Notices. Termination of sanctions imposed on certain Member States of the European Communities pursuant to Title VII of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988

11,103 words·~50 min read·/register/2006/02/28/06-1868

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

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53341; File No. SR-Amex-2006-15] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Increase the Options Marketing Fee Applicable to Certain Types of Equity Options February 21, 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 February 15, 2006, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Amex.

The Amex has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by a self-regulatory organization pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19-4(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 Exchange proposes to increase the options marketing fee applicable to certain equity options. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Amex's Web site at *http://www.amex.com,* at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Amex included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposal.

The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The 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 June 2003, the Exchange re-instated its options marketing fee of $0.40 per contract on the transactions of specialists and registered options traders (“ROTs”) in equity options. 5 Currently, the options marketing fee is eligible to be assessed on all equity options transactions (including options on exchange-traded funds and trust issued receipts).

The Exchange now proposes to amend the equity options marketing fee to increase the fee from the current level of $0.40 to $0.75 per contract (except for SPDR options, which will continue to remain subject to the current fee level of $1.00 per contract). 6 The Exchange also proposes to revise the equity options marketing fee by limiting its assessment to customer orders that are from payment accepting firms with whom a specialist has negotiated a payment for order flow arrangement and that are executed electronically ( *i.e.* , through the Exchange's ANTE system). 7 The current equity options marketing fee is assessed on all executed customer orders (whether electronically or manually executed) of payment accepting firms.

This revision further limits the assessment of the marketing fee to electronic executions. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48053 (June 17, 2003), 68 FR 37880 (June 25, 2003). 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51685 (May 11, 2005), 70 FR 28587 (May 18, 2005). 7 Telephone conversation between Caroline McCaffery, Assistant General Counsel, Amex, and Hong Anh Tran, Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, on February 17, 2006. The Exchange represents that it has no role with respect to the negotiations between specialists and payment accepting firms.

The Exchange states that it collects and administers the payment of the fee collected on those transactions for which the specialist has advised the Exchange that it has negotiated with a payment accepting firm to pay for the firm's order flow. Included in this general administrative support, the Exchange tracks the number of qualified orders sent by a payment accepting firm, bills specialists and ROTs through their clearing firms and issues payments to payment accepting firms to reflect the collection and payment of the marketing fee.

The Exchange rebates to specialists and ROTs, on a quarterly basis, the amount of marketing fees collected that have not been paid to order flow providers. The Exchange further states that the specialists are solely responsible, but are not required, to negotiate payment for order flow agreements with payment accepting firms and are responsible for any arrangements made with the payment accepting firms. The specialists will use the funds that are collected from a particular post on the Exchange to market for those specific products traded at that particular post on the Exchange.

So long as it is within the above described parameters, the specific terms governing the orders that qualify for payment and the amount of any payments are determined by the specialists in their discretion. The Exchange asserts that the proposal is equitable as required by Section 6(b)(4) of the Act. 8 In connection with the revision to the equity options marketing fee, the Exchange notes that increasing the fee from $0.40 to $0.75 per contract (except for SPDR options, which will continue to remain subject to the current fee level of $1.00 per contract) and limiting assessment to the electronic executions of customer orders from payment accepting firms is reasonable given the competitive pressure to attract options order flow.

In addition, the Exchange submits that those trading crowds that benefit from a payment for order flow arrangement negotiated by the specialist should contribute to the success of the particular products. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposal is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees among Exchange members. 8 Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), states that the rules of a national securities exchange provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. 2.

Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 9 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4), 10 in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using facilities. 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change. The Amex has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties. 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)(ii) of the Act, 11 and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder 12 because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge.

At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.

Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-Amex-2006-15 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-Amex-2006-15.

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 Amex. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2006-15 and should be submitted on or before March 21, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-2752 Filed 2-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53342; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-08] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Volatility Indexes February 21, 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 20, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the CBOE.

The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change CBOE proposes to revise the manner in which the expiration dates for each volatility-based index is determined. The description of this proposed rule filing is available for viewing on CBOE's Web site ( *http://www.cboe.com* ), at the CBOE's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's public reference room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the CBOE included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The CBOE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The purpose of this rule filing is to revise the methodology for determining the expiration dates for options on certain volatility-based indexes that are approved for listing and trading on the Exchange. The Commission previously approved for the Exchange to list and trade options and increased-value options on certain volatility-based securities indexes; specifically, the CBOE Volatility Index (“VIX”), the CBOE Nasdaq 100® Volatility Index (“VXN”), and the CBOE Dow Jones Industrial Average® Volatility Index (“VXD”) (collectively “volatility indexes). 3 Each volatility index, generally, uses the quotes of certain index option series (such as the S&P 500 index) to derive a measure of the volatility of the U.S. equity market.

The volatility indexes provide investors with up-to-the-minute market estimates of expected volatility by extracting implied volatilities from real-time index option quotes. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49563 (April 14, 2004); 69 FR 21589 (April 21, 2004) (order approving SR-CBOE-2003-40, which allowed CBOE to trade options on the VIX, VXN, and VXD); *see also* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49698 (May 13, 2004); 69 FR 29152 (May 20, 2004) (order approving SR-CBOE-2004-09, which allowed CBOE to trade increased-value options on the VIX, VXN, and VXD).

All volatility index options contracts were originally designed to expire on the Wednesday immediately prior to the third Friday of the month that immediately precedes the month in which the options used in the calculation of that index expire. This method was chosen to provide an exercise schedule that is similar to the manner in which most other option contracts expire ( *i.e.* , the third Friday of the month). Under this method, during any rolling twelve month period, in four of those twelve months, options on any volatility index would not expire exactly thirty days prior to the expiration of the options on the index on which that volatility index is based.

To illustrate, under the current methodology, an option on the March 2006 VXN would expire on Wednesday, March 16, 2006 because that is the Wednesday immediately prior to the third Friday of March 2006. However, March 16, 2006 is 37 days prior to the date on which options on the Nasdaq 100 Index (“NDX”) expire. CBOE proposes to revise the methodology by having all volatility index options expire on the “Wednesday that is thirty days prior to the third Friday of the calendar month immediately following the expiring month.

” This revised approach will provide consistency in the expiration of options on all volatility indexes by ensuring that every volatility index option will expire exactly thirty days prior to the date on which the index that the volatility index is based. 4 To illustrate how this new methodology will work using the March 2006 VXN example above, the April 2006 NDX option will expire on Friday, April 21, 2006 and the March 2006 VXN option would expire on Wednesday March 22, 2006, which is exactly 30 days prior to the expiration of the NDX April options.

Even though the March 2006 VXN option does not expire during the normal expiration week for all other options, the Exchange believes it is more important that the volatility index options expire consistent with the 30-day volatility measurement period. 4 CBOE states that the revised expiration date calculation methodology for options on certain volatility indexes is consistent with the way in which expiration dates for futures on volatility indexes are calculated. Telephone conversation between James Flynn, Attorney, CBOE, and Florence Harmon, Senior Special Counsel, and Geoffrey Pemble, Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, on February 9, 2006.

The Exchange represents that it will provide public disclosures and notifications to its members and the investing public of this change. 5 The Exchange states that this proposal does not affect the rule text of any existing Exchange rule. 6 5 CBOE will issue an information circular to its members to notify them of the changes to the options expiration date calculation methodology contained in this proposed rule change. Telephone conversation between James Flynn, Attorney, CBOE, and Florence Harmon, Senior Special Counsel, and Geoffrey Pemble, Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, on February 9, 2006. 6 The original rule filing that allowed CBOE to list volatility-based index options included an exhibit attached to the rule filing, which provided, among other contract characteristics, a description of how the expiration date would be determined.

That description was not included in the rule text. *See* note 1, *supra.* 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act 7 and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act. 8 Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of Act 9 that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 7 15 U.S.C. 78a *et seq.* 8 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b). 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others The Exchange neither received nor solicited written comments on the proposal. III. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.

Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-CBOE-2006-08 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-CBOE-2006-08.

Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the CBOE. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2006-08 and should be submitted on or before March 21, 2006. IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of the Proposed Rule Change 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 finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 11 which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 10 In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

The Commission believes that CBOE's proposal to revise the methodology for determining the expiration dates for options on certain volatility-based indexes so that such options expire on the “Wednesday that is thirty days prior to the third Friday of the calendar month immediately following the expiring month” is appropriate. As noted by CBOE above, this revised approach will provide consistency in the expiration of options on all volatility indexes by ensuring that every volatility index option will expire exactly thirty days prior to the date on which the index that the volatility index is based, rather than the prior approach under which such options would not expire exactly thirty days prior to the expiration of the options on the index on which that volatility index is based in four of the months in any rolling twelve-month period.

The Exchange has requested accelerated approval of the proposed rule change. 12 The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of the notice of filing in the **Federal Register** . The proposal is intended to ensure consistency in expiration dates for options on all volatility indexes approved for listing and trading on CBOE with the expiration of the options on the underlying indexes. The Commission does not believe that the Exchange's proposal raises any novel regulatory issues.

Therefore, the Commission finds good cause, consistent with Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 13 to approve the proposed rule change, as amended, on an accelerated basis. 12 Telephone conversation between James Flynn, Attorney, CBOE, and Florence Harmon, Senior Special Counsel, and Geoffrey Pemble, Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, on February 9, 2006. 13 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). V. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 14 that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2006-08) is hereby approved on an accelerated basis. 14 *Id.* For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 15 15 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-2767 Filed 2-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53329; File No. SR-ISE-2006-05] Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Fee Changes February 16, 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 20, 2006, the International Securities Exchange, Inc.

(“ISE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which items have been prepared by ISE. On February 9, 2006, ISE submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 3 ISE has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge, pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 4 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 5 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission.

The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange revised its Schedule of Fees to clarify ambiguities and correct misstatements therein, and discussed those changes in the purpose section of the proposal. Specifically, in Amendment No. 1, the Exchange removed the misstatement that a $0.10 surcharge is applied to all Premium Products (as defined herein) and instead provided a list of the specific Premium Products that are subject to the surcharge.

Amendment No. 1 also clarified that the fee pilot program expiring on July 31, 2006 applies exclusively to Linkage orders. 4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 5 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change ISE is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to establish fees for transactions in options on 11 Premium Products 6 . The proposed rule change, as amended, also seeks to make certain technical and clarifying changes to the original filing as well as to clean up the Schedule of Fees to eliminate confusion regarding fees charged by the Exchange. 6 “Premium Products” are defined in the Schedule of Fees as the products enumerated therein.

The text of the proposed rule change is available on ISE's Web site at *http://www.iseoptions.com,* at the Office of the Secretary at ISE, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change, as amended, and discussed any comments it received on the proposal.

The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to establish fees for transactions in options on the following Premium Products: iShares Dow Jones U.S.

Real Estate Index Fund (“IYR”), 7 iShares MSCI Japan Index Fund (“EWJ”), 8 Biotech HOLDRS (“BBH”), Internet HOLDRS (“HHH”), Pharmaceutical HOLDRS (“PPH”), Regional Bank HOLDRS (“RKH”), Retail HOLDRS (“RTH”), Software HOLDRS (“SWH”), Enterra Energy Trust (“EENC”), Fording Canadian Coal Trust (“FDG”), and Enerplus Resources Fund (“ERF”). Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to adopt an execution fee and a comparison fee for all transactions in options on IYR, EWJ, BBH, HHH, PPH, RKH, RTH, SWH, EENC, FDG, and ERF. 9 The amount of the execution fee and comparison fee for products covered by this filing would be $0.15 and $0.03 per contract, respectively, for all Public Customer Orders 10 and Firm Proprietary orders.

The amount of the execution fee and comparison fee for all Market Maker transactions would be equal to the execution fee and comparison fee currently charged by the Exchange for Market Maker transactions in equity options 11 . The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will further the Exchange's goal of introducing new products to the marketplace that are competitively priced. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to remove NYC, NY and XLU from the list of Premium Products on the Schedule of Fees.

These products have been delisted and no longer trade on the Exchange. 7 iShares® is a registered trademark of Barclays Global Investors, N.A. (“BGI”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Barclays Bank PLC. “Dow Jones” and “Dow Jones U.S. Real Estate Index Fund” are servicemarks of Dow Jones & Company, Inc. (“Dow Jones”) and have been licensed for use for certain purposes by BGI. All other trademarks and servicemarks are the property of their respective owners. The Dow Jones U.S. Real Estate Index Fund (“IYR”) is not sponsored, endorsed, issued, sold or promoted by Dow Jones.

No company has licensed or authorized ISE to

(i)engage in the creation, listing, provision of a market for trading, marketing, and promotion of options on IYR or

(ii)to use and refer to any trademark of BGI or Dow Jones in connection with the listing, provision of a market for trading, marketing, and promotion of options on IYR or with making disclosures concerning options on IYR under any applicable Federal or state laws, rules or regulations, and do not sponsor, endorse, or promote such activity by ISE. ISE is not affiliated in any manner with any of the companies above. 8 iShares(r) is a registered trademark of Barclays Global Investors, N.A. (“BGI”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Barclays Bank PLC. “MSCI Japan Index” is a servicemark of Morgan Stanley Capital International (“MSCI”) and has been licensed for use for certain purposes by BGI. All other trademarks and servicemarks are the property of their respective owners. The MSCI Japan Index Fund (“EWJ”) is not sponsored, endorsed, issued, sold or promoted by MSCI. No company has licensed or authorized ISE to

(i)engage in the creation, listing, provision of a market for trading, marketing, and promotion of options on EWJ or

(ii)to use and refer to any trademark of BGI or MSCI in connection with the listing, provision of a market for trading, marketing, and promotion of options on EWJ or with making disclosures concerning options on EWJ under any applicable Federal or state laws, rules or regulations, and do not sponsor, endorse, or promote such activity by ISE. ISE is not affiliated in any manner with any of the companies above. 9 These fees will be charged to Exchange members. Under a pilot program that is set to expire on July 31, 2006, these fees will also be charged to Linkage Orders (as defined in ISE Rule 1900). 10 Public Customer Order is defined in ISE Rule 100(a)(33) as an order for the account of a Public Customer. Public Customer is defined in ISE Rule 100(a)(32) as a person that is not a broker or dealer in securities. 11 The execution fee is currently between $0.21 and $0.12 per contract side, depending on the Exchange Average Daily Volume, and the comparison fee is currently $0.03 per contract side. Furthermore, the proposed rule change makes certain technical and clarifying changes to ISE's Schedule of Fees. Specifically, under the Execution Fees section of the Schedule of Fees, the Exchange seeks to replace the general reference to a surcharge for options on Premium Products with a list of the specific Premium Products for which there is a surcharge charged by the Exchange. 12 Also, under the Execution Fees section of the Schedule of Fees, for purposes of eliminating ambiguity and confusion, the Exchange proposes to move the parenthetical regarding the Linkage pilot program under “Firm Proprietary” to the Notes section. 12 Prior to this proposed rule change, the Exchange's Schedule of Fees improperly reflected that all Premium Products were subject to a surcharge of $0.10 per contract/side. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the statutory basis for the proposal is the requirement under Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 13 that an exchange have an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities. 13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition ISE does not believe that the proposed rule change, as amended, does not 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 not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change, as amended. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change, as amended, has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 14 and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder 15 because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge. 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. 16 14 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 15 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). 16 The effective date of the original proposed rule change is January 20, 2006, the date of the original filing, and the effective date of Amendment No. 1 is February 9, 2006, the filing date of the amendment. For purposes of calculating the 60-day abrogation period within which the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change, as amended, under Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period to commence on February 9, 2006, the date on which the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-ISE-2006-05 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-ISE-2006-05. 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 ISE. 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-ISE-2006-05 and should be submitted on or before March 21, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 17 Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. 17 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). [FR Doc. E6-2751 Filed 2-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53333; File No. SR-NASD-2006-011] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Principal Pre-Use Approval of Member Correspondence to 25 or More Existing Retail Customers Within a 30 Calendar-Day Period February 17, 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 27, 2006, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) 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 NASD. On February 13, 2006, NASD filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 3 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 Amendment No. 1 to SR-NASD-2006-011 replaced and superseded the original rule filing filed on January 27, 2006 in its entirety. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change NASD is proposing to amend NASD Rule 2211 to require principal pre-use approval of member correspondence to 25 or more existing retail customers within a 30 calendar-day period. Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language is italicized; proposed deletions are in [brackets]. 2211. Institutional Sales Material and Correspondence

(a)No Change.

(b)Approval and Recordkeeping

(1)Registered Principal Approval

(A)Correspondence. Correspondence need not be approved by a registered principal prior to use, [but] *unless such correspondence is distributed to 25 or more existing retail customers within any 30 calendar-day period and is not solely and exclusively clerical or ministerial in nature. All correspondence* is subject to the supervision and review requirements of Rule 3010(d).

(B)No Change.

(2)No Change.

(c)through

(e)No Change. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, NASD 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. NASD has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose Definition of “Correspondence” In 2003, the SEC approved as part of NASD's modernization of its advertising rules the creation of new Rule 2211, which included an amended definition of “correspondence.” The amended definition of correspondence includes any written letter or electronic mail message distributed by a firm to one or more of its existing retail customers and to fewer than 25 prospective retail customers within a 30 calendar-day period. 4 Previously, “correspondence” included any written or electronic communication prepared for delivery to a single current or prospective customer, and not for dissemination to multiple customers or the general public. 4 NASD has clarified that, for purposes of its rules governing member communications with the public, NASD views instant messaging in the same manner in which it views traditional electronic mail messages. Accordingly, instant messaging may qualify as correspondence or sales literature, depending upon the facts and circumstances. *See Notice to Members* 03-33 (July 2003). The definition of correspondence is significant in several respects. Firms generally are not required to have a registered principal approve correspondence prior to use, nor are they required to file correspondence with the NASD Advertising Regulation Department (“Department”). 5 In addition, correspondence is subject to fewer content restrictions than advertisements and sales literature. 5 NASD Rule 3010(d)(2) requires each member to develop written procedures that are appropriate to its business, size, structure, and customers for the review of incoming and outgoing correspondence with the public relating to its investment banking or securities business. Where such procedures do not require review of all correspondence prior to use or distribution, they must include provision for the education and training of associated persons as to the firm's procedures governing correspondence, documentation of such education and training, and surveillance and follow-up to ensure that such procedures are implemented and adhered to. NASD amended the definition in order to provide firms with more flexibility regarding the supervision of certain e-mails and form letters. However, NASD understands that many firms continue to require registered principal pre-use approval of some correspondence. NASD has found that some member correspondence to multiple existing customers raises the same regulatory concerns as member advertisements and sales literature, despite the fact that it is not required to be filed with NASD or approved by a principal prior to use. In contrast, had these types of form letters been sent to at least 25 *prospective* retail customers, such correspondence would have required both registered principal pre-use approval and filing with the Department. As a result, NASD believes it no longer should apply the principal pre-use approval requirement differently to non-clerical correspondence sent to prospective and existing retail customers. Proposed Amendment NASD is proposing to amend Rule 2211 to require registered principal pre-use approval of any non-clerical correspondence sent to 25 or more existing retail customers within any 30 calendar-day period. Non-clerical correspondence with such a wide distribution often will constitute a solicitation to purchase or sell a security or to use a brokerage service. Registered principal pre-use approval would better ensure that this material complies with applicable standards of the advertising rules before reaching current or prospective customers. Since many firms already require registered principal pre-use approval of such correspondence, NASD believes the benefits of the proposed requirement outweigh any additional burden on members. NASD does not propose to require that this correspondence be filed with the Department or that it be subject to all of the content standards of the advertising rules. NASD recognizes that correspondence with existing retail customers may not require the same level of investor protection as correspondence to prospective retail customers. Of course, a firm may choose to file this correspondence with the Department to better ensure that it complies with applicable standards, particularly when the correspondence promotes the firm's products or services. NASD will announce the effective date of the proposed rule change in a Notice to Members to be published no later than 30 days following Commission approval. The effective date will be 90 days following publication of the *Notice to Members* announcing Commission approval. 2. Statutory Basis NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, 6 which requires, among other things, that NASD 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. NASD believes that requiring that a principal approve prior to use any non-clerical correspondence that is sent to 25 or more existing retail customers will protect investors and the public interest. In particular, this proposed rule change will help prevent fraudulent or misleading communications from reaching a widespread retail audience by requiring principals to review non-clerical correspondence sent to a large number of investors prior to use. 6 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3(b)(6). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition NASD does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received from Members, Participants, or Others The proposed rule change was published for comment in NASD *Notice to Members* 05-27 (April 2005). NASD received eleven comments in response to the *Notice.* 7 7 Letter from Association of Registration Management (“ARM”) dated May 25, 2005; Letter from Cutter & Company, Inc. (“Cutter”), dated May 27, 2005; Letter from Frank Dealy dated April 21, 2005; Letter from Edward D. Jones & Co., LP (“Edward Jones”), dated May 27, 2005; Letter from the Financial Services Institute (“FSI”) dated May 27, 2005; Letter from Fintegra, LLC (“Fintegra”), dated April 14, 2005; Letter from Investment Company Institute (“ICI”) dated May 27, 2005; Letter from Jefferson Pilot Securities Corporation (“Jefferson Pilot”) dated May 27, 2005; Letter from Krieger-Campbell, Incorporated (“Krieger-Campbell”) dated May 20, 2005; Letter from UBS Financial Services Inc. (“UBS”) dated May 27, 2005; and Letter from Wulff, Hansen & Co. (“Wulff Hansen”) dated April 14, 2005. There were two primary comments on the proposal. First, several commenters inquired as to what type of principal registration would be required to approve correspondence prior to use. Second, a number of commenters argued that the proposal should not require principal pre-use approval for correspondence that is solely clerical or ministerial in nature. 8 There were also a number of other miscellaneous questions and comments regarding the proposal. 8 The version of the proposed rule change that was published for comment in *Notice to Members* 05-27 did not contain an exception from the principal pre-use approval requirement for correspondence that is solely and exclusively clerical or ministerial in nature. Principal Qualifications The proposed rule would require a registered principal to approve prior to use any correspondence that is distributed to 25 or more existing retail customers within any 30 calendar-day period. *Notice to Members* 05-27 did not indicate, however, whether a particular principal registration would be required in order to fulfill this duty. ARM, Edward Jones and UBS inquired as to whether, among other principal exams, a Limited Principal—General Securities Sales Supervisor (formerly Series 8 and now Series 9/10) could perform this function under the proposed rule. In particular, ARM and UBS noted that NASD does not accept the General Securities Sales Supervisor exam as satisfying the principal qualification requirement for approval of advertisements under Rule 2210. 9 9 *See* Rule 1022(g)(2)(C)(iii). Commenters also noted that while branch managers often possess only the General Securities Sales Supervisors principal registration and are not registered as General Securities Principals (Series 24), they typically supervise correspondence as required by Rule 3010. Commenters argued that a branch manager is best qualified to supervise correspondence at the branch office level and that to require these branch managers to obtain a General Securities Principal registration would be enormously burdensome. NASD agrees that the General Securities Sales Supervisor registration category is sufficient to meet the proposal's requirements for pre-use approval of correspondence sent to 25 or more existing retail customers within a 30 calendar-day period. NASD already interprets Rule 3010 to permit General Securities Sales Supervisors to supervise correspondence in accordance with that rule's provisions. Accordingly, NASD would interpret the proposed rule change to permit a General Securities Sales Supervisor (formerly Series 8 and now Series 9/10) to approve correspondence prior to use. Administrative and Clerical Correspondence Edward Jones and Wulff Hansen both commented that, if NASD intends to go forward with the proposal, the principal pre-use approval requirement should not apply to correspondence that is solely of an administrative, service or clerical nature. Similarly, the FSI and Jefferson Pilot argue that the principal pre-use approval requirements should not apply to correspondence unless it contains a recommendation to buy or sell a security or service. In support of this change, commenters argued that there is little need for heightened investor protection measures when correspondence concerns such matters as reorganization notices, stock dividend details, notices of office closings or extended hours, and the like. Edward Jones pointed out that the New York Stock Exchange employs a content-oriented definition of “sales literature.” 10 Wulff Hansen also noted that NASD Rule 1060 does not require registration for persons associated with a member whose functions are solely and exclusively clerical and ministerial. 10 *See* NYSE Rule 472.10(5) (defining sales literature as any written or electronic communication “discussing or promoting the products, services, and facilities offered by a member or member organization”). NASD agrees that correspondence the content of which is solely clerical or ministerial does not raise the same investor protection issues as correspondence that is non-administrative in nature, such as correspondence that promotes a member product or service. Accordingly, NASD has modified the proposed rule language to exclude from the principal pre-use approval requirement correspondence that is solely and exclusively clerical or ministerial in nature. Other Comments The ICI supported the proposal on the ground that it strikes a reasonable regulatory balance by requiring principal approval for some correspondence without placing an undue burden on members by requiring the filing of correspondence with the Department. Fintegra noted that it supports the proposal as long as members are not required to file correspondence with NASD. NASD confirms that the proposal would not impose new filing requirements for correspondence. Cutter noted that NASD has taken the position under Rule 2711 that a communication that is distributed to 15 or more persons and includes an analysis of equity securities of individual companies or industries, and that provides information reasonably sufficient upon which to base an investment decision, is deemed to be a research report. Cutter argued that, if the proposed principal pre-use approval requirement is adopted, the numerical thresholds for determining when principal pre-use approval is required under Rule 2211 and when a communication is deemed a research report under Rule 2711 should be the same ( *i.e.* , 25 or more persons). While NASD recognizes different numerical thresholds for different rules may present a compliance challenge, Rule 2211 serves a different purpose than Rule 2711. In addition, the 15-person threshold under Rule 2711 was derived from SEC Regulation Analyst Certification, which also deals with research reports. Moreover, NASD has not proposed to amend Rule 2711 as part of this rule filing. Cutter, the FSI and Jefferson Pilot all commented that, if there is a problem with misleading correspondence to retail customers, a better approach would be to require heightened supervision for firms that have a history of correspondence compliance problems. The FSI argued that the burdens that the proposal would impose on members do not justify its adoption. Similarly, Krieger-Campbell commented that the proposal could have unintended consequences, such as holding up member communications regarding a Regulation D private placement offering. Additionally, Edward Jones and Jefferson Pilot argued that the current correspondence definition has not been in place long enough to justify requiring principal pre-use approval for correspondence sent to 25 or more existing retail customers. While NASD recognizes that there are other possible approaches to address potentially misleading correspondence and that the proposal may impose additional compliance costs on some members, NASD believes that requiring principal pre-use approval of correspondence sent to 25 or more existing retail customers is a more proactive and effective means of preventing the distribution of potentially misleading correspondence to large numbers of customers. In addition, the current rule and the heightened supervision approach do not address the investor protection dichotomy that exists between current and prospective retail customers. The FSI and Jefferson Pilot argued that the proposal would inhibit the transmission of time-sensitive e-mails to existing retail customers, such as those alerting customers of significant market news. NASD believes that these types of communications, which often urge customers to buy or sell securities on a short-term basis, are precisely the types of communications that require principal review. Accordingly, NASD does not favor amending the proposal for this reason. The FSI also states in its comment letter that “NASD staff has advised the Institute that they will not interpret the proposed rule as written” and instead will apply the rule only to form letters and other correspondence with identical content sent by one or more registered representatives in the same office. This comment is misguided. The rule proposal is intended to apply to any non-clerical correspondence, including emails, sent to 25 or more existing customers over a 30-calendar-day period, and NASD intends to enforce the rule accordingly if approved in its current form. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period

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

(ii)as to which NASD consents, the Commission will:

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

(B)Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-NASD-2006-011 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-NASD-2006-011. 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 NASD. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2006-011 and should be submitted on or before March 21, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 11 11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-2766 Filed 2-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5331] Certification Pursuant to Section 583 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, FY 2006, (Pub.L. 109-102) Pursuant to the authority vested in me under Section 583 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, FY 2006, (Pub.L. 109-102), I hereby certify that application of the restriction in such section to a country or countries is contrary to the national interest of the United States. This certification shall be reported to the Congress and published in the **Federal Register** . Dated: February 2, 2006. Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-2780 Filed 2-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-08-P OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE Termination of Sanctions Imposed on Certain Member States of the European Communities Pursuant to Title VII of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative. ACTION: Termination of sanctions imposed on certain Member States of the European Communities pursuant to Title VII of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988. SUMMARY: The United States Trade Representative has determined to terminate sanctions imposed on certain EC Member States (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom). This determination is based on assurances from the European Communities that EC telecommunications operators are no longer subject to discriminatory requirements, and that purchasing by EC telecommunications operators are now based solely on commercial considerations, not EC procurement rules. The termination of sanctions is effective on March 1, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean Heilman Grier, Senior Procurement Negotiator, Office of the United States Trade Representative,

(202)395-9476 or *Jean_Grier@ustr.eop.gov.* Determination Relating to Sanctions Imposed Under Title VII of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 On May 28, 1993, the United States imposed sanctions on certain Member States of the European Communities

(EC)under Title VII of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (19 U.S.C. 2515, as amended) for maintaining, in government procurement of telecommunications goods, a significant and persistent pattern or practice of discrimination against U.S. products or services that results in identifiable harm to U.S. businesses (58 FR 31136). In June 1993, the EC imposed equivalent countermeasures against the United States. On March 10, 1994, then-USTR Michael Kantor terminated the sanctions against the Federal Republic of Germany based on a determination that Germany had eliminated the discrimination identified under Title VII (59 FR 11360). The sanctions currently apply to 11 EC Member States: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. On March 31, 2004, the European Communities adopted new EC Directives on Government Procurement, which formally exclude telecommunications operators from their scope. I have received official assurances from the EC that the purchasing by EC telecommunications operators is no longer subject to EC procurement rules, but to purely commercial considerations, and that the EC will also remove its countermeasures against the United States. Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the President of the United States in Presidential Determination No. 93-16, I have determined that the EC Member States referenced above have eliminated the discrimination identified under Title VII and have therefore terminated sanctions effective on March 1, 2006. Rob Portman, United States Trade Representative. [FR Doc. E6-2810 Filed 2-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3190-W6-P OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE Revised Fiscal Year 2006 Tariff-rate Quota Allocations for Raw Cane Sugar and Refined Sugar AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Office of the United States Trade Representative

(USTR)is providing notice of additional country-by-country allocations of the in-quota quantity of the tariff-rate quotas for imported raw cane sugar and refined sugar for the period October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006 (FY 2006). In addition, USTR is providing notice of country-by-country re-allocations of the FY 2006 in-quota quantity of the tariff-rate quota for imported raw cane sugar. DATES: *Effective Date:* February 28, 2006. ADDRESSES: Inquiries may be mailed or delivered to Jason Hafemeister, Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative, Office of Agricultural Affairs, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Hafemeister, Office of Agricultural Affairs, telephone: 202-395-6127 or facsimile: 202-395-4579. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Additional U.S. Note 5 to chapter 17 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), the United States maintains a tariff-rate quota for imports of raw cane sugar and refined sugar. Section 404(d)(3) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3601(d)(3)) authorizes the President to allocate the in-quota quantity of a tariff-rate quota for any agricultural product among supplying countries or customs areas. The President delegated this authority to the United States Trade Representative under Presidential Proclamation 6763 (60 FR 1007). On February 2, 2006, the Secretary of Agriculture increased the in-quota quantity of the tariff-rate quota for raw cane sugar for FY 2006 by 226,796 metric tons * raw value. USTR is allocating this increased quantity. Further, USTR is re-allocating 35,126 metric tons raw value of the FY 2006 tariff-rate quota allocations that will not be used by certain countries. The total quantity of the raw sugar allocations ( *i.e.* , the additional allocation and the re-allocation) of 261,922 metric tons raw value is being allocated to the following countries: * Conversion factor: 1 metric ton = 1.10231125 short tons. FY 2006 Additional and Re-Allocations Country Metric tons raw value Argentina 15,461 Australia 29,844 Belize 3,955 Bolivia 2,877 Brazil 52,138 Colombia 8,630 Costa Rica 5,394 Ecuador 3,955 El Salvador 9,349 Guatemala 17,259 Guyana 4,315 Honduras 3,596 Jamaica 3,955 Malawi 3,596 Mauritius 4,315 Mozambique 4,674 Nicaragua 7,551 Panama 10,428 Peru 14,742 Philippines 30,000 South Africa 8,270 Swaziland 5,753 Thailand 5,034 Trinidad & Tobago 2,517 Zimbabwe 4,315 These allocations are based on the countries' historical shipments to the United States, excluding countries that are unable to ship additional sugar. The allocations of the raw cane sugar tariff-rate quota to countries that are net importers of sugar are conditioned on receipt of the appropriate verifications of origin. All other country raw cane sugar allocations, other than for those countries that are unable to ship additional sugar, remain unchanged from those announced on August 30, 2005 and December 9, 2005. On February 2, 2006, the Secretary of Agriculture increased the in-quota quantity of the tariff-rate quota for refined sugar for FY 2006 by 226,796 metric tons raw value, none of which is for specialty sugars. A total of 25,000 metric tons raw value is being allocated to Canada and 59,349 metric tons raw value is being allocated to Mexico. The remaining 142,447 metric tons raw value of the in-quota quantity may be supplied by any country on a first-come, first-served basis, subject to any other provision of law. The certificate of quota eligibility is required for sugar entering under the tariff-rate quota for refined sugar that is the product of a country that has been allocated a share of the tariff-rate quota for refined sugar. Rob Portman, United States Trade Representative. [FR Doc. E6-2737 Filed 2-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3190-W6-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request February 22, 2006. The Department of the Treasury has submitted the following public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 11000, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220. *Dates:* Written comments should be received on or before March 30, 2006 to be assured of consideration. Bureau of Public Debt *OMB Number:* 1535-0013. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Title:* Claim for Lost, Stolen or Destroyed U.S. Savings Bonds and Supplemental Statement for U.S. Securities. *Form:* BPD PD F 1048 and 2243. *Description:* Used by owner or others having knowledge to request substitute securities or payment of lost, stolen or destroyed securities. *Respondents:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 26,400 hours. *OMB Number:* 1535-0036. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Title:* Application by Voluntary Guardian of Incapacitated Owner of United States Savings Bonds/Notes. *Form:* BPD PD F 2513. *Description:* Used by voluntary guardian of incapacitated bond owner(s) to establish right of act on behalf of owner. *Respondents:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 26,600 hours. *OMB Number:* 1535-0064. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Title:* Description of United States Savings Bonds Series HH/H and Description of United States Bonds/Notes. *Form:* BPD PD F 1980 and 2490. *Description:* Used by owner of United Savings Bonds/Notes to describe their holdings. *Respondents:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 2,400 hours. *OMB Number:* 1535-0136. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Title:* Application for Refund of Purchase Price of United States Savings Bonds for Organizations. *Form:* BPD PD F 5410. *Description:* Used by an organization to request refund of purchase price of United States Savings Bonds. *Respondents:* Business of other for-profit and Not-for-profit institutions. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 300 hours. *Clearance Officer:* Vicki S. Thorpe,

(304)480-8150, Bureau of the Public Debt, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, West Virginia 26106. *OMB Reviewer:* Alexander T. Hunt,

(202)395-7316, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. Michael A. Robinson, Treasury PRA Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-2765 Filed 2-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-39-P U.S.-CHINA ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION Notice of Open Public Hearing AGENCY: U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. ACTION: Notice of open public hearing. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following hearing of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. *Name:* Larry M. Wortzel, Chairman of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. The Commission is mandated by Congress to investigate, assess, evaluate and report to Congress annually on “regional economic and security impacts.” The mandate specifically charges the Commission to evaluate “The triangular economic and security relationship among the United States, Taipei and the People's Republic of China (including the military modernization and force deployments of the People's Republic of China aimed at Taipei).” Pursuant to this mandate, the Commission will be holding a public hearing in Washington, DC on March 16-17, 2006. Background This event is the third in a series of public hearings the Commission will hold during its 2006 report cycle to collect input from leading experts in academia, business, industry, government and the public on the impact of the economic and national security implications of the U.S. growing bilateral trade and economic relationship with China. The March 16-17 hearing is being conducted to obtain commentary about issues connected to China's military modernization efforts and export control issues. Information on upcoming hearings, as well as transcripts of past Commission hearings, can be obtained from the USCC Web site *http://www.uscc.gov.* The March 16 hearing will address “China's Military Modernization” and will be Co-chaired by Vice Chairman Carolyn Bartholomew and Commissioner Thomas Donnelly. The March 17 hearing will address “Export Control Issues” and will be Co-chaired by Commissioners Fred Thompson and William A. Reinsch. Purpose of Hearing The hearing is designed to assist the Commission in fulfilling its mandate by identifying and assessing the key military modernization efforts being undertaken by China, evaluating the modernization of China's defense industries, assessing the quality and quantity of military assistance China is receiving from foreign sources, and reviewing and evaluating the efficacy of U.S. and European export controls on the transfer of military equipment and dual-use technologies to China. Invited witnesses include congressional members, administration officials, and U.S. industry representatives. Copies of the hearing agenda will be made available on the Commission's Web site *http://www.uscc.gov* . Any interested party may file a written statement by March 17, 2006, by mailing to the contact below. *Date and Time:* Thursday, March 16, 2006, 8:30 a.m. to 4 pm, and Friday, March 17, 2006, 8:30 a.m. to Noon Eastern Standard Time. A detailed agenda for the hearing will be posted to the Commission's Web site at *http://www.uscc.gov* in the near future. ADDRESSES: The hearing will be held on Capitol Hill (the exact location will be announced soon). Public seating is limited to about 50 people on a first come, first served basis. Advance reservations are not required. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public wishing further information concerning the hearing should contact Kathy Michels, Associate Director for the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, 444 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 602, Washington, DC 20001; phone 202-624-1409, or via e-mail at *kmichels@uscc.gov.* Authority: Congress created the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission in 2000 in the National Defense Authorization Act (Pub. L. 106-398 as amended by Division P of the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (Pub. L. 108-7), as amended by Public Law 109-108 (November 22, 2005). Dated: February 22, 2006. Kathleen J. Michels, Associate Director, U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. [FR Doc. E6-2758 Filed 2-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1137-00-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans; Notice of Meeting The Department of Veterans Affairs

(VA)gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans will be held March 30-31, 2006. The Committee will meet from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on March 30, 2006, and from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. on March 31, 2006, in the Learning Skill Center at the Maryland Center for Veterans Education and Training, 301 North High Street, Baltimore, MD. The meeting is open to the public. The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs with an ongoing assessment of the effectiveness of the policies, organizational structures, and services of the Department in assisting homeless veterans. The Committee shall assemble and review information relating to the needs of homeless veterans and provide ongoing advice on the most appropriate means of providing assistance to homeless veterans. The Committee will make recommendations to the Secretary regarding such activities. On March 30 and 31, the Committee will receive reports from program experts, assess the availability of health care and benefit services, receive reports from other federal departments and advocacy groups and review other initiatives designed to assist veterans who are homeless. The Committee will review the 2005 annual report responses, and draft the 2006 annual report. Those wishing to attend the meeting should contact Mr. Pete Dougherty, Designated Federal Officer, at

(202)273-5764. No time will be allocated for receiving oral presentations during the public meeting. However, the Committee will accept written comments from interested parties on issues affecting homeless veterans. Such comments should be referred to the Committee at the following address: Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans, Homeless Veterans Programs Office (075D), U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420. Dated: February 22, 2006. By direction of the Secretary. E. Philip Riggin, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. 06-1868 Filed 2-27-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 8

Traces to 8 documents

U.S. Code

CFR

Delegation of authority to Director of Division of Trading and Markets.
§ 200.30-3

9 references not yet in our index

17 CFR 240.19
15 USC 78(f)(b)
15 USC 78
Pub. L. 109-102
Pub. L. 104-13
Pub. L. 106-398
Pub. L. 108-7
Pub. L. 109-108
Pub. L. 92-463

Citation graph

cites case law

Notices

Termination of sanctions imposed on certain Member States of the European Communities pursuant to Title VII of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988

Cite17 CFR 240.19

Cite15 USC 78(f)(b)

Cite15 USC 78

Pub. L.Pub. L. 109-102

Cites 17 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources