Notices. Notice of application under section 3(b)(2) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”)

22,856 words·~104 min read·/register/2006/02/01/06-924

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

BILLING CODE 7710-12-M SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549. Extension: Rule 0-1; SEC File No. 270-472; OMB Control No. 3235-0531. Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 350l *et seq.* ), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget requests for extension of the previous approved collections of information discussed below.

The Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) 1 establishes a comprehensive framework for regulating the organization and operation of investment companies (“funds”). A principal objective of the Act is to protect fund investors by addressing the conflicts of interest that exist between funds and their investment advisers and other affiliated persons. The Act places significant responsibility on the fund board of directors in overseeing the operations of the fund and policing the relevant conflicts of interest. 2 1 15 U.S.C. 80a-1. 2 For example, fund directors must approve investment advisory and distribution contracts. *See* 15 U.S.C. 80a-15(a), (b), and (c).

In one of its first releases, the Commission exercised its rulemaking authority pursuant to sections 38(a) and 40(b) of the Act by adopting rule 0-1 [17 CFR 270.0-1]. 3 Rule 0-1, as subsequently amended on numerous occasions, provides definitions for the terms used by the Commission in the rules and regulations it has adopted pursuant to the Act. The rule also contains a number of rules of construction for terms that are defined either in the Act itself or elsewhere in the Commission's rules and regulations.

Finally, rule 0-1 defines terms that serve as conditions to the availability of certain of the Commission's exemptive rules. More specifically, the term “independent legal counsel,” as defined in rule 0-1, sets out conditions that funds must meet in order to rely on any of ten exemptive rules under the Act (“exemptive rules”). 4 3 Investment Company Act Release No. 4 (Oct. 29, 1940) [5 FR 4316 (Oct. 31, 1940)]. Note that rule 0-1 was originally adopted as rule N-1. 4 The relevant exemptive rules are:

Rule 10f-3 [17 CFR 270.10f-3], Rule 12b-1 [17 CFR 270.12b-1], Rule 15a-4(b)(2) [17 CFR 270.15a-4(b)(2)], Rule 17a-7 [17 CFR 270.17a-7], Rule 17a-8 [17 CFR 270.17a-8], Rule 17d-1(d)(7) [17 CFR 270.17d-1(d)(7)], Rule 17e-1(c) [17 CFR 270.17e-1(c)], Rule 17g-1 [17 CFR 270.17g-1], Rule 18f-3 [17 CFR 270.18f-3], and Rule 23c-3 [17 CFR 270.23c-3]. The Commission amended rule 0-1 to include the definition of the term “independent legal counsel” in 2001. 5 This amendment was designed to enhance the effectiveness of fund boards of directors and to better enable investors to assess the independence of those directors.

The Commission also amended the exemptive rules to require that any person who serves as legal counsel to the independent directors of any fund that relies on any of the exemptive rules must be an “independent legal counsel.” This requirement was added because independent directors can better perform the responsibilities assigned to them under the Act and the rules if they have the assistance of truly independent legal counsel. 5 *See* Role of Independent Directors of Investment Companies, Investment Company Act Release No. 24816 (Jan. 2, 2001) [66 FR 3735 (Jan. 16, 2001)].

If the board's counsel has represented the fund's investment adviser, principal underwriter, administrator (collectively, “management organizations”) or their “control persons” 6 during the past two years, rule 0-1 requires that the board's independent directors make a determination about the adequacy of the counsel's independence. A majority of the board's independent directors are required to reasonably determine, in the exercise of their judgment, that the counsel's prior or current representation of the management organizations or their control persons was sufficiently limited to conclude that it is unlikely to adversely affect the counsel's professional judgment and legal representation.

Rule 0-1 also requires that a record for the basis of this determination is made in the minutes of the directors' meeting. In addition, the independent directors must have obtained an undertaking from the counsel to provide them with the information necessary to make their determination and to update promptly that information when the person begins to represent a management organization or control person, or when he or she materially increases his or her representation. Generally, the independent directors must re-evaluate their determination no less frequently than annually. 6 A “control person” is any person—other than a fund—directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control, with any of the fund's management organizations. *See* 17 CFR 270.01(a)(6)(iv)(B).

Any fund that relies on one of the exemptive rules must comply with the requirements in the definition of “independent legal counsel” under rule 0-1. We assume that approximately 3870 funds rely on at least one of the exemptive rules annually. 7 We further assume that the independent directors of approximately one-third

(1290)of those funds would need to make the required determination in order for their counsel to meet the definition of independent legal counsel. 8 We estimate that each of these 1290 funds would be required to spend, on average, 0.75 hours annually to comply with the recordkeeping requirement associated with this determination, for a total annual burden of approximately 968 hours. Based on this estimate, the total annual cost for all funds' compliance with this rule is approximately $66,126. To calculate this total annual cost, the Commission staff assumed that two-thirds of the total annual hour burden (645 hours) would be incurred by compliance staff with an average hourly wage rate of $89 per hour, 9 and one-third of the annual hour burden (323 hours) would be incurred by clerical staff with an average hourly wage rate of $27 per hour. 10 7 Based on statistics compiled by Commission staff, we estimate that there are approximately 4300 funds that could rely on one or more of the exemptive rules. Of those funds, we assume that approximately 90 percent

(3870)actually rely on at least one exemptive rules annually. 8 We assume that the independent directors of the remaining two-thirds of those funds will choose not to have counsel, or will rely on counsel who has not recently represented the fund's management organizations or control persons. In both circumstances, it would not be necessary for the fund's independent directors to make a determination about their counsel's independence. 9 The staff estimates concerning the wage rate for professional time and for clerical time are based on salary information complied by the Securities Industry Association. We use the annual salaries listed for the Director of Compliance and Executive Secretary positions to make our estimates. *See* Securities Industry Association, *Report on Management and Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry*

(2004)(available in part at *http://www.careerjournal.com/salaryhiring* (last visited Sept. 14, 2005)). Note that the average hourly wage rate estimates are modified for an 1800-hour work-year, 2.7% inflation and adjusted upward by 35% to reflect possible overhead costs and employee benefits. 10 (645 × $89/hour) + (323 × $27/hour) = ($66,126). These burden hour estimates are based upon the Commission staff's experience and discussions with the fund industry. The estimates of average burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. These estimates are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules. Compliance with the collection of information requirements of the rule is mandatory and is necessary to comply with the requirements of the rule in general. 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. General comments regarding the above information should be directed to the following persons:

(i)Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, or e-mail to: *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov;* and

(ii)R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Office of Information Technology, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F. Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice. Dated: January 25, 2006. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-1310 Filed 1-31-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549. Extension: Rule 3a-8; SEC File No. 270-516; OMB Control No. 3235-0574. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”), a request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below. Rule 3a-8 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”), serves as a nonexclusive safe harbor from investment company status for certain research and development companies (“R&D companies”). The rule requires that the board of directors of an R&D company seeking to rely on the safe harbor adopt an appropriate resolution evidencing that the company is primarily engaged in a non-investment business and record that resolution contemporaneously in its minute books or comparable documents. 1 An R&D company seeking to rely on the safe harbor must retain these records only as long as such records must be maintained in accordance with state law. 1 Rule 3a-8(a)(6). This requirement is modeled on the requirement in rule 3a-2 under the Act that provides a temporary exemption from the Act for transient investment companies. 17 CFR 270.3a-2. Rule 3a-8 contains an additional requirement that is also a collection of information within the meaning of the PRA. The board of directors of a company that relies on the safe harbor under rule 3a-8 must adopt a written policy with respect to the company's capital preservation investments. We expect that the board of directors will base its decision to adopt the resolution discussed above, in part, on investment guidelines that the company will follow to ensure its investment portfolio is in compliance with the rule's requirements. The collection of information imposed by rule 3a-8 is voluntary because the rule is an exemptive safe harbor, and therefore, R&D companies may choose whether or not to rely on it. The purposes of the information collection requirements in rule 3a-8 are to ensure that:

(i)The board of directors of an R&D company is involved in determining whether the company should be considered an investment company and subject to regulation under the Act, and

(ii)adequate records are available for Commission review, if necessary. Rule 3a-8 would not require the reporting of any information or the filing of any documents with the Commission. Commission staff estimates that there is no annual recordkeeping burden associated with the rule's requirements. Nevertheless, the Commission requests authorization to maintain an inventory of one burden hour for administrative purposes. There are approximately 33,000 R&D companies in the Unites States. 2 Rule 3a-8 impacts non-manufacturing R&D companies that would fall within the definition of investment company pursuant to section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Act [15 U.S.C. 80a-3(a)(1)(C)]. 3 Of the 16,170 non-manufacturing R&D Companies, the Commission believes that companies in scientific R&D services are more likely to use the exemption provided by rule 3a-8. 4 This field comprises companies that specialize in conducting R&D for other organizations, such as many biotechnology companies. 5 It accounts for 18%, or approximately 2910 companies. 6 Given that the board resolutions and investment guidelines will generally need to be adopted only once (unless relevant circumstances change), 7 the Commission believes that all the companies that seek to rely on rule 3a-8 would have adopted their board resolutions and established written investment guidelines in 2003 when the rule was adopted. We expect that newly formed R&D companies would adopt the board resolution and investment guidelines simultaneously with their formation documents in the ordinary course of business. 8 Therefore, we estimate that rule 3a-8 will not create additional time burdens. 2 See National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2004 (“NSB Indicators”) (available at *http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/* ). 3 The Act provides certain exclusions from the definition of investment company for a company that is primarily engaged in a non-investment business. 15 U.S.C. 80a-3(b)(1). For purposes of this PRA analysis, we assume that all manufacturing R&D companies are primarily engaged in the manufacturing industry and, therefore, may rely on the exclusion for companies primarily engaged in a non-investment business. For example, the top two manufacturing R&D companies in terms of dollars spent are Ford Motor Company and General Motors, which are primarily engaged in motor vehicle manufacturing. See NSB Indicators, supra note 2. 4 We believe that R&D Companies in this field are most likely to rely on the rule because they often raise and invest large amounts of capital to fund their research and product development and may make strategic investments in other R&D companies to develop products jointly. These activities may cause the R&D companies to fall within the definition of investment company and fail to qualify for statutory exclusions under the Act when using the Commission's traditional analysis. See Certain Research and Development Companies, Release No. 26077 (Jun. 16, 2003) [68 FR 37045 (Jun. 20, 2003)], at n. 12 and accompanying text (“Rule 3a-8 Release”). 5 See NSB Indicators, supra note 2. 6 Id. 7 In the event of changed circumstances, the Commission believes that the board resolution and investment guidelines will be amended and recorded in the ordinary course of business and would not create additional time burdens. 8 In order for these companies to raise sufficient capital to fund their product development stage, we believe they will need to present potential investors with investment guidelines. Investors would want to be assured that the company's funds are invested consistent with the goals of capital preservation and liquidity. 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. General comments regarding the above information should be directed to the following persons:

(ii)R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Office of Information Technology, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice. Dated: January 25, 2006. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-1314 Filed 1-31-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549. Extension: Rule 17a-7; SEC File No. 270-238; OMB Control No. 3235-0214. Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) a request for extension of the previously approved collection of information described below. Rule 17a-7 [17 CFR 270.17a-7] under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) is entitled “Exemption of certain purchase or sale transactions between an investment company and certain affiliated persons thereof.” It provides an exemption from section 17(a) of the Act for purchases and sales of securities between registered investment companies (“funds”), that are affiliated persons (“first-tier affiliates”) or affiliated persons of affiliated persons (“second-tier affiliates”), or between a fund and a first- or second-tier affiliate other than another fund, when the affiliation arises solely because of a common investment adviser, director, or officer. Rule 17a-7 requires funds to keep various records in connection with purchase or sale transactions effected in reliance on the rule. The rule requires the fund's board of directors to establish procedures reasonably designed to ensure that the rule's conditions have been satisfied. The board is also required to determine, at least on a quarterly basis, that all affiliated transactions effected during the preceding quarter in reliance on the rule were made in compliance with these established procedures. If a fund enters into a purchase or sale transaction with an affiliated person, the rule requires the fund to compile and maintain written records of the transaction. 1 The Commission's examination staff uses these records to evaluate for compliance with the rule. 1 The written records are required to set forth a description of the security purchased or sold, the identity of the person on the other side of the transaction, and the information or materials upon which the board of directors' determination that the transaction was in compliance with the procedures was made. The Commission estimates that approximately 968 funds enter into transactions effected in reliance on rule 17a-7 each year and, therefore, are subject to the rule's information collection requirements. 2 The average annual burden for rule 17a-7 is estimated to be approximately two burden hours per respondent, for an annual total of 1935 burden hours for all respondents. 3 The estimates of burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules. 2 These estimates are based on conversations with the examination and inspections staff of the Commission and fund representatives. Based on these conversations, the Commission staff estimates that most investment companies (3870 of the estimated 4300 registered investment companies) have adopted procedures for compliance with rule 17a-7. Of these 3870 investment companies, the Commission staff estimates that each year approximately 25%

(968)enter into transactions affected by rule 17a-7. 3 This estimate is based in turn on the staff's estimate that the approximately 968 funds that rely on rule 17a-7 annually engage in an average of 8 rule 17a-7 transactions and spend approximately 15 minutes per transaction on recordkeeping required by the rule. Rule 17a-7 requires investment companies to maintain and preserve permanently a written copy of the procedures governing rule 17a-7 transactions. In addition, investment companies are required to maintain written records of each rule 17a-7 transaction for a period of not less than six years from the end of the fiscal year in which the transaction occurred. The collection of information required by rule 17a-7 is necessary to obtain the benefits of the rule. Responses 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. General comments regarding the above information should be directed to the following persons:

(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, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Dated: January 25, 2006. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-1320 Filed 1-31-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549. Extension: Rule 498; File No. 270-435; OMB Control No. 3235-0488. Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“Act”) [44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ], the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget requests for extension of the previously approved collections of information discussed below. Rule 498 Under the Securities Act of 1933, Profiles for Certain Open-end Management Investment Companies Rule 498 of the Securities Act of 1933 [17 CFR 230.498] permits open-end management investment companies (or a series of an investment company organized as a series company, which offers one or more series of shares representing interests in separate investment portfolios) (“funds”) to provide investors with a “profile” that contains a summary of key information about a fund, including the fund's investment objectives, strategies, risks and performance, and fees, in a standardized format. The profile provides investors the option of buying fund shares based on the information in the profile or reviewing the fund's prospectus before making an investment decision. Investors purchasing shares based on a profile receive the fund's prospectus prior to or with confirmation of their investment in the fund. Consistent with the filing requirement of a fund's prospectus, a profile must be filed with the Commission thirty days before first use. Such a filing allows the Commission to review the profile for compliance with Rule 498. Compliance with the rule's standardized format assists investors in evaluating and comparing funds. It is estimated that approximately 1 initial profile and 252 updated profiles are filed with the Commission annually. The Commission estimates that each profile contains on average 1.25 portfolios, resulting in 1.25 portfolios filed annually on initial profiles and 315 portfolios filed annually on updated profiles. The number of burden hours for preparing and filing an initial profile per portfolio is 25. The number of burden hours for preparing and filing an updated profile per portfolio is 10. The total burden hours for preparing and filing initial and updated profiles under Rule 498 is 3,181, representing a decrease of 1,269 hours from the prior estimate of 4,450. The reduction in burden hours is attributable to the lower number of profiles actually prepared and filed as compared to the previous estimates. The estimates of average burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Act and are not derived from a comprehensive or even representative survey or study of the cost of Commission rules and forms. The collection of information under Rule 498 is voluntary. The information provided by Rule 498 is not 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. General comments regarding the above information should be directed to the following persons:

(202)551-6813, or Nadya B. Roytblat, Assistant Director, at

(202)551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the Commission's Public Reference Desk, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-0102 (tel. 202-551-5850). Applicant's Representations 1. HTI, a Minnesota corporation, is in the business of developing, manufacturing, marketing and servicing suspension assemblies for hard disk drives. HTI estimates that it produces a majority of all suspension assemblies sold to disk drive manufacturers and their suppliers, including recording head manufacturers, worldwide. HTI represents that suspension assemblies are critical components of disk drives that hold the recording heads in position above the spinning magnetic disks. In addition to HTI's suspension assembly products, HTI has developed a medical device that uses an optical technology to measure local oxygen saturation of hemoglobin in tissue. 2. HTI states that it requires substantial liquid capital to fund its global operations, including research and development activities and capital expenditures. HTI states that the disk drive industry is subject to rapid technological change, and HTI's ability to remain competitive depends on, among other things, its ability to anticipate and respond to these changes. As a result, HTI has devoted and will continue to devote substantial resources to product development and process engineering efforts. HTI also requires substantial liquid capital for capital expenditures. HTI expects that it will need to make substantial capital expenditures over the next several years to remain at the forefront of industry technology transitions. In particular, technology transitions in the disk drive industry require HTI to dramatically increase its level of capital expenditures. HTI also states that demand for disk drives is subject to rapid or unforeseen changes resulting from, among other things, changes in disk drive inventory levels, technological advances, responses to competitive price changes and unpredicted high or low market acceptance of new drive models. HTI seeks to preserve its capital and maintain liquidity, pending the use of such capital for its current and future operations, by investing in short-term investment grade and liquid fixed income and money market investments that earn competitive market returns and provide a low level of credit risk (“Capital Preservation Investments”). HTI's board of directors (“Board of Directors”) oversees HTI's investment practices and defines the parameters for investment activities. HTI states that it does not invest in securities for short-term speculative purposes. Applicant's Legal Analysis 1. HTI seeks an order under section 3(b)(2) of the Act declaring that it is primarily engaged in a business other than that of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding or trading in securities, and therefore not an investment company as defined in the Act. 2. Under section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Act, an issuer is an investment company if it is engaged or proposes to engage in the business of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding, or trading in securities, and owns or proposes to acquire investment securities having a value in excess of 40 percent of the value of the issuer's total assets (exclusive of government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis. Section 3(a)(2) of the Act defines “investment securities” to include all securities except government securities, securities issued by employees' securities companies, and securities issued by majority-owned subsidiaries of the owner which

(a)are not investment companies, and

(b)are not relying on the exclusions from the definition of investment company in section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act. HTI states that as of September 25, 2005, approximately 15.8% of its total assets (exclusive of government securities and cash items), on an unconsolidated basis, consisted of investment securities as defined in section 3(a)(2) of the Act. 3. Rule 3a-1 provides an exemption from the definition of investment company if no more than 45% of a company's total assets consist of, and not more than 45% of its net income over the last four quarters is derived from, securities other than government securities, securities of majority-owned subsidiaries and primarily controlled companies. HTI states that it cannot rely upon rule 3a-1 under the Act because such other securities frequently exceed 45% of its total assets. For example, in the second and third quarters of fiscal 2004, had all HTI's available liquid capital other than cash required for immediate use been invested in such other securities, the percentage of HTI's total assets represented by such securities would have been 46.3% and 46.6%, respectively. HTI further states that it cannot rely on rule 3a-1 because the percentage of its net income derived from investment securities fluctuates unpredictably with the cycles of the disk drive industry. HTI states that the cyclical nature of the industry, rather than any change in HTI's business or financial management policies, has led to significant variations in the ratio of HTI's income from investment securities relative to net operating income. 4. Section 3(b)(2) of the Act provides that, notwithstanding section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Act, the Commission may issue an order declaring an issuer to be primarily engaged in a business or businesses other than that of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding, or trading in securities either directly or through majority-owned subsidiaries or through controlled companies conducting similar types of businesses. HTI requests an order under section 3(b)(2) of the Act declaring that it is primarily engaged in a business other than that of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding or trading in securities, and therefore not an investment company as defined in the Act. 5. In determining whether a company is primarily engaged in a non-investment company business under section 3(b)(2), the Commission considers:

(a)The issuer's historical development;

(b)its public representations of policy;

(c)the activities of its officers and directors;

(d)the nature of its present assets; and

(e)the sources of its present income. 1 1 Tonopah Mining Company of Nevada, 26 SEC 426, 427 (1947). a. *Historical Development.* HTI was incorporated in 1965 in Minnesota, and conducted its initial public offering in 1985. Until 1976, HTI derived a substantial portion of its revenues from photoetching and from laminating precision components primarily for use by original equipment manufacturers in the computer peripheral industry. In 1976, HTI began adding laser welding steps to the production of some components, and by 1979 had developed significant abilities in precision forming as well. In 1982, HTI began to use its forming and welding processes, in combination with proprietary cleaning processes, to manufacture suspension assemblies for both Winchester and the newer Thin-Film technology disk drives. In the late 1980s, HTI's revenue began to come almost exclusively from the sale of suspension assemblies, and HTI has continued to focus on suspension assembly sales and development ever since. b. *Public Representations of Policy.* HTI states that it has consistently represented itself as a company that manufactures and sells products for the disk drive industry, rather than a company focused on investments. c. *Activities of Officers and Directors.* HTI states that its Board of Directors has eight members who focus on maintaining HTI's position as a leading supplier of suspension assemblies. HTI's Investment Goals and Guidelines require the Board of Directors to review them at least annually. Historically, the Board has approved the guidelines on an annual basis. Aside from these activities, none of HTI's directors is involved with HTI's investments for any significant amount of time. HTI's treasurer and chief financial officer are the only officers who devote time to HTI's investments. An estimated 5% of the treasurer's time and 1% of the chief financial officer's time is spent on investment-related work, and HTI expects that this will continue to be the case if the requested order is granted. HTI currently has approximately 5,300 regular employees working in its four domestic manufacturing plants and overseas. d. *Nature of Assets.* As of September 25, 2005, approximately 15.8% of the value (as defined in section 2(a)(41)(A) of the Act) of HTI's total assets (excluding government securities and cash items), on an unconsolidated basis consisted of investment securities. e. *Sources of Income and Revenue.* Applicant states that since the late 1980s, it has derived virtually all of its revenue, and net income after taxes, from the sale of suspension assemblies. For fiscal 2005, net income after taxes from investments was 10.3% of HTI's total net income after taxes. Net income after taxes from investments (including government securities, money market fund shares and interest on cash balances) was 9.5%, 6.8% and 35.4% of HTI's total net income after taxes in fiscal 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively. In addition, for fiscal 2005, revenue from investments was only 1.2% of HTI's total revenue. In fiscal 2004, 2003 and 2002, revenue from investments was only 1.0%, 1.2%, and 1.8% of total revenue. HTI submits that an analysis of the sources of its revenue (especially in periods where HTI reported net losses) provides a more meaningful, and even more compelling, picture of the nature and extent of HTI's primary business operations. In the future, HTI expects substantially all of its revenues to come from operations and less than 2% from investment securities. 6. HTI thus asserts that it satisfies the standards for an order under section 3(b)(2) of the Act. Applicant's Conditions 1. HTI will continue to allocate and utilize its accumulated cash and investments for bona fide business purposes. 2. HTI will refrain from investing or trading in securities for short-term speculative purposes. For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-1226 Filed 1-31-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53181; File No. SR-CHX-2005-40] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to a Session Fee Increase for the Regulatory Element of the Continuing Education Program January 26, 2006. 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 30, 2005, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (“CHX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the CHX. The Exchange has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by CHX 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 CHX proposes to amend its Participant Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”) to incorporate the session fee for the Regulatory Element of the continuing education requirements set out in CHX rules. The text of this proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at *http://www.chx.com/rules/proposed_rules.htm,* at the CHX, 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 CHX included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received regarding the proposal. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The CHX 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 Changes 1. Purpose The Exchange is proposing to incorporate, in its Fee Schedule, the session fee paid by Exchange participants for the Regulatory Element of the continuing education program required by CHX Rules. Under Exchange rules, registered persons associated with CHX participant firms are required to complete the Regulatory Element of the continuing education program on the second anniversary of their registration and every three years after that date, or as otherwise prescribed by the Exchange. 5 The Regulatory Element is a computer-based education program administered by the National Association of Securities Dealers (“NASD”) that is designed to help ensure that registered persons are kept up-to-date on regulatory, compliance and sales practice matters in the industry. The Regulatory Element is a component of the Securities Industry Continuing Education Program (the “Program”). The Securities Industry/Regulatory Council on Continuing Education (the “Council”) was organized in 1995 to facilitate cooperative industry and 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 *See* CHX Article VI, Rule 9. The Exchange understands that 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. Although there was no change to the fee for 2005, the Council has decided 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. 7 Through this filing, the Exchange proposes to incorporate the $75 fee into its Fee Schedule. 6 The Council currently consists of 20 individuals, including six representatives of self-regulatory organizations and 14 persons who are associated with NASD member firms. The Commission and the North American Securities Administrators Association have liaisons to the Council. The Exchange does not have a representative serving on the Council. 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52947 (December 13, 2005), 70 FR 75517 (December 20, 2005) (SR-NASD-2005-132). 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes this proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b)(4) of the Act 8 in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members. 8 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on competition. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Changes Received From Members, Participants or Others No written comments were either solicited or received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Changes 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 9 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 10 because it establishes or changes a due, fee or other charge imposed by the Exchange. Accordingly, the proposal will take effect upon filing with the Commission. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 10 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 proposal 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-CHX-2005-40 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CHX-2005-40. 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 will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the CHX. 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-CHX-2005-40 and should be submitted on or before February 22, 2006. 11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 11 Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-1304 Filed 1-31-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53182; File No. SR-NASD-2005-135] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Status of Former Registered Persons Serving in the Armed Forces of the United States January 26, 2006. I. Introduction On November 15, 2005, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) 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 proposal to amend NASD IM-1000-2 to toll the two-year expiration provisions for qualification examination requirements set forth in NASD Rules 1021(c), 1031(c), and 1041(c) for certain former registered persons serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, including persons who commence their active military duty within two years after they have ceased to be registered with a member and persons who terminate their registration with a member while on active military duty. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on December 27, 2005. 3 The Commission received one comment letter on the proposal. 4 This order approves the proposed rule change. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52979 (December 19, 2005), 70 FR 76483. 4 *See* e-mail from John C. Vallier dated January 18, 2006. The comment narrowly addresses the commenter's personal situation as a registered person serving in the Armed Forces of the United States and does not directly address the subject of this proposal. II. Description of the Proposal The filing proposes to amend NASD IM-1000-2 to toll the “two-year licensing expiration provisions” for a person previously registered with a member who commences his active military duty within two years after he has ceased to be registered with the member. Under the proposal, the tolling would start on the date such person enters active military service and would terminate 90 days following the person's completion of active service in the Armed Forces of the United States. The proposal requires that NASD be properly notified of the person's period of active military service within 90 days following his completion of active service or upon his re-registration with a member, whichever occurs first. The proposal also provides that if such person does not re-register with a member within 90 days following his completion of active service in the Armed Forces of the United States, the amount of time in which the person must become re-registered with a member without being subject to the “two-year licensing expiration provisions” will consist of the standard two-year period reduced by the period of time between the person's termination of registration and beginning of active service in the Armed Forces of the United States. In addition, NASD is proposing to amend NASD IM-1000-2 to toll the “two-year licensing expiration provisions” for a person placed upon “inactive” status pursuant to NASD IM-1000-2 who while serving in the Armed Forces of the United States ceases to be registered with a member. 5 Under the proposal, the tolling would start on the date such person ceases to be registered with the member and would terminate 90 days following the person's completion of active service in the Armed Forces of the United States. The proposal requires that NASD be properly notified of the person's period of active military service within two years following his completion of active service or upon his re-registration with a member, whichever occurs first. NASD is proposing to toll the “two-year licensing expiration provisions” for such persons based on available information in the Central Registration Depository

(CRD)regarding their active military status. The proposal further provides that if such person does not re- register with a member within 90 days following his completion of active service in the Armed Forces of the United States, the person would have 90 days plus two years following the end of the person's active service in the Armed Forces of the United States to become re-registered with a member. 5 Persons on “inactive” status due to active military duty who do not cease their registration with a member while serving in the Armed Forces of the United States are not subject to the “two-year licensing expiration provisions” because they are considered registered for purposes of NASD Rules. *See* NASD IM-1000-2. III. Discussion After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities association. 6 Specifically, the Commission believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act 7 in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Commission believes that the proposed rule change provides appropriate tailored relief to persons actively serving in the Armed Forces of the United States by tolling the “two-year licensing expiration provisions” in a manner consistent with the goals of investor protection and market integrity. 6 In approving this proposed rule change, 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)(6). IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 8 that the proposed rule change (SR-NASD-2005-135) is approved. 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 9 9 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-1307 Filed 1-31-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53176; File No. SR-NYSE-2005-36] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to Amendment No. 1 to the Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 445 January 25, 2006. I. Introduction On May 23, 2005, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NYSE” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or the “Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change relating to amendments to NYSE Rule 445. The Commission published the proposed rule change for comment in the **Federal Register** on July 6, 2005. 3 The Commission received one comment letter on the proposal. 4 On January 17, 2006, NYSE filed a response to the comment letter, 5 as well as Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 6 This order approves the proposed rule change, grants accelerated approval to Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change, and solicits comments from interested persons on Amendment No. 1. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51934 (June 29, 2005), 70 FR 38994 (July 6, 2005). 4 *See* letter from Alan E. Sorcher, Vice President and Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry Association (“SIA”), to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, SEC, dated July 27, 2005 (the “SIA Letter”). 5 *See* letter from Mary Yeager, Acting Corporate Secretary, NYSE, to Catherine McGuire, Chief Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, SEC, dated January 17, 2006 (the “NYSE Response”). 6 Amendment No. 1 amended the rule text to clarify that notice to the Exchange, as opposed to approval by the Exchange, is required if a person holding the AML Officer designation (employed by an entity that directly or indirectly controls, or is controlled by, or is under common control with the member or member organization), is replaced by another person and the structure of the arrangement has been previously approved by the Exchange. II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change The proposed rule change consists of amendments to NYSE Rule 445 (the “Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Rule”) to establish that the “independent testing” requirement of the rule must be conducted, at minimum, on an annual calendar-year basis by members and member organizations that conduct a public business, or every two years if no public business is conducted. The amendments also establish a standard to determine who is adequately qualified and sufficiently independent to conduct the required testing. Further, they clarify that each person designated to implement and monitor the Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Rule must either be an employee of the member or member organization for which they are designated or, with the prior approval of the Exchange, an employee of a parent, affiliate, or subsidiary of the member or member organization. Employees of a parent, affiliate, or subsidiary of a member or member organization who are designated to implement and monitor the Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Rule must consent to the jurisdiction of the Exchange and the member or member organization must acknowledge their responsibility to supervise them as employees. Background and Detail NYSE Rule 445, which became effective on April 24, 2002, 7 requires each member organization and each member not associated with a member organization to develop and implement an anti-money laundering (“AML”) program consistent with ongoing obligations pursuant to Treasury regulation 31 CFR 103.120 under the Bank Secrecy Act, 8 as amended by the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001. 9 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 45798 (April 22, 2002); 67 FR 20854 (April 26, 2002) (SR-NYSE-2002-10). 8 Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act of 1970 (commonly referred to as the Bank Secrecy Act), 12 U.S.C. 1829b, 12 U.S.C. 1951-1959, and 31 U.S.C. 5311-5330. 9 Public Law No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001). The prescribed AML program obligations include the development of internal policies, procedures and controls; the designation of a person to implement and monitor the day-to-day operations and internal controls of the program (commonly referred to as an “AML Officer”); ongoing training for appropriate persons; and an independent testing function for overall compliance. Neither the Bank Secrecy Act nor NYSE Rule 445 currently specifies:

(1)Timeframes within which the independent testing function must be performed,

(2)qualification and independence standards for those who conduct such testing function, or

(3)jurisdictional requirements pertaining to AML Officers. In order to provide interpretive clarity to the text, the following amendments to NYSE Rule 445 were proposed. Timeframes for Independent Testing The proposed amendments would require that independent testing of AML programs be conducted, at a minimum, on an annual (calendar-year) basis by members or member organizations that conduct a public business, or every two years if no public business is conducted ( *i.e.* , if the member or member organization engages solely in proprietary trading, and/or conducts business only with other broker-dealers). The Exchange believes these timeframes are reasonable in that they require more frequent testing of AML programs designed to monitor a public business, which is likely more susceptible to money laundering schemes than strictly proprietary business. Further, the one-year time frame for testing is consistent with standard industry practice in that it is similar to generally accepted guidelines for conducting tests in the context of, for instance, general audits and branch office visits. However, the proposed amendments make clear that more frequent testing should be conducted if circumstances warrant ( *e.g.* , should the business mix of the member or member organization materially change; in the event of a merger or acquisition; in light of systemic weaknesses uncovered via testing of the AML program; or in response to any other “red flags”). Qualification and Independence Standards for Testing With regard to who is adequately qualified and sufficiently independent to conduct the independent testing function, the proposed amendments would require that testing be conducted by a designated person with a working knowledge of applicable requirements under the Bank Secrecy Act and its implementing regulations. Such person need not be an employee of the member or member organization since the responsibility being delegated is essentially an auditing function and, as such, it would not be unusual or ineffective for it to be performed by an independent outside party. As noted below, the proposed amendments require that the day-to-day responsibilities for monitoring operations and internal controls of AML programs be performed by a person fully subject to the supervision of the member or member organization for which they are designated, and to the jurisdiction of the Exchange. The proposed amendments do not preclude an employee of the member or member organization from conducting the required independent testing of the AML program; however the proposed “independence” standard would prohibit testing from being conducted by a person who performs the functions being tested, or by the designated AML Officer, or by a person who reports to either. This standard is designed to promote the independence, and thus the integrity, of the testing function by insulating it from the day-to-day administration of the activities being tested. It also serves to remove the testing function from the supervisory structure of the member or member organization, thus eliminating the possibility that a person might not candidly report shortcomings in a system designed by their supervisor for fear of reprisal. Jurisdiction Over AML Officers The proposed amendments clarify that the AML Officer designated to implement and monitor a member's or member organization's AML Program must either be an employee of the member or member organization for which they are designated or, with the prior approval of the Exchange, an employee of a parent, affiliate or subsidiary of the member or member organization. 10 10 If a person holding the AML Officer designation is to be replaced by another person, and the structure of the arrangement has been previously approved by the Exchange, then notice to the Exchange of the designation change would be sufficient if the previously approved arrangement remained substantively unchanged. The rationale behind the proposal to allow employees of parents, affiliates and subsidiaries to be designated AML Officers of members and member organizations is the recognition that AML programs may be integrated into, and extend throughout, the corporate family. Accordingly, a person acting as an AML Officer for both a member organization and the member organization's parent bank would be better situated to see the “big picture” ( *i.e.* , to monitor the movements of funds and securities throughout the corporate structure and, thus, be better able to identify and understand AML issues across the range of such structure). The ability to situate AML Officers where they can be most effective gives members and member organizations the flexibility to integrate their AML program into the larger corporate structure to achieve a more global perspective, and thus a more comprehensive and effective AML program. The prior written approval of the Exchange is required if the designated AML Officer is other than an employee of the member or member organization. Further, each such person must execute an attestation, acceptable to the Exchange, consenting to the supervision of each member or member organization for which they are designated and to the jurisdiction of the Exchange. A proposed example of such an attestation is included in Exhibit 3 of the proposed rule change, under the heading “AML Officer Consent to Jurisdiction.” 11 In addition, the member or member organization must execute an agreement, acceptable to the Exchange, acknowledging their responsibility to supervise, as an employee for all regulatory purposes, each such person designated by them. A proposed example of such an agreement is included in Exhibit 3 of the proposed rule change under the heading “Acknowledgement of Supervisory Responsibility over AML Officer.” 12 11 Exhibit 3 of the proposed rule change is available on the NYSE's Web site ( *www.NYSE.com* ), at the NYSE's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. 12 *Id.* III. Summary of Comments Received and NYSE Response The Commission received one comment letter from the SIA on the proposal and a response to the comment letter by NYSE. The SIA Letter noted that the “NYSE proposal provides that the AML Compliance Person/Officer may be an employee of a parent, affiliate or subsidiary of the member or member organization with the ‘prior approval of the Exchange.’ ” 13 In the SIA's view prior approval should not be required because it would be impractical to obtain prior approval for each and every personnel change. 14 13 SIA Letter, *supra* note 4, at 3-4. 14 *Id.* at 4. The NYSE Response indicated that NYSE “has a strong regulatory interest in retaining the right to review ‘outside' AML Officer arrangements to make certain practical determinations ( *e.g.* , whether the proposed arrangement is structured such that the AML Officer will be positioned to effectively implement the member organization's AML Program, and whether he or she will have sufficient time and resources to monitor the Program's day-to-day operations and internal controls).” 15 NYSE, however, indicated that its interests rest primarily in reviewing the structure of the arrangement in which an “outside” AML Officer is employed. 16 Accordingly, NYSE filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change to provide that “if a person holding the AML Officer designation is to be replaced by another person, and the structure of the arrangement has been previously approved by the Exchange, then notice to the Exchange of the designation change would be sufficient if the previously approved arrangement remained substantively unchanged.” 17 15 NYSE Response, *supra* note 5, at 2. 16 *Id.* 17 *Id.* IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning Amendment No. 1, including whether Amendment No. 1 is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-NYSE-2005-36 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2005-36. 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 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-2005-36 and should be submitted on or before February 22, 2006. V. Discussion and Findings After careful review, the Commission finds 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) 18 of the Exchange Act. 19 Section 6(b)(5) 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. The Commission believes that the proposed rule change is designed to accomplish these ends by requiring members to conduct periodic tests of their AML compliance programs, preserve the independence of their testing personnel, and ensure the accuracy of their AML compliance program. 18 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 19 In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). Accelerated Approval of Amendment No. 1 The Commission finds good cause for approving Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after the amendment is published for comment in the **Federal Register** pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act. Amendment No. 1 provides that notice to the Exchange, as opposed to approval by the Exchange, is required if a person holding the AML Officer designation (employed by an entity that directly or indirectly controls, or is controlled by, or is under common control with the member or member organization), is replaced by another person and the structure of the arrangement has been previously approved by the Exchange. Permitting Exchange members to submit a notice instead of seeking prior approval, in circumstances where the structure of the arrangement in which an outside AML Officer is employed has not changed, will permit the Exchange to monitor compliance while minimizing any regulatory burden on members. Accordingly, the Commission believes that accelerated approval of Amendment No. 1 is appropriate. VI. Conclusions *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 20 that the proposed rule change, as amended (SR-NYSE-2005-36), be, and hereby is, approved. 20 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 21 21 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-1227 Filed 1-31-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53180; File No. SR-Phlx-2005-90] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock 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 Program January 26, 2006. 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 23, 2005, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx” 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 Phlx. The Exchange has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by Phlx 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 Phlx proposes to amend its schedule of fees to increase the Regulatory Element Session fee from $60 to $75 effective January 1, 2006. The text of this proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site ( *http://www.phlx.com* ), at the Phlx, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the 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 IV below. The 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 proposed rule change provides notice to the Exchange's membership of the recent increase to the Regulatory Element Session fee from $60 to $75 effective January 1, 2006. 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”). 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, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, NASD, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc., and the Phlx). 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 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 original 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. Pursuant to Exchange Rule 640, each registered person is required to complete the Regulatory Element of the continuing education program. 8 The Regulatory Element Session fee continues to be payable directly to the NASD. A notice will be provided to the Exchange's membership of the increase in the fee and the effective date of the increase. 8 *See* Exchange Rule 640(a)(1) which states, “Each registered person shall complete the Regulatory Element of the continuing education program on the occurrence of their second registration anniversary date(s), and every three years thereafter or as otherwise prescribed by the Exchange. On each occasion, the Regulatory Element must be completed within 120 days after the person's registration anniversary date. A person's initial registration date, also known as the “base date,” shall establish the cycle of anniversary dates for purposes of this Rule. The content of the Regulatory Element of the program shall be determined by the Exchange for each registration category of persons subject to the rule.” 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes this is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 9 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) 10 and 6(b)(5) 11 of the Act, in particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among Phlx members and other persons using its facilities, and that Phlx 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. Phlx 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. 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Phlx does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others No written comments were either solicited or received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 12 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 13 because it establishes or changes a due, fee or other charge imposed by the Exchange. Accordingly, the proposal will take effect upon filing with the Commission. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 13 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-Phlx-2005-90 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2005-90. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the 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-2005-90 and should be submitted on or before February 22, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 14 14 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-1305 Filed 1-31-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Privacy Act of 1974 as Amended; Computer Matching Program (SSA/Internal Revenue Service (IRS)—Match Number 1016) AGENCY: Social Security Administration (SSA). ACTION: Notice of the renewal of an existing computer matching program, which is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2005. SUMMARY: In accordance with the provisions of the Privacy Act, as amended, this notice announces the renewal of an existing computer matching program that SSA is currently conducting with the IRS. DATES: IRS will file a report of the subject matching program with the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, the Committee on Government Reform of the House of Representatives, and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The renewal of the matching program will be effective as indicated below. ADDRESSES: Interested parties may comment on this notice by either telefax to

(410)965-8582 or writing to the Associate Commissioner, Office of Income Security Programs, 252 Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401. All comments received will be available for public inspection at this address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Associate Commissioner for Income Security Programs as shown above. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. General The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (Public Law (Pub. L.) 100-503), amended the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) by describing the manner in which computer matching involving Federal agencies could be performed and adding certain protections for individuals applying for, and receiving, Federal benefits. Section 7201 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-508) further amended the Privacy Act regarding protections for such individuals. The Privacy Act, as amended, regulates the use of computer matching by Federal agencies when records in a system of records are matched with other Federal, State, or local government records. It requires Federal agencies involved in computer matching programs to:

(1)Negotiate written agreements with the other agency, or agencies, participating in the matching programs;

(2)Obtain the Data Integrity Boards' approval of the match agreements;

(3)Publish notice of the computer matching program in the **Federal Register** ;

(4)Furnish detailed reports about matching programs to Congress and OMB;

(5)Notify applicants and beneficiaries that their records are subject to matching; and

(6)Verify match findings before reducing, suspending, terminating, or denying an individual's benefits or payments. B. SSA Computer Matches Subject to the Privacy Act We have taken action to ensure that all of SSA's computer matching programs comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act, as amended. Dated: December 7, 2005. Martin H. Gerry, Deputy Commissioner for Disability and Income Security Programs. Notice of Computer Matching Program, Social Security Administration

(SSA)With Internal Revenue Service

(IRS)A. Participating Agencies SSA and IRS. B. Purpose of the Matching Program The purpose of this matching program is to establish conditions under which IRS agrees to disclose to SSA certain return information for use in verifying eligibility for, and/or the correct amount of, benefits provided under title XVI of the Social Security Act, to qualified aged, blind and disabled individuals, and federally administered supplementary payments of the type described in section 1616(a) of such Act (including payments pursuant to an agreement entered into under section 212(a) of Pub. L. 93-66, 87 Stat. 152). C. Authority for Conducting the Matching Program Section 6103(1)(7) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 6103(1)(7)) authorizes the IRS to disclose return information with respect to unearned income to Federal, State, and local agencies administering certain benefit programs under the Social Security Act. Section 1631(e)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1383(e)(1)(B)) requires verification of Supplemental Security Income

(SSI)eligibility and benefit amounts with independent or collateral sources. D. Categories of Records and Individuals Covered by the Matching Program SSA will provide the IRS with identifying information with respect to applicants for, and recipients of, benefits available under programs specified in this Agreement from the Supplemental Security Income Record and Special Veterans Benefit

(SSR)system, SSA/ODSSIS 60-0103, as published at 66 FR 11079 (February 21, 2001). IRS will extract return information with respect to unearned income from the Wage and Information Returns Processing

(IRP)File, Treas/IRS 22.061, hereafter referred to as the Information Return Master File (IRMF), as published at 66 FR 63797 (December 10, 2001), through the Disclosure of Information to Federal, State and Local Agencies (DIFSLA) program. E. Inclusive Dates of the Matching Program The matching program will become effective no sooner than 40 days after notice of the matching program is sent to Congress and OMB, or 30 days after publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** , whichever date is later. The matching program will continue for 18 months from the effective date and may be extended for an additional 12 months thereafter, if certain conditions are met. [FR Doc. E6-1318 Filed 1-31-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended; Altered System of Records AGENCY: Social Security Administration

(SSA)ACTION: Altered system of records. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)), we are issuing public notice of our intent to alter an existing system of records, the Master Representative Payee File, 60-0222. The proposed alterations will result in an expansion of the existing categories of records maintained in the Master Representative Payee File to include:

(1)Information about representative payee applicants who have been convicted of an offense resulting in more than one

(1)year imprisonment;

(2)Information about representative payee applicants or payees who have an outstanding felony warrant; and

(3)Information about specific types of organizations which, having met certain requirements, may apply and be permitted to charge a fee for their payee services. All of the proposed alterations are discussed in the Supplementary Information section below. We invite public comment on this proposal. DATES: We filed a report of the proposed altered system of records with the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, and the Director, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget on January 23, 2006. The proposed altered system of records will become effective on March 6, 2006, unless we receive comments warranting it not to become effective. ADDRESSES: Interested individuals may comment on this publication by writing to the Executive Director, Office of Public Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration, Room 3-A-6 Operations Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401. All comments received will be available for public inspection at the above address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margo Wagner, Social Insurance Specialist, Disclosure Policy Team, Office of Public Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration, in Room 3-A-6 Operations Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, telephone at

(410)965-1482, e-mail: *margo.wagner@ssa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background and Purpose of the Proposed Alterations to the Master Representative Payee File System of Records A. General Background The Master Representative Payee File system of records maintains information that Social Security field offices use when screening applicants to determine suitability as representative payees for Social Security claimants and beneficiaries who are incapable of handling their Social Security benefits and those who are required by law to have payees. The Master Representative Payee File system of records currently maintains records about all payees and payee applicants, including persons whose certifications as representative payees have been revoked or terminated on or after January 1, 1991; persons who have been convicted of a violation of section 208 or 1632 of the Social Security Act (the Act); persons convicted under other statutes in connection with services as a representative payee; and others whose certification as a representative payee SSA has revoked due to misuse of funds paid under Title II or Title XVI of the Act. The system also houses information on persons who are acting or have acted as representative payees; representative payee applicants who were not selected to serve as representative payees; and beneficiaries/applicants who are being served by representative payees. B. Discussion of Proposed Alterations to the Master Representative Payee File System of Records The Social Security Protection Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-203) amended section 205(j) of the Act. The amendment, which came into effect April 1, 2005, mandates that SSA not appoint payees, or permit the continued payee service of those payees, with certain types of criminal behaviors. To effectuate this provision which affords better protection to Social Security beneficiaries in need of a representative payee, SSA proposes an expansion of the collection of data in the application process to include: 1. Information about applicants wanting to serve as representative payees who have been imprisoned for more than one

(1)year, and 2. Information about payees or payee applicants who have an outstanding fugitive felon warrant. In addition to the above, under provisions in section 205(j) in existence prior to the implementation of Pub. L. 108-203, SSA will collect information about specific types of organizations which, having met certain requirements, may apply and be permitted to charge a fee for their payee services. II. Record Storage Medium and Safeguards for the Information Maintained in the Proposed Altered Master Representative Payee File System of Records The Master Representative Payee File system of records maintains information in electronic and manual forms. Only authorized SSA personnel that have a need for the information in the performance of their official duties are permitted access to the information. Security measures include the use of access codes to enter the computer system that will maintain the data and storage of the computerized records in secured areas that are accessible only to employees who require the information in performing their official duties. Manually maintained records are kept in locked cabinets or in otherwise secure areas. III. Effect of the Proposed Alterations to the Master Representative Payee File System of Records on the Rights of Individuals The proposed alterations to the Master Representative Payee File system of records pertain to SSA's responsibilities in collecting and maintaining information about representative payee applicants for Social Security beneficiaries in cases in which the Commissioner of Social Security has determined that the interests of the beneficiaries would be better served by their having a representative payee. We will adhere to all applicable statutory requirements, including those under the Act and the Privacy Act, in carrying out our responsibilities. Therefore, we do not anticipate that the proposed alterations will have an unwarranted adverse effect on the rights of individuals. Dated: January 23, 2006. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner. System number: 60-0222. System name: Master Representative Payee File, Social Security Administration, Office of Income Security Programs. Security classification: None. System Location: National Computer Center, Social Security Administration, 6201 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235. The system database will be available by direct electronic access by Social Security field offices (FO). FO addresses and telephone numbers can be found in local telephone directories under “Social Security Administration,”

(SSA)or by accessing *www.ssa.gov/regions/regional.html* . Categories of individuals covered by the system: This system maintains information about all payees and payee applicants, including persons whose certifications as representative payees have been revoked or terminated on or after January 1, 1991; persons who have been convicted of a violation of section 208 or section 1632 of the Social Security Act, persons convicted under other statutes in connection with services as a representative payee, and others whose certification as a representative payee SSA has revoked due to misuse of funds paid under Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security Act; persons who are acting or have acted as representative payees; representative payee applicants who were not selected to serve as representative payees; representative payee applicants who have been convicted of an offense resulting in more than one

(1)year imprisonment; payees and payee applicants who have an outstanding felony warrant; organizational payees who have been authorized to collect a fee for their service; and beneficiaries/applicants who are being served by representative payees. Categories of records in the system: Records in this system consist of: 1. Names and Social Security numbers

(SSNs)(or employer identification numbers (EINs)) of representative payees whose certifications for payment of benefits as representative payees have been revoked or terminated on or after January 1, 1991, because of misuse of benefits under Title II or Title XVI of the Social Security Act; 2. Names and SSNs (or EINs) of all persons convicted of violations of sections 208 or 1632 of the Social Security Act; 3. Names, addresses, and SSNs (or EINs) of persons convicted of violations of statutes other than sections 208 and 1632 of the Social Security Act, when such violations were committed in connection with the individual's service as a Social Security representative payee; 4. Names, addresses, SSNs, and information about the crime reported by the payee for those who have an outstanding felony warrant or who have been imprisoned for a period exceeding one

(1)year. (An indicator will be used in the system to identify persons identified as having an outstanding felony warrant); 5. Names, addresses, and SSNs (or EINs) of representative payees who are receiving benefit payments pursuant to section 205(j) or section 1631(a)(2) of the Social Security Act; 6. Names, addresses, and SSNs of individuals for whom representative payees are reported to be providing representative payee services under section 205(j) or section 1631(a)(2) of the Social Security Act; 7. Names, addresses, and SSNs of representative payee applicants who were not selected as representative payees; 8. Names, addresses, and SSNs of persons who were terminated as representative payees for reasons other than misuse of benefits paid to them on behalf of beneficiaries/recipients; 9. Information on the representative payee's relationship to the beneficiaries/recipients they serve; 10. Names, addresses, EINs and qualifying information of organizations authorized to charge a fee for providing representative payee services; 11. Codes which indicate the relationship (other than familial) between the beneficiaries/recipients and the individuals who have custody of the beneficiaries/recipients; 12. Dates and reasons for payee terminations ( *e.g.* , performance not acceptable, death of payee, beneficiary in direct payment, etc.) and revocations; 13. Codes indicating whether representative payee applicants were selected or not selected; 14. Dates and reasons representative payee applicants were not selected to serve as payees and dates and reasons for changes of payees ( *e.g.* , beneficiary in direct payment, etc.); 15. Amount of benefits misused; 16. Identification number assigned to the claim on which the misuse occurred; 17. Date of the determination of misuse; and 18. Information about a felony conviction reported by the representative payee. Authority for maintenance of the system: Sections 205(a), 205(j), 1631(a) of the Social Security Act, and the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-203). Purpose(s): Information maintained in this system will assist SSA in the representative payee selection process by enabling Social Security field offices to more carefully screen applicants and to determine their suitability to become representative payees. SSA also will use the data for management information and workload projection purposes and to prepare annual reports to Congress on representative payee activities. Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses: Disclosure may be made for routine uses as indicated below. However, disclosure of any information defined as “return or return information” under 26 U.S.C. 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code will not be disclosed unless authorized by a statute, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), or IRS regulations. 1. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), a court or other tribunal, or another party before such tribunal, when:

(a)The Social Security Administration (SSA), or any component thereof; or

(b)Any SSA employee in his/her official capacity; or

(c)Any SSA employee in his/her individual capacity where DOJ (or SSA, where it is authorized to do so) has agreed to represent the employee; or

(d)The United States or any agency thereof where SSA determines that the litigation is likely to affect SSA or any of its components, Is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and SSA determines that the use of such records by DOJ, a court or other tribunal, or another party before the tribunal, is relevant and necessary to the litigation, provided, however, that in each case, SSA determines that such disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were collected. 2. To a congressional office in response to an inquiry from that office made at the request of the subject of the records. 3. To the General Services Administration and the National Archives Records Administration

(NARA)under 44 U.S.C. § 2904 and § 2906, as amended by the NARA Act of 1984, information which is not restricted from disclosure by Federal law for the use of those agencies in conducting records management studies. 4. To the Department of Veterans Affairs, Regional Office, Manila, Philippines, for the administration of the Social Security Act in the Philippines and other parts of the Asia-Pacific region through services and facilities of that agency. 5. To the Department of State for administration of the Social Security Act in foreign countries through services and facilities of that agency. 6. To the American Institute, a private corporation under contract to the Department of State, for administering the Social Security Act on Taiwan through facilities and services of that agency. 7. To the Department of Justice for:

(a)Investigating and prosecuting violations of the Social Security Act to which criminal penalties attach,

(b)Representing the Commissioner of Social Security, and

(c)Investigating issues of fraud or violations of civil rights by officers or employees of the Social Security Administration. 8. To the Office of the President for responding to an inquiry received from that individual or from a third party acting on that individual's behalf. 9. To the Department of Veterans Affairs

(DVA)for the shared administration of DVA's and the Social Security Administration's representative payee programs. 10. To contractors and other Federal Agencies, as necessary, for the purpose of assisting the Social Security Administration

(SSA)in the efficient administration of its programs. We will disclose information under this routine use only in situations in which SSA may enter into a contractual or similar agreement to obtain assistance in accomplishing an SSA function relating to this system of records. 11. To a third party such as a physician, social worker, or community service worker, who has, or is expected to have, information which is needed to evaluate one or both of the following:

(a)The claimant's capability to manage or direct the management of his/her affairs.

(b)Any case in which disclosure aids investigation of suspected misuse of benefits, abuse or fraud, or is necessary for program integrity, or quality appraisal activities. 12. To a third party, where necessary, information pertaining to the identity of a payee or payee applicant, the fact of the person's application for or service as a payee, and, as necessary, the identity of the beneficiary, to obtain information on employment, sources of income, criminal justice records, stability of residence and other information relating to the qualifications and suitability of representative payees or representative payee applicants to serve as representative payees or their use of the benefits paid to them under section 205(j) or section 1631(a) of the Social Security Act. 13. To a claimant or other individual authorized to act on his/her behalf information pertaining to the address of a representative payee applicant or a selected representative payee when this information is needed to pursue a claim for recovery of misapplied or misused benefits. 14. To the Railroad Retirement Board

(RRB)for the administration of RRB's representative payment program. 15. To student volunteers, individuals working under a personal services contract, and other workers who technically do not have the status of Federal employees, when they are performing work for the Social Security Administration (SSA), as authorized by law, and they need access to personally identifiable information in SSA records in order to perform their assigned Agency functions. 16. To the Office of Personnel Management

(OPM)for the administration of OPM's representative payee programs. 17. To the Secretary of Health and Human Services or to any State, any record or information requested in writing by the Secretary for the purpose of administering any program administered by the Secretary, if records or information of such type were so disclosed under applicable rules, regulations and procedures in effect before the date of enactment of the Social Security Independence and Program Improvements Act of 1994. Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining and disposing of records in the system: Storage: Records are stored in magnetic media (e.g., magnetic tape, microfilm, and disc) and manual forms. Retrievability: Data are retrieved from the system by the SSN or the ZIP code and name (in a situation where the representative payee is an organization) of the representative payee, or the SSN of the beneficiary/recipient. Safeguards: For computerized records electronically transmitted between Central Office and FO locations (including organizations administering SSA programs under contractual agreements), safeguards include a lock/unlock password system, exclusive use of leased telephone lines, a terminal-oriented transaction matrix, and an audit trail. All microfilm files are accessible only by authorized personnel who have a need for the information in performing their official duties. Magnetic tapes are in secured storage areas accessible only to authorized personnel. Access *http://www.socialsecurity.gov/foia/bluebook/app_g.htm* for additional information relating to SSA data security measures. Retention and disposal: National Archives and Records Administration

(NARA)guidelines will be followed for retention and disposal of records in the *Master Representative Payee File.* Changes are being made to the *Master Representative Payee File* to ensure NARA compliance. To prevent lost of data, back-up files are maintained on disk file cartridges and are destroyed after two weeks. System manager(s) and address: Associate Commissioner, Office of Income Security Programs, Social Security Administration, Room 252 Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235. Notification procedures: An individual can determine if this system contains data about him/her by writing to the systems manager at the address shown above and providing his/her name, SSN or other information that may be in the system of records that will identify him/her. An individual requesting notification of data in person should provide the same information, as well as provide any identity document, preferably with a photograph, such as a driver's license or some other means of identification. If an individual does not have any identification documents sufficient to establish his/her identity, the individual must certify in writing that he/she is the person claimed to be and that he/she understands that the knowing and willful request for, or acquisition of, a record pertaining to another individual under false pretenses is a criminal offense. If notification is requested by telephone, an individual must verify his/her identity by providing identifying information that parallels information in the record to which notification is being requested. If it is determined that the identifying information provided by telephone is insufficient, the individual will be required to submit a request in writing or in person. If an individual is requesting information by telephone on behalf of another individual, the subject individual must be connected with SSA and the requesting individual in the same phone call. SSA will establish the subject individual's identity (his/her name, SSN, address, date of birth and place of birth, along with one other piece of information, such as mother's maiden name) and ask for his/her consent in providing information to the requesting individual. If a request for notification is submitted by mail, an individual must include a notarized statement to SSA to verify his/her identity or must certify in the request that he/she is the person claimed to be and that he/she understands that the knowing and willful request for access to records concerning another individual under false pretense is a criminal offense. These procedures are in accordance with SSA Regulations (20 CFR 401.40(c)). Record access procedures: Same as Notification procedures. Also, a requester should reasonably identify and specify the information he/she is attempting to obtain. These procedures are in accordance with SSA Regulations (20 CFR 401.40(c)). Contesting record procedures: Same as Notification procedures. Requester should also reasonably identify the record, specify the information they are contesting and the corrective action sought, and the reasons for the correction, with supporting justification showing how the record is incomplete, untimely, inaccurate or irrelevant. These procedures are in accordance with SSA Regulations (20 CFR 401.65(a)). Record source categories: Data in this system are obtained from representative payee applicants and representative payees, the SSA Office of Inspector General, and other SSA systems of records such as the *Claims Folder System, 60-0089; Master Beneficiary Record, 60-0090; Supplemental Security Income Record and Special Veterans Benefits, 60-0103; Master Files of SSN Holders and SSN Applications, 60-0058; and Recovery of Overpayments, Accounting and Reporting, 60-0094.* Systems exempted from certain provisions of the Privacy Act: None. [FR Doc. E6-1319 Filed 1-31-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5289] 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collections: Notice of Termination of Diplomatic, Consular, or Foreign Government Employment, OMB No.1405-0061, Form DS-2008 & DS-2008E; Notification of Appointment of Foreign Diplomatic Officer, Career Consular Officer, and Foreign Government Employee, OMB No. 1405-0062, Form DS-2003, DS-2004, & DS-2003E; Notification of Appointment of Honorary Consular Officer, OMB No. 1405-0064, Form DS-2005; Notification of Change—Identification Card Request, OMB No. 1405-0089, DS-2006; Notification of Dependents of Diplomatic, Consular and Foreign Government Employees (Continuation Sheet), OMB No. 1405-0090, Form DS-2007 ACTION: Notice of request for public comments. SUMMARY: The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)approval for the information collection described below. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment in the **Federal Register** preceding submission to OMB. We are conducting this process in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. *Title of Information Collection:* Notice of Termination of Diplomatic, Consular, or Foreign Government Employment. *OMB Control Number:* 1405-0061. *Type of Request:* Extension of Currently Approved Collection. *Originating Office:* Diplomatic Security/Office of Foreign Missions (DS/OFM/VTC/V). *Form Numbers:* DS-2008 & DS-2008E. *Respondents:* Foreign government representatives. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 350 missions. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 7,200 forms per year. *Average Hours per Response:* 10 minutes. *Total Estimated Burden:* 1,200 hours divided among the missions. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Obligation to Respond:* Mandatory. *Title of Information Collection:* Notification of Appointment of Foreign Diplomatic, Career Consular Officer, and Foreign Government Employee. *OMB Control Number:* 1405-0062. *Type of Request:* Revision of Currently Approved Collection. *Originating Office:* Diplomatic Security/Office of Foreign Missions (DS/OFM/VTC/V). *Form Numbers:* DS-2003, DS-2004, & DS-2003E. *Respondents:* Foreign government representatives. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 350 missions. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 7,000 forms per year *Average Hours per Response:* 25 minutes. *Total Estimated Burden:* 2917 hours divided among the missions. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Obligation to Respond:* Mandatory. *Title of Information Collection:* Notification of Appointment of Honorary Consular Officer. *OMB Control Number:* 1405-0064. *Type of Request:* Extension of Currently Approved Collection. *Originating Office:* Diplomatic Security/Office of Foreign Missions (DS/OFM/VTC/V). *Form Numbers:* DS-2005 & DS-2005E. *Respondents:* Foreign government representatives. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 155 missions. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 200 forms per year. *Average Hours per Response:* 20 minutes. *Total Estimated Burden:* 67 hours divided among the missions. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Obligation to Respond:* Mandatory. *Title of Information Collection:* Notification of Change—Identification Card Request. *OMB Control Number:* 1405-0089. *Type of Request:* Extension of Currently Approved Collection. *Originating Office:* Diplomatic Security/Office of Foreign Missions (DS/OFM/VTC/V). *Form Numbers:* DS-2006. *Respondents:* Foreign government representatives. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 350 missions. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 5,000 forms per year. *Average Hours per Response:* 9 minutes. *Total Estimated Burden:* 750 hours divided among the missions. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Obligation to Respond:* Mandatory. *Title of Information Collection:* Notification of Dependents of Diplomatic, Consular, and Foreign Government Employees (Continuation Sheet). *OMB Control Number:* 1405-0090. *Type of Request:* Extension of Currently Approved Collection. *Originating Office:* Diplomatic Security/Office of Foreign Missions (DS/OFM/VTC/V). *Form Numbers:* DS-2007. *Respondents:* Foreign government representatives. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 350 missions. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 7,000 forms per year. *Average Hours per Response:* 10 minutes. *Total Estimated Burden:* 1,167 hours divided among the missions. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Obligation to Respond:* Mandatory. DATES: The Department will accept comments from the public up to 60 days from February 1, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • E-mail: *OFMCustomerService@state.gov.* • Mail: U.S. Department of State, Office of Foreign Missions, Attn: Diplomatic Motor Vehicle Director, 3507 International Place, NW., State Annex 33, Washington, DC 20522-3302. You must include the DS form number, information collection title, and OMB control number in any subject line of your correspondence. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct requests for addition information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed information collection and supporting documents, to Attn: Jacqueline Robinson, Diplomatic Motor Vehicle Director, Office of Foreign Missions, 3507 International Place, NW., State Annex 33, Washington, DC 20522-3302, who may be reached at 202-895-3528 or *RobinsonJD@state.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to: • Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our functions. • Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used. • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected. • Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of technology. *Abstract of proposed collections:* The forms associated with OMB numbers 1405-0061, 1405-0062, and 1405-0064 are the means by which the Department of State obtains information concerning the appointment and termination of foreign government employees and diplomatic, career and honorary consular officers serving in the United States. The DS-2007 (OMB number 1405-0090) is the means by which the Department of State obtains information to determine the acceptability of dependents and personal servants accompanying foreign government employees and diplomatic, career and honorary consular officers on tours in the United States. The DS-2006 (OMB number 1405-0089) is used to issue or make changes to identification cards and/or to update information previously submitted. These information collections instruments are used to extend or terminate privileges and immunities as is accorded under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963, and to issue official identification cards and letters. The primary respondents are foreign government representatives. *Methodology:* These forms/information collections are submitted by all foreign missions to the Office of Foreign Missions via the following methods: Mail, personal delivery, and/or electronically. Dated: December 28, 2005. John R. Arndt, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, Office of Foreign Missions, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-1341 Filed 1-31-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-43-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5291] 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Form DS-86, Statement of Non-Receipt of a Passport, OMB Control Number 1405-0146 ACTION: Notice of request for public comment and submission to OMB of proposed collection of information. SUMMARY: The Department of State has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. *Title of Information Collection:* Statement of Non-Receipt of A Passport. *OMB Control Number:* 1405-0146. *Type of Request:* Revision of the currently approved collection. *Originating Office:* Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State, Passport Services, Office of Field Operations, Field Coordination Division. CA/PPT/FO/FC. *Form Number:* DS-86. *Respondents:* Individuals or Households. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 23,500. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 23,500. *Average Hours per Response:* 1/12 hr. (5 min.). *Total Estimated Burden:* 2,000 hours annually. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Obligation to Respond:* Required to Obtain a Benefit. DATES: Submit comments to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for up to 30 days from February 1, 2006. ADDRESSES: Direct comments and questions to Katherine Astrich, the Department of State Desk Officer in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), who may be reached at 202-395-4718. You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • E-mail: *Katherine_T._Astrich@omb.eop.gov* . You must include the DS form number, information collection title, and OMB control number in the subject line of your message. • Mail (paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions): Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. • Fax: 202-395-6974. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed information collection and supporting documents, to Susan Cowlishaw, U.S. Department Of State, CA/PPT/FO/FC. 2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 3rd Floor/Room 3040/ SA-29, Washington, DC 20037, who may be reached on 202.261.8957 or *Cowlishawsc@state.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to: • Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our functions. • Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used. • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected. • Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of technology. *Abstract of proposed collection:* The Statement of Non-Receipt of A Passport, Form DS-86, is used by the U.S. Department of State to collect information for the purpose of issuing a replacement passport to customers who have not received the passport for which they originally applied. The information is used by the Department of State to ensure that no person shall bear more than one valid or potentially valid U.S. passport at any one time, except as authorized by the Department, and is also used to combat passport fraud and misuse. *Methodology:* Passport applicants who do not receive their passports are required to complete a Statement of Non-Receipt of A Passport, Form DS-86. Passport applicants can either download the form from the Internet or obtain one from an Acceptance Facility/Passport Agency. The form must be completed, signed, and then submitted to the Acceptance Facility/Passport Agency for passport re-issuance. Dated: January 12, 2006. Frank Moss, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Passport Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-1356 Filed 1-31-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-06-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5290] 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: DS-158, Contact Information and Work History for Nonimmigrant Visa Applicant, OMB Control Number 1405-0144 ACTION: Notice of request for public comment. SUMMARY: The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)approval for the information collection described below. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment in the **Federal Register** proceeding submission to OMB. This process is conducted in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. *Title of Information Collection:* Contact Information and Work History for Nonimmigrant Visa Applicant. *OMB Control Number:* 1405-0144. *Type of Request:* Extension of a Currently Approved Collection. *Originating Office:* CA/VO. *Form Number:* DS-158. *Respondents:* Applicants for F, J and M nonimmigrant visas. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 700,000 per year. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 700,000 per year. *Average Hours Per Response:* 1 hour. *Total Estimated Burden:* 700,000 hours per year. *Frequency:* Once per respondent. *Obligation to Respond:* Required to Obtain or Retain Benefit. DATES: The Department will accept comments from the public up to 60 days from February 1, 2006. ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the Chief, Legislation and Regulation Division, Visas Services—DS-158 Reauthorization, Department of State, Washington, DC 20520-30106. Comments may also be sent via e-mail to *VisaRegs@state.gov* or faxed to

(202)663-3898. The subject line of either an e-mail or fax must be: DS-158 Reauthorization. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed information collection and supporting documents, should be sent to Andrea Lage of the Office of Visa Services, U.S. Department of State, 2401 E St., NW., L-603, Washington, DC 20522, who may be reached at

(202)663-1221. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to: • Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary to properly perform our functions. • Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used. • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected. • Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond. *Abstract of proposed collection:* This form collects contact information, current employment information, and previous work experience information from aliens applying for certain nonimmigrant visas to enter the United States. *Methodology:* Form DS-158 will be submitted in person or by mail or fax to U.S. embassies and consulates overseas. A version of the form without personal data is available online. Dated: December 15, 2005. Stephen A. Edson, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-1357 Filed 1-31-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-06-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5288] Bureau of Political-Military Affairs; Statutory Debarment Under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Department of State has imposed statutory debarment pursuant to Section 127.7(c) of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”) (22 CFR parts 120 to 130) on persons convicted of violating or conspiring to violate Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (“AECA”) (22 U.S.C. 2778). EFFECTIVE DATE: Date of conviction as specified for each person. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Trimble, Director, Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Department of State

(202)663-2700. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 38(g)(4) of the AECA, 22 U.S.C. 2778, prohibits licenses and other approvals for the export of defense articles or defense services to be issued to persons, or any party to the export, who have been convicted of violating certain statutes, including the AECA. In implementing this section of the AECA, the Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs is authorized by § 127.7 of the ITAR to prohibit any person who has been convicted of violating or conspiring to violate the AECA from participating directly or indirectly in the export of defense articles, including technical data or in the furnishing of defense services for which a license or other approval is required. This prohibition is referred to as “statutory debarment.” Statutory debarment is based solely upon conviction in a criminal proceeding, conducted by a United States Court, and as such the administrative debarment proceedings outlined in part 128 of the ITAR are not applicable. The period for debarment will be determined by the Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs based on the underlying nature of the violations, but will generally be for three years from the date of conviction. At the end of the debarment period, licensing privileges may be reinstated only at the request of the debarred person following the necessary interagency consultations, after a thorough review of the circumstances surrounding the conviction, and a finding that appropriate steps have been taken to mitigate any law enforcement concerns, as required by Section 38(g)(4) of the AECA. Unless licensing privileges are reinstated, however, the person remains debarred. Department of State policy permits debarred persons to apply to the Director, Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance, for reinstatement beginning one year after the date of the debarment, in accordance with Section 38(g)(4) of the AECA and § 127.11(b) of the ITAR. Any decision to grant reinstatement can be made only after the statutory requirements under Section 38(g)(4) of the AECA have been satisfied. Exceptions, also known as transaction exceptions, may be made to this debarment determination on a case-by-base basis at the discretion of the Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs. However, such an exception would be granted only after a full review of all circumstances, paying particular attention to the following factors: whether an exception is warranted by overriding U.S. foreign policy or national security interests; Whether an exception would further law enforcement concerns that are consistent with the foreign policy or national security interests of the United States; or whether other compelling circumstances exist that are consistent with the foreign policy or national security interests of the United States, and that do not conflict with law enforcement concerns. Even if exceptions are granted, the debarment continues until subsequent reinstatement. Pursuant to Section 38 of the AECA and § 127.7 of the ITAR, the Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs has statutorily debarred the following persons for a period of three years following the date of their AECA conviction:

(1)Bernardo Gonzalez-Martinez, October 24, 2003, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Brownsville), Case #: 1:03CR00455-003.

(2)Maria Silvia Elizalde de Nuñez, October 10, 2003, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Brownsville), Case #: 1:03CR00455-002.

(3)Kwonhwan Park (a.k.a. Howard Park), August 30, 2005, U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut (Bridgeport), Case #: 3:04cr123(MRK).

(4)Mehrdad Zar (a.k.a. Tony Zar), October 27, 1998, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Case #: 2:98CR00064-001.

(5)Constantinos Katsaras, November 25, 2003, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida (Ft. Lauderdale), Case #: 03-60096-Cr-Marra.

(6)Edgar Semprun, March 14, 2005, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida (Miami), Case #: 04-20605-CR-LENARD 004.

(7)Rafael Alberto Samper, February 28, 2005, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida (Miami), Case #: 04-20605-CR-LENARD 003.

(8)Antonio Tarrab, March 8, 2005, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida (Miami), Case #: 04-20605-CR-LENARD 005.

(9)Bilmer Alberto Paz, March 21, 2005, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida (Miami), Case #: 04-20605-CR-LENARD 006.

(10)Raul Demolina, May 5, 2005, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida (Miami), Case #: 04-20605-CR-LENARD(s).

(11)Sotaro Inami, April 28, 2005, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case #: 04-429.

(12)Luis Hector Margaillon-Drabos (a.k.a. Pedro Marquez-Monreal; a.k.a. Luis Hector Margaillon; a.k.a. Jose Olivarez-Martinez), April 18, 2005, U.S. District Court, District of Arizona (Tucson), Case #: CR 04-00208-001-PHX-FJM.

(13)Hemant Lakhani (a.k.a. Hemad Lakhani), September 12, 2005, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey (Newark), Case #: 03-880-01.

(14)Interaero, Inc., December 16, 2004, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, Case #: CR 04-317.

(15)Renald Etienne, December 17, 1999, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida (Tampa), Case #: 99-31-CR-FTM-26D.

(16)David Tomkins, October 8, 2004, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida (Miami), Case #: 94-204-CR-JORDAN.

(17)Tanzeem A. Khan, September 11, 2001, U.S. District Court, District of Maryland (Baltimore), Case #: JFM-01-085.

(18)Tauquir A. Khan, September 11, 2001, U.S. District Court, District of Maryland (Baltimore), Case #: JFM-01-085.

(19)Eduardo Marin Mejias, November 23, 2005, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida (Miami), Case #: 05-60128-CR-ALTONAGA.

(20)Neuro Enrique Gonzalez, November 8, 2005, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida (Miami), Case #: 05-60128-CR-ALTONAGA(s).

(21)Randy Reyes, January 14, 2000, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case #: 98-CR-189.

(22)Fermin Revuelta, December 14, 2000, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Case #: CR-99-0117 CAL.

(23)Fernando Sero (a.k.a. Ferdie Resada), December 15, 2005, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, Case # 05 CR 00340-01 (CLB). As noted above, at the end of the three-year period, the above named persons/entities remain debarred unless licensing privileges are reinstated. Debarred persons are generally ineligible to participate in activity regulated under the ITAR (see *e.g.* , §§ 120.1(c) and (d), and 127.11(a)). The Department of State will not consider applications for licenses or requests for approvals that involve any person who has been convicted of violating or of conspiring to violate the AECA during the period of statutory debarment. Persons who have been statutorily debarred may appeal to the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security for reconsideration of the ineligibility determination. A request for reconsideration must be submitted in writing within 30 days after a person has been informed of the adverse decision, in accordance with 22 CFR 127.7(d) and 128.13(a). This notice is provided for purposes of making the public aware that the persons listed above are prohibited from participating directly or indirectly in any brokering activities and in any export from or temporary import into the United States of defense articles, related technical data, or defense services in all situations covered by the ITAR. Specific case information may be obtained from the Office of the Clerk for the U.S. District Courts mentioned above and by citing the court case number where provided. This notice involves a foreign affairs function of the United States encompassed within the meaning of the military and foreign affairs exclusion of the Administrative Procedure Act. Because the exercise of this foreign affairs function is discretionary, it is excluded from review under the Administrative Procedure Act. Dated: January 24, 2006. John Hillen, Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-1339 Filed 1-31-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-25-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary Application of Hawaii Island Air, Inc. D/B/A Island Air for Certificate Authority AGENCY: Department of Transportation. ACTION: Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 2006-1-20), Docket OST-2005-22001. SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is directing all interested persons to show cause why it should not issue an order finding Hawaii Island Air, Inc. d/b/a Island Air fit, willing, and able, and awarding it a certificate of public convenience and necessity to engage in interstate scheduled air transportation of persons, property and mail. DATES: Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than February 8, 2006. ADDRESSES: Objections and answers to objections should be filed in Docket OST-2005-22001 and addressed to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, (M-30, Room PL-401), 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, and should be served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to the order. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vanessa R. Balgobin, Air Carrier Fitness Division (X-56, Room 6401), U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590,

(202)366-9721. Dated: January 25, 2006. Michael W. Reynolds, Acting Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs. [FR Doc. E6-1321 Filed 1-31-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-62-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary [Docket OST-2005-21790] Notice on the Essential Air Service Code-Sharing Pilot Program AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Vision 100—Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, Public Law 108-176, Title IV, subtitle A, section 406 requires the Secretary of Transportation to establish a pilot program, under which the Secretary would have discretion to require air carriers receiving Essential Air Service

(EAS)subsidy and major carriers serving large hub airports to participate in code-sharing arrangements for up to 10 EAS communities. Public comments were invited about such a prospective program; all of the comments raised objections, particularly concerns that the Department would use the authority to force carriers to participate involuntarily in the program. This Notice discusses the comments, advises of the establishment of the pilot program, solicits applications for participation in the program, and specifies issues that should be addressed in such applications. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Schlemmer, U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Aviation Analysis, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone

(202)366-3176. E-mail: *kevin.schlemmer@dot.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Essential Air Service program, established in 1978 by the Airline Deregulation Act, Public Law 95-504, enables small communities that were served by certificated air carriers before deregulation to maintain at least a minimal level of scheduled air service. Under this program, the Department currently provides subsidies to air carriers so that approximately 150 rural communities, including 37 in Alaska, can receive such service. DOT's program determines the minimum level of service at each community by specifying a hub through which the community is linked to the national transportation system, a minimum number of round trips and available seats that must be provided to that hub, certain characteristics of the aircraft to be used, and the maximum number of permissible intermediate stops to the hub. A code-sharing agreement is a marketing arrangement between two carriers that allows one to publish schedules and sell tickets on flights operated by another. Typically, code-sharing allows carriers to broaden their network of destinations, to feed additional passengers to their hub airports, and to serve destinations that they could not otherwise serve on a profitable basis. Major airlines now commonly enter into voluntary code-share contracts with others, including smaller, regional carriers. Most airports covered under the EAS program have service provided by a carrier that has at least one major airline's code attached to its flights out of the airport. However, some carriers that provide subsidized service under the EAS program do not have any code-share arrangements in some of the markets that they serve. On December 12, 2003, President Bush signed the Vision 100—Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, Public Law 108-176. Title IV, subtitle A, section 406 of that statute required the Secretary of Transportation to establish a pilot program, under which the Secretary would have discretion to require air carriers receiving EAS subsidy and major carriers serving large hub airports to participate in code-sharing arrangements for up to 10 EAS communities. Section 406 provides as follows: Code-Sharing Program

(a)In General.—The Secretary of Transportation shall establish a pilot program under which the Secretary may require air carriers providing air service with compensation under subchapter II of chapter 417 of title 49, United States code, and major carriers (as defined in section 41716(a)(2) of such title) serving large hub airports (as defined in section 40102 of such title) to participate in multiple code-sharing arrangements consistent with normal industry practice whenever and wherever the Secretary determines that such multiple code-sharing arrangements would improve air transportation services. Limitation.—The Secretary may not require air carriers to participate in the pilot program under this section for more than 10 communities receiving service under subchapter II of chapter 417 of title 49, United States Code. On July 12, 2005, the Department solicited expressions of interest by air carriers regarding participation in the pilot program, suggestions as to how such a pilot program might be structured, and other comments concerning the practical aspects of mandating code-share arrangements. 70 FR 40098 (July 12, 2005). *Comments:* We received comments from the Air Transport Association of America, Inc. (ATA), American Airlines, Inc. (American), The Boyd Group, Inc., Pacific Wings Airlines Limited (Pacific Wings), the Regional Airline Association (RAA), Southwest Airlines Co. (Southwest), and United Air Lines, Inc. (United). All commenters objected in some manner to a mandated code-sharing program. Commenters also typically questioned the legal authority of DOT to enforce such a regulation, cited the apparent conflict of a mandated program with the laws and policies promoting deregulation of the airline industry, and asserted that carriers would experience substantial difficulties and costs in implementing such a program. ATA, American, The Boyd Group, RAA, and Southwest all strongly opposed the mandatory aspect of participation in the program. ATA believed intrusive government involvement would seriously harm the dynamics of commercially viable code-share relationships. American, Southwest and The Boyd Group noted the considerable expense and close coordination required for code-share relationships even among willing participants. United stated that it desires to make its route decisions voluntarily and coordinate with EAS providers based on code-share relationships that strengthen its product and route network. Pacific Wings generally objected, but stated that it could support mandatory code-sharing in limited cases with certain restrictions in Hawaii, an area that the carrier serves. RAA noted that, while it is a strong supporter of the EAS program in general, it would prefer to see carriers enter into any program voluntarily. A number of commenters questioned DOT's legal authority to mediate or intervene when code-share parties under any such program disagreed over the terms of the commitment. ATA asserted that such involvement would constitute a “serious intrusion into the commercial processes through which code-share arrangements are established in the free market.” Moreover, RAA contended that DOT does not have the operational or financial expertise to structure and administer such a program. American echoes this, arguing that such interference is antithetical to free enterprise. In a similar vein, Southwest maintained that compulsory code-sharing would be inconsistent with a deregulated industry and would require an unequivocal expression by Congress to re-regulate the industry before the Department should consider implementation. And United stated that DOT cannot force two independent carriers into a code-share agreement any more that it can force a carrier to enter an EAS market. Difficulty and oversight of implementation are other concerns cited. In RAA's view, highly complicated issues are involved, among them the terms and conditions of contracts including liability for such matters as lost baggage and bumped passengers, coordination of schedules, passenger and freight pricing, allocation of airport facilities and staff, family assistance assignments, frequent flier programs, and revenue sharing. The Boyd Group and Southwest echo RAA in raising concerns as to the complexity of these issues. While Pacific Wings believed that DOT could help facilitate code-sharing by dealing with technological issues of real-time connections to the host's computer reservations system

(CRS)to manage inventory, confirm reservations, and reaccommodate passengers, United points to a more practical matter: it has a shortage of 4 digit flight numbers and the company already has to sacrifice certain code-share markets due to the technological problem of flight number shortages. Several commenters questioned the potential effectiveness of any such program. The Boyd Group says that, before this program is implemented, the entire EAS program should first be reevaluated and updated to adjust to the air transportation system that has changed considerably since the industry was deregulated in 1978. It stated that while code-sharing would appear to boost traffic at EAS communities, it does not in fact necessarily do this. RAA further expressed doubt whether a mandatory code-share program would increase enplanements, especially where there is a major airport within reasonable driving distance. American, Southwest, and RAA further noted that the plain language used in the statute specifies only that the Secretary “may” require air carriers to participate. Southwest argued that this plain language does not mandate that DOT require major carrier participation. American urged that, during a time of unprecedented distress in the industry, the DOT should not harm major carriers by imposing “substantial non-recoverable costs” that this program would entail. It stated that, should DOT err and implement this program, several limitations should be imposed, including limiting the display of the major carrier's code on flights operated by the EAS carrier between the EAS point and the large hub airport, limiting the mandated code sharing to one EAS route per major carrier, and not entering into agreement with any EAS carrier unless it has been in operation for at least five years. It also would have the Department require that any EAS partner have compatible systems interfaces with the major carrier (including electronic ticketing capability), and be a full participant in the Airline Reporting Corporation

(ARC)before the EAS carrier could apply for a mandatory code-share agreement. American further proposed that all implementation and recurring expenses be borne by the EAS carrier. *Decision:* We generally agree with the commenters that requiring code-sharing between unwilling partners would raise serious policy and practical issues. From a policy standpoint, we acknowledge that requiring and enforcing involuntary code-sharing would intrude on carrier management of rates, routes, and services in a manner that is, at a minimum, inconsistent with the basic thrust of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 and its implementing Federal policies. From a practical standpoint, even if we were inclined to require code-sharing, the implementation problems would be difficult, if not impossible, to overcome. Under a voluntary arrangement, the major carrier could work with the EAS carrier to delineate the specific details of revenue sharing arrangements and technical considerations within the scope of their business plans and methods. However, because major airlines are under considerable pressure to control costs, when they devote valuable and sometimes scarce resources (such as planning staff, gate agents, and ramp space) they should be confident that there would be a positive revenue outcome for each carrier. Compelling a carrier to enter into an arrangement may cause financial losses. Gate space at hub airports for small aircraft is a concern, as some airlines have no room for additional aircraft at their existing gates. Some airports now require aircraft parked on certain gates to have a minimum amount of seats and, generally, the EAS carriers would not meet that requirement. Nonetheless, under some circumstances, code-sharing can make EAS more attractive to customers, increasing traffic and reducing subsidy costs. We agree that carriers should be encouraged to expand code-sharing to small and underserved communities, and look to whether the obstacles some perceive can be overcome. While we find the comments highly persuasive, we are unwilling to state categorically that there are no circumstances where mandatory code-sharing might work. Therefore, we will fulfill our statutory obligation to establish a program, and in doing so encourage any carrier interested in participating in it to submit an application in the context of particular communities or goals. In doing so, however, an applicant should address why its proposal should be implemented in a manner in which the various objections discussed above can be resolved or minimized. If it has a particular code-share partner in mind, it should address any specific objections that carrier has to participating with it in a code-share relationship. This program is limited to subsidized EAS communities. Proposals should be thorough, with a well-laid out plan why the proposed arrangement would be beneficial to the community and the carriers involved. Applicants that do not satisfactorily address the concerns that we have outlined in this Notice, and the concerns of the partner(s) with which it wishes to establish a code-share relationship, should expect to have their applications rejected. Applicants should file any such applications in Docket No. OST-2005-21790. Issued in Washington, DC on January 26, 2006. Michael W. Reynolds, Acting Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs. [FR Doc. E6-1322 Filed 1-31-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-62-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration Environmental Impact Statement: City and County of Los Angeles, CA AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of intent. SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)and Environmental Impact

(EIR)will be prepared for a project in Los Angeles, California, known as the State Route

(SR)90/Admiralty Way Improvements Project. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Healow, Federal Highway Administration, 650 Capitol Mall Suite 4-100, Sacramento, Calfironia 94814, Telephone:

(916)498-5849 or Dominic Osmena, Project Manager, L.A. County Public Works, 900 South Fremont Avenue, Alhambra, California 91803, Telephone:

(626)458-5912. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an EIS will be prepared for proposed improvements to the roadway system in Los Angeles County, California. The study area is in the northwest, north and east quadrants of Marina del Rey, a County-owned and operated tidal marina, which connects to Santa Monica Bay. The approximate study area boundaries are Via Marina/Admiralty Way intersection on the West, Admiralty Way on the northwest and west, SR 90 on the northeast, Mindanao Way on the east and Fiji Way on the south. The proposed improvements will extend SR90 to create a direct route into Marina del Rey, and improvements to Admiralty Way. The proposed project consists of two components: the SR 90 (Marina Expressway) Connector Road, and Admiralty Way Improvements. The SR 90 Connector Road consists of realignment of approximately 1,250 feet of SR 90 between Mindanao Way and SR 1 (Lincoln Boulevard), and construction of a connector road between SR 1 and Admiralty Way. Alternatives under consideration include

(1)taking no action;

(2)the Northern Alternative realignment of SR 90;

(3)the Basin F realignment of SR 90; and

(4)the Bali Way realignment of SR 90. The Admiralty Way Improvements component includes proposed improvements to intersections, lane configurations, and/or land widths along 8,450 feet of Admiralty Way between Fiji Way and Via Marina. Alternatives under consideration include

(1)taking no action;

(2)five lane re-striping;

(3)five/six land widening;

(4)reconfigure Via Marina/Admiralty Way intersection, and

(5)pedestrian enhancements. Incorporated into and studied with the various build alternatives will be design variations of grade and alignment. Property acquisitions and utility relocations may be necessary. Transportation Systems Management (TSM)/Transportation Demand Management

(TDM)alternatives will also be considered. To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments, and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments or questions concerning this proposed action and the EIS should be directed to the contacts provided above. Key environmental issues to be studied include, but are not limited to, air quality, noise, traffic, socioeconomic impacts, business relocations, hazardous materials, biological, water quality, coastal zone, flood plains, wetlands, visual impacts, impacts to open space and cultural resources and parking. Other key issues may arise at the scoping meeting or during the environmental review process. Resources subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act may be affected. Section 4(f) resources may also be affected. Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting comments will be sent to appropriate Federal, State and local agencies, and to private organizations and citizens who have previously expressed, or are known to have an interest in, this proposal. The public is invited to participate in a scoping meeting(s) on March 9, 2006 at 7 p.m. and on March 18, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. at the Burton Chace Park Community Room, 13650 Mindanao Way, Marina del Rey. The purpose of the scoping meeting(s) is to seek input and to collect ideas and concerns regarding

(1)the individual project concepts and

(2)the environmental studies to be done. The draft EIS will be available for public and agency review prior to the public hearing. (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.) Issued on: January 23, 2006. Steve Healow, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California. [FR Doc. 06-924 Filed 1-31-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 23

Traces to 23 documents

U.S. Code