that appropriate persons are fingerprinted and the results of the fingerprinting are reviewed. 5 4 17 CFR 240.17f-2. 5 *See* NYSE Information Memos 76-30 dated June 25, 1976 and 76-53, dated December 31, 1976, announcing, respectively, the adoption of Exchange Act Rule 17f-2 and SEC approval of the Exchange's plan for the processing of fingerprints. *See also* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 13105 (December 23, 1976), 42 FR 753 (January 4, 1977). Prior to providing member firm employees with Floor ticket access to the Trading Floor and Exchange facilities, and pursuant to NYSE Rules 35 and 345.11 (“Employees—Registration, Approval, Records”), 6 a member firm must electronically submit a Form U4 7 via the Central Registration Depository system (“CRD”). 8 The hiring member firm and the employee are responsible for confirming the accuracy of the information included on the Form U4. 9 6 NYSE Rule 345.11 requires, among other things, member firms to thoroughly investigate the previous record of persons whom they contemplate employing. 7 Form U4 includes information such as an individual's ten-year employment history, five-year residential history, education, disciplinary actions, disclosure information, and the self-regulatory organization of registration. 8 The CRD is a registration and licensing system for the U.S. securities industry, state and Federal regulators, and SROs. The NASD operates the CRD pursuant to policies developed jointly with the North American Securities Administrators Association, Inc. 9 Through CRD the accuracy of the disclosure portion ( *e.g.* , criminal disclosures, regulatory action disclosures) of Form U4 pursuant to prior submitted filings and fingerprinting is confirmed. Members and member organizations currently have up to 30 days from the date of the electronic filing of the Form U4 application in Web CRD for the fingerprints to be submitted. Applicants and member organizations sometimes wait until the end of the 30-day period to submit fingerprints, whereas results from the FBI can be reported within 24-48 hours. It is proposed that prospective new Floor employees not be admitted to the Floor until the results of the fingerprinting have been posted to the CRD, reviewed and approved. While the physical security of the Floor is the primary factor in the proposed changes, it is hoped that with this proposed requirement, member organizations will be encouraged to act more promptly. An applicant who has been fingerprinted previously with a member or registered broker-dealer would be granted a conditional approval, pending review of the fingerprint results submitted by the current employer, assuming the prior employment was within ninety days of the application. Any such applicant would have been under a duty to disclose any reportable events during such employment to a supervising broker-dealer who was charged with a duty to report statutory disqualifications. In addition, the applicant would, of course, have a duty to disclose any reportable events during the intervening period in his or her application. A separate issue is raised where applicants submit fingerprints, which cannot be read ( *i.e.* , illegible fingerprints). Under Exchange Act Rule 17f-2(a)(l)(iv), 10 when fingerprints are rejected three times as “illegible” by the FBI, the individual is exempt from further fingerprinting. 11 Exchange Act Rule 17f-2 does not require an alternate means of conducting a background check. To address this background check lapse, the NYSE's proposed amendment goes beyond the requirements of the foregoing rule and requires that members and member organizations conduct an alternative background check acceptable to the Exchange. Any such background check, in order to be acceptable to the Exchange, would have to cover the same criminal convictions included by fingerprint type on a fifty state basis and, if the applicant is foreign, an Interpol or other multi-national database check. These checks are generally conducted by non-governmental agencies. Member organizations would be expected to use appropriate due diligence in the selection of investigative agencies for such background checks, assuring their ability to satisfactorily research all pertinent databases. As above, conditional approval would be available to persons previously the subject of a background check, provided employment with a member or registered broker-dealer terminated within ninety days of the applications. 10 17 CFR 240.17f-2(a)(1)(iv). 11 In this instance, CRD also conducts a “name check.” The proposed revisions to NYSE Rules 35.70 and 301.23 will also reflect the fact that the Exchange no longer receives fingerprint cards directly, but does so through agents of the Exchange. 12 However, the Exchange's Membership Services Department will process the fingerprints of member applicants not associated with broker-dealers (not required to be registered on CRD). 12 NYSE Rule 345.18 provides that any filing or submission to be made with the Exchange under this rule, where appropriate, may be made with a properly authorized agent acting on behalf of the Exchange and shall be deemed to be a filing with the Exchange. 2. Statutory Basis NYSE believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange, and in particular, with the requirements of Sections 6(b)(5) 13 which requires, among other things, that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and national market system, and in general, to protect investors and the public interest. NYSE believes that the proposed rule change, by strengthening the security of the Exchange Floor, will help assure the uninterrupted trading and maintenance of the market. 13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange believes that the proposal does not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received from Members, Participants or Others Comments were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period

(i)as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or

(ii)as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:

(A)By order approve such proposed rule change, or

(B)Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange 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-NYSE-2005-78 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2005-78. 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 office of NYSE. 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-NYSE-2005-78 and should be submitted on or before January 19, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 14 14 14 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-8067 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52995; File No. SR-PCX-2005-140] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto by the Pacific Exchange, Inc. Relating to the NASD PCX Agreement December 21, 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 December 21, 2005, the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (“PCX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by PCX. On December 21, 2005, PCX filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. PCX filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders it effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change PCX is proposing to amend its undertaking to extend for 90 days from the date of this filing the time period by which PCX will amend the agreement between the National Association of Securities Dealers (“NASD”) and PCX currently in place pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act 5 (the “NASD PCX Agreement”). As described in more detail below, the amendment to the NASD PCX Agreement will expand the scope of the NASD's regulatory responsibility. 5 17 CFR 240.17d-2. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, PCX 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. PCX 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 Commission recently approved a proposed rule change in relation to the acquisition of PCX Holdings, Inc. by Archipelago Holdings, Inc. (“Archipelago Holdings”). 6 In its filing with the Commission, PCX committed to amend the NASD PCX Agreement within 90 days of the Commission's approval of SR-PCX-2005-90 to expand the scope of the NASD's regulatory functions under the NASD PCX Agreement so as to encompass all of the regulatory oversight and enforcement responsibilities with respect to the broker-dealer affiliate of Archipelago Holdings, Archipelago Securities, L.L.C. (“Archipelago Securities”). 7 The 90-day period expires on December 21, 2005, and while the PCX and NASD have executed an amended NASD PCX Agreement, the PCX and NASD have not yet filed the amended NASD PCX Agreement with the Commission. 6 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52497 (September 22, 2005); 70 FR 56949 (September 29, 2005) (approving SR-PCX-2005-90 as amended). 7 Archipelago Securities acts as the outbound order router for the Archipelago Exchange and, as such, is regulated as an exchange “facility” of the PCX and PCXE. The PCX believes that an extension of time for an additional 90 days from the date of this filing to amend the PCX NASD Agreement will give the Commission staff sufficient time to publish and take action on the proposal. There is currently a plan in place ( *i.e.* , the NASD PCX Agreement) allocating to the NASD the responsibility to receive regulatory reports from Archipelago Securities, to examine Archipelago Securities for compliance and to enforce compliance by Archipelago Securities with the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder and the rules of the NASD, and to carry out other specified regulatory functions with respect to Archipelago Securities. The Exchange notes that the current NASD PCX Agreement will remain in full force and effect during the interim period and PCX will continue to abide by the terms of the agreement. Furthermore, the PCX undertakes to file a proposed amendment to the NASD PCX Amendment with the Commission on or before January 4, 2006. The PCX believes the requested extension of time is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, and will neither significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest nor impose any significant burden on competition. 2. Basis For the reasons discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act. 8 Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) 9 requirement that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest. 10 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 10 *See* Amendment No. 1. B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange 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 Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the foregoing proposed rule change, as amended, does not:

(i)Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;

(ii)impose any significant burden on competition; and

(iii)become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 11 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 12 At any time within 60 days after the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the rule change if it appears to the Commission 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. 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). Pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act, the Exchange is required to give the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Commission has determined to waive this requirement. The Commission notes that the Exchange did provide notice of the filing two business days prior to the date of filing. PCX has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Because the original 90-day time period expires on December 21, 2005, such waiver will allow the PCX to remain in compliance with its undertaking to amend the NASD PCX Agreement. The Commission notes that PCX represents that it has executed, but not yet filed with the Commission, an amended NASD PCX Agreement with the NASD, and that PCX has undertaken to file a proposed amendment to the NASD PCX Agreement on or before January 4, 2006. The Commission further notes that the NASD PCX Agreement currently in place will remain in full force and effect during the interim period and PCX will continue to abide by the terms of the agreement. For these reasons the Commission designates the proposal to be effective and operative upon filing with the Commission. 13 13 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rules impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 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-PCX-2005-140 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PCX-2005-140. 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. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the PCX. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PCX-2005-140 and should be submitted on or before January 19, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 14 14 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-8056 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53004; File No. SR-Phlx-2005-78] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Extension of a Pilot Concerning Priority in Trades Involving Synthetic Option Orders December 22, 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 December 13, 2005, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by Phlx. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons and is approving the proposed rule change on an accelerated basis, for a pilot period expiring on June 30, 2006. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change Phlx proposes to extend, for an additional six months, the pilot concerning Exchange rule 1033(e), which affords priority to synthetic option orders (as defined below) traded in open outcry over bids and offers in the trading crowd but not over bids (offers) of public customers on the limit order book and not over crowd participants who are willing to participate in the synthetic option order at the net debit or credit price. The proposed rule change would apply to orders for 100 contracts or more and would be subject to a pilot program scheduled to expire on June 30, 2006. The text of the proposed rule change is set forth below. Brackets indicate deletions; *italics* indicates new text. Bids and Offers—Premium Rule 1033. (a)-(d) No change.

(e)Synthetic Option Orders. When a member holding a synthetic option order, as defined in rule 1066, and bidding or offering on the basis of a total credit or debit for the order has determined that the order may not be executed by a combination of transactions at or within the bids and offers established in the marketplace, then the order may be executed as a synthetic option order at the total credit or debit with one other member, provided that, the member executes the option leg at a better price than the established bid or offer for that option contract, in accordance with rule 1014. Subject to a pilot expiring [December 31] *June 30* , 200[5] *6* , synthetic option orders in open outcry, in which the option component is for a size of 100 contracts or more, have priority over bids (offers) of crowd participants who are bidding (offering) only for the option component of the synthetic option order, but not over bids (offers) of public customers on the limit order book, and not over crowd participants that are willing to participate in the synthetic option order at the net debit or credit price. (f)-(i) No change. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, Phlx 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 III below. Phlx has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend for a six-month period the pilot that facilitates the execution of an option order that is represented in the crowd together with a stock component, known under the Exchange rules as a synthetic option order, 3 which by virtue of the stock component may be difficult to execute without a limited exception to the Exchange priority rules. The current pilot is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2005. 4 Phlx proposes to extend the pilot to June 30, 2006. 3 Exchange Rule 1066(g) defines a s synthetic option order as an order to buy or sell a stated number of option contracts and buy or sell the underlying stock or Exchange-Traded Fund Share in an amount that would offset (on a one-for-one basis) the option position. For example:

(1)Buy-write: An example of a buy-write is an order to sell one call and buy 100 shares of the underlying stock or Exchange-Traded Fund Share.

(2)Synthetic put: An example of a synthetic put is an order to buy one call and sell 100 shares of the underlying stock or Exchange-Traded Fund Share.

(3)Synthetic call: An example of a synthetic call is an order to buy (or sell) one put and buy (or sell) 100 shares of the underlying stock or Exchange-Traded Fund Share. 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52140 (July 27, 2005), 70 FR 45481 (August 5, 2005) (SR-Phlx-2005-31). The pilot provides that, if an Exchange member who is holding a synthetic option order and bidding or offering on a net debit or credit basis determines that such synthetic option order cannot be executed at the net debit or credit against the established bids and offers in the crowd, the member bidding for or offering the synthetic option on a net debit or credit basis may execute the synthetic option order with one other crowd participant, provided that the option portion of the synthetic option order is executed at a price that is better than the established bid or offer for the option. Thus, if the desired net debit or credit amount cannot be achieved by way of executing against the established bids and offers in the crowd, the member may elect to trade at the desired net debit or credit amount with one other member, provided that there is price improvement for the option component of the synthetic option order. Exchange Rule 1033(e) affords synthetic option orders priority over bids (offers) of the trading crowd but not over bids (offers) of public customers on the limit order book and not over crowd participants that are willing to participate in the synthetic option order at the net debit or credit price. The effect of Exchange Rule 1033(e) is that a crowd participant bidding or offering for the synthetic option order has priority over other crowd participants that are bidding or offering only for the option component of the order. Exchange Rule 1033(e) applies only to synthetic option orders of 100 contracts or more. In addition, Exchange Rule 1033(e) provides that members bidding and offering for synthetic option orders of 100 contracts or more do not have priority over bids (offers) of public customers on the limit order book. 5 Therefore, if members of the trading crowd wish to trade a synthetic option order that is marketable against public customer orders on the limit order book, public customers would have priority. Multiple public customer orders at the same price are accorded priority based on time. 5 *See* Exchange Rule 1080, Commentary .02. The Exchange believes that the pilot, which provides a limited exception to the Exchange's priority rules only respecting controlled accounts 6 competing at the same price, should enable Floor Brokers representing synthetic option orders to provide best executions to customers placing such orders and should enable the Exchange to provide liquid markets and compete for order flow in such orders. 6 A controlled account includes any account controlled by or under common control with a broker-dealer. Customer accounts are all other accounts. Orders of controlled accounts are required to yield priority to customer orders when competing at the same price. Orders of controlled accounts generally are not required to yield priority to other controlled account orders. *See* Exchange Rule 1014(g)(i)(A). As stated above, the pilot applies only to synthetic option orders in which the option component is for a size of 100 contracts or more that are represented in the trading crowd in open outcry and would be subject to a pilot program through June 30, 2006. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 7 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 8 in particular, in that it is designed to perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and the national market system, protect investors and the public interest and promote just and equitable principles of trade, by adopting a limited exception to the Exchange's priority rules concerning synthetic option orders. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others No written comments were either solicited or received. III. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: *Electronic Comments* • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-Phlx-2005-78 in the subject line. *Paper Comments* • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2005-78. 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 office of Phlx. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2005-78 and should be submitted on or before January 19, 2006. IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange, 9 and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act 10 and the rules and regulations thereunder. The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 11 which requires, among other things, that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market, and to protect investors and the public interest. The Commission notes that the priority rules with respect to the execution of synthetic option orders on other options exchanges are similar to Exchange Rule 1033(e). 12 In general, such rules serve to reduce the risk of incomplete or inadequate executions of synthetic option orders by allowing the synthetic option orders to have priority over bids and offers of crowd participants who are bidding or offering only for the option component of the synthetic option order but only subject to restrictions such as those proposed by Phlx. For example, the pilot would continue to protect the priority of public customer orders on the limit order book. In addition, the pilot protects the priority of crowd participants who are willing to participate in the synthetic option order at the net debit or credit price. 9 In approving this rule, the Commission notes that it has considered its impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 12 *See, e.g.* , Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 20294 (October 17, 1983), 48 FR 49114 (October 24, 1983) (approving SR-CBOE-83-4); 47959 (May 30, 2003), 68 FR 34441 (June 9, 2003) (approving SR-CBOE-2002-05); 44955 (October 18, 2001), 66 FR 53819 (October 24, 2001) (approving SR-ISE-2001-18); and 46646 (October 11, 2002), 67 FR 64428 (October 18, 2002) (approving SR-ISE-2002-20). The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 13 for approving the proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of the notice of the filing thereof in the **Federal Register** . The Commission believes that granting accelerated approval would preserve the pilot for synthetic option orders without interruption. 13 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). V. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 14 that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2005-78) is hereby approved on an accelerated basis for a pilot period to expire on June 30, 2006. 14 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 15 15 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-8070 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review AGENCY: Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice of Reporting Requirements Submitted for OMB Review. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the **Federal Register** notifying the public that the agency has made such a submission. DATES: Submit comments on or before January 30, 2006. If you intend to comment but cannot prepare comments promptly, please advise the OMB Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the deadline. *Copies:* Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the Agency Clearance Officer. ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this notice to: Agency Clearance Officer, Jacqueline White, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416; and *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* , fax number 202-395-7285 Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance Officer, jacqueline.white@sba.gov

(202)205-7044. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* U.S. Small Business Administration Loan Pool or Guranteed Interest Certification. *Form No:* 1088. *Frequency:* On Occasion. *Description of Respondents:* Secondary Market Participants. *Annual Responses:* 1,500. *Annual Burden:* 9,750. Jacqueline K. White, Chief, Administrative Information Branch. [FR Doc. E5-7997 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review AGENCY: Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice of reporting requirements submitted for OMB review. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the **Federal Register** notifying the public that the agency has made such a submission. DATES: Submit comments on or before January 30, 2006. If you intend to comment but cannot prepare comments promptly, please advise the OMB Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the deadline. *Copies:* Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the Agency Clearance Officer. ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this notice to: Agency Clearance Officer, Jacqueline White, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416; and *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* , fax number 202-395-7285 Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance Officer, *jacqueline.white@sba.gov*

(202)205-7044. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Nomination for the Small Business Prime Contractor Nomination of the Small Business Subcontractor of the Year Award. *Form No:* 883 & 1375. *Frequency:* On Occasion. *Description of Respondents:* Prime Contractor, Subcontractor. *Annual Responses:* 161. *Annual Burden:* 402. Jacqueline K. White, Chief, Administrative Information Branch. [FR Doc. E5-8000 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #10298] Alaska Disaster #AK-00003 AGENCY: Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Alaska (FEMA-1618-DR), dated 12/09/2005. *Incident:* Severe Fall Storm, Tidal Surges, and Flooding. *Incident Period:* 09/22/2005 through 09/26/2005. *Effective Date:* 12/09/2005. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 02/07/2006. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: Small Business Administration, National Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 12/09/2005, applications for Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: Northwest Arctic Borough Bering Strait Regional Education Attendance Area Kashunamiut Regional Education Attendance Area Lower Kuskokwim Regional Education Attendance Area The Interest Rates are: Percent Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere 4.750 Businesses And Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 10298. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E5-7999 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #10299 and #10300] Connecticut Disaster #CT-00002 AGENCY: Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Connecticut dated December 21, 2005. Incident: Severe Flooding. Incident Period: 10/14/2005 through 10/15/2005. DATES: *Effective Date:* 12/21/2005. Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 02/21/2006. Economic Injury

(Eidl)Loan Application Deadline Date: 09/21/2006. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: Small Business Administration, National Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: Primary Counties: Hartford, Litchfield, Tolland Contiguous Counties: Connecticut Fairfield, Middlesex, New Haven, New London, Windham Massachusetts Berkshire, Hampden, Worcester New York Dutchess The Interest Rates are: Percent Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere 5.375 Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere 2.687 Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere 6.557 Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere 4.750 Businesses And Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 10299 6 and for economic injury is 10300 0. The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Dated: December 21, 2005. Hector V. Barreto, Administrator. [FR Doc. E5-7998 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Interest Rates The Small Business Administration publishes an interest rate called the optional “peg” rate (13 CFR 120.214) on a quarterly basis. This rate is a weighted average cost of money to the government for maturities similar to the average SBA direct loan. This rate may be used as a base rate for guaranteed fluctuating interest rate SBA loans. This rate will be 4.625 (4 5/8 ) percent for the January-March quarter of FY 2006. Luz A. Hopewell, Deputy Associate Administrator for Financial Assistance. [FR Doc. E5-8011 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE Generalized System of Preferences (GSP): Initiation of a Review To Consider the Designation of Liberia as a Least Developed Beneficiary Developing Country Under the GSP AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative. ACTION: Notice and solicitation of public comment. SUMMARY: This notice announces the initiation of a review to consider the designation of Liberia as a least developed beneficiary developing country under the GSP program and solicits public comment relating to the designation criteria. Comments are due January 13, 2006, in accordance with the requirements for submissions, explained below. ADDRESSES: Submit comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to: *FR0441@ustr.gov* . For assistance or if unable to submit comments by e-mail, contact the GSP Subcommittee, Office of the United States Trade Representative; USTR Annex, Room F-220; 1724 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508 (Tel. 202-395-6971). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact the GSP Subcommittee, Office of the United States Trade Representative; USTR Annex, Room F-220; 1724 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508 (Telephone: 202-395-6971, Facsimile: 202-395-9481). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Liberia's GSP eligibility was suspended, effective May 1, 1990, because, following a review and recommendation by the Trade Policy Staff Committee in 1989, it was determined that it had not taken and was not taking steps to afford internationally recognized worker rights to workers in Liberia. The review was initiated in response to a petition filed by the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights in 1988. The GSP Subcommittee of the Trade Policy Staff Committee

(TPSC)has initiated a review in order to make a recommendation to the President as to whether Liberia meets the eligibility criteria of the GSP statute, as set out below. After considering the eligibility criteria, the President is authorized to designate Liberia as a least developed beneficiary developing country for purposes of the GSP. Interested parties are invited to submit comments regarding the eligibility of Liberia for designation as a least developed beneficiary developing country. Documents should be submitted in accordance with the below instructions to be considered in this review. Eligibility Criteria The trade benefits of the GSP program are available to any country that the President designates as a GSP “beneficiary developing country.” Additional trade benefits under the GSP are available to any country that the President designates as a GSP “least-developed beneficiary developing country.” In designating countries as GSP beneficiary developing countries, the President must consider the criteria in sections 502(b)(2) and 502(c) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2462(b)(2), 2462(c)) (“the Act”). Section 502(b)(2) provides that a country is ineligible for designation if: 1. Such country is a Communist country, unless—

(a)The products of such country receive nondiscriminatory treatment,

(b)Such country is a WTO Member (as such term is defined in section 2(10) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act) (19 U.S.C. 3501(10)) and a member of the International Monetary Fund, and

(c)Such country is not dominated or controlled by international communism. 2. Such country is a party to an arrangement of countries and participates in any action pursuant to such arrangement, the effect of which is—

(a)To withhold supplies of vital commodity resources from international trade or to raise the price of such commodities to an unreasonable level, and

(b)To cause serious disruption of the world economy. 3. Such country affords preferential treatment to the products of a developed country, other than the United States, which has, or is likely to have, a significant adverse effect on United States commerce. 4. Such country—

(a)Has nationalized, expropriated, or otherwise seized ownership or control of property, including patents, trademarks, or copyrights, owned by a United States citizen or by a corporation, partnership, or association which is 50 percent or more beneficially owned by United States citizens,

(b)Has taken steps to repudiate or nullify an existing contract or agreement with a United States citizen or a corporation, partnership, or association which is 50 percent or more beneficially owned by United States citizens, the effect of which is to nationalize, expropriate, or otherwise seize ownership or control of property, including patents, trademarks, or copyrights, so owned, or

(c)Has imposed or enforced taxes or other exactions, restrictive maintenance or operational conditions, or other measures with respect to property, including patents, trademarks, or copyrights, so owned, the effect of which is to nationalize, expropriate, or otherwise seize ownership or control of such property, unless the President determines that—

(i)Prompt, adequate, and effective compensation has been or is being made to the citizen, corporation, partnership, or association referred to above,

(ii)Good faith negotiations to provide prompt, adequate, and effective compensation under the applicable provisions of international law are in progress, or the country is otherwise taking steps to discharge its obligations under international law with respect to such citizen, corporation, partnership, or association, or

(iii)A dispute involving such citizen, corporation, partnership, or association over compensation for such a seizure has been submitted to arbitration under the provisions of the Convention for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, or in another mutually agreed upon forum, and the President promptly furnishes a copy of such determination to the Senate and House of Representatives. 5. Such country fails to act in good faith in recognizing as binding or in enforcing arbitral awards in favor of United States citizens or a corporation, partnership, or association which is 50 percent or more beneficially owned by United States citizens, which have been made by arbitrators appointed for each case or by permanent arbitral bodies to which the parties involved have submitted their dispute. 6. Such country aids or abets, by granting sanctuary from prosecution to, any individual or group which has committed an act of international terrorism or the Secretary of State makes a determination with respect to such country under section 6(j)(1)(A) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. Appx. section 2405(j)(1)(A)) or such country has not taken steps to support the efforts of the United States to combat terrorism. 7. Such country has not taken or is not taking steps to afford internationally recognized worker rights to workers in the country (including any designated zone in that country). 8. Such country has not implemented its commitments to eliminate the worst forms of child labor. Section 502(c) provides that, in determining whether to designate any country as a GSP beneficiary developing country, the President shall take into account: 1. An expression by such country of its desire to be so designated; 2. The level of economic development of such country, including its per capita gross national product, the living standards of its inhabitants, and any other economic factors which the President deems appropriate; 3. Whether or not other major developed countries are extending generalized preferential tariff treatment to such country; 4. The extent to which such country has assured the United States that it will provide equitable and reasonable access to the markets and basic commodity resources of such country and the extent to which such country has assured the United States that it will refrain from engaging in unreasonable export practices; 5. The extent to which such country is providing adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights; 6. The extent to which such country has taken action to—

(a)Reduce trade distorting investment practices and policies (including export performance requirements); and

(b)Reduce or eliminate barriers to trade in services; and 7. Whether or not such country has taken or is taking steps to afford to workers in that country (including any designated zone in that country) internationally recognized worker rights. Note that the Trade Act of 2002 amended paragraph

(D)of the definition of the term “internationally recognized worker rights,” which now includes:

(A)The right of association;

(B)the right to organize and bargain collectively;

(C)a prohibition on the use of any form of forced or compulsory labor;

(D)a minimum age for the employment of children and a prohibition on the worst forms of child labor as defined in paragraph

(6)of section 507(4) of the Act; and

(E)acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health. To designate a country as a least-developed beneficiary developing country, the President must consider the criteria in section 502(c), as well as the criteria in section 501 of the Act. Section 501 provides that, in extending preferences under the GSP, the President shall have due regard for: 1. The effect such action will have on furthering the economic development of developing countries through the expansion of their exports. 2. The extent to which other major developed countries are undertaking a comparable effort to assist developing countries by granting generalized preferences with respect to imports of products of such countries. 3. The anticipated impact of such action on United States producers of like or directly competitive products. 4. The extent of the beneficiary developing country's competitiveness with respect to eligible articles. Requirements for Submissions All submissions must conform to the GSP regulations set forth at 15 CFR Part 2007, except as modified below. Comments must be submitted, in English, to the Chairman of the GSP Subcommittee of the Trade Policy Staff Committee

(TPSC)as soon as possible, but not later than 5 p.m., January 13, 2006. In order to facilitate prompt consideration of submissions, USTR requires electronic e-mail submissions in response to this notice. Hand-delivered submissions will not be accepted. Submissions should be single-copy transmissions in English with the total submission not to exceed 50 single-spaced standard letter-size pages. The e-mail transmission should use the following subject line: “Liberia GSP Eligibility Review”. Documents must be submitted as MSWord (“.doc”), WordPerfect (“.wpd”), or text (“.txt”) files. Documents submitted as electronic image files or containing imbedded images (for example, “.jpg”, “.pdf”, “.bmp”, or “.gif”) will not be accepted. Spreadsheets submitted as supporting documentation are acceptable as Quattro Pro or Excel files, pre-formatted for printing only on 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper. To the extent possible, any data attachments to the submission should be included in the same file as the submission itself, and not as separate files. Submissions in response to this notice will be subject to public inspection by appointment with the staff of the USTR Public Reading Room except for information granted “business confidential” status pursuant to 15 CFR 2003.6. If the submission contains business confidential information, a non-confidential version of the submission must also be submitted that indicates where confidential information was redacted by inserting asterisks where material was deleted. In addition, the confidential version must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” at the top and bottom of each page of the document. The non-confidential version must be clearly marked “PUBLIC” or “NON-CONFIDENTIAL” at the top and bottom of each page. Documents that are submitted without any marking might not be accepted or will be considered public documents. For any document containing business confidential information submitted as an electronic attached file to an e-mail transmission, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC-”, and the file name of the public version should begin with the character “P-”. The BC-” or “P-” should be followed by the name of the party (government, company, union, association, etc.) which is submitting the comments. E-mail submissions should not include separate cover letters or messages in the message area of the e-mail; information that might appear in any cover letter should be included directly in the attached file containing the submission itself, including the sender's identifying information with telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address. The e-mail address for these submissions is *FR0441@USTR.GOV.* Documents not submitted in accordance with these instructions might not be considered in this review. If unable to provide submissions by e-mail, please contact the GSP Subcommittee to arrange for an alternative method of transmission. Public versions of all documents relating to this review will be available for public review approximately three weeks after the due date by appointment in the USTR Public Reading Room, 1724 F Street NW., Washington, DC. Availability of documents may be ascertained, and appointments may be made from 9:30 a.m. to noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, by calling 202-395-6186. Marideth J. Sandler, Executive Director for the GSP Program; Chairman, GSP Subcommittee of the Trade Policy Staff Committee. [FR Doc. E5-8021 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3190-W6-P OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE Generalized System of Preferences (GSP): Import Statistics Relating to Competitive Need Limitations; Invitation for Public Comment on Possible De Minimis Waivers and Redesignations AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice is to inform the public of the availability of interim 2005 import statistics relating to competitive need limitations

(CNLs)under the Generalized System of Preferences

(GSP)program. Public comments are invited by 5 p.m., January 27, 2006, regarding possible *de minimis* CNL waivers with respect to particular articles, and possible redesignations under the GSP program of articles currently not eligible for GSP benefits because they previously exceeded the CNLs. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The GSP Subcommittee of the Trade Policy Staff Committee, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 1724 F Street, NW., Room F-220, Washington, DC 20508. The telephone number is

(202)395-6971. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Competitive Need Limitations The GSP program provides for the duty-free importation of designated articles when imported from designated beneficiary developing countries (BDCs). The GSP program is authorized by title V of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2461, *et seq.* ), as amended (the “1974 Act”), and is implemented in accordance with Executive Order 11888 of November 24, 1975, as modified by subsequent Executive Orders and Presidential Proclamations. Section 503(c)(2)(A) of the 1974 Act sets out the two competitive need limitations (CNLs). When the President determines that a BDC exported to the United States during a calendar year either

(1)a quantity of a GSP-eligible article having a value in excess of the applicable amount for that year ($120 million for 2005), or

(2)a quantity of a GSP-eligible article having a value equal to or greater than 50 percent of the value of total U.S. imports of the article from all countries (the “50 percent CNL”), the President must terminate GSP duty-free treatment for that article from that BDC by no later than July 1 of the next calendar year. Under section 503(c)(2)(F) of the 1974 Act, the President may waive the 50 percent CNL with respect to an eligible article imported from a BDC if the value of total imports of that article from all countries during the calendar year did not exceed the applicable *de minimis* amount for that year ($17.5 million for 2005). Under section 503(c)(2)(C) of the 1974 Act, if imports of an eligible article from a BDC ceased to receive duty-free treatment due to exceeding a CNL in a prior year, the President may redesignate such an article for duty-free treatment if imports in the most recently completed calendar year did not exceed the CNLs. II. Implementation of Competitive Need Limitations, Waivers, and Redesignations Exclusions from GSP duty-free treatment where CNLs have been exceeded will be effective July 1, 2006, unless previously granted a waiver by the President. CNL exclusions, as well as decisions with respect to *de minimis* waivers and redesignations, will be based on full 2005 calendar year import statistics. III. Interim 2005 Import Statistics In order to provide advance notice of articles that may exceed the CNLs for 2005, and to afford an opportunity for comment regarding potential *de minimis* waivers and redesignations, “Interim 2005 Import Statistics Relating to Competitive Need Limitations” that cover the first 10 months of 2005 can be viewed at: *http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Development/Preference_Programs/GSP/Interim_2005_Import_Statistics_Relating_to_Competitive_Need_Limitations.html.* If unable to access these statistics on the USTR Web site, contact the GSP Subcommittee of the Trade Policy Staff Committee, which will make alternate arrangements to provide the lists. Full calendar year 2005 data for individual tariff subheadings will be available in mid-February on the Web site of the U.S. International Trade Commission at *http://dataweb.usitc.* *gov/.* The four lists comprising the “Interim 2005 Import Statistics Relating to Competitive Need Limitations” contain, for each article, the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading and BDC of origin, the value of imports of the article for the first 10 months of 2005, and the percentage of total imports of that article from all countries. The flags indicate the status of GSP eligibility. Articles marked with an “*” are those that have been excluded from GSP eligibility for the entire past calendar year. Articles marked with a “D” are those that, based on interim 2005 data, may be eligible for a *de minimis* waiver of the 50 percent CNL. List I shows GSP-eligible articles from BDCs that have already exceeded the CNL by having been exported in excess of $120 million, or by an amount greater than 50% of the total U.S. import value in 2005. Those articles without a flag were GSP-eligible during 2005 but stand to lose GSP duty-free treatment on July 1, 2006, unless a waiver is granted. Such waivers are required to have been previously requested in the 2005 GSP Annual Review. List II identifies GSP-eligible articles from BDCs that

(1)have not yet exceeded, but are approaching, the $120 million CNL for the period January-October, 2005, or

(2)are close to or above the 50 percent CNL. Depending on final calendar year 2005 import data, these articles stand to lose GSP duty-free treatment on July 1, 2006, unless a waiver is granted. Such waivers are required to have been previously requested in the 2005 GSP Annual Review. List III is a subset of List II. List III identifies GSP-eligible articles from BDCs that are close to or above the 50 percent CNL, but that may be eligible for a *de minimis* waiver of the 50 percent CNL. Actual eligibility for *de minimis* waivers will depend on final calendar year 2005 import data. Each year, *de minimis* waivers are considered automatically without a petition, and public comments are invited. List IV shows GSP-eligible articles from certain BDCs that are currently not receiving GSP duty-free treatment, but that have import levels (based on interim 2005 data) below the CNLs and thus may be eligible to be considered for redesignation, depending on final calendar year 2005 import data. Recommendations to the President on redesignations are normally made in with any recommendations resulting from the annual review, and public comments are invited. The four lists comprising the “Interim 2005 Import Statistics Relating to Competitive Need Limitations” are computer-generated and based on interim 2005 data, and may not include all articles to which the GSP CNLs may apply. All determinations and decisions regarding the CNLs of the GSP program are based on full calendar year 2005 import data with respect to each GSP-eligible article. Each interested party is advised to conduct its own review of 2005 import data with regard to the possible application of GSP CNLs. IV. Public Comments Requirements for Submissions All submissions must conform to the GSP regulations set forth at 15 CFR Part 2007, except as modified below. Furthermore, each party providing comments should indicate on the first page of the submission its name, the relevant HTSUS subheading(s), the BDC of interest, and the type of action ( *e.g., de minimis* waiver or redesignation) in which the party is interested. Comments must be submitted, in English, to the Chairman of the GSP Subcommittee of the Trade Policy Staff Committee

(TPSC)as soon as possible, but not later than 5 p.m., January 27, 2006. In order to facilitate prompt consideration of submissions, USTR requires electronic e-mail submissions in response to this notice. Hand-delivered submissions will not be accepted. Submissions should be single-copy transmissions in English with the total submission not to exceed 30 single-spaced standard letter-size pages, including attachments, in 12-point type as a digital file attached to an e-mail transmission. The e-mail transmission should use the following subject line: “Comments on 2005 Possible *De Minimus* Waivers and Redesignations” followed by the HTSUS subheading number and BDC of origin as set out in the appropriate list. Documents must be submitted as MSWord (“.doc”), WordPerfect (“.wpd”), or text (“.txt”) files. Documents will not be accepted if submitted as electronic image files or containing imbedded images (for example, “.jpg”, “.tif”, “.pdf”, “.bmp”, or “.gif”). Spreadsheets submitted as supporting documentation are acceptable as Quattro Pro or Excel files, pre-formatted for printing only on 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper. To the extent possible, any data attachments to the submission should be included in the same file as the submission itself, and not as separate files. Submissions in response to this notice will be subject to public inspection by appointment with the staff of the USTR Public Reading Room except for information granted “business confidential” status pursuant to 15 CFR 2003.6. If the submission contains business confidential information, a non-confidential version of the submission must also be submitted that indicates where confidential information was redacted by inserting asterisks where material was deleted. In addition, the confidential version must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” at the top and bottom of each page of the document. The non-confidential version must be clearly marked “PUBLIC” or “NON-CONFIDENTIAL” at the top and bottom of each page. Documents that are submitted without any marking might not be accepted or will be considered public documents. For any document containing business confidential information submitted as an electronic attached file to an e-mail transmission, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC-”, and the file name of the public version should begin with the character “P-”. The BC-” or “P-” should be followed by the name of the party (government, company, union, association, etc.) which is submitting the comments. E-mail submissions should not include separate cover letters or messages in the message area of the e-mail; information that might appear in any cover letter should be included directly in the attached file containing the submission itself, including the sender's identifying information with telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address. The e-mail address for these submissions is *FR0441@USTR.GOV.* Documents not submitted in accordance with these instructions might not be considered in this review. If unable to provide submissions by e-mail, please contact the GSP Subcommittee to arrange for an alternative method of transmission. Public versions of all documents relating to this review will be available for public review approximately three weeks after the due date by appointment in the USTR Public Reading Room, 1724 F Street NW., Washington, DC. Availability of documents may be ascertained, and appointments may be made from 9:30 a.m. to noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, by calling 202-395-6186. Marideth J. Sandler, Executive Director for the GSP Program; Chairman, GSP Subcommittee of the Trade Policy Staff Committee. [FR Doc. E5-8075 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3190-W6-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Maritime Administration Reports, Forms and Recordkeeping Requirements; Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review AGENCY: Maritime Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this notice announces that the Information Collection abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval. The nature of the information collection is described as well as its expected burden. The **Federal Register** Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of information was published on September 9, 2005, and comments were due by November 8, 2005. No comments were received. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 30, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rodney McFadden, Maritime Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202-366-2647; FAX: 202-493-2180, or E-mail: *Rod.McFadden@dot.gov* . Copies of this collection also can be obtained from that office. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Maritime Administration (MARAD). *Title:* Information to Determine Seamen's Reemployment Rights—National Emergency. *OMB Control Number:* 2133-0526. *Type of Request:* Extension of currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* U.S. merchant marine seamen who have completed designated national service during a time of maritime mobilization and are seeking reemployment with a prior employer. *Forms:* None. *Abstract:* MARAD is requesting approval of this collection in an effort to implement provisions of the Maritime Security Act of 1996. These provisions grant reemployment rights and other benefits to certain merchant seamen serving aboard vessels used by the United States during times of national emergencies. The Maritime Security Act of 1996 establishes the procedures for obtaining the necessary MARAD certification for reemployment rights and other benefits. *Annual Estimated Burden Hours:* 50 hours. *Addressee:* Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention MARAD Desk Officer. *Comments are invited on:* Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Authority: 49 CFR 1.66. Issued in Washington, DC on December 23, 2005. Joel C. Richard, Secretary, Maritime Administration. [FR Doc. E5-8077 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-81-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Maritime Administration [Docket Number: 2005-23442] Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws AGENCY: Maritime Administration, DOT. ACTION: Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel CAT'S MEOW. SUMMARY: As authorized by Pub. L. 105-383 and Pub. L. 107-295, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below. The complete application is given in DOT docket 2005-23442 at *http://dms.dot.gov* . Interested parties may comment on the effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. If MARAD determines, in accordance with Pub. L. 105-383 and MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR Part 388 (68 FR 23084; April 30, 2003), that the issuance of the waiver will have an unduly adverse effect on a U.S.-vessel builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag vessels in that business, a waiver will not be granted. Comments should refer to the docket number of this notice and the vessel name in order for MARAD to properly consider the comments. Comments should also state the commenter's interest in the waiver application, and address the waiver criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR Part 388. DATES: Submit comments on or before January 30, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2005-23442. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400 7th St., SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at *http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/* . All comments will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection and copying at the above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An electronic version of this document and all documents entered into this docket is available on the World Wide Web at *http://dms.dot.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joann Spittle, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, MAR-830 Room 7201, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202-366-5979. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel CAT'S MEOW is: *Intended Use:* “The intended commercial use is to carry passengers for Captained Sailing Charters in the Great Lakes and connecting/adjacent waterways.” *Geographic Region:* While operating primarily out of South Haven, Michigan, the charter area will include the Great Lakes (Lake Michigan, Lake Superior, Lake Erie, Lake Huron, Lake Ontario), and the adjacent canals, harbors and waterways. By order of the Maritime Administrator. Dated: December 23, 2005. Joel C. Richard, Secretary, Maritime Administration. [FR Doc. E5-8078 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-81-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Maritime Administration [Docket Number: 2005-23443] Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws AGENCY: Maritime Administration, DOT. ACTION: Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel GRIN N BARRETT. SUMMARY: As authorized by Pub. L. 105-383 and Pub. L. 107-295, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below. The complete application is given in DOT docket 2005-23443 at *http://dms.dot.gov* . Interested parties may comment on the effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. If MARAD determines, in accordance with Pub. L. 105-383 and MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR Part 388 (68 FR 23084; April 30, 2003), that the issuance of the waiver will have an unduly adverse effect on a U.S.-vessel builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag vessels in that business, a waiver will not be granted. Comments should refer to the docket number of this notice and the vessel name in order for MARAD to properly consider the comments. Comments should also state the commenter's interest in the waiver application, and address the waiver criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR part 388. DATES: Submit comments on or before January 30, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2005-23443. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400 7th St., SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at *http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/* . All comments will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection and copying at the above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An electronic version of this document and all documents entered into this docket is available on the World Wide Web at *http://dms.dot.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joann Spittle, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, MAR-830 Room 7201, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5979. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel GRIN N BARRETT is: *Intended Use:* “fishing.” *Geographic Region:* Long Island Sound. Including the States of Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida. By order of the Maritime Administrator. Dated: December 23, 2005. Joel C. Richard, Secretary, Maritime Administration. [FR Doc. E5-8079 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-81-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Maritime Administration [Docket Number: 2005-23444] Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws AGENCY: Maritime Administration, DOT. ACTION: Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel HOPSCOTCH. SUMMARY: As authorized by Pub. L. 105-383 and Pub. L. 107-295, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below. The complete application is given in DOT docket 2005-23444 at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Interested parties may comment on the effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. If MARAD determines, in accordance with Pub. L. 105-383 and MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR Part 388 (68 FR 23084; April 30, 2003), that the issuance of the waiver will have an unduly adverse effect on a U.S.-vessel builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag vessels in that business, a waiver will not be granted. Comments should refer to the docket number of this notice and the vessel name in order for MARAD to properly consider the comments. Comments should also state the commenter's interest in the waiver application, and address the waiver criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR Part 388. DATES: Submit comments on or before January 30, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2005-23444. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400 7th St., SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at *http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/* . All comments will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection and copying at the above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An electronic version of this document and all documents entered into this docket is available on the World Wide Web at *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joann Spittle, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, MAR-830 Room 7201, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5979. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel HOPSCOTCH is: *Intended Use:* “The boat is in charter for pleasure use. There are times when charterers require a licensed captain or sailing instructor.” *Geographic Region:* Washington State. By order of the Maritime Administrator. Dated: December 23, 2005. Joel C. Richard, Secretary, Maritime Administration. [FR Doc. E5-8080 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-81-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Maritime Administration [Docket Number: 2005-23446] Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws AGENCY: Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation. ACTION: Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel LANDFALL. SUMMARY: As authorized by Public Law 105-383 and Public Law 107-295, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below. The complete application is given in DOT docket 2005-23446 at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Interested parties may comment on the effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. If MARAD determines, in accordance with Public Law 105-383 and MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR Part 388 (68 FR 23084; April 30, 2003), that the issuance of the waiver will have an unduly adverse effect on a U.S.-vessel builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag vessels in that business, a waiver will not be granted. Comments should refer to the docket number of this notice and the vessel name in order for MARAD to properly consider the comments. Comments should also state the commenter's interest in the waiver application, and address the waiver criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR Part 388. DATES: Submit comments on or before January 30, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2005-23446. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400 7th St., SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at *http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/.* All comments will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection and copying at the above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An electronic version of this document and all documents entered into this docket is available on the World Wide Web at *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joann Spittle, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, MAR-830 Room 7201, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5979. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel *LANDFALL* is: *Intended Use:* “Captained one half day or one day sailing charters.” *Geographic Region:* Maryland and Florida. Dated: December 23, 2005. By order of the Maritime Administrator. Joel C. Richard, Secretary, Maritime Administration. [FR Doc. E5-8083 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-81-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Maritime Administration [Docket No.: 2005-23445] Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws AGENCY: Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation. ACTION: Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel ULTRA VIOLET. SUMMARY: As authorized by Pub. L. 105-383 and Pub. L. 107-295, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below. The complete application is given in DOT docket 2005-23445 at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Interested parties may comment on the effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. If MARAD determines, in accordance with Pub. L. 105-383 and MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR part 388 (68 FR 23084; April 30, 2003), that the issuance of the waiver will have an unduly adverse effect on a U.S.-vessel builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag vessels in that business, a waiver will not be granted. Comments should refer to the docket number of this notice and the vessel name in order for MARAD to properly consider the comments. Comments should also state the commenter's interest in the waiver application, and address the waiver criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR part 388. DATES: Submit comments on or before January 30, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2005-23445. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400 7th St., SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at *http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/.* All comments will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection and copying at the above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An electronic version of this document and all documents entered into this docket is available on the World Wide Web at *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joann Spittle, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, MAR-830 Room 7201, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5979. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel ULTRA VIOLET is: *Intended Use:* “Day charter, sightseeing voyages.” *Geographic Region:* Narragansett Bay, RI. Dated: December 23, 2005. By order of the Maritime Administrator. Joel C. Richard, Secretary, Maritime Administration. [FR Doc. E5-8081 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-81-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation. ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect investigation. SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the reasons for the denial of a petition submitted by Mr. Chris Ruh, Mr. Don Huston, Mr. Robert Guthrie, Mr. Jeff Babiak, Mr. J. A. Massey, Ms. Michele Brown, Ms. Mary Mabry, Mr. Chris Taylor, and Mr. Victor Aguilar (hereinafter, “Petitioners”) to NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI), received September 6, 2005, under 49 U.S.C. 30162, requesting that the agency commence a proceeding to determine the existence of a defect related to motor vehicle safety with respect to the cylinder head and spark plug assembly performance of model year

(MY)1997 through 2004 Ford vehicles with Triton V-8 and V-10 engines. After a review of the petition and other information, NHTSA has concluded that further expenditure of the agency's investigative resources on the issues raised by the petition does not appear to be warranted. The agency accordingly has denied the petition. The petition is hereinafter identified as DP05-005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Cheryl Rose, Vehicle Control Division, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:

(202)366-1869. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 6, 2005, ODI received a petition submitted by Mr. Donald W. Ricketts of Santa Clarita, CA, on the behalf of the “Petitioners” requesting that the agency investigate allegations of engine spark plug ejection in certain MY 1997 through 2004 Ford vehicles with Triton V-8 and V-10 engines (hereinafter, subject vehicles). The “Petitioners” allege the following regarding the subject vehicles:

(1)The spark plug-cylinder head assembly design is insufficient to retain the spark plugs in the cylinder heads for the life of the spark plug unless periodically inspected and, if necessary, torqued.

(2)As the vehicle ages, the spark plugs loosen in the threaded head and/or the metal fatigues causing the spark plugs to be blown out of the head.

(3)The millions of subject vehicles containing the Triton V-8 and V-10 engine present a safety hazard to occupants of the vehicle, nearby persons, and other motorists on the road.

(4)The spark plugs shoot out of the cylinder port suddenly and with great force damaging the engine and sometimes puncturing the hood.

(a)Fire and explosion are likely if the plugs puncture nearby fuel lines.

(b)Owners report a strong smell of gasoline vapor after blowouts occur and the cylinder is open, presenting an additional danger of fire and explosion.

(c)The sudden expulsion of the plug out of the head often causes drivers to be startled and lose control of the vehicle momentarily.

(d)The vehicles always lose power, and often stall. In response to NHTSA's request for whatever supporting information the “Petitioners” could provide, one petitioner and Mr. Donald Ricketts on behalf of the “Petitioners,” submitted several complaints and repair invoices concerning the subject of their allegations. NHTSA has carefully analyzed those submissions, as well as relevant complaints in its own database, interviewed many of the complainants, including some of the “Petitioners,” and examined a vehicle containing the alleged defect. ODI received a total of 474 non-duplicative complaints on the subject vehicles, including the several complaints submitted by Mr. Donald Ricketts on behalf of the “Petitioners” and some complaints received directly from the “Petitioners” where the complainant, or the dealer repairing the vehicle, reported that a spark plug detached from the cylinder and/or ejected from the engine (hereinafter, alleged defect). As of December 8, 2005, ODI is not aware of any allegations where the alleged defect resulted in a loss of vehicle control, a crash, an injury, or a fatality in any of the 10,319,810 subject vehicles. In addition, ODI is aware of only two incidents where the vehicle stalled without restart. Information contained in the ODI consumer complaints and obtained from 72 telephone interviews with complainants showed the following:

(1)99% of the complaints were on MY 1997 to 2002 subject vehicles.

(2)Most the complainants reported hearing a loud pop while driving or upon starting up the vehicle followed by a loud, repetitive clicking or popping sound.

(3)Many of the complainants reported that the popping sound was accompanied by some loss of vehicle power; however, in 99% of the incidents reported, the vehicle did not stall. In the very few incidents where the vehicle did stall, most vehicles could be restarted.

(4)Only a small percentage of the complainants cited that they smelled gas or a slight burning smell when the incident occurred.

(5)In all but a very few incidents, vehicle damage was limited to the engine. In one incident, the complaint reported that the fuel rail was damaged and replaced after one of the spark plugs ejected from the engine; however, the complainant reported that the damage did not result in any type of fuel leak or fire. In another incident, the only incident where a fire was alleged, the complainant reported that no fluid leak was observed, but that a fire resulted after the spark plug had ejected from the engine and he had restarted the vehicle and driven to another location. None of the complainants reported any damage to the vehicle hood.

(6)Only two complainants reported that they observed what appeared to be some drops of fuel coming from the cylinder where the spark plug had failed or on the spark plug itself; however, each of these complainants reported that there was no smoke or flames as a result of his incident. In addition to its complaint analysis, ODI also examined a subject vehicle containing the alleged defect and observed the following:

(1)One of the spark plugs was detached from the cylinder threads.

(2)The bracket securing the ignition coil and spark plug assembly was broken and when the engine was running, the ignition coil, which was still attached to the engine via its wire harness, would move up and down within the cylinder.

(3)When the engine was running a loud popping or clicking noise was heard.

(4)No fluid leaks or fuel rail, smoke or flame damage was observed. As the petitioner noted and ODI's analysis showed, it is possible for a spark plug to detach from the engine cylinder threads in the subject vehicles. However, ODI's analysis of 474 complaints describing such incidents found only a very few alleged any safety-related consequences. None of these showed any evidence of a serious safety consequence. Given the large population and relatively long exposure time of the subject vehicles, the complaint analysis indicates that the risk to motor vehicle safety from the alleged defect is very low. In view of the foregoing, it is unlikely that the NHTSA would issue an order for the notification and remedy of the alleged defect as defined by Mr. Donald Ricketts, on behalf of the “Petitioners,” at the conclusion of the investigation requested in the petition. Therefore, in view of the need to allocate and prioritize the NHTSA's limited resources to best accomplish the agency's safety mission, the petition is denied. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8. Issued on: December 22, 2005. Daniel Smith, Associate Administrator for Enforcement. [FR Doc. E5-8072 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA-2005-23391] Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming 2006 Smart Car Passion, Pulse, and Pure (Coupe and Cabriolet) Passenger Cars Manufactured Prior to September 1, 2006 Are Eligible for Importation AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for decision that nonconforming 2006 Smart Car Passion, Pulse, and Pure (Coupe and Cabriolet) passenger cars manufactured prior to September 1, 2006, are eligible for importation. SUMMARY: This document announces receipt by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that 2006 Smart Car Passion, Pulse, and Pure (Coupe and Cabriolet) passenger cars, manufactured prior to September 1, 2006, that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) are eligible for importation into the United States because they have safety features that comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all such standards. DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is January 30, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number and notice number, and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. [Docket hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.]. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-3151). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS. When there is no substantially similar U.S.-certified counterpart, a nonconforming motor vehicle shall be refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA decides under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B), that the motor vehicle has safety features that comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all applicable FMVSS based on destructive test data or such other evidence NHTSA decides to be adequate. Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR Part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice in the **Federal Register** of each petition that it receives, and affords interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in the **Federal Register** . G&K Automotive Conversion, Inc. of Santa Ana, California (“G&K”) (Registered Importer 90-007) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether nonconforming 2006 Smart Car Passion, Pulse, and Pure (Coupe and Cabriolet) passenger cars manufactured prior to September 1, 2006, are eligible for importation into the United States. In its petition, G&K noted that NHTSA has granted import eligibility to 2002-2004 and 2005 Smart Car Passion, Pulse, and Pure (Coupe and Cabriolet) passenger cars that G&K claims are identical to the 2006 Smart Car Passion, Pulse, and Pure (Coupe and Cabriolet) passenger cars that are the subject of this petition. In its petitions for the 2002-2004 and 2005 vehicles, the petitioner claimed that the vehicles were capable of being altered to comply with all applicable FMVSS (see NHTSA Docket Nos. NHTSA-2003-1401 and NHTSA-2005-21334). Because those vehicles were not manufactured for importation into, and sale in, the United States, and were not certified by their original manufacturer (Daimler Benz), as conforming to all applicable FMVSS, they cannot be categorized as “substantially similar” to the 2006 version for purposes of establishing import eligibility under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A). However, the petitioner seeks to rely on the data, views and arguments submitted as part of the 2002-2004 petition; proof of conformity information that the petitioner submitted for the first vehicle it conformed under the 2002-2004 vehicle eligibility decision; and upon the contention that the 2006 model vehicles differ from the 2002-2004 and 2005 models only in that they were manufactured as 2006 model vehicles. G&K contends that nonconforming 2006 Smart Car Passion, Pulse, and Pure (Coupe and Cabriolet) passenger cars, manufactured prior to September 1, 2006, are eligible for importation under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B) because they have safety features that comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all applicable FMVSS. Specifically, the petitioner claims that 2006 Smart Car Passion, Pulse, and Pure (Coupe and Cabriolet) passenger cars have safety features that comply with Standard Nos. 103 *Defrosting and Defogging Systems,* 104 *Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems,* 106 *Brake Hoses,* 109 *New Pneumatic Tires,* 116 *Brake Fluid,* 118 *Power Window Systems,* 124 *Accelerator Control Systems,* 135 *Passenger Car Brake Systems,* 202 *Head Restraints,* 204 *Steering Control Rearward Displacement,* 205 *Glazing Materials,* 206 *Door Locks and Door Retention Components* , 207 *Seating Systems,* 210 *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages,* 212 *Windshield Retention,* 216 *Roof Crush Resistance,* and 219 *Windshield Zone Intrusion.* Petitioner further contends that the vehicles are capable of being altered to meet the following standards, in the manner indicated: Standard No. 101 *Controls and Displays:*

(a)Inscription of the word “Brake” and a seat belt warning symbol on the dash; and

(b)modification of the speedometer to read in miles per hour. Standard No. 102 *Transmission Shift Lever Sequence:* Inscription of shift sequence markings on the instrument cluster. Standard No. 108 *Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment:*

(a)Replacement or modification of the headlamps;

(b)Installation of side markers; and

(c)installation of turn signal lamps. The petition does not describe the headlamp modifications. G&K is claiming confidentiality with respect to some of these modifications. Standard No. 110 *Tire Selection and Rims:* Installation of a tire information placard. Standard No. 111 *Rearview Mirror:* Inscription of the required warning statement on the face of the passenger side rearview mirror. Standard No. 114 *Theft Protection:* Modification of the key locking system and installation of a supplemental key warning buzzer system to meet the requirements of this standard. The petition does not describe these modifications. G&K is claiming confidentiality with respect to these modifications. Standard No. 201 *Occupant Protection in Interior Impact:* Replacement of interior components with components fabricated by, and available only through, G&K. The petition does not describe these components or their manner of installation. G&K is claiming confidentiality with respect to these modifications. Standard No. 208 *Occupant Crash Protection:* Installation of supplemental wiring and replacement of the driver's seat belt buckle assembly to comply with the seat belt warning requirements of this standard. Standard No. 209 *Seat Belt Assemblies:* Replacement of the driver's seat belt buckle assembly with one that conforms to the requirements of Standards No. 208 and 209. Standard No. 214 *Side Impact Protection:* Modification of the vehicles through the installation of components available only from G&K. The petition does not describe these modifications. G&K is claiming confidentiality with respect to these modifications. Standard No. 225 *Child Restraint Anchorage Systems:* Installation of a tether anchorage behind the passenger seat on coupe models. Standard No. 301 *Fuel System Integrity:* Modification of the vehicles' fuel system through the installation of three components and associated attachment hardware available only from G&K. The petition does not describe these modifications. G&K is claiming confidentiality with respect to these modifications. Standard No. 302 *Flammability of Interior Materials:* Treatment of interior materials and components covered by the standard. G&K is claiming confidentiality with respect to these modifications. The petitioner states that a vehicle identification number plate must be affixed to the vehicles to meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 565. The petitioner further states that a certification label must be affixed to the driver's doorjamb to meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567. Additionally, petitioner states components available only from G&K will be installed on the vehicle to comply with the Bumper Standard found in 49 CFR Part 581. The petition does not describe these modifications. G&K is claiming confidentiality with respect to these modifications. Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the petition described above. Comments should refer to the docket number and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. [Docket hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.]. It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted. All comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for examination in the docket at the above address both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition will be published in the **Federal Register** pursuant to the authority indicated below. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. Claude H. Harris, Director, Office of Vehicle, Safety Compliance. [FR Doc. E5-8089 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA-2005-23434] Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision that Nonconforming 2005 Heku 750kg Boat Trailers Are Eligible for Importation AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for decision that nonconforming 2005 Heku 750kg boat trailers are eligible for importation. SUMMARY: This document announces receipt by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that 2005 Heku 750kg boat trailers that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) are eligible for importation into the United States because they have safety features that comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all such standards. DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is January 30, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number and notice number, and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. [Docket hours are from 9 am to 5 pm]. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-3151). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B), a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS, and has no substantially similar U.S.-certified counterpart, shall be refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the motor vehicle has safety features that comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all applicable FMVSS based on destructive test data or such other evidence as NHTSA decides to be adequate. Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR Part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice in the **Federal Register** of each petition that it receives, and affords interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in the **Federal Register** . Gifford Bobcat Sales of Millville, New Jersey (“GBS”) (Registered Importer 04-333) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether 2005 Heku 750kg boat trailers that were not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS are eligible for importation into the United States. GBS contends that these vehicles are eligible for importation under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B) because they have safety features that comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. GBS submitted information with its petition intended to demonstrate that 2005 Heku 750kg boat trailers, as originally manufactured, comply with one applicable FMVSS and are capable of being modified to comply with all other applicable standards to which they were not originally manufactured to conform. Specifically, the petitioner claims that 2005 Heku 750kg boat trailers have safety features that comply with Standard No. 119 *New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars.* Petitioner also contends that the vehicles are capable of being altered to meet the following standards, in the manner indicated: Standard No. 108 *Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment:* installation of reflective devices. Standard No. 120 *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars:* installation of a tire information placard. The agency notes that the subject trailers are not equipped with braking systems. As a consequence, there is no need for the petition to discuss the vehicle's compliance with any of the brake standards that apply to trailers that are so equipped. Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the petition described above. Comments should refer to the docket number and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh St., SW, Washington, DC 20590. [Docket hours are from 9 am to 5 pm]. It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted. All comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for examination in the docket at the above address both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition will be published in the **Federal Register** pursuant to the authority indicated below. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. Claude H. Harris, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. [FR Doc. E5-8086 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration [Docket: PHMSA-00-7666] Request for Public Comments and Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)Approval of an Existing Information Collection (2137-0610) AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT. SUMMARY: This notice requests public participation in the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)approval process regarding the renewal of an existing PHMSA collection of information for Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas (Gas Transmission Pipeline Operators). PHMSA is requesting OMB approval for renewal of this information collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. With this notice, PHMSA invites the public to submit comments over the next 60 days on ways to minimize the burden associated with collection of information related to pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas for natural gas transmission pipeline operators. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before February 27, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments should reference Docket No. PHMSA-00-7666 and may be submitted in the following ways: • DOT Web site: *http://dms.dot.gov* . To submit comments on the DOT electronic docket site, click “Comment/Submissions,” click “Continue,” fill in the requested information, click “Continue,” enter your comment, then click “Submit.” • *Fax:* 1-202-493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Management System: U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery:* DOT Docket Management System; Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *E-Gov Web site: http://www.Regulations.gov* . This site allows the public to enter comments on any **Federal Register** notice issued by any agency. *Instructions:* You should identify the docket number, PHMSA-00-7666, at the beginning of your comments. If you submit your comments by mail, you should submit two copies. If you wish to receive confirmation that PHMSA received your comments, you should include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit comments at *http://www.regulations.gov* , and may access all comments received by DOT at *http://dms.dot.gov* by performing a simple search for the docket number. Note: All comments will be posted without changes or edits to *http://dms.dot.gov* including any personal information provided. Privacy Act Statement Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments received for any of our dockets. You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Fuentevilla at

(202)366-6199, or by e-mail at *William.Fuentevilla@dot.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments are invited on whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collections; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. This information collection request pertains to gas transmission operators regulated under 49 CFR Part 192. The Gas Transmission Integrity Management rule became effective February 14, 2004. The regulation improves pipeline safety through

(1)accelerating the integrity assessment of pipelines in high consequence areas,

(2)improving integrity management systems within companies,

(3)improving the government's role in reviewing the adequacy of integrity programs and plans, and

(4)providing increased public assurance in pipeline safety. This information collection requires operators of gas transmission pipelines in high consequence areas to submit to PHMSA a written integrity management program and records showing compliance with 49 CFR Part 192, Subpart O. Operators must maintain this record for the life of the pipeline and PHMSA or State regulators may review it during inspections. The regulation requires that each operator submit the four overall performance measures to PHMSA semi-annually. This information collection supports the DOT strategic goal of safety by reducing the number of incidents in natural gas transmission pipelines. As used in this notice, “information collection” includes all work related to preparing and disseminating information related to this recordkeeping requirement including completing paperwork, gathering information, and conducting telephone calls. *Type of Information Collection Request:* Renewal of Existing Collection. *Title of Information Collection:* Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas (Gas Transmission Pipeline Operators). *Respondents:* 721. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 1,030,309 hours. Issued in Washington, DC, on December 21, 2005. Florence L. Hamn, Director of Regulations, Office of Pipeline Safety. [FR Doc. 05-24632 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 26

Traces to 26 documents

CFR