Notices. Notice

11,955 words·~54 min read·/register/2006/02/17/06-1493·

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

BILLING CODE 7710-FW-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 11a1-1(T); OMB Control No. 3235-0478; SEC File No. 270-428. 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 requests for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below.

Rule 11a1-1(T)—Transactions Yielding Priority, Parity, and Precedence On January 27, 1976, the Commission adopted Rule 11a1-1(T) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) to certain exempt transactions of exchange members for their own accounts that would otherwise be prohibited under Section 11(a) of the Exchange Act. The rule provides that a member's proprietary order may be executed on the exchange of which the trader is a member, if, among other things:

(1)The member discloses that a bid or offer for its account is for its account to any member with whom such bid or offer is placed or to whom it is communicated;

(2)any such member through whom that bid or offer is communicated discloses to others participating in effecting the order that it is for account of a member; and

(3)immediately before executing the order, a member (other than a specialist in such security) presenting any order for the account of a member on the exchange clearly announces or otherwise indicates to the specialist and to other members then present that he is presenting an order for the account of a member. Without these requirements, it would not be possible for the Commission to monitor its mandate under the Exchange Act to promote fair and orderly markets and ensure that exchange members have, as the principle purpose of their exchange memberships, the conduct of a public securities business. There are approximately 1,000 respondents that require an aggregate total of 333 hours to comply with this rule. Each of these approximately 1,000 respondents makes an estimated 20 annual responses, for an aggregate of 20,000 responses per year. Each response takes approximately 1 minute to complete. Thus, the total compliance burden per year is 333 hours (20,000 minutes/60 minutes per hour = 333 hours). The approximate cost per hour is $100, resulting in a total cost of compliance for the respondents of $33,333 (333 hours @ $100). Compliance with Rule 11a1-1(T) is necessary for exchange members to make transactions for their own accounts under a specific exemption from the general prohibition of such transactions under Section 11(a) of the Exchange Act. Compliance with Rule 11a1-1(T) does not involve the collection of confidential information. Rule 11a1-1(T) does not have a record retention requirement per se. However, responses made pursuant to Rule 11a1-1(T) are subject to the recordkeeping requirements of Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4. Please note that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Written comments 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 Building, Washington DC 20503 or by sending an 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: February 7, 2006. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-2297 Filed 2-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53271; File No. SR-ISE-2005-46] Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Operation of Primary Market Maker Memberships February 10, 2006. I. Introduction On September 27, 2005, the International Securities Exchange, Inc. (“ISE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to amend its rules to increase the maximum number of Primary Market Maker (“PMM”) memberships that an ISE member may operate from two PMM memberships to three PMM memberships. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on December 6, 2005. 3 The Commission received no comment letters regarding the proposal. 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. 52856 (November 30, 2005), 70 FR 72684 (December 6, 2005) (“Notice”). II. Description of Proposed Rule The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rule 303(b) to increase from two to three the maximum number of PMM memberships that an ISE member may operate. According to ISE's Certificate of Incorporation (“Certificate”) 4 and ISE's Amended and Restated Constitution (“Constitution”), 5 each PMM membership is represented by a single share of ISE Class B Common Stock, Series B-1, of which there are 10 shares authorized and outstanding. 6 ISE represents that it currently has seven PMMs operating the ten PMM memberships; three PMMs each operate two PMM memberships, and the remaining four PMMs each operate one PMM membership. ISE's Certificate prohibits an ISE member from owning or voting the shares representing more than 20% of any class or series of ISE capital stock. 7 Current ISE Rule 303(b) prohibits an ISE member from exercising the trading privileges associated with ( *i.e.* , operating) more than one PMM membership, but permits the ISE Board of Directors (“ISE Board”) to waive this restriction and allow an ISE member (together with its affiliates) to exercise the trading privileges associated with 20% of the outstanding PMM memberships. To waive this restriction, the ISE Board must make a finding of “good cause.” 8 Taken together, ISE's Certificate and ISE Rule 303(b) currently prohibit an ISE member from owning, voting, or operating more than 20% of the outstanding PMM memberships. 9 4 *See* Article Fourth, Section II(b)(ii)(A) of the Certificate. 5 *See* Article XIII, Section 13.1 of the Constitution. 6 *See* Article Fourth, Section II(b)(i) of the Certificate. 7 *See* Article Fourth, Sections III(a)(ii) and (b)(i) of the Certificate. 8 Supplementary Material .01 to ISE Rule 303 provides that the ISE Board, when making its determination of whether good cause has been shown, the ISE Board must consider whether an operational, business or regulatory need to operate more than one PMM membership has been demonstrated. It further provides that the ISE Board is only allowed to approve the operation of additional PMM memberships when, in its judgment, such action is in the best interest of the Exchange. 9 The Commission notes that ISE recently filed a proposed rule change that would restructure the Exchange but would retain its existing 20% ownership and voting limitations applicable to ISE members as part of the proposed reorganization. *See* File No. SR-ISE-2006-04. The proposed rule change would amend ISE Rule 303(b) to increase the maximum number of PMM memberships an ISE member may operate, upon the ISE Board's approval, from 20% of the outstanding PMM memberships (two PMM memberships) to 30% of the outstanding PMM memberships (three PMM memberships). The proposed rule change also would add proposed Supplementary Material .02 to ISE Rule 303, which would prohibit the ISE Board from approving any such arrangement in which a PMM would gain ownership or voting rights in excess of those permitted under ISE's Certificate or Constitution. Because the proposal would not alter the 20% ownership and voting limits currently set forth in ISE's Certificate that apply to ISE members, the proposal would allow a member to operate up to 30% of the outstanding PMM memberships, upon receiving Board approval, but only in the event that such member did not own or vote more than 20% of such PMM memberships. III. Discussion After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 10 In particular, the Commission believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 11 which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system. 10 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The Commission notes that the proposed change to ISE Rule 303(b) would increase the maximum number of PMM memberships that an ISE member could operate from two to three PMM memberships. The provisions of ISE's Certificate that currently prohibit an ISE member from owning, directly or indirectly, or voting more than 20% of the outstanding shares of any class or series of ISE capital stock would not be altered by this proposal. Rather, in proposed Supplementary Material .02 to ISE Rule 303, the ISE Board would be prohibited from allowing a member to operate a third PMM membership if such an arrangement would violate any ownership and voting limits contained in ISE's Certificate or Constitution. In essence, the proposal would permit the Board to approve an ISE member to acquire the trading privileges to operate a third PMM membership through a leasing arrangement with an unaffiliated person or entity, where the lessor retains all of the ownership and voting rights associated with that PMM membership. As the Commission has stated previously, a regulatory concern can arise if a member's interest in an exchange becomes so large as to cast doubt on whether the exchange can fairly and objectively exercise its self-regulatory responsibilities with respect to that member. 12 For example, a member that directly or indirectly controls an exchange might be tempted to exercise that controlling influence by directing the exchange to refrain from diligently monitoring and surveiling the member's conduct or diligently enforcing its rules and the federal securities laws with respect to conduct by the member that violates such provisions. 12 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 53128 (January 13, 2006), 71 FR 3550 (January 23, 2006); 51149 (February 8, 2005), 70 FR 7531 (February 14, 2005) (SR-CHX-2004-26); 49718 (May 17, 2004), 69 FR 29611 (May 24, 2004) (SR-PCX-2004-08); 49098 (January 16, 2004), 69 FR 3974 (January 27, 2004) (SR-Phlx-2003-73); and 49067 (January 13, 2004), 69 FR 2761 (January 20, 2004) (SR-BSE-2003-19). The Commission believes that the proposal would not give rise to concerns about the Exchange's ability to effectively carry out its regulatory responsibilities under the Act because the proposed rule change preserves existing ownership and voting limitations. In light of the foregoing, the Commission believes that the Exchange's proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 13 that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-ISE-2005-46) is approved. 13 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 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. E6-2300 Filed 2-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53275; File No. SR-NYSE-2006-02] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Extension of Two Crossing Sessions in the Exchange's Off-Hours Trading Facility February 13, 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 January 25, 2006, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, which renders it effective upon filing with the Commission. 4 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The NYSE proposes to extend until February 1, 2007 the following pilot programs (“Pilots”): Crossing Session III, for the execution of guaranteed price coupled orders by member organizations to fill the balance of customer orders at a price that was guaranteed to a customer prior to the close of the Exchange's 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. trading session (“Crossing Session III”); and Crossing Session IV, whereby an unfilled balance of an order may be filled at a price such that the entire order is filled at no worse price than the Volume Weighted Average Price (“VWAP”) for the subject security (“Crossing Session IV”). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the NYSE's Web site ( *http://www.nyse.com* ), at the NYSE's Office of Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the NYSE included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The Exchange has prepared summaries set forth in Sections A, B, and C below of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose In SR-NYSE-2002-40, 5 the Commission approved an order establishing two new crossing sessions (Crossing Sessions III and IV) in the Exchange's Off-Hours Trading Facility (“OHTF”) as pilot programs that expired on December 1, 2004. Subsequently, the Commission published a notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of a proposed rule change extending the Pilots until February 1, 2006. 6 This proposal extends the Pilots until February 1, 2007. 7 Crossing Sessions III and IV are described below. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48857 (December 1, 2003), 68 FR 68440 (December 8, 2003). 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51091 (January 28, 2005), 70 FR 6484 (February 7, 2005) (SR-NYSE-2005-01). 7 The NYSE confirmed that the Pilots will continue to function in the same manner that they operated prior to the one-year extension. Telephone conversation between Donald Siemer, Director, Market Surveillance, NYSE, Joseph P. Morra, Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation (“Division”), Commission and Johnna B. Dumler, Attorney, Division, Commission on February 10, 2006. Background The purpose of SR-NYSE-2002-40 was to add two additional “Crossing Sessions” (Crossing Sessions III and IV) to the Exchange's OHTF. Before SR-NYSE-2002-40, the OHTF consisted of Crossing Sessions I and II. Crossing Session I permits the execution, at the Exchange's closing price, of single-stock, single-sided closing price orders and crosses of single-stock, closing price buy and sell orders. Crossing Session II permits the execution of crosses of multiple-stock (“basket”) aggregate priced buy and sell orders. For Crossing Session II, trade reporting is accomplished by reporting to the Consolidated Tape the total number of shares and the total market value of the aggregate-price trades. There is no indication of the individual component stocks involved in the aggregate-price transactions. Crossing Session III In the instant proposed rule change, the Exchange is proposing to extend until February 1, 2007, the Pilot in Crossing Session III. Crossing Session III is described in NYSE Rule 907. This Pilot would continue to allow for the execution on the NYSE of “guaranteed price coupled orders” whereby member organizations could fill the unfilled balance of a customer order at a price which was guaranteed to the customer prior to the close of the Exchange's 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. trading session. The Granting of “Upstairs Stops” In serving their institutional customers, member firms may offer them a guarantee that a large size order will receive no worse than a particular price. Such a practice is usually referred to as an “upstairs stop,” meaning that the firm guarantees that its customer's order will be executed at no worse price than the agreed-upon, guaranteed price, with the member firm trading for its own account, if necessary, to effectuate the guarantee. Typically, a member firm will seek to execute as much of the order as possible during the trading day at or below the “stop” price (in the case of a buy order) or at or above the “stop” price (in the case of a sell order). Any portion of the order not filled during the trading day will be completed after hours, with the firm either buying from, or selling to, its customer at a price which ensures that the entire order is executed at a price which is no worse than the “stop” price. Member firms typically execute the unfilled balance of the order, after the U.S. Consolidated Tape is closed, in the London over-the-counter market, where trades are not reported in real time. The purpose of this is simply to minimize the possibility that other market participants may ascertain the firm's, or the customer's inventory position, and possibly trade in the subject security to the detriment of the firm that granted the “upstairs stop.” According to the Exchange, it is more transparent to print the trade in the NYSE primary market during U.S. Consolidated Tape hours. Crossing Session IV The Exchange is also proposing to extend the Pilot in Crossing Session IV (which is also described in NYSE Rule 907), until February 1, 2007. Crossing Session IV is a facility whereby member organizations may fill the unfilled balance of a customer's order at a price such that the overall order is filled at a price that is no worse than the VWAP for the subject security on that trading day. The member organization would be required to document its VWAP agreement with the customer and the basis upon which the VWAP price would be determined. Operation of Crossing Sessions As described in NYSE Information-Memos 04-30 and 05-57 and NYSE Rule 907, Crossing Session III and Crossing Session IV would continue to operate as follows:

(i)The original order as to which an “upstairs stop” or “VWAP” has been granted may be of any size;

(ii)The customer must have received a “stop” (guaranteed price) or VWAP for the entire order;

(iii)The member firm must record all details of the order, including the price it has guaranteed its customer or that the entire order will be filled at no worse than the VWAP;

(iv)An order or the unfilled balance of an order that would be executed in Crossing Session III or Crossing Session IV may be of any size;

(v)The customer's order must be executed in Crossing Session III or Crossing Session IV at a price that ensures that the entire order is executed at a price that is no worse than the guaranteed price or the VWAP;

(vi)Orders may be entered in Crossing Session III or Crossing Session IV between 4 p.m. and 6:30 p.m., and must be identified as either a Crossing Session III or Crossing Session IV order;

(vii)Member firms will receive an immediate report of execution upon entering an order into Crossing Session III or Crossing Session IV;

(viii)Orders may be entered into Crossing Session III for execution at prices outside the trading range in the subject security during the 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. trading session;

(ix)Orders may not be entered into Crossing Session III or Crossing Session IV in a security that is subject to a trading halt at the close of the regular 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. trading session; and

(x)At 6:30 p.m., the Exchange will print trades reported through Crossing Session III as guaranteed price coupled orders or in Crossing Session IV as VWAP executions. 2. Statutory Basis NYSE believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6 of the Act 8 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 9 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:

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

(ii)impose any significant burden on competition; and

(iii)become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) 10 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 11 At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 11 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). NYSE has asked the Commission to waive the five-day pre-filing notice requirement and the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes such waiver is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it would allow the Pilots to operate without interruption. 12 For this reason, the Commission designates the proposal to be operative upon filing with the Commission. 12 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day pre-operative period, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-NYSE-2006-02 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2006-02. 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 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-2006-02 and should be submitted by March 10, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). [FR Doc. E6-2299 Filed 2-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53267; File No. SR-OCC-2005-25] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Adjustment Panels February 9, 2006. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 notice is hereby given that on December 23, 2005, The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared primarily by OCC. OCC filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 2 whereby the proposal was 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 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The proposed rule change amends certain By-Law provisions in order to consolidate common policies and procedures relevant to adjustment panels that act from time to time on behalf of OCC to adjust the terms of outstanding cleared contracts to reflect events affecting the issuer of the instrument underlying the relevant contract. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and

(C)below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. 3 3 The Commission has modified parts of these statements.

(A)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change As currently in effect, Article VI (Clearance of Exchange Transactions) Section 11 (Adjustments Panel Policies and Procedures) paragraph

(b)of OCC's By-Laws provides that adjustments are to be made by OCC's Securities Committee and describes factors to be taken into account by the Securities Committee in making adjustments. Under Article VI, Section 11(k), also as currently in effect, the authority of the Securities Committee to make adjustment determinations in particular cases is delegated to adjustment panels whose actions are deemed to constitute actions by the Securities Committee. Article VI, Section 11(k) sets forth procedures governing matters such as adjustment panel composition and voting. Several other articles of the By-Laws that are applicable to specific products other than stock options also provide for adjustment panels and incorporate certain provisions of the current Article VI, Section 11(k) by reference. Specifically, these other articles and the relevant sections are: Article XV (Foreign Currency Options), Section 4; Article XVII (Index Options), Section 3; Article XX (Cross-Rate Foreign Currency Options), Section 4; Article XXII (Cash-Settled Foreign Currency Options), Section 3; Article XXIII (Flexibly Structured Index Options), Section 4; and Article XXIV (BOUNDs), Section 6. These adjustment provisions, which are generally duplicative of those in Article VI, Section 11(k), inadvertently omit the conflict of interest provision of Article VI, Section 11(k) that prohibits persons with a financial interest in the adjustment from serving on an adjustment panel. Although the adjustment provisions governing products other than stock options incorporate by reference some policies and procedures from Article VI, Section 11, they repeat other provisions. In order to correct the inadvertent exclusion of the conflict of interest provision and to eliminate repetitive language, thereby decreasing the potential for inadvertent inconsistencies between the adjustment provisions of the various articles of the By-Laws if one or more of such provisions were amended in the future, OCC proposes to revise Section 11 of Article VI to be generally applicable to all adjustment panels regardless of the product type and to insert cross-references to Section 11 in the other articles where appropriate. In addition, OCC is proposing to add Section 11A to Article VI that will preserve those paragraphs of the existing Section 11 that apply specifically to stock options. Proposed Section 11(a)-(c) of Article VI is largely a restatement of policies and procedures currently applicable to the Securities Committee and adjustment panels acting on its behalf as found in existing Sections 11(b) and

(k)of Article VI. In proposed Article VI, Section 11(a), the list of factors which the Securities Committee may consider in making an adjustment determination is a comprehensive list of such factors, some of which may not be applicable to a particular cleared contract. In proposed Article VI, Section 11(c), the term “cleared contracts” replaces references to “option contracts and BOUNDs” in the corresponding sentences of existing Section 11(k). Proposed Section 11A of Article VI is a restatement of existing Section 11(a) and (c)-(j) of Article VI except for revisions to reflect proper references to Section 11A or Section 11, as applicable. To preserve stockholder prerogatives, Article XI (Amendment of the By-Laws and Rules), Section 1, which requires stockholder approval for amendments to specified By-Law provisions, including existing Article VI, Section 11, is revised to include new Section 11A as well. Minor technical changes are made to Article XII, Section 3(a). OCC is also proposing to delete references to ECU-based foreign currency options and their treatment by the adjustment panel in Article XV (Foreign Currency Options), Section 4 and Interpretation .02 thereunder; Article XX, Section 4 and Interpretation .02 thereunder; and Article XXII, Section 3 because the transition from ECUs to the euro, which does not have constituent currencies, is complete and because references to ECUs and EMUs are obsolete. OCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the purposes and requirements of Section 17A of the Act because it is designed to ensure uniform standards and procedures to the extent possible for adjustments to the terms of outstanding contracts cleared by OCC and therefore to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions. The proposed rule change is not inconsistent with the rules of OCC, including any rules proposed to be amended. 4 4 OCC intends to file an amendment to File SR-OCC-2004-21, which proposes to add a new Article XIV to OCC's By-Laws in connection with the proposed trading of fixed return options, to make conforming changes to the adjustment provisions of new Article XIV.

(B)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition.

(C)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change, and none have been received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 5 and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) 6 thereunder because it effects a change in an existing service of a registered clearing agency that

(i)does not adversely affect the safeguarding of securities or funds in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible; and

(ii)does not significantly affect the respective rights or obligations of the clearing agency or persons using the service. 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. 5 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 6 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4). VI. 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-OCC-2005-25 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2005-25. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of OCC and on OCC's Web site at *www.optionsclearing.com.* 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-OCC-2005-25 and should be submitted on or before March 10, 2006. For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 7 7 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-2298 Filed 2-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Delegation of Authority 118-2] Delegation by the Secretary of State to the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs and the Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs of Authorities Regarding Border Facilities and Crossings Pursuant to the authority vested in me as Secretary of State, including by section 1 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2651a), I hereby delegate to the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs and the Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs the authorities and functions conferred on the Secretary of State by: Executive Order 13337 of April 30, 2004, entitled “Issuance of Permits with respect to certain energy-related facilities and land transportation crossings on the International Boundaries of the United States”; Executive Order 11423 of August 16, 1963, entitled “Providing for the Performance of Certain Functions heretofore Performed by the President With Respect to Certain Facilities Constructed and Maintained on the Borders of the United States”; and The International Bridge Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-434: 86 Stat. 731). This delegation of authority supersedes Delegation of Authority 118-1 of February 5, 1969; Provided, That all determinations, authorizations, regulations, rulings, certificates, orders, directives, contracts, agreements, and other actions made, issued or entered into with respect to any of the functions affected by this delegation of authority and not revoked, superseded, or otherwise made inapplicable before the effective date of this delegation of authority shall continue in full force and effect until amended, modified or terminated by appropriate authority. Notwithstanding this delegation of authority, the Secretary of State or the Deputy Secretary of State may exercise any authority or function delegated hereby. This delegation of authority shall be published in the **Federal Register.** Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-2351 Filed 2-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-07-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5312] Authorizing Valero Logistics Operations L.P. to Construct, Connect, Operate, and Maintain a Pipeline Crossing the International Boundary Between the United States and Mexico By virtue of the authority vested in me as Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs under Executive Order 13337, 69 FR 25299 (2004), and Department of State Delegation of Authority No. 118-2 of January 26, 2006; having considered the environmental effects of the proposed action in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f) and other statutes related to environmental concerns; having considered the proposed action in accordance with Section 470f of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470-470a-2); and having requested and received views of various Federal and State agencies and other interested persons; I hereby grant permission, subject to the conditions herein set forth, to Valero Logistics Operations L.P., a corporation formed under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business in San Antonio Texas (hereinafter “the permittee” or “Valero”), to construct, connect, operate and maintain a pipeline crossing the international boundary in the vicinity of Hidalgo, Texas. The pipeline will be used to transport light naphtha (“naphtha”) across the border from Mexico to the Valero Terminal in Hidalgo County, Texas, crossing the Rio Grande River. The proposed pipeline would connect the Valero terminal in Edinburg, Texas, with the Petroleos Mexicanos (PEMEX) Burgos gas plant near Reynoso in the state of Tamaulipas, Mexico. The term “facilities” as used in this permit means the pipeline and any land, structures, installations or equipment appurtenant thereto. The term “United States facilities” as used in this permit means those parts of the facilities located in the United States. As stated in permittee's application of June 22, 2005 for a permit pursuant to Executive Order 13337, the United States facilities of the pipeline project will consist of the following major components: • The U.S. portion of the project consists of approximately 34 miles of new pipeline from a location on the Rio Grande southeast of Penitas, to the Valero terminal approximately 6 miles north of downtown Edinburg. • An above-ground metering station for tariff purposes that will be located 1.2 miles north of the Rio Grande crossing. • At the Valero Edinburg Terminal, naphtha would be stored in a new dedicated 80,000 barrel naphtha storage tank. Naphtha would be pumped from this tank through a new pipeline currently being built by Valero to link its Edinburg and Harlingen terminals, and to link its Harlingen terminal with the Port of Brownsville. This permit is subject to the following conditions: *Article 1.* The United States facilities and operations herein described shall be subject to all the conditions, provisions, and requirements of this permit and any amendment thereof; further that this permit may be terminated at the will of the Secretary of State of the United States or the Secretary's delegate or may be amended by the Secretary of State of the United States or the Secretary's delegate at will or upon proper application therefore; further that the permittee shall make no substantial change in the location of the United States facilities in the immediate vicinity of the international boundary line or in the operation authorized by this permit until such changes have been approved by the Secretary of State of the United States or the Secretary's delegate. *Article 2.* The operation and maintenance of the facilities shall be in all material respects as described in permittee's application for a Presidential permit under Executive Order 13337 filed on June 22, 2005 (the “Application”), as amended by any comments received from federal and state agencies, the response to those comments, the Final Environmental Assessment and the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to be published in the **Federal Register** . *Article 3.* The standards for, and the manner of, construction, connection, operation, and maintenance of the United States facilities shall be subject to inspection and approval by the representatives of any Federal or State agency concerned. The permittee shall allow duly authorized officers and employees of such agencies free and unrestricted access to said facilities in the performance of their official duties. *Article 4.* The permittee shall comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations regarding the construction, connection, operation, and maintenance of the United States facilities and with all applicable industrial codes. The permittee shall obtain requisite permits from Mexican authorities, as well as the relevant state and local governmental entities, and relevant federal agencies. *Article 5.* Upon the termination, revocation, or surrender of this permit, and unless otherwise agreed by the Secretary of State or the Secretary's delegate, the United States facilities in the immediate vicinity of the international boundary line shall be removed by, and at the expense of, the permittee within such time as the Secretary of State of the United States or the Secretary's delegate may specify, and upon failure of the permittee to remove, or to take such other appropriate action with respect to, this portion of the United States facilities as ordered, the Secretary of State or the Secretary's delegate may direct that possession of such facilities be taken and that they be removed or other appropriate action taken, at the expense of the permittee; and the permittee shall have no claim for damages by reason of such possession, removal, or other action. *Article 6.* If, in the future, it should appear to the Secretaries of the Army or Homeland Security (or either Secretary's delegate) or the United States Coast Guard that any facilities or operations permitted hereunder cause unreasonable obstructions to the free navigation of any of the navigable waters of the United States, the permittee may be required, upon notice from the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of Homeland Security (or either Secretary's Delegate) or the United States Coast Guard, to remove or alter such of the facilities as are owned by it so as to render navigation through such waters free and unobstructed. *Article 7.* This permit is subject to the limitations, terms, and conditions contained in any orders or regulations issued by any competent agency of the United States Government with respect to the United States facilities. This permit shall continue in force and effect only so long as the permittee shall continue the operations hereby authorized in accordance with such limitations, terms, and conditions. *Article 8.* When, in the opinion of the President of the United States, the national security of the United States demands it, due notice being given to the permittee by the Secretary of State of the United States or the Secretary's delegate, the United States shall have the right to enter upon and take possession of any of the United States facilities or parts thereof; to retain possession, management, and control thereof for such length of time as may appear to the President to be necessary to accomplish said purposes; and thereafter to restore possession and control to the permittee. In the event that the United States shall exercise such right, it shall pay to the permittee just and fair compensation for the use of such United States facilities upon the basis of a reasonable profit in normal conditions, and the cost of restoring said facilities to as good conditions as existed at the time of entering and taking over the same, less the reasonable value of any improvements that may have been made by the United States. *Article 9.* In the event of transfer of ownership or control of the United States facilities or any part thereof, this permit shall continue in effect temporarily for a reasonable time pending submission of a proper application by the transferee for a new and permanent permit, provided that notice of such transfer is given promptly in writing to the Department of State accompanied by a statement by the transferee under oath that the United States facilities and the operation and maintenance thereof authorized by this permit will remain substantially the same as before the transfer pending issuance to the transferee of a new and permanent permit. *Article 10.*

(1)The permittee shall maintain the United States facilities and every part thereof in a condition of good repair for their safe operation.

(2)The permittee shall save harmless and indemnify the United States from any and all claims or adjudged liability arising out of the construction, connection, operation, or maintenance of the facilities, including but not limited to environmental contamination from the release or threatened release or discharge of hazardous substances and hazardous waste. *Article 11.* The permittee shall acquire such right-of-way grants, easements, permits, and other authorizations as may become necessary and appropriate, including those required by the International Boundary and Water Commission. *Article 12.* The permittee shall file with the appropriate agencies of the Government of the United States such statements or reports under oath with respect to the United States facilities, and/or permittee's activities and operations in connection therewith, as are now or as may hereafter be required under any laws or regulations of the Government of the United States or its agencies. *Article 13.* The permittee shall take all appropriate measures to prevent or mitigate adverse environmental impacts or disruption of significant archeological resources in connection with the construction, operation and maintenance of the United States facilities, including those proposed to be performed by it in the Final Environmental Assessment dated September 2004 and the FONSI dated September 22, 2004. Construction of the facilities shall be performed in conformity with the proposed outline of work contained in the Application and the Final Environmental Assessment. *Article 14.* The permittee shall notify the Department of State if before or during construction historic or archeological properties are located and, to the extent construction has already started, will cease construction immediately. The permittee acknowledges that historic and archeological properties are protected under 49 U.S.C. Section 303 (formerly Section 4(f)), and the permittee shall prepare a Section 4(f) statement if the United States facilities will have an effect on any historic or archeological properties. *Article 15.* The permittee shall comply with all agreed actions and obligations undertaken to be performed in its Application for a Presidential permit dated June 22, 2005, in the Final Environmental Assessment and in the FONSI issued by the Department of State and to be published in the **Federal Register** . The Final Environmental Assessment includes the Draft Environmental Assessment, dated May, 2005, all comments submitted by federal and state agencies on that document, the responses to those comments and all correspondence between agencies and the permittee addressing agency concerns. *Article 16.* The permittee shall not begin construction until it has obtained authorization for such construction from the Governments of the United States and Mexico through the exchange of diplomatic notes. The permittee shall provide written notice to the Department of State at such time as the construction authorized by this permit is begun and again at such time as construction is completed, interrupted or discontinued. *Article 17.* This permit shall issue fifteen days after the date of the determination by the Under Secretary of Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs that issuance of this permit would serve the national interest, provided that the Department of State does not otherwise notify the permittee that the permit shall not issue. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I, Josette Shiner, Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs, have hereunto set my hand this 7th day of *February,* 2006 in Washington, DC. Josette Shiner, Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-2349 Filed 2-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-07-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5313] Finding of No Significant Impact and Summary Environmental Assessment Valero Logistics LP Pipeline in Hidalgo County, TX The proposed action is to issue a Presidential Permit to Valero Logistics Operations LP (“Valero”) to construct, connect, operate and maintain an 8-inch outer diameter pipeline to convey light naphtha (“naphtha”) across the border from Mexico to the Valero Terminal in Hidalgo County, Texas. On behalf of Valero, URS Corporation of Austin, Texas, prepared a draft Environmental Assessment under the guidance and supervision of the Department of State (the “Department”). The Department placed a notice in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 36225 (June 22, 2005)) regarding the availability for inspection of Valero's Presidential Permit application and the draft Environmental Assessment. Numerous Federal and state agencies independently reviewed the draft Environmental Assessment. They include: The United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission, the Department of Transportation, the Department of the Interior, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Emergency Management Administration, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce, the Council on Environmental Quality, the Texas Railroad Commission, the Texas Historical Commission, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Prior to publishing the notice, Valero hosted a public meeting on behalf of the Department of State, where public input on the project was received. The principal concern expressed by the public at that time was whether there would be any tank-vehicle transfers at Valero's Edinburg terminal as a result of this project, which Valero representatives assured the public would not be the case. Valero also hosted a follow-up meeting with area residents to address concerns raised during the public meeting about the general operation of the Edinburg terminal. However, no formal written comments from the public were submitted on the draft Environmental Assessment. Comments received from the Federal and state agencies were responded to directly or by incorporation in the analysis contained in the draft Environmental Assessment. No additional mitigation measures beyond those proposed in the draft Environmental Assessment have been proposed. This summary, together with the comments submitted by the Federal and state agencies on the project, the responses to those comments, and the draft Environmental Assessment, as amended to take into account those comments, together constitute the Final Environmental Assessment of the proposed action by the Department under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., the Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ)regulations implementing NEPA, 40 CFR 1501.3, 1508.9, and the Department's NEPA regulations, 22 CFR 161.8(b), 161.9(a)(2). Summary of the Environmental Assessment I. The Proposed Project The Department is charged with the issuance of Presidential Permits for the construction, connection, operation and maintenance of pipelines crossing international boundaries. See Executive Order 13337 of April 30, 2004, 69 FR 25299 (2004). Valero has applied for a Presidential Permit to construct, connect, operate and maintain an 8-inch outer diameter pipeline (“the Valero Burgos Pipeline”) at the U.S.-Mexico border. The proposed pipeline would connect the Valero terminal in Edinburg, Texas, with the Petroleos Mexicanos (PEMEX) Burgos gas plant near Reynoso in the state of Tamaulipas, Mexico. The U.S. portion of the project consists of approximately 34 miles of new pipeline from a location on the Rio Grande southeast of Penitas, to the Valero terminal approximately 6 miles north of downtown Edinburg. The Mexican portion consists of approximately 20 kilometers of new pipeline from the expanded Burgos gas plant near Reynosa, Tamaulipas, Mexico to the Rio Grande crossing. At the Valero Edinburg Terminal, naphtha would be stored in a new dedicated 80,000 barrel naphtha storage tank. Naphtha would be pumped from this tank through a new pipeline currently being built by Valero to link its Edinburg and Harlingen terminals, and to link its Harlingen terminal with the Port of Brownsville. Over half of the route of the proposed Valero Burgos Pipeline from the Rio Grande to the Edinburg terminal would adjoin existing pipeline rights-of-way, minimizing the amount of additional environmental impact. The routing has also been designed to avoid, to the maximum extent possible, populated areas of Hidalgo County. The Valero Burgos Pipeline is being designed to transport up to 24,000 barrels (1 million gallons) of naphtha daily from Mexico to the United States. II. Alternatives Considered The Department considered several alternatives to the proposed Burgos Valero Pipeline. These are described in detail in the Environmental Assessment, as amended, and in a summary fashion below. *No Action Alternative:* The “no action” alternative would involve delivery of naphtha to the Port of Brownsville via tanker trucks. There are two realistic options for this delivery. Under one option, the product could be transported through Reynosa to cross the Rio Grande near McAllen, and then proceed approximately 56 miles on U.S. highways to the Port of Brownsville. Under a second option, product would travel approximately the same distance on the Mexico side of the border, crossing one of the commercial bridges near Brownsville. While these “no action” alternatives would avoid the minor and/or temporary noise and air quality impacts associated with the construction of the pipeline, truck transport is not a preferred alternative. Up to 120 tanker trucks daily would be needed to transport naphtha from the Burgos gas plant to the Port of Brownsville in quantities comparable to the expected daily capacity of the proposed pipeline. This would result in

(i)exhaust emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO X ), carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), sulfur dioxides (SO 2 ), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and particulate matter

(PM)that exceed that of pipeline transport;

(ii)extra loads on busy highways and road bridges;

(iii)transportation-related environmental degradation, such as noise impacts and water contamination related to operation of a tanker truck fleet, including fueling and maintenance; and

(iv)a continuous safety risk in transportation corridors, including increased exposure to emissions, spills, and accidents during truck loading and unloading operations. The tanker trucks would produce a substantially higher regional diesel exhaust burden, resulting in emission of 77 tons per year of NO X , 22 tons per year of CO 2 , 238 tons per year of PM, 241 tons per year of VOC, and 3 tons per year of SO 2 . *Routing Alternatives:* Other potential pipeline routings to transport naphtha to Brownsville included:

(1)A 75-mile pipeline on the Mexico side of the border, from the Burgos terminal eastward to an existing PEMEX LPG terminal west of Matamoros, where it would be connected to a currently unused Rio Vista Energy Partners pipeline that connects the PEMEX terminal and the Rio Vista LPG terminal at the Port of Brownsville; and

(2)a pipeline crossing of the Rio Grande near the proposed Valero Burgos Pipeline crossing, and then a pipeline to transport the naphtha from the Rio Grande crossing to Brownsville following, to the extent possible, the U.S. 281 corridor eastward before deviating to the north of Brownsville to enter the Port of Brownsville from the north, requiring approximately 85 miles of new pipeline construction on the U.S. side of the border. These options would both have resulted in significantly higher environmental impacts and costs for product transport than the proposed interconnect to the Valero system. In the Rio Grande Valley, there are substantially more environmentally sensitive sites closer to the river that would be affected by such routings, including U.S. National Wildlife Refuge holdings, population centers, and higher quality irrigated croplands. With respect to any decision on whether to move forward with the pipeline from the Burgos Gas Plant to the Valero Edinburg Terminal, linking to the Valero system for transport to the Brownsville Terminal, there is a tradeoff between pipeline length and potential impacts to population sensitive areas. A shorter pipeline from the Rio Grande crossing to the Valero Edinburg Terminal would be approximately 24 miles in length, or approximately 2/3 the length of the proposed Valero Burgos pipeline. As this alignment would run through or near to a number of municipalities, including Palmview, Mission, Alton, Palm Hurst, and Edinburg, it was discarded early in the analysis process in favor of the proposed 34-mile route which only crosses 1 mile of metropolitan area immediately prior to entering the Valero Edimberg Terminal. In addition, any attempts to create a more direct routing would result in much greater potential impacts to population sensitive areas, water quality sensitive areas, and biologically sensitive areas. The proposed route would maintain the maximum buffer possible between the pipeline and population sensitive areas and would follow existing pipeline rights-of-way to the extent possible. These benefits more than offset the marginally increased risks associated with having a longer pipeline. III. Summary of the Assessment of the Potential Environmental Impacts Resulting From the Proposed Action A. Impacts of Construction and Normal Operation of the Pipeline The Environmental Assessment, as amended, contains detailed information on the environmental effects of the Valero Burgos Pipeline and the no-action alternative. None of the routing alternatives was considered to have the potential to reduce impacts to any environmentally sensitive sites. In particular, the Environmental Assessment analyzed the impacts of construction and normal operation of the pipeline on air and sound quality, topography, water resources, soils, mineral resources, biological resources, land use, transportation, socioeconomic resources, and recreation and cultural resources. Based on the detailed environmental assessment and information developed by the Department and other federal and state agencies in the process of reviewing the draft Environmental Assessment, the Department concluded the following: i. *Environmental Concerns:* There would be no impacts to or on, *inter alia* , geology and topography, groundwaters, the heritage status of the Rio Grande, wetlands, mineral resources, and recreation resources. There would be insignificant, minor or temporary impacts to or on, *inter alia* , noise, surface waters and canals, soils, and protected biological resources. Finally, there would be net benefits to air quality through the elimination of exhaust emissions of CO 2 , NO X , VOC, SO 2 , and particulate matter that would be generated when tankers move fuel across the border. ii. *Transportation and Land Use:* The Valero Burgos Pipeline does not conflict with existing land use plans for Hidalgo County or Edinburg. By maximizing the use of existing fence line and pipeline corridors, the pipeline would avoid splitting parcels and thereby complicating future development, and would minimize new impacts. The pipeline would represent a net positive benefit to local transportation by removing additional truck traffic from roadways. iii. *Homeland Security:* There would be net benefits to homeland security because the pipeline would reduce the truck traffic volume at border crossings, thereby resulting in fewer trucks that would need to be searched at the border for smuggled individuals and/or weapons. Valero has completed an evaluation of the infrastructure for the proposed Valero Burgos Pipeline under the principles outlined by the National Infrastructure Protection Center for protecting critical assets, and a determination has been made that the Valero Burgos Pipeline would not meet the criteria for a critical asset; iv. *Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources:* There would be a commitment of land resources that would need to be dedicated to the new pipeline right-of-way. At the same time, the operation of the pipeline would represent a critical part of a system that would greatly reduce the energy requirements for transporting naphtha from the Burgos gas plant to the Port of Brownsville. Between mile point 4 and 6 of the proposed pipeline, the right-of-way would divert 1200 feet to the west to avoid crossing an operational rock quarry in Hidalgo County, thus avoiding impacts to the future productive capacity of the quarry. v. *Cumulative Effects:* The pipeline would expand an existing pipeline corridor traveling north from the Rio Grande. The corridor currently is occupied by two natural gas pipelines, and operation of the naphtha line within the corridor would represent a limited increase in potential risks from pipeline accidents in this area. A more detailed analysis of each of these factors is provided in the Environmental Assessment, as amended, which addresses issues raised by Federal and state agencies and the public. B. Impacts Due to Corrosion of the Pipeline or Damage From an Outside Agent The Environmental Assessment, as amended, also contains detailed assessment of the potential environmental effects of the Valero Burgos Pipeline arising from pipeline integrity issues. A release of naphtha from the pipeline, though improbable, would have very different impacts from those associated with construction and normal operation. i. *Human Health and Safety Concerns:* Potential human health and safety impacts that may result from a release of hazardous liquids include:

(i)Fire or explosion from refined product liquid and/or vapors;

(ii)short-term exposure to hazardous vapors resulting from a refined product release;

(iii)long-term exposure to hazardous vapors resulting from contaminated soils, ground water, or surface water following a release of refined product; and

(iv)exposure to toxic constituents of refined product from ingestion. The potential risks to human health and safety would be most concentrated in areas where the pipeline would be close to residences, businesses, or transportation corridors. Only six short segments of the proposed Valero Burgos Pipeline would be located in areas where a pipeline accident could result in risk to nearby residences and businesses. A large portion of the pipeline would be located in rural areas where no development is likely in the near future. Any mode of transporting hazardous liquids shares these potential safety impacts. Since the accident rate for pipelines on a product-mile basis is in orders of magnitude lower than that of tanker or rail transport, the U.S. Department of Transportation

(DOT)considers pipeline transport to be the safest transportation for refined product. As previously discussed, since the Valero Burgos Pipeline would traverse fewer areas where impacts to human health and safety are likely to result from a major accident than the “no-action” alternative, the pipeline would result in substantially lower risks to human health and safety than the “no action” alternative. Alternative pipeline routings would require significantly more new pipeline construction through populated areas, either along the Rio Grande (alternative routings to connect the Burgos gas plant and the Port of Brownsville), or across portions of Mission and Edinburg (alternative alignments from the Rio Grande crossing to the Valero Edinburg Terminal). This pipeline project proposal incorporates many safety features to address health and safety concerns. These are presented as mitigation measures. ii. *Environmental Concerns:* The air quality impacts from an accidental product release from the Valero Burgos Pipeline would be short term and would not constitute a significant impact. Significant groundwater contamination would be unlikely to occur from a leak, because local groundwater sources are at a depth where they would not be impacted rapidly by a release, allowing time for emergency response and cleanup of contaminated soils. A release resulting in fire would cause damage to vegetation in the immediate vicinity of the release, but would be unlikely to result in widespread fires because of the types and distribution of vegetation. iii. *Possible Conflicts Between the Valero Burgos Pipeline and the Objectives of Federal, Regional, State and Local Use Plans, Policies and Controls for the Area Concerned:* The Valero Burgos Pipeline project does not conflict with the objectives of any Federal, Regional, or local land use plans, policies, or controls. iv. *Probable Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided:* There would be a long-term increase in health and safety risk in the immediate vicinity of the pipeline due to the nature of the product being transported, which represents a shifting of risk from other portions of the Rio Grande Valley (including northern Mexico and southern Texas) that would handle substantial truck transport of product under the “No Action” alternative. Any potential impacts would be mitigated by the measures described below, which are proposed to prevent or mitigate potentially adverse environmental impacts and which Valero intends to take. v. *Cumulative Effects:* There are two important considerations with respect to cumulative impact analysis for the Valero Burgos Pipeline. The first is the cumulative effect of risks to the pipeline, and correspondingly to those living or working near to the pipeline, due to potential accidents with respect to other pipelines in the vicinity. For the first 14 miles the right-of-way for the Valero Burgos Pipeline would largely adjoin the rights-of-way for two existing natural gas pipelines. The second is the cumulative effect of the increased overall risk to surrounding populations from an industrial accident occurring along the right-of-way that results in the release of naphtha from the Valero Burgos Pipeline, industrial sources or both. These represent two different scenarios. In the first, consider that each individual pipeline has a statistical probability of some sort of accident. For a person in the vicinity of the pipeline, there is a cumulative risk representing the summation of the probability of each individual pipeline having an accident. On this basis, if x, y, and z represent the probability of accident for each line, then some function of x+y+z will represent this cumulative risk, and the proposed pipeline can be said to increase the cumulative risk by “z”. The second case acknowledges that along with the independent risk

(z)of an accident along the proposed pipeline, there is some additional risk (a function of x and y) resulting from its proximity to two other pipelines which could have accidents resulting in a rupture of the proposed pipeline. Under most pipeline studies this risk is acknowledged, but not quantified, because such events have occurred so rarely as to be statistically insignificant in any assessment of risk. A study of U.S. DOT databases has not revealed any cases where a below ground pipeline has had an accidental release due to an unrelated accidental release, fire, or explosion of a nearby buried pipeline. No portions of the Valero Burgos pipeline would be above ground in the vicinity of any exposed portions of the adjoining pipelines. Over much of the alignment there are no heavy industrial activities, particularly those involving hazardous liquids or gases, which would create a cumulative impact in combination with the Valero Burgos Pipeline. These factors all led to a no significant cumulative impacts assessment. C. Environmental Justice/Socio-Economic Concerns The environmental justice assessment for this project analyzed the impact of the potential human, health, socioeconomic, and environmental effects of the Valero Burgos Pipeline on minority and low-income populations. The population of Hidalgo County is heavily minority. To the extent that minority and low-income populations reside in the vicinity of the pipeline, they risk exposure to the insignificant, temporary and/or minor potential human health and environmental effects that are discussed in detail in the Environmental Assessment, as amended, and summarized above. These include temporary, minor construction related noise and threats to human safety due to fire or accidental product release. These risks, however, must be weighed against the benefits that would result from the removal of tanker trucks as the primary mode of naphtha transportation. The removal of tanker trucks from roads, particularly border crossings, would increase safety at these highly sensitive locations and route naphtha away from more populous areas of town while in transit. Emissions of hazardous air pollutants during naphtha transfer operations within the lower Rio Grande airshed would be reduced. It is also worth noting that due to the overall demographic makeup of the lower Rio Grande Valley, all of the alternatives for consideration, including the “no-action” alternative of tanker truck transport of naphtha, would impact primarily low-income and minority populations. There is no evidence to suggest that minority or low-income populations would experience disproportionate adverse impacts as a result of the construction and operation of the Valero Burgos Pipeline. To the contrary, since most of the Valero Burgos Pipeline is situated away from areas where human health and safety could be adversely impacted, while truck transport necessarily takes place in areas where human health and safety are at risk, the pipeline would result in lower risks to the overall health and safety of minority and low-income populations than the “no-action” alternative. IV. Prevention and Mitigation Measures In order to control risks associated with outside force, damage, corrosion and leaks, Valero has undertaken or intends to undertake the prevention and mitigation measures listed below. Valero has or will: • Bury the pipeline a minimum of 3 feet below grade. • Place and maintain prominent warning markers at all crossings and property lines along the pipeline. • Participate in all applicable one-call notification systems and coordinate with the local emergency planning committee. • Conduct regular right-of-way drive-overs or over-flights in order to identify potential pipeline encroachments and unauthorized activities. • Ensure that a Valero representative is physically present anytime there is construction activity within the pipeline right of way. • Participate in on-going public education initiatives stressing pipeline safety and damage prevention. • Use factory-applied fusion-bonded epoxy coating on all pipes. • Use field-applied coating on all welded joints. • Conduct annual surveys to determine effectiveness of corrosion control. • Use a certified impressed current cathodic protection system. • Use a heavy wall pipe at waterway, road, and rail crossings. • Use high resolution internal inspection tools (i.e., pigs) at least every five years. • X-ray all girth welds completely. • Use pipe manufactured at an ISO 9000-certified mill. • Hydro test pipe in place to 125% of its maximum allowable operating pressure for 8 hours. • Require that material specification, design, and construction meet or exceed all applicable standards and codes established by API, ASME, DOT/OPS, and TRC. • Perform comprehensive construction and installation inspection. • Provide continuous 24-hour monitoring of the Valero Burgos Pipeline from a dispatch and control center, with a crew of technicians available on a rapid response basis. • Use computers to identify significant operational deviations, and to set off appropriate alarms. • Provide on-going training and performance certification of employees responsible for pipeline operations and maintenance, as required by the Operator Qualification regulation of DOT. • Maintain a SCADA link via satellite to the Valero control center in San Antonio. V. Conclusion: Analysis of the Environmental Assessment Submitted by the Sponsor On the basis of the Environmental Assessment, as amended, the Department's independent review of that assessment, information developed during the review of the application and Environmental Assessment, comments received by the Department from Federal and state agencies, and measures that Valero has or is prepared to undertake to prevent or mitigate potentially adverse environmental impacts, the Department has concluded that issuance of a Presidential Permit authorizing construction of the proposed Valero Burgos Pipeline would not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment within the United States. Accordingly, a Finding of No Significant Impact is adopted and an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. The Final Environmental Assessment addressing this action is on file and may be reviewed by interested parties at the Department of State, 2200 C Street NW., Room 3535, Washington, DC 20520 (Attn: Mr. Charles Esser, Tel. 202-647-1291). Dated: January 26, 2006. Stephen J. Gallogly, Director, Office of International Energy and Commodity Policy, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-2350 Filed 2-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-07-P TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY SES Performance Review Board AGENCY: Trade and Development Agency. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the appointment of members of the Trade and Development Agency's Performance Review Board. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carolyn Hum, Administrative Officer, Trade and Development Agency, 1000 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1000, Arlington, VA 22209,

(703)875-4357. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 4314(c)(1) through (5), U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more SES performance review boards. The board shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, along with any recommendations to the appointing authority relative to the performance of the senior executive. The following have been selected as acting members of the Performance Review Board of the Trade and Development Agency: Leocadia Zak, Deputy Director, U.S. Trade and Development Agency; Geoffrey Jackson, Director for Policy and Program, U.S. Trade and Development Agency; Thomas Hardy, Chief of Staff, U.S. Trade and Development Agency; and Jeri Jensen-Moran, Executive Director for Trade Promotion and Policy, Office of the Under Secretary for International Trade, U.S. Department of Commerce. Dated: February 10, 2006. Carolyn Hum, Administrative Officer. [FR Doc. 06-1493 Filed 2-16-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 12

Traces to 12 documents

U.S. Code