Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-03-14 · SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION · Notices

Notices. Notice

22,929 words·~104 min read·/register/2006/03/14/06-2447·

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. 34-53451; File No. SR-Amex-2006-23] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt an Options Licensing Fee for Options on Certain Rydex Exchange-Traded Funds March 8, 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 March 6, 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 Exchange.
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 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change Amex proposes to modify its Options Fee Schedule by adopting a per-contract license fee for the orders of specialists, registered options traders, firms, non-member market makers, and broker-dealers (collectively, “Market Participants”) in connection with options transactions in six
(6)new Rydex exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Internet Web site ( *http://www.amex.com* ), at the Exchange's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The purpose of the proposal is to adopt a per-contract options licensing fee in connection with options on the following six
(6)ETFs:
(1)Rydex S&P 500 Pure Growth ETF (symbol: RPG);
(2)Rydex S&P Pure Value ETF (symbol: RPV);
(3)Rydex S&P MidCap 400 Pure Growth ETF (symbol: RFG);
(4)Rydex S&P MidCap 400 Pure Value ETF (symbol: RFV);
(5)Rydex S&P Small Cap 600 Pure Growth ETF (symbol: RZG); and
(6)Rydex S&P Small Cap 600 Pure Value ETF (symbol: RZV) (collectively, “Rydex ETFs”). Amex represents that it plans to assess the proposed options licensing fee on members commencing March 7, 2006. The Exchange has entered into numerous agreements with various index providers for the purpose of trading options on certain ETFs. As a result, the Exchange is required to pay index license fees to third parties as a condition to the listing and trading of these ETF options. In many cases, the Exchange is required to pay a significant licensing fee to the index provider that may not be reimbursed. In an effort to recoup the costs associated with certain index licenses, the Exchange has recently established per-contract licensing fees for orders of Market Participants that are collected on each option transaction in certain designated products in which such Market Participant is a party. 5 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52493 (September 22, 2005), 70 FR 56941 (September 29, 2005). The purpose of the proposal, therefore, is to charge an options licensing fee in connection with options on the Rydex ETFs. Specifically, Amex seeks to charge an options licensing fee of $0.09 per contract side for each Rydex ETF option for Market Participant orders executed on the Exchange. In all cases, the fee would be charged only to the Exchange member through whom such order is placed. Amex represents that the proposed options licensing fees would allow the Exchange to recoup its costs in connection with the index license fees for the trading of the Rydex ETF options. The fees would be collected on every Market Participant order executed on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that requiring the payment of a per-contract licensing fee in connection with the Rydex ETF options by those Market Participants that benefit from the index license agreements is justified and consistent with the rules of the Exchange. The Exchange notes that, in recent years, it has revised a number of its fees to better align Amex fees with the actual cost of delivering services and reduce Amex's subsidization of such services. 6 The Exchange represents that the implementation of this proposal is consistent with the reduction and/or elimination of these subsidies. Amex believes that these fees will help to allocate to those Market Participants engaging in transactions in Rydex ETF options a fair share of the related costs of offering such options for trading. 6 *See, e.g.* , Securities Exchange Act Release No. 45360 (January 29, 2002), 67 FR 5626 (February 6, 2002); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44286 (May 9, 2001), 66 FR 27187 (May 16, 2001). The Exchange asserts that the proposal provides for an equitable allocation of fees as required by Section 6(b)(4) of the Act. 7 In connection with the adoption of options licensing fees for the Rydex ETF options, the Exchange notes that charging the options licensing fees, where applicable, to all Market Participant orders, except for customer orders, is reasonable given the competitive pressures in the industry. Accordingly, the Exchange seeks, through this proposal, to better align its transaction charges with the cost of providing trading products. 7 Section 6(b)(4) of the Act states that the rules of a national securities exchange must “provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities.” 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 8 in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities. 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 9 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) 10 thereunder because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 10 17 CFR 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 No. SR-Amex-2006-23 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2006-23. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commissions Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of 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-2006-23 and should be submitted on or before April 4, 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. E6-3572 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53436; File No. SR-BSE-2006-08] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto to Authorize Entry into Regulatory Services Agreements March 7, 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 Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange” or “BSE”) 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. On March 2, 2006, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 3 The Exchange filed the proposed rule change as a “non-controversial” rule change under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act, 4 which rendered 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 made non-substantive changes to the text of the proposed rule change. 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 Exchange proposes to amend its Constitution to permit the Exchange to contract with another self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) for the performance of certain of the Exchange's regulatory functions. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the BSE's Web site, *http://www.bostonstock.com,* at the BSE's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The proposed rule change would create a mechanism that would allow the BSE to contract with another SRO for the performance of certain of the BSE's regulatory functions. The purpose of the proposed rule change is to enhance the BSE's ability to carry out its regulatory obligations under the Act by providing the BSE the ability to contract with another SRO for regulatory services. Under any agreement for regulatory services with another SRO, the BSE would remain an SRO registered under Section 6 of the Act 5 and, therefore, would continue to have statutory authority and responsibility for enforcing compliance by its members, and persons associated with its members, with the Act, the rules thereunder, and the rules of the BSE. 5 15 U.S.C. 78f. This rule change would have immediate applicability with respect to a Regulatory Services Agreement (“RSA”) between the BSE, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE”), and other options markets participating in the proposed Options Regulatory Surveillance Authority national market system plan. The BSE has determined that, to best discharge its SRO responsibilities, it will contract with CBOE, which is subject to Commission oversight pursuant to Sections 6 and 19 of the Act, 6 for CBOE to provide certain regulatory services to the BSE, as set forth in the RSA. In performing services under the RSA, CBOE will be operating pursuant to the statutory SRO responsibilities of the BSE under Sections 6 and 19, as well as performing for itself its own SRO responsibilities. The proposed rule change specifically states that any action taken by another SRO, or its employees or authorized agents, operating on behalf of the BSE pursuant to a regulatory services agreement with the BSE ( *e.g.,* CBOE under the RSA) will be deemed an action taken by the BSE. The BSE will retain ultimate responsibility for performance of its SRO duties under the RSA, and the proposed rule change states that the BSE will retain ultimate legal responsibility for, and control of, its SRO responsibilities. 6 15 U.S.C. 78f and 15 U.S.C. 78s. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 7 in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections 6(b)(1), 6(b)(6) and 6(b)(7) of the Act 8 in particular, in that it will enhance the ability of the Exchange to enforce compliance by its members and persons associated with its members with the provisions of the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange; it will help ensure that members and persons associated with members are appropriately disciplined for violations of the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange; and it will provide a fair procedure for the disciplining of members and persons associated with members. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1); 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(6); and 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7). 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 proposed rule change:
(i)Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii)by its terms, does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 9 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. 10 The proposed rule change is based on a rule change previously filed by the American Stock Exchange LLC and approved by the Commission. 11 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 10 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 11 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50122 (July 29, 2004), 69 FR 47962 (August 6, 2004) (SR-Amex-2004-32). 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 the furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-BSE-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-BSE-2006-08. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BSE-2006-08 and should be submitted on or before April 4, 2006. 12 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 12 Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-3547 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53433; File No. SR-CHX-2006-08] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Specialist Participant Fees and Credits March 7, 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 27, 2006, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (“CHX” 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 CHX. On March 2, 2006, CHX 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 parties. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange revised the proposed rule text to clarify its meaning. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The CHX proposes to amend its Participant Fee Schedule to confirm that, retroactive to January 1, 2006, specialist fixed fees would not be assessed to a specialist firm with respect to securities that are temporarily assigned. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site ( *http://www.chx.com/rules/proposed_rules.htm* ) and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. Below is the text of the proposed rule change, as amended. Proposed new language is *underlined* ; proposed deletions are in [brackets]. FEES AND ASSESSMENTS E. Specialist Fixed Fees *Effective January 1, 2006, t* [T]hese fixed fees shall not be assessed to a firm with respect to securities that are temporarily assigned. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the CHX included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change, as amended, and discussed any comments it received regarding the proposal, as amended. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The CHX has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose Under the Exchange's rules, the Committee on Specialist Assignment and Evaluation (“CSAE”) is responsible for appointing participant firms to act as specialists on the Exchange. 4 From time to time, the CSAE may make a temporary assignment of one or more securities to a specialist firm. 5 Temporary assignments may be made, for example, when one specialist firm has requested and been granted the opportunity to deregister in one or more of its securities before the formal posting and assignment process has been completed. 6 Through this filing, the Exchange proposes to confirm that, when a firm has been appointed to act as specialist in a security on a temporary basis, the firm will not be charged the specialist fixed fees otherwise associated with the trading of that security. The Exchange believes that this fee waiver creates an appropriate (and limited) incentive for a firm to agree to act as specialist on a temporary basis. This proposed rule change is designed to take effect, on a retroactive basis, on January 1, 2006 so that it can apply to temporary assignments made on or after that date. 7 4 *See* Article IV, Rule 6. 5 *See* Article XXX, Rule 1. 6 The Exchange represents that when a security is to be assigned or reassigned, the Exchange notifies specialist firms of the assignment opportunity and invites applications for the security. *See* Article XXX, Rule 1, Interpretation and Policy .01, Section II. The Exchange further represents that if more than one firm seeks the assignment, the CSAE holds meetings with the firms to review their demonstrated ability, experience, financial responsibility and other factors that are relevant to the CSAE's assignment decision. *See* Article XXX, Rule 1, Interpretation and Policy .01, Section II and Section III. The Exchange represents that depending upon the number of firms applying for a security and the availability of committee members and specialist firm representatives, this process could take several weeks to complete. An interim temporary assignment allows a security to continue to be traded by a specialist firm, while the process is completed. 7 The Exchange also has filed a proposal to make this fee change effective immediately. *See* SR-CHX-2006-07. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 8 in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among CHX's members and creates an appropriate (and limited) incentive for a firm to agree to act as specialist on a temporary basis. 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change, as amended, will impose any burden on competition. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period
(i)as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or
(ii)as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will: A. By order approve such proposed rule change, as amended; or B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change, as amended, 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-CHX-2006-08 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2006-08. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the CHX. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2006-08 and should be submitted on or before April 4, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 9 9 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-3542 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53429; File No. SR-CHX-2006-07] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Specialist Participant Fees and Credits March 6, 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 27, 2006, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (“CHX” 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 CHX. On March 2, 2006, CHX filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 3 The CHX has designated this proposal as one changing a fee imposed by the CHX under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act, 4 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 5 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested parties. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange revised the proposed rule text to clarify its meaning. The effective date of the original proposed rule change is February 27, 2006, and the effective date of Amendment No. 1 is March 2, 2006. For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change under Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period to commence on March 2, 2006, the date on which the CHX filed Amendment No. 1. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). 4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 5 5 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The CHX proposes to amend its Participant Fee Schedule to confirm that, effectively immediately, specialist fixed fees would not be assessed to a specialist firm with respect to securities that are temporarily assigned. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site ( *http://www.chx.com/rules/proposed_rules.htm* ) and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. Below is the text of the proposed rule change, as amended. Proposed new language is *italicized.* FEES AND ASSESSMENTS E. Specialist Fixed Fees *These fixed fees shall not be assessed to a firm with respect to securities that are temporarily assigned.* II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the CHX included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change, as amended, and discussed any comments it received regarding the proposal, as amended. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The CHX has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose Under the Exchange's rules, the Committee on Specialist Assignment and Evaluation (“CSAE”) is responsible for appointing participant firms to act as specialists on the Exchange. 6 From time to time, the CSAE may make a temporary assignment of one or more securities to a specialist firm. 7 Temporary assignments may be made, for example, when one specialist firm has requested and been granted the opportunity to deregister in one or more of its securities before the formal posting and assignment process has been completed. 8 Through this filing, the Exchange proposes to confirm that, when a firm has been appointed to act as specialist in a security on a temporary basis, the firm will not be charged the specialist fixed fees otherwise associated with the trading of that security. The Exchange believes that this fee waiver creates an appropriate (and limited) incentive for a firm to agree to act as specialist on a temporary basis. 9 6 *See* Article IV, Rule 6. 7 *See* Article XXX, Rule 1. 8 The Exchange represents that when a security is to be assigned or reassigned, the Exchange notifies specialist firms of the assignment opportunity and invites applications for the security. *See* Article XXX, Rule 1, Interpretation and Policy .01, Section II. The Exchange further represents that if more than one firm seeks the assignment, the CSAE holds meetings with the firms to review their demonstrated ability, experience, financial responsibility and other factors that are relevant to the CSAE's assignment decision. *See* Article XXX, Rule 1, Interpretation and Policy .01, Section II and Section III. The Exchange represents that depending upon the number of firms applying for a security and the availability of committee members and specialist firm representatives, this process could take several weeks to complete. An interim temporary assignment allows a security to continue to be traded by a specialist firm, while the process is completed. 9 The Exchange also is filing, pursuant to Section 19b(2) of the Act, a proposal to make this fee change retroactive to January 1, 2006. *See* SR-CHX-2006-08. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 10 in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among CHX's members and creates an appropriate (and limited) incentive for a firm to agree to act as specialist on a temporary basis. 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change, as amended, will impose any burden on competition. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing proposed rule change, as amended, has been designated as a fee change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 11 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 12 because it establishes or changes a due, fee or other charge imposed by the Exchange. Accordingly, the proposal will take effect upon filing with the Commission. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, as amended, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 13 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 12 12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). 13 *See supra* note 3. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-CHX-2006-07 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2006-07. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the CHX. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2006-07 and should be submitted on or before April 4, 2006. 14 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 14 Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-3543 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53435; File No. SR-DTC-2006-03] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Criteria Used To Place Participants on Surveillance Status March 7, 2006. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 notice is hereby given that on February 3, 2006, The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) 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 DTC. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested parties. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change DTC is seeking to amend the criteria it uses to place participants on surveillance status. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, DTC 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. DTC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and
(C)below, of the most significant aspects of these statements. 2 2 The Commission has modified the text of the summaries prepared by DTC.
(A)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change Overview DTC has developed certain criteria for placing participants on surveillance. Specifically, all broker-dealers from which DTC requires the submission of FOCUS or FOGS reports and banks from which DTC requires the submission of CALL reports 3 are assigned a rating that is generated by entering financial data of the participant into a risk evaluation matrix (“Matrix”) that was developed by credit risk staff. 4 Those participants with a “weak” rating ( *i.e.* , deemed to pose a relatively higher degree of risk to DTC) are placed on an internal “watch list” and are monitored more closely. All participants that do not fall into the categories of banks and broker-dealers mentioned above are not currently included in the Matrix process but are monitored by DTC's credit risk staff using financial criteria deemed relevant by DTC. 5 3 A small number of DTC member banks which submit CALL reports are not assigned a rating. Because these banks do not make loans and do not take deposits as part of their business activities, their CALL reports do not contain information on asset quality and/or liquidity. Asset quality and liquidity are among the financial figures used in the Matrix. Since these figures would be zero in the Matrix for these banks, their Matrix results would not adequately portray their financial status. DTC has therefore concluded that these banks do not lend themselves to appropriate analysis using the Matrix. 4 The Matrix is used by DTC and its affiliated clearing agencies, the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”) and the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”). In using the Matrix, credit risk staff uses the financial data of each applicable DTC participant and the financial data of each applicable member of FICC and NSCC. In this way, each applicable DTC participant, FICC member, and NSCC member are rated against each other. 5 DTC will continually evaluate the matrix methodology and its effectiveness and make such changes as it deems prudent and practicable within such time frames as it determines to be appropriate. DTC will update the Commission staff periodically on its evaluations of the Matrix. Procedures Credit risk staff approaches its analysis of participants in the following manner. First, the required information of designated broker-dealers and banks are entered into the Matrix and a rating for each participant is generated. Low-rated participants are placed on the watch list. At this point, credit risk staff may downgrade a particular participant's rating based on various qualitative factors. For example, one qualitative factor might be that the participant in question received a qualified audit opinion on its annual audit. In order for DTC to protect itself and its other participants, it is important that credit risk staff maintain the discretion to downgrade a participant's Matrix rating and thus subject the participant to closer monitoring. All rated participants, including those on the watch list, are monitored monthly or quarterly, depending upon the participant's financial filing frequency, against basic minimum financial requirements and other parameters. All broker-dealer participants included on the watch list are monitored more closely than those not on the watch list. This means that they are also monitored for various parameter breaks which may include but are not limited to such things as a defined decline in excess net capital over a one month or three month period, a defined period loss, a defined aggregate indebtedness/net capital ratio, a defined net capital/aggregate debit items ratio, or a defined net capital/regulatory net capital ratio. All bank participants included on the watch list are also monitored more closely for watch list parameter breaks which may include but are not limited to such things as a defined quarter loss, a defined decline in equity, a defined tier one leverage ratio, a defined tier one risk-based capital ratio, and a defined total risk-based capital ratio. Credit risk staff also monitors those participants not included in the Matrix process using similar criteria. 6 These criteria include but are not limited to such things as failure to meet minimum financial requirements, experiencing a significant decrease in equity, or a significant loss. This class of participants may be placed on the watch list based on credit risk staff's analysis of this information. DTC reserves the right to place a participant on the Watch List for failure to comply with operational standards and requirements. 7 6 Participants that are not included in the Matrix are: the banks discussed in footnote 3, United States (“U.S.”) branches and agencies of non-U.S. banks, non-U.S. central securities depositories, and U.S. government sponsored enterprises. 7 Participants are required to meet the standards of financial condition, operational capability, and character set forth in DTC Rule 2 (Participants and Pledgees). DTC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act 8 and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to DTC because it will facilitate the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in its custody or control or for which it is responsible and in general will protect investors and the public interest by improving DTC's member surveillance process. 8 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
(B)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any impact or 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 have not been 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 Within thirty-five 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 ninety days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or
(ii)as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
(A)By order approve such proposed rule change or
(B)Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, 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-DTC-2006-03 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-DTC-2006-03. 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 DTC and on DTC's Web site at *https://login.dtcc.com/dtcorg/* . 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-DTC-2006-03 and should be submitted on or before April 4, 2006. For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 9 9 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-3573 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53443; File No. SR-NYSE-2006-14] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Establishment of a Trading License Fee for 2006 and the Creation of Certain Other Fees for Trading License Holders March 8, 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 March 6, 2006, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule changes as described in Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared by the NYSE. NYSE has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge, pursuant to Section 19b(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 4 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 establish a trading license fee for 2006 to be implemented at the time of closing of its merger with Archipelago Holdings, Inc. (“Archipelago”). In addition, the Exchange proposes to create certain other fees for trading license holders, to eliminate from the 2006 Exchange Price List references to fees that will no longer be relevant after the merger, and to make three technical changes to the 2006 Exchange Price List to clarify how certain fees will be charged. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site ( *http://www.nyse.com* ), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The NYSE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The NYSE is submitting this filing to establish a trading license fee for 2006 to be implemented at the time of the Exchange's proposed merger and to eliminate from the 2006 Exchange Price List references to fees charged to Exchange members that will no longer be relevant after the Exchange's proposed merger. The Exchange is also proposing the following new fees:
(i)A fee relating to the approval of any new member or pre-qualified substitute;
(ii)a badge maintenance fee; and
(iii)a license transfer fee. The Exchange is also making three technical changes to the 2006 Exchange Price List to clarify how certain fees will be charged after the merger. The Exchange is planning to consummate a merger with Archipelago, as a result of which the businesses of the NYSE and Archipelago will be held under a single, publicly traded holding company named NYSE Group, Inc. (“NYSE Group”). Following the merger, the NYSE's current businesses and assets will be held in three separate entities affiliated with NYSE Group—New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE LLC”), NYSE Market, Inc. and NYSE Regulation, Inc. The Commission has approved the Exchange's rule filing in connection with the merger 5 and the merger is scheduled to close on March 7, 2006. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53382 (February 27, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2005-77). Trading License Fees Upon completion of the merger, all of the membership interests in the Exchange will be exchanged for a combination of cash and common stock of NYSE Group. NYSE LLC will be the successor to the Exchange's status as a self-regulatory organization (“SRO”). After the merger, the right to transact business on the floor of the Exchange will be acquired by purchasing a trading license from the Exchange. Each trading license will provide to the license holder identical trading floor access rights to those previously held by a member of the Exchange. Starting with calendar year 2007, the Exchange will sell trading licenses in an annual modified “Dutch” auction under new NYSE Rule 300. However, to facilitate the distribution of trading licenses so that licensees could transact business immediately after the merger, an initial trading license auction was held on January 3, 2006. While NYSE Rule 300 will not be effective until after the merger, the 2006 trading license auction was conducted under the same modified “Dutch” auction procedures established by NYSE Rule 300 for auctions in future years, subject to the modifications set out in new NYSE Rule 300T. 6 6 New Rule 300T modified the auction provisions of NYSE Rule 300 in the following respects for the 2006 auction:
(A)The Minimum Bid Price was eighty percent (80%) of the Reference Price (as hereinafter defined), and there was also imposed a “Maximum Bid Price” of one hundred twenty percent (120%) of the Reference Price. The term “Reference Price” means the average annual lease price for leases (including renewal leases) which leases (or renewals) commenced during the six-month period ending on the last business day of the last calendar month ending at least thirty days before the opening of the auction. In addition, in determining the Auction Price, the Clearing Price is reduced by multiplying it by a fraction the numerator of which is the number of months for which the license shall be issued and the denominator of which is twelve (12).
(B)The number of trading licenses that could be acquired by a single member organization was limited to a number that was the greater of:
(i)35, and
(ii)125% of the number of regular and electronic access Exchange memberships utilized by the member organization in its business immediately prior to the merger. The auction produced 1,274 successful bids for trading licenses at an annual price of $49,290 each. Assuming the merger closes on March 7, 2006, as scheduled, the actual price payable for 2006 trading licenses will be $40,147.50, representing a pro-ration of the annual fee to reflect the amount of time remaining in the year at the time of the closing of the merger. Subject to the maximum number allowable of 1,366 licenses, the Exchange will sell additional trading licenses during the remainder of 2006 at an annual rate of $54,219 ( *i.e.* , 110% of the $49,290 annual fee set in the 2006 auction) pro-rated to reflect the amount of time remaining in the year at the time of the commencement of the license. New NYSE Rule 300 provides that:
(i)Trading license holders must pay the annual fee in equal monthly installments in advance over the period during which the trading license is in effect, and
(ii)prior to the commencement of the trading license, the holder shall pay to the Exchange the first monthly installment of the trading license fee, plus a cash deposit equal to one month's installment of the trading license fee. As the trading license fee applicable to calendar 2006 could not be determined until the merger closing date was known with specificity, the Exchange was unable to bill trading license holders their initial installment in advance. Therefore, the Exchange will send trading license holders a bill in early April 2006 for:
(i)The period from the closing of the merger until March 31, 2006;
(ii)the month of April 2006; and
(iii)a one-month deposit which will be applied to payment for the month of December 2006 or to the one-month fee payable upon early termination of the trading license, if applicable. Bills are payable on receipt. Fee for Approval of New Member or Pre-qualified Substitute or of Existing Member or Pre-qualified Substitute Upon Transfer to a Different Member Organization The Exchange proposes to charge a fee of $1,000 for the approval of new members. This fee will not apply to current Exchange members who continue approved for trading floor access after the merger. From and after the merger, however, the fee will be billed to the new employer of:
(i)Any new member or pre-qualified substitute not transferring from another member organization;
(ii)any approved member who changes employment and continues as a member with another trading license holder; or
(iii)any pre-qualified substitute who changes employment and continues as a pre-qualified substitute with another trading license holder. This fee reflects the costs to the Exchange of processing such new memberships or transfers, including checking that the member organization has a license for its new employee or approving the purchase of a license, ensuring that the member is not subject to any regulatory restriction, checking that the member's new employer has put in place the required financial guarantee, and issuing or resetting the member's badge and handheld. Under the Exchange rules existing prior to the merger, the Exchange charges a fee (currently $5,000 7 ) (“Transfer Fee”) for the transfer of a membership, including a transfer between two employees of the same member organization. As such, the processing fee associated with the hiring of new member or pre-qualified substitute employees by a member organization will be reduced from $5,000 to $1,000 after the merger. 7 Transfer fees for purchased and leased memberships equal 5% of the purchase price or last contracted sale of a membership, subject to minimum and maximum fees of $1,000 and $5,000 respectively. As membership prices currently exceed $1,000,000, the current initiation fee is the $5,000 maximum. Badge Maintenance Fee The Exchange proposes to charge a $250 badge maintenance fee, to be charged annually to member organizations with respect to each active member and each pre-qualified substitute. The fee will cover the Exchange's costs in maintaining the technological infrastructure supporting the badge system and updating system data as personnel commence and leave employment on the trading floor. Trading License Transfer Fee The Exchange proposes to charge a trading license transfer fee of $1,000, to be charged when an existing trading license is to be transferred to a permitted transferee. Permitted transfers of trading licenses pursuant to new NYSE Rule 300(a) are limited to transfers to a qualified and approved member organization:
(i)Which is an affiliate, or
(ii)which continues substantially the same business of such trading license holder without regard to the form of the transaction used to achieve such continuation, *e.g.* , merger, sale of substantially all assets, reincorporation, reorganization or the like. This fee will be applied separately to each individual license transferred. The trading license transfer fee reflects the processing costs incurred by the Exchange in effectuating a permitted transfer, including the re-registration of employee members with the new member organization and the closing down of the old billing account and opening of one in the new member organization's name. Prior to the merger, any transfer of an Exchange membership is subject to the $5,000 Transfer Fee described above. As a transfer of a trading license after the merger is equivalent to the transfer of a membership before the merger, the Exchange is effectively reducing the fee charged upon the occurrence of a permitted transfer from $5,000 to $1,000 after the merger. Technical Changes to Price List The Exchange proposes to make three clarifying changes to the 2006 Exchange Price List to clarify that:
(i)The annual aggregate regulatory fee of $16,000,000 to be allocated among specialist firms will be based on the number of trading licenses held by each specialist firm;
(ii)the annual regulatory fee of $11,000 charged to non-specialist members will be charged on a per trading license basis; and
(iii)the $180 minimum regulatory fee currently charged to members who do not conduct a public business will be charged after the merger to member organizations. Deletion of Fees Charged to Members The 2006 Exchange Price List contains references to fees charged to members, physical access members and electronic access members. As the concept of Exchange membership as a means of acquiring the right to conduct business on the trading floor will be superseded by the issuance of trading licenses upon completion of the merger, these fees will have no continued relevance. Therefore, the Exchange is deleting all references to them from the 2006 Exchange Price List. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, 8 which requires that an Exchange have rules that provide an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities. 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others Written comments were neither solicited nor received on the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) 9 of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) 10 thereunder 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. 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 10 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the 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-2006-14 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-2006-14. 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-2006-14 and should be submitted by April 4, 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. E6-3574 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53413; File No. SR-PCX-2006-06] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Pacific Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Its Fees and Charges March 3, 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 17, 2006, the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (“PCX” 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 PCX. PCX 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 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change PCX proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees and Charges in order to extend the pilot program (“Pilot Program”) that applies to Option Strategy Executions until September 1, 2006. The text of the proposed rule change is available on PCX's Web site at *http://www.pacificex.com,* at the Office of the Secretary at PCX, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the 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 purpose of this proposed rule change is to extend the Pilot Program that applies to Option Strategy Executions until September 1, 2006. The transactions included as part of the Pilot Program include reversals and conversions, 5 dividend spreads, 6 box spreads, 7 short stock interest spreads, 8 and merger spreads. 9 Because the referenced Options Strategy Transactions are generally executed by professionals whose profit margins are generally narrow, the Pilot Program caps the transaction fees associated with such executions at $1,000 for strategy executions that are executed on the same trading day in the same option class. In addition, there is also a monthly cap of $50,000 per initiating firm for all strategy executions. The Exchange believes that by keeping fees low, the Exchange will be able to attract liquidity by accommodating these transactions. Extending the Pilot Program until September 1, 2006 will allow the Exchange to keep these fees low and thus continue to attract liquidity. 5 Reversals and conversions are transactions that employ calls, puts and the underlying stock to lock in a nearly risk-free profit. Reversals are established by combining a short stock position with a short put and a long call position that shares the same strike and expiration. Conversions employ long positions in the underlying stock that accompany long puts and short calls sharing the same strike and expiration. 6 Dividend spreads are trades involving deep-in-the-money options that exploit pricing differences arising around the time a stock goes ex-dividend. 7 Box spreads is a strategy that synthesizes long and short stock positions to create a profit. Specifically, a long call and short put at one strike is combined with a short call and long put at a different strike to create synthetic long and synthetic short stock positions, respectively. 8 A short stock interest spread is a spread that uses two deep-in-the-money put options of the same class followed by the exercise of the resulting long position in order to establish a short stock interest arbitrage position. 9 A merger spread is a transaction executed pursuant to a strategy involving the simultaneous purchase and sale of options of the same class and expiration date, but with different strike prices followed by the exercise of the resulting long option position. OTP Holders and OTP Firms who wish to benefit from the fee cap will be required to submit to the Exchange forms with supporting documentation ( *e.g.* , clearing firm transaction data) to qualify for the cap. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 10 in general, and Section 6(b)(4), 11 in particular, in that it provides for an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities. 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition PCX believes that 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 Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 12 and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder 13 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. 12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 13 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-PCX-2006-06 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-PCX-2006-06. 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 PCX. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PCX-2006-06 and should be submitted on or before April 4, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 14 14 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-3548 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #10418] New York Disaster #NY-00020 Declaration of Economic Injury AGENCY: Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan
(EIDL)declaration for the State of New York, dated 03/07/2006. *Incident:* Rock Slide. *Incident Period:* 12/20/2005. *Effective Date:* 03/07/2006. *EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:* 12/07/2006. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: Small Business Administration, National Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's EIDL declaration on 03/07/2006, applications for economic injury disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. *The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:* Primary Counties: Westchester. Contiguous Counties: New York: Bronx; Putnam; Rockland. Connecticut: Fairfield. New Jersey: Bergen. The Interest Rate is: 4.000. The number assigned to this disaster for economic injury is 104180. The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are New York; Connecticut; New Jersey (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59002). Hector V. Barreto, Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-3569 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Small Business Size Standards: Waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule AGENCY: Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice of intent to Waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Lenses, Ophthalmic, Manufacturing. SUMMARY: The Small Business Administration
(SBA)is considering granting a request for a waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Lenses, Ophthalmic, Manufacturing. According to the request, no small business manufacturers supply these classes of products to the Federal government. If granted, the waiver would allow otherwise qualified regular dealers to supply the products of any domestic manufacturer on a Federal contract set aside for small businesses; service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses or SBA's 8(a) Business Development Program. DATES: Comments and source information must be submitted March 29, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments and source information to Edith Butler, Program Analyst, U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Government Contracting, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 8800, Washington, DC 20416. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edith Butler, Program Analyst, by telephone at
(202)619-0422; by FAX at
(202)481-1788; or by e-mail at *edith.butler@sba.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 8(a)(17) of the Small Business Act (Act), 15 U.S.C. 637(a)(17), requires that recipients of Federal contracts set aside for small businesses, service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, or SBA's 8(a) Business Development Program provide the product of a small business manufacturer or processor, if the recipient is other than the actual manufacturer or processor of the product. This requirement is commonly referred to as the Nonmanufacturer Rule. The SBA regulations imposing this requirement are found at 13 CFR 121.406(b). Section 8(a)(17)(b)(iv) of the Act authorizes SBA to waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule for any “class of products” for which there are no small business manufacturers or processors available to participate in the Federal market. As implemented in SBA's regulations at 13 CFR 121.1202(c), in order to be considered available to participate in the Federal market for a class of products, a small business manufacturer must have submitted a proposal for a contract solicitation or received a contract from the Federal government within the last 24 months. The SBA defines “class of products” based on six digit coding system. The coding system is the Office of Management and Budget North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The SBA is currently processing a request to waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Lenses, Ophthalmic, Manufacturing, North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 339115. The public is invited to comment or provide source information to SBA on the proposed waivers of the Nonmanufacturer Rule for this class of NAICS code within 15 days after date of publication in the **Federal Register** . Dated: March 7, 2006. Karen C. Hontz, Associate Administrator for Government Contracting. [FR Doc. E6-3570 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5340] Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs
(ECA)Request for Grant Proposals: Competition for Proposals
(1)To Strengthen Secondary Education in Indonesia Through a Program for High School English Language Teachers and/or
(2)To Strengthen Private and Community-based Secondary Education in Indonesia through a Program for School Administrators & Community Leaders *Announcement Type:* New Grant. *Funding Opportunity Number:* ECA/PE/C/WHA-EAP-06-33. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number:* 00.000. *Key Dates:* *Application Deadline:* May 3, 2006. *Executive Summary:* The Office of Citizen Exchanges of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs announces an open competition for grants to support two distinct exchanges projects with Indonesia. U.S. public and non-profit organizations meeting the provisions described in Internal Revenue code section 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3) may submit proposals that support the goals of the two exchange programs. The Program for High School English Language Teachers is intended to strengthen secondary school education in Indonesia, support tolerance in a diverse, democratic society, and allow Indonesians and Americans to share their views on international education and teaching high school students language and critical thinking skills necessary to their success in the workforce. The Program for School Administrators & Community Leaders will bring senior instructors and leaders (“kiai”) of Islamic day and boarding schools and counterparts from other Indonesian private schools to U.S. for informational sessions on teacher/administrator training techniques and classroom observation as well as provide them with an orientation to U.S. society, history, culture and values. *Applicants must submit separate proposals for each project outlined.* I. Funding Opportunity Description: Authority Overall grant-making authority for this program is contained in the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, Public Law 87-256, as amended, also known as the Fulbright-Hays Act. The purpose of the Act is “to enable the Government of the United States to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries* * *; to strengthen the ties which unite us with other nations by demonstrating the educational and cultural interests, developments, and achievements of the people of the United States and other nations* * *and thus to assist in the development of friendly, sympathetic and peaceful relations between the United States and the other countries of the world.” The funding authority for the program above is provided through legislation. Funding is being provided from FY-2005/FY-2006 Economic Support Funds
(ESF)transferred to the Bureau in FY-2006 for obligation. Purpose The Bureau seeks proposals for the following projects: To strengthen secondary education in Indonesia through a program for High School English Language Teachers and/or
(2)to strengthen private and community-based secondary education in Indonesia through a program for School Administrators & Community Leaders. Competitive proposals will include the following: • A brief description of the problem as it relates to Indonesia. (Proposals that request resources for an initial needs assessment will be deemed less competitive under the review criterion Program Planning and Ability to Achieve Objectives, per item V.1 below.); • A clear statement of program objectives and projected outcomes that respond to Bureau goals for each theme in this competition. Desired outcomes should be described in qualitative and quantitative terms. (See the Program Monitoring and Evaluation section per item V.1 below, for more information on project objectives and outcomes.); • A proposed timeline, listing the optimal schedule for each program activity; • A description of participant recruitment and selection processes; • Letters of support from foreign and U.S. partners. ( *Letters from prospective partner institutions should demonstrate an ability to arrange and conduct U.S. and overseas activities.* ); • An outline of the applicant organization's relevant expertise in the project theme and country; • An outline of relevant experience managing previous exchange programs; • Resumes of experienced staff who have demonstrated a commitment to monitor projects and ensure implementation; • A comprehensive plan to evaluate whether program outcomes achieved met the specific objectives described in the narrative. (See the Program Monitoring and Evaluation section [IV.3d.d below] for further guidance on evaluation.); • A post-grant plan that demonstrates how the grantee plans to maintain contacts initiated through the program. Applicants should discuss ways that U.S. and foreign participants or host institutions could collaborate and communicate after the ECA-funded grant has concluded. (See Review Criterion #5, per item V.1 below for more information on post-grant activities.) • Successful projects will demonstrate the importance Americans place on community service as an element of a strong civil society and may include ideas and projects to strengthen civil society through community service either during participants' stay in the U.S. or upon their return to their countries. • In addition to addressing the projects described below, proposals should develop partner organizations' capacity in such areas as strategic planning, performance management, fund raising, financial management, human resources management, and decision-making. It is important that the proposal narrative clearly state the applicant's commitment to consult closely with the Public Affairs Section of the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia to develop plans for project implementation and to select project participants. Proposals should also acknowledge U.S. Embassy involvement in the final selection of all participants. Applicants should state their willingness to invite representatives of the U.S. and/or consulate(s) to participate in program sessions or site visits. Applicants are also *strongly* encouraged to consult with Public Affairs Officers at U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia as they develop proposals responding to this RFGP. Narratives should state that all material developed for the project will prominently acknowledge Department of State ECA Bureau funding for the program. In addition, before submitting a proposal, applicants are strongly encouraged to be in touch with the Washington, DC-based State Department contact for project description below. Projects 1. High School English Language Teachers A successful program will provide participants: • Understanding of important elements of a civil society. This includes concepts such as volunteerism, the idea that American citizens can and do act at the grassroots level to deal with social and educational problems, and an awareness of the respect for the rule of law in the U.S. • Knowledge of the importance of education to creating the conditions for a free market economy. This includes awareness of private enterprise and an appreciation of the role of the entrepreneur in economic growth. • Appreciation for American culture, an understanding of the diversity of American society and increased tolerance and respect for others with differing views and beliefs. • Interaction with Americans that may generate enduring ties. • Enhanced leadership capacity that will enable them to initiate and support activities in their home countries that focus on development and community service. Successful applicants must fully demonstrate a capacity to achieve the following three key activities:
(1)Recruit and select approximately 30 individual English teachers from high schools throughout Indonesia, including private religious schools. Program should be designed for two groups of 15 teachers to travel to the U.S. For this phase of the program, partnering with organizations based in Indonesia is encouraged.
(2)In addition to identifying schools and screening, selecting, and preparing participants prior to departure for the United States, the recipient of this grant will be responsible for building and executing a three to four week informative travel and residency program in the United States.
(3)The final part of the program will be conducting enhancement activities and leadership development opportunities that reinforce program goals after the participants' return to Indonesia. An essential follow-on component will be a longitudinal assessment of the achievements of the program. Program design should focus on offering participants maximum opportunities to develop leadership skills and raise their awareness of how to develop critical thinking, nurture democratic values, and encourage tolerance for diversity through the classroom and through networks of teachers. 2. School Administrators & Community Leaders School Administrators and Community Leaders should be provided with the following: • Acquire an understanding of important elements of a civil society. This includes concepts such as volunteerism, the idea that American citizens can and do act at the grassroots level to deal with social and educational problems, and an awareness of the respect for the rule of law in the U.S. • Acquire an understanding of the importance of education to creating the conditions for a free market economy. This includes awareness of private enterprise and an appreciation of the role of the entrepreneur in economic growth. • Develop an appreciation for American culture, an understanding of the diversity of American society and increased tolerance and respect for others with differing views and beliefs. • Interact with Americans and generate enduring ties. • Gain leadership capacity that will enable them to initiate and support activities in their home countries that focus on development and community service. A successful program design must accomplish these three key objectives:
(1)Recruit and select approximately 30 individual leaders from Indonesian private secondary schools that are administered under the auspices of the Government of Indonesia's Department of Religious Affairs. Program should be designed for two groups of 15 school administrators and community leaders to travel to the U.S. For this phase of the program, partnering with organizations based in Indonesia is encouraged.
(2)In addition to identifying schools and screening, selecting, and preparing participants prior to departure for the United States, the recipient of this grant will be responsible for building and executing a three to four week informative travel and residency program in the United States.
(3)The final part of the program will be conducting enhancement activities and leadership development opportunities that reinforce program goals after the participants' return to Indonesia. An essential follow-on component will be a longitudinal assessment of the achievements of the program. Program design should focus on offering participants maximum opportunities to develop leadership skills and raise their awareness of how to develop critical thinking, nurture democratic values, and encourage tolerance for through the classroom and through school-supported community activities and networks. Suggested Program Designs Bureau-supported exchanges may include internships; study tours; short-term, non-technical experiential learning; extended and intensive workshops; and seminars taking place in the United States or overseas as long as these seminars promote intensive exchange of ideas among participants in the project. Examples of program activities include: 1. A U.S.-based program that includes an orientation to program purposes and to U.S. society; study tour/site visits; professional internships/placements; interaction and dialogue; hands-on training; professional development; and action plan development. 2. Capacity-building/training-of-trainer
(TOT)workshops to help participants to identify priorities, create work plans, strengthen professional and volunteer skills, share their experience with committed people within each country, and become active in a practical and valuable way. 3. Site visits by U.S. facilitators/experts to monitor projects in the region and to encourage further development, as appropriate. Participant Selection Proposals should clearly describe the types of persons that will participate in the program as well as the participant recruitment and selection processes. For programs that include U.S. internships, applicants should submit letters of support from host institutions. In the selection of foreign participants, the Bureau and U.S. embassies retain the right to review all participant nominations and to accept or refuse participants recommended by grantee institutions. When U.S. participants are selected, grantee institutions must provide their names and brief biographical data to the Office of Citizen Exchanges. Priority in two-way exchange proposals will be given to foreign participants who have not previously traveled to the United States. II. Award Information *Type of Award:* Grant. *Fiscal Year Funds:* FY-2006. *Approximate Total Funding:* $600,000 (from ESF transfer to ECA). *Approximate Number of Awards:* 2. *Approximate Average Award:* $300,000. *Floor of Award Range:* $200,000. *Ceiling of Award Range:* Approximately $300,000. *Anticipated Award Date:* Pending availability of funds, August 31, 2006. *Anticipated Project Completion Date:* September 30, 2007-June 30, 2008. Projects under this competition may range in length from one to three years depending on the number of project components, the country/region targeted and the extent of the evaluation plan proposed by the applicant. The Office of Citizen Exchanges strongly encourages applicant organizations to plan enough time after project activities to measure project outcomes. Please refer to the Program Monitoring and Evaluation section, item IV.3d.3 below, for further guidance on evaluation. III. Eligibility Information III.1. *Eligible applicants:* Applications may be submitted by public and private non-profit organizations meeting the provisions described in Internal Revenue Code section 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3). III.2. *Cost Sharing or Matching Funds:* There is no minimum or maximum percentage required for this competition. However, the Bureau encourages applicants to provide maximum levels of cost sharing and funding in support of its programs. Cost sharing is an important element of the ECA-grantee institution relationship, and it demonstrates the implementing organization's commitment to the program. Cost sharing is included as one criterion for grant proposal evaluation. Applicants are strongly encouraged to cost share a portion of overhead and administrative expenses. Cost-sharing, including contributions from the applicant, proposed in-country partner(s), and other sources should be included in the budget request. Proposal budgets that do not reflect cost sharing will be deemed not competitive under the Cost Effectiveness and Cost Sharing criterion (item V.1 below). When cost sharing is offered, it is understood and agreed that the applicant must provide the amount of cost sharing as stipulated in its proposal and later included in an approved grant agreement. Cost sharing may be in the form of allowable direct or indirect costs. For accountability, you must maintain written records to support all costs that are claimed as your contribution, as well as costs to be paid by the Federal government. Such records are subject to audit. The basis for determining the value of cash and in-kind contributions must be in accordance with OMB Circular A-110, (Revised), Subpart C.23—Cost Sharing and Matching. In the event you do not provide the minimum amount of cost sharing as stipulated in the approved budget, ECA's contribution will be reduced in like proportion. III.3. *Other Eligibility Requirements:* (a.) Grants awarded to eligible organizations with less than four years of experience in conducting international exchange programs will be limited to $60,000. IV. Application and Submission Information Note: Please read the complete **Federal Register** announcement before sending inquiries or submitting proposals. Once the RFGP deadline has passed, Bureau staff may not discuss this competition with applicants until the proposal review process has been completed. IV.1 *Contact Information to Request an Application Package:* Please contact the Office of Citizen Exchanges, ECA/PE/C, Room 220, U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547, tel.: 202-453-8163; fax: 202-453-8168; or e-mail *rharveyrh@state.gov* to request a Solicitation Package. Please refer to the Funding Opportunity Number (ECA/PE/C/WHA-EAP-06-33) located at the top of this announcement when making your request. The Solicitation Package contains the Proposal Submission Instruction
(PSI)document that consists of required application forms, and standard guidelines for proposal preparation. Please specify the Bureau Program Officer listed for each region and theme above and refer to the Funding Opportunity Number (ECA/PE/C/WHA-EAP-06-33) located at the top of this announcement on all other inquiries and correspondence. IV. 2. *To Download a Solicitation Package Via Internet:* The entire Solicitation Package may be downloaded from the Bureau's Web site at *http://exchanges.state.gov/education/rfgps/menu.htm.* Please read all information before downloading. IV. 3. *Content and Form of Submission:* Applicants must follow all instructions in the Solicitation Package. The application should be sent per the instructions under IV.3f. “Application Deadline and Methods of Submission” below. IV. 3a. You are required to have a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System
(DUNS)number to apply for a grant or cooperative agreement from the U.S. Government. This number is a nine-digit identification number, which uniquely identifies business entities. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, access *http://www.dunandbradstreet.com* or call 1-866-705-5711. Please ensure that your DUNS number is included in the appropriate box of the SF-424 which is part of the formal application package. IV.3b. All proposals must contain an executive summary, proposal narrative and budget. Please Refer to the Solicitation Package. It contains the mandatory Proposal Submission Instructions
(PSI)document for additional formatting and technical requirements. IV. 3c. You must have nonprofit status with the IRS at the time of application. If your organization is a private nonprofit which has not received a grant or cooperative agreement from ECA in the past three years, or if your organization received nonprofit status from the IRS within the past four years, you must submit the necessary documentation to verify nonprofit status as directed in the PSI document. Failure to do so will cause your proposal to be declared technically ineligible. IV. 3d. Please take into consideration the following information when preparing your proposal narrative: IV. 3d.1 Adherence To All Regulations Governing the J Visa. The Office of Citizen Exchanges of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs is the official program sponsor of the exchange program covered by this RFGP, and an employee of the Bureau will be the “Responsible Officer” for the program under the terms of 22 CFR part 62, which covers the administration of the Exchange Visitor Program (J visa program). Under the terms of 22 CFR part 62, organizations receiving grants under this RFGP will be third parties “cooperating with or assisting the sponsor in the conduct of the sponsor's program.” The actions of grantee program organizations shall be “imputed to the sponsor in evaluating the sponsor's compliance with” 22 CFR part 62. Therefore, the Bureau expects that any organization receiving a grant under this competition will render all assistance necessary to enable the Bureau to fully comply with 22 CFR part 62 et seq. The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs places great emphasis on the secure and proper administration of Exchange Visitor (J visa) Programs and adherence by grantee program organizations and program participants to all regulations governing the J visa program status. Therefore, proposals should *explicitly state in writing* that the applicant is prepared to assist the Bureau in meeting all requirements governing the administration of Exchange Visitor Programs as set forth in 22 CFR part 62. If your organization has experience as a designated Exchange Visitor Program Sponsor, the applicant should discuss its record of compliance with 22 CFR part 62 et seq., including the oversight of its Responsible Officers and Alternate Responsible Officers, screening and selection of program participants, provision of pre-arrival information and orientation to participants, monitoring of participants, proper maintenance and security of forms, record-keeping, reporting and other requirements. The Office of Citizen Exchanges of ECA will be responsible for issuing DS-2019 forms to participants in this program. A copy of the complete regulations governing the administration of Exchange Visitor
(J)programs is available at *http://exchanges.state.gov* or from: United States Department of State, Office of Exchange Coordination and Designation, ECA/EC/ECD—SA-44, Room 734, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547. Telephone:
(202)203-5029. FAX:
(202)453-8640. IV.3d.2 Diversity, Freedom and Democracy Guidelines. Pursuant to the Bureau's authorizing legislation, programs must maintain a non-political character and should be balanced and representative of the diversity of American political, social, and cultural life. “Diversity” should be interpreted in the broadest sense and encompass differences including, but not limited to ethnicity, race, gender, religion, geographic location, socio-economic status, and physical challenges. Applicants are strongly encouraged to adhere to the advancement of this principle both in program administration and in program content. Please refer to the review criteria under the “Support for Diversity” section for specific suggestions on incorporating diversity into your proposal. Public Law 104-319 provides that “in carrying out programs of educational and cultural exchange in countries whose people do not fully enjoy freedom and democracy,” the Bureau “shall take appropriate steps to provide opportunities for participation in such programs to human rights and democracy leaders of such countries.” Public Law 106-113 requires that the governments of the countries described above do not have inappropriate influence in the selection process. Proposals should reflect advancement of these goals in their program contents, to the full extent deemed feasible. IV.3d.3. Program Monitoring and Evaluation. Proposals must include a plan to monitor and evaluate the project's success, both as the activities unfold and at the end of the program. The Bureau recommends that your proposal include a draft survey questionnaire or other technique plus a description of a methodology to use to link outcomes to original project objectives. The Bureau expects that the grantee will track participants or partners and be able to respond to key evaluation questions, including satisfaction with the program, learning as a result of the program, changes in behavior as a result of the program, and effects of the program on institutions (institutions in which participants work or partner institutions). The evaluation plan should include indicators that measure gains in mutual understanding as well as substantive knowledge. Successful monitoring and evaluation depend heavily on setting clear goals and outcomes at the outset of a program. Your evaluation plan should include a description of your project's objectives, your anticipated project outcomes, and how and when you intend to measure these outcomes (performance indicators). The more that outcomes are “smart” (specific, measurable, attainable, results-oriented, and placed in a reasonable time frame), the easier it will be to conduct the evaluation. You should also show how your project objectives link to the goals of the program described in this RFGP. Your monitoring and evaluation plan should clearly distinguish between program *outputs* and *outcomes. Outputs* are products and services delivered, often stated as an amount. Output information is important to show the scope or size of project activities, but it cannot substitute for information about progress towards outcomes or the results achieved. Examples of outputs include the number of people trained or the number of seminars conducted. *Outcomes* , in contrast, represent specific results a project is intended to achieve and is usually measured as an extent of change. Findings on outputs and outcomes should both be reported, but the focus should be on outcomes. We encourage you to assess the following four levels of outcomes, as they relate to the program goals set out in the RFGP (listed here in increasing order of importance): 1. *Participant satisfaction* with the program and exchange experience. 2. *Participant learning* , such as increased knowledge, aptitude, skills, and changed understanding and attitude. Learning includes both substantive (subject-specific) learning and mutual understanding. 3. *Participant behavior* , concrete actions to apply knowledge in work or community; greater participation and responsibility in civic organizations; interpretation and explanation of experiences and new knowledge gained; continued contacts between participants, community members, and others. 4. *Institutional changes* , such as increased collaboration and partnerships, policy reforms, new programming, and organizational improvements. Please note: Consideration should be given to the appropriate timing of data collection for each level of outcome. For example, satisfaction is usually captured as a short-term outcome, whereas behavior and institutional changes are normally considered longer-term outcomes. Overall, the quality of your monitoring and evaluation plan will be judged on how well it
(1)specifies intended outcomes;
(2)gives clear descriptions of how each outcome will be measured;
(3)identifies when particular outcomes will be measured; and
(4)provides a clear description of the data collection strategies for each outcome ( *i.e.* , surveys, interviews, or focus groups). (Please note that evaluation plans that deal only with the first level of outcomes [satisfaction] will be deemed less competitive under the present evaluation criteria.) Grantees will be required to provide reports analyzing their evaluation findings to the Bureau in their regular program reports. All data collected, including survey responses and contact information, must be maintained for a minimum of three years and provided to the Bureau upon request. IV.3e. Please take the following information into consideration when preparing your budget: IV.3e.1. Applicants must submit a comprehensive budget for the entire program. For this competition, requests should not exceed $300,000 for either of the two projects. There must be a summary budget as well as breakdowns reflecting both administrative and program budgets. Applicants may provide separate sub-budgets for each program component, phase, location, or activity to provide clarification. IV.3e.2. Allowable costs for the program include the following: 1. *Travel.* International and domestic airfare; visas; transit costs; ground transportation costs. Please note that all air travel must be in compliance with the Fly America Act. There is no charge for J-1 visas for participants in Bureau sponsored programs. 2. *Per Diem.* For U.S.-based programming, organizations should use the published Federal per diem rates for individual U.S. cities. Domestic per diem rates may be accessed at: *http://policyworks.gov/org/main/mt/homepage/mtt/perdiem/perd03d.html* . ECA requests applicants to budget realistic costs that reflect the local economy and do not exceed Federal per diem rates. Foreign per diem rates can be accessed at: *http://www.state.gov/m/a/als/prdm/html* . 3. *Interpreters.* For U.S.-based activities, ECA strongly encourages applicants to hire their own locally based interpreters. However, applicants may ask ECA to assign State Department interpreters. One interpreter is typically needed for every four participants who require interpretation. When an applicant proposes to use State Department interpreters, the following expenses should be included in the budget: Published Federal per diem rates (both “lodging” and “M&IE”) and “home-program-home” transportation in the amount of $400 per interpreter. Salary expenses for State Department interpreters will be covered by the Bureau and should not be part of an applicant's proposed budget. Bureau funds cannot support interpreters who accompany delegations from their home country or travel internationally. 4. *Book and Cultural Allowances.* Foreign participants are entitled to a one-time cultural allowance of $150 per person, plus a book allowance of $50. Interpreters should be reimbursed up to $150 for expenses when they escort participants to cultural events. U.S. program staff, trainers or participants are not eligible to receive these benefits. 5. *Consultants.* Consultants may be used to provide specialized expertise or to make presentations. Honoraria rates should not exceed $250 per day. Organizations are encouraged to cost-share rates that would exceed that figure. Subcontracting organizations may also be employed, in which case the written agreement between the prospective grantee and sub-grantee should be included in the proposal. Such sub-grants should detail the division of responsibilities and proposed costs, and subcontracts should be itemized in the budget. 6. *Room rental.* The rental of meeting space should not exceed $250 per day. Any rates that exceed this amount should be cost shared. 7. *Materials.* Proposals may contain costs to purchase, develop and translate materials for participants. Costs for high quality translation of materials should be anticipated and included in the budget. Grantee organizations should expect to submit a copy of all program materials to ECA, and ECA support should be acknowledged on all materials developed with its funding. 8. *Equipment.* Applicants may propose to use grant funds to purchase equipment, such as computers and printers; these costs should be justified in the budget narrative. Costs for furniture are not allowed. 9. *Working meal.* Normally, no more than one working meal may be provided during the program. Per capita costs may not exceed $15-$25 for lunch and $20-$35 for dinner, excluding room rental. The number of invited guests may not exceed participants by more than a factor of two-to-one. When setting up a budget, interpreters should be considered “participants.” 10. *Return travel allowance.* A return travel allowance of $70 for each foreign participant may be included in the budget. This allowance would cover incidental expenses incurred during international travel. 11. *Health Insurance.* Foreign participants will be covered during their participation in the program by the ECA-sponsored Accident and Sickness Program for Exchanges (ASPE), for which the grantee must enroll them. Details of that policy can be provided by the contact officers identified in this solicitation. The premium is paid by ECA and should not be included in the grant proposal budget. However, applicants are permitted to include costs for travel insurance for U.S. participants in the budget. 12. *Wire transfer fees.* When necessary, applicants may include costs to transfer funds to partner organizations overseas. Grantees are urged to research applicable taxes that may be imposed on these transfers by host governments. 13. *In-country travel costs* for visa processing purposes. Given the requirements associated with obtaining J-1 visas for ECA-supported participants, applicants should include costs for any travel associated with visa interviews or DS-2019 pick-up. 14. *Administrative Costs.* Costs necessary for the effective administration of the program may include salaries for grantee organization employees, benefits, and other direct and indirect costs per detailed instructions in the Application Package. While there is no rigid ratio of administrative to program costs, proposals in which the administrative costs do not exceed 25% of the total requested ECA grant funds will be more competitive under the cost effectiveness and cost sharing criterion, per item V.1 below. Proposals should show strong administrative cost sharing contributions from the applicant, the in-country partner and other sources. Please refer to the Solicitation Package for complete budget guidelines and formatting instructions. IV.3f. *Application Deadline and Methods of Submission: Application Deadline Date:* Thursday, May 3, 2006. *Reference Number:* ECA/PE/C/WHA-EAP-06-33. *Methods of Submission:* Applications may be submitted in one of two ways:
(1)In hard-copy, via a nationally recognized overnight delivery service ( *i.e.* , DHL, Federal Express, UPS, Airborne Express, or U.S. Postal Service Express Overnight Mail, etc.), or
(2)Electronically through *http://www.grants.gov.* Along with the Project Title, all applicants must enter the above Reference Number in Box 11 on the SF-424 contained in the mandatory Proposal Submission Instructions
(PSI)of the solicitation document. IV.3f.1 Submitting Printed Applications. Due to heightened security measures, proposal submissions must be sent via a nationally recognized overnight delivery service ( *i.e.* , DHL, Federal Express, UPS, Airborne Express, or U.S. Postal Service Express Overnight Mail, etc.) and be shipped no later than the above deadline. The delivery services used by applicants must have in-place, centralized shipping identification and tracking systems that may be accessed via the Internet and delivery people who are identifiable by commonly recognized uniforms and delivery vehicles. Proposals shipped on or before the above deadline but received at ECA more than seven days after the deadline will be ineligible for further consideration under this competition. Proposals shipped after the established deadlines are ineligible for consideration under this competition. It is each applicant's responsibility to ensure that each package is marked with a legible tracking number and to monitor/confirm delivery to ECA via the Internet. ECA will *not* notify you upon receipt of application. Delivery of proposal packages *may not* be made via local courier service or in person for this competition. Faxed documents will not be accepted at any time. Only proposals submitted as stated above will be considered. Applicants must follow all instructions in the Solicitation Package. Important note: When preparing your submission please make sure to include one extra copy of the completed SF-424 form and place it in an envelope addressed to “ECA/EX/PM”. The original and ten copies of the application should be sent to: U.S. Department of State, SA-44, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Ref.: ECA/PE/C/WHA-EAP-06-33, Program Management, ECA/EX/PM, Room 534, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547. Along with the Project Title, all applicants must enter the above Reference Number in Box 11 on the SF-424 contained in the mandatory Proposal Submission Instructions
(PSI)of the solicitation document. IV.3f.2—Submitting Electronic Applications. Applicants have the option of submitting proposals electronically through Grants.gov ( *http://www.grants.gov* ). Complete solicitation packages are available at Grants.gov in the “Find” portion of the system. Please follow the instructions available in the ‘Get Started’ portion of the site ( *http://www.grants.gov/GetStarted* ). Applicants have until midnight (12 a.m.) of the closing date to ensure that their entire applications have been uploaded to the grants.gov site. Applications uploaded to the site after midnight of the application deadline date will be automatically rejected by the grants.gov system, and will be technically ineligible. Applicants will receive a confirmation e-mail from grants.gov upon the successful submission of an application. ECA will not notify you upon receipt of electronic applications. IV.3g. Intergovernmental Review of Applications: Executive Order 12372 does not apply to this program. IV.3h. Applicants must also submit the “Executive Summary” and “Proposal Narrative” sections of the proposal in text (.txt) format on a PC-formatted disk. The Bureau will provide these files electronically to the appropriate Public Affairs Section(s) at the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta for its review. V. Application Review Information V.1. Review Process The Bureau will review all proposals for technical eligibility. Proposals will be deemed ineligible if they do not fully adhere to the guidelines stated herein and in the Solicitation Package. The program office will review all eligible proposals as well as the Public Diplomacy section overseas, where appropriate. Eligible proposals will be subject to compliance with Federal and Bureau regulations and guidelines and forwarded to Bureau grant panels for advisory review. Proposals may also be reviewed by the Office of the Legal Adviser or by other Department elements. Final funding decisions are at the discretion of the Department of State's Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs. Final technical authority for grants resides with the Bureau's Grants Officer. Review Criteria Technically eligible applications will be competitively reviewed according to the criteria stated below. These criteria are not rank ordered and all carry equal weight in the proposal evaluation: 1. Program Planning and Ability To Achieve Objectives Program objectives should be stated clearly and should reflect the applicant's expertise in the subject area and region. Objectives should respond to the topics in this announcement and should relate to the current conditions in the target country/countries. A detailed agenda and relevant work plan should explain how objectives will be achieved and should include a timetable for completion of major tasks. The substance of workshops, internships, seminars and/or consulting should be described in detail. Sample training schedules should be outlined. Responsibilities of proposed in-country partners should be clearly described. A discussion of how the applicant intends to address language issues should be included, if needed. 2. Institutional Capacity Proposals should include
(1)the institution's mission and date of establishment;
(2)detailed information about proposed in-country partner(s) and the history of the partnership;
(3)an outline of prior awards-U.S. government and/or private support received for the target theme/country/region; and
(4)descriptions of experienced staff members who will implement the program. The proposal should reflect the institution's expertise in the subject area and knowledge of the conditions in the target country/countries. Proposals should demonstrate an institutional record of successful exchange programs, including responsible fiscal management and full compliance with all reporting requirements for past Bureau grants as determined by Bureau Grants Staff. The Bureau will consider the past performance of prior recipients and the demonstrated potential of new applicants. Proposed personnel and institutional resources should be adequate and appropriate to achieve the program's goals. The Bureau strongly encourages applicants to submit letters of support from proposed in-country partners. 3. Cost Effectiveness and Cost Sharing Overhead and administrative costs in the proposal budget, including salaries, honoraria and subcontracts for services, should be kept to a minimum. *Proposals whose administrative costs are less than twenty-five
(25)per cent of the total funds requested from the Bureau will be deemed more competitive under this criterion.* Applicants are strongly encouraged to cost share a portion of overhead and administrative expenses. Cost-sharing, including contributions from the applicant, proposed in-country partner(s), and other sources should be included in the budget request. Proposal budgets that do not reflect cost sharing will be deemed not competitive in this category. 4. Support of Diversity Proposals should demonstrate substantive support of the Bureau's policy on diversity. Achievable and relevant features should be cited in both program administration (selection of participants, program venue and program evaluation) and program content (orientation and wrap-up sessions, program meetings, resource materials and follow-up activities). Applicants should refer to the Bureau's Diversity, Freedom and Democracy Guidelines in the Proposal Submission Instructions
(PSI)and the Diversity, Freedom and Democracy Guidelines section, Item IV.3d.2, above for additional guidance. 5. Post-Grant Activities Applicants should provide a plan to conduct activities after the Bureau-funded project has concluded in order to ensure that Bureau-supported programs are not isolated events. Funds for all post-grant activities must be in the form of contributions from the applicant or sources outside of the Bureau. Costs for these activities must not appear in the proposal budget, but should be outlined in the narrative. 6. Program Monitoring and Evaluation Proposals should include a detailed plan to monitor and evaluate the program. Program objectives should target clearly defined results in quantitative terms. Competitive evaluation plans will describe how applicant organizations would measure these results, and proposals should include draft data collection instruments (surveys, questionnaires, etc.) in Tab E. See the “Program Management/Evaluation” section, item IV.3d.3 above for more information on the components of a competitive evaluation plan. Successful applicants (grantee institutions) will be expected to submit a report after each program component concludes or on a quarterly basis, whichever is less frequent. The Bureau also requires that grantee institutions submit a final narrative and financial report no more than 90 days after the expiration of a grant. Please refer to the “Program Management/Evaluation” section, item IV.3d.3 above for more guidance. VI. Award Administration Information VI.1a. Award Notices Final awards cannot be made until funds have been appropriated by Congress, allocated and committed through internal Bureau procedures. Successful applicants will receive an Assistance Award Document
(AAD)from the Bureau's Grants Office. The AAD and the original grant proposal with subsequent modifications (if applicable) shall be the only binding authorizing document between the recipient and the U.S. Government. The AAD will be signed by an authorized Grants Officer, and mailed to the recipient's responsible officer identified in the application. Unsuccessful applicants will receive notification of the results of the application review from the ECA program office coordinating this competition. VI.2 Administrative and National Policy Requirements. Terms and Conditions for the Administration of ECA agreements include the following: Office of Management and Budget Circular A-122, “Cost Principles for Nonprofit Organizations.” Office of Management and Budget Circular A-21, “Cost Principles for Educational Institutions.” OMB Circular A-87, “Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Governments”. OMB Circular No. A-110 (Revised), Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and other Nonprofit Organizations. OMB Circular No. A-102, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants-in-Aid to State and Local Governments. OMB Circular No. A-133, Audits of States, Local Government, and Non-profit Organizations. Please reference the following Web sites for additional information: * http:// www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants. http://exchanges.state.gov/education/grantsdiv/terms.htm#articleI. * VI.3. Reporting Requirements You must provide ECA with a hard copy original plus two copies of the following reports:
(1)A final program and financial report no more than 90 days after the expiration of the award;
(2)Any interim report(s) required in the Bureau grant agreement document. Grantees will be required to provide reports analyzing their evaluation findings to the Bureau in their regular program reports. (Please refer to Application and Submission Instructions [IV.3d.3] above for Program Monitoring and Evaluation information.) All data collected, including survey responses and contact information, must be maintained for a minimum of three years and provided to the Bureau upon request. All reports must be sent to the ECA Grants Officer and ECA Program Officer listed in the final assistance award document. VI.4. Program Data Requirements Organizations awarded grants will be required to maintain specific data on program participants and activities in an electronically accessible database format that can be shared with the Bureau as required. As a minimum, the data must include the following:
(1)Name, address, contact information and biographic sketch of all persons who travel internationally on funds provided by the grant or who benefit from the grant funding but do not travel.
(2)Itineraries of international and domestic travel, providing dates of travel and cities in which any exchange experiences take place. Final schedules for in-country and U.S. activities must be received by the ECA Program Officer at least three workdays prior to the official opening of the activity. VII. Agency Contacts For questions about this announcement, contact: The Office of Citizen Exchanges, ECA/PE/C, Room 220, ECA/PE/C/HWA-EAP-06-33, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20547; tel.: 202-453-8163; fax: 202-453-8168; *harveyrh@state.gov.* For correspondence with the Bureau concerning this RFGP should reference the above title and number ECA/PE/C/WHA-EAP-06-33. Please read the complete **Federal Register** announcement before sending inquiries or submitting proposals. Once the RFGP deadline has passed, Bureau staff may not discuss this competition with applicants until the proposal review process has been completed. VIII. Other Information Notice The terms and conditions published in this RFGP are binding and may not be modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information provided by the Bureau that contradicts published language will not be binding. Issuance of the RFGP does not constitute an award commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in accordance with the needs of the program and the availability of funds. Awards made will be subject to periodic reporting and evaluation requirements per section VI.3 above. Dated: March 8, 2006. C. Miller Crouch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-3589 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Maritime Administration [Docket Number 2006 24125] Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws AGENCY: Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation. ACTION: Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel ALTIMATE PLEASURE. SUMMARY: As authorized by Public Law 105-383 and Public Law 107-295, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below. The complete application is given in DOT docket 2006x-24125 at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Interested parties may comment on the effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. If MARAD determines, in accordance with Public Law 105-383 and MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR part 388 (68 FR 23084; April 30, 2003), that the issuance of the waiver will have an unduly adverse effect on a U.S.-vessel builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag vessels in that business, a waiver will not be granted. Comments should refer to the docket number of this notice and the vessel name in order for MARAD to properly consider the comments. Comments should also state the commenter's interest in the waiver application, and address the waiver criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR part 388. DATES: Submit comments on or before April 13, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2006 24125. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400 7th St., SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at *http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/.* All comments will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection and copying at the above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An electronic version of this document and all documents entered into this docket is available on the World Wide Web at *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joann Spittle, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, MAR-830 Room 7201, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5979. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel ALTIMATE PLEASURE is: *Intended Use:* “I intend to provide charters to executive or company groups.” *Geographic Region:* East Coast, New England waterways to Florida, including the states of MA, NH, RI, and Florida. Dated: March 7, 2006. By order of the Maritime Administrator. Joel C. Richard, Secretary, Maritime Administration. [FR Doc. E6-3529 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-81-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Maritime Administration [Docket Number 2006 24124] Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws AGENCY: Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation. ACTION: Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel GRAND PASSAGE. SUMMARY: As authorized by Public Law 105-383 and Public Law 107-295, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below. The complete application is given in DOT docket 2006-24124 at *http://dms.dot.gov* . Interested parties may comment on the effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. If MARAD determines, in accordance with Public Law 105-383 and MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR part 388 (68 FR 23084; April 30, 2003), that the issuance of the waiver will have an unduly adverse effect on a U.S.-vessel builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag vessels in that business, a waiver will not be granted. Comments should refer to the docket number of this notice and the vessel name in order for MARAD to properly consider the comments. Comments should also state the commenter's interest in the waiver application, and address the waiver criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR part 388. DATES: Submit comments on or before April 13, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2006 24124. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400 7th St., SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at *http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/* . All comments will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection and copying at the above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An electronic version of this document and all documents entered into this docket is available on the World Wide Web at *http://dms.dot.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joann Spittle, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, MAR-830 Room 7201, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5979. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel GRAND PASSAGE is: *Intended Use:* “Skippered charters. Take passengers for hire for boat handling training and recreational activities.” *Geographic Region:* Puget Sound. Dated: March 7, 2006. By order of the Maritime Administrator. Joel C. Richard, Secretary, Maritime Administration. [FR Doc. E6-3530 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-81-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Maritime Administration [Docket Number 2006 24123] Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws AGENCY: Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation. ACTION: Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel HUSSAR. SUMMARY: As authorized by Public Law 105-383 and Public Law 107-295, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below. The complete application is given in DOT docket 2006-24123 at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Interested parties may comment on the effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. If MARAD determines, in accordance with Public Law 105-383 and MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR part 388 (68 FR 23084; April 30, 2003), that the issuance of the waiver will have an unduly adverse effect on a U.S.-vessel builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag vessels in that business, a waiver will not be granted. Comments should refer to the docket number of this notice and the vessel name in order for MARAD to properly consider the comments. Comments should also state the commenter's interest in the waiver application, and address the waiver criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR part 388. DATES: Submit comments on or before April 13, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2006 24123. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400 7th St., SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at *http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/.* All comments will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection and copying at the above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An electronic version of this document and all documents entered into this docket is available on the World Wide Web at *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joann Spittle, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, MAR-830 Room 7201, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5979. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel HUSSAR is: *Intended Use:* “Carry up to six passengers for hire on a classic sailing yacht. By the day up to a week, inland and near coastal. The vessel will always be under command of a USCG Licensed Captain (100 ton license, with sailing endorsement). No more than 15 charters per year. Learn to Sail and special events.” *Geographic Region:* Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Maine coastlines. Primary area is Cape Cod. Inland and near coastal. Dated: March 7, 2006 By order of the Maritime Administrator. Joel C. Richard, Secretary, Maritime Administration. [FR Doc. E6-3528 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-81-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Maritime Administration [Docket No. USCG-2004-17696] Freeport McMoRan Energy L.L.C. Main Pass Energy Hub Liquefied Natural Gas Deepwater Port License Application; Final Application Public Hearings and Final Environmental Impact Statement AGENCY: Maritime Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice of availability; notice of public hearing; request for comments. SUMMARY: The Maritime Administration (MARAD) announces the availability of the final environmental impact statement
(FEIS)on the Main Pass Energy Hub
(MPEH)Deepwater Port License Application. Also, public hearings will be held on matters relevant to the approval or denial of the license application. The application describes a project that would be located in the Gulf of Mexico in Main Pass Lease Block 299 (MP 299), approximately 16 miles southeast of Venice, Louisiana. DATES: Three public hearings will be held. The public hearing in Grand Bay, Alabama will be on March 21, 2006, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., and will be preceded by an informational open house from 4:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. The public hearing in Pascagoula, Mississippi will be on March 22, 2006, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., and will be preceded by an informational open house from 4:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. The public hearing in New Orleans, Louisiana, will be on March 23, 2006, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., and will be preceded by an informational open house from 4:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. The public hearings may end later than the stated times, depending on the number wishing to speak. Material submitted in response to the request for comments must reach the Docket Management Facility on or before April 24, 2006, ending the 45 day public comment period. Federal and State agencies must submit comments on the application, recommended conditions for licensing, or letters of no objection by May 7, 2006 (45 days after the final public hearings). Also by May 7, 2006, the Governors of the adjacent coastal states of Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi must approve, disapprove, or notify MARAD of inconsistencies with State programs relating to environmental protection, land and water use, and coastal zone management for which MARAD may condition the license to make consistent. MARAD must issue a record of decision
(ROD)to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the DWP license application by June 21, 2006 (90 days after the public hearings.) ADDRESSES: The first public hearing and informational open house will be held at the Grand Bay St. Elmo Community Center, 11610 Highway 90 West, Grand Bay, Alabama, phone: 251-865-4010. The second public hearing and informational open house will be held at the La Font Inn, 2703 Denny Avenue, Pascagoula, Mississippi, phone: 228-762-7111. The third public hearing and informational open house will be held at the Hilton New Orleans Riverside Hotel, Two Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, phone: 504-561-0500. A copy of the FEIS, license application, and associated documentation is available for viewing at the DOT's docket management Web site: *http://dms.dot.gov* under docket number 17696. Copies are also available for review at the Pascagoula Public Library, MS, 228-769-3060; Bayou La Batre City Public Library, AL, 251-824-4213; Mobile Public Main Library, AL, 251-208-7106; Terrebonne Parish Library Main Branch, LA, 985-876-5861; Plaquemines Parish Public Library, LA, 985-657-7121; New Orleans Public Main Library, LA, 504-529-7989; Morgan City Public Library (St. Mary Parish), LA, 504-380-4646; and Ingleside Public Library, TX, 361-776-5355. The public docket for this license application bears a U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG)docket number, because the U.S. Coast Guard handles much of the processing for the license application. Address docket submissions for USCG-2004-17696 to: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. The Docket Management Facility accepts hand-delivered submissions, and makes docket contents available for public inspection and copying, at this address, in room PL-401, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Facility's telephone is 202-366-9329, its fax is 202-493-2251, and its Web site for electronic submissions or for electronic access to docket contents is *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: H. Keith Lesnick, Senior Transportation Specialist, Deepwater Ports Program Manager, U.S. Maritime Administration, telephone: 202-366-1624 or e-mail *Keith.Lesnick@dot.gov.* If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone: 202-493-0402. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Hearing and Open House We invite you to learn about the proposed deepwater port at the informational open house, and to comment at the public hearing on the proposed action and the evaluation contained in the FEIS and the license application. Speaker registration will be available at the door. In order to allow everyone a chance to speak, we may limit speaker time, or extend the hearing hours, or both. You must identify yourself, and any organization you represent, by name. Your remarks will be recorded or transcribed for inclusion in the public docket. You may submit written material at the public hearing, either in place of or in addition to speaking. Written material must include your name and address, and will be included in the public docket. Public docket materials will be made available to the public on the Docket Management Facility's Docket Management System (DMS). See ”Request for Comments” for information about DMS and your rights under the Privacy Act. If you plan to attend either the open house or the public hearing, and need special assistance such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodation, please notify MARAD (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) at least 3 business days in advance. Include your contact information as well as information about your specific needs. Request for Comments We request public comments or other relevant information on the FEIS and license application. You can submit material to the Docket Management Facility during the public comment period (see DATES ). We will consider all comments submitted during the public comment period. *Submissions should include:* • Docket number USCG-2004-17696. • Your name and address. • Your reasons for making each comment or for bringing information to our attention. Submit comments or material using only one of the following methods: • Electronic submission to DMS, *http://dms.dot.gov.* • Fax, mail, or hand delivery to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES ). Faxed or hand delivered submissions must be unbound, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, and suitable for copying and electronic scanning. If you mail your submission and want to know when it reaches the Facility, include a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the DMS Web site ( *http://dms.dot.gov* ), and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act notice that is available on the DMS Web site, or the Department of Transportation Privacy Act Statement that appeared in the **Federal Register** on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477). You may view docket submissions at the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES ), or electronically on the DMS Web site. Proposed Action We published a notice of application for the proposed MPEH LNG Terminal LLC deepwater port at 69 FR 32363 (June 9, 2004); a notice of intent to prepare an EIS at 69 FR 45337 (July 29, 2004); and announced the availability of the draft EIS
(DEIS)at 70 FR 35277 (June 17, 2005). The proposed action requiring environmental review is the Federal licensing of the proposed deepwater port described in “Summary of the Application” below, which is reprinted from previous **Federal Register** notices in this docket. Alternatives to the Proposed Action The alternatives to licensing are:
(1)Licensing with conditions (including conditions designed to mitigate environmental impact), and
(2)denying the application, which for purposes of environmental review is the “no-action” alternative. These alternatives are more fully discussed in the FEIS. Summary of the Application The application calls for the proposed deepwater port to be located in the Gulf of Mexico on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), approximately 16 miles offshore southeast Louisiana in Main Pass Block 299. It would be located in a water depth of approximately 210 feet (64 meters). The proposed location is a former sulphur mining facility. The project would utilize four existing platforms, along with associated bridges and support structures, with appropriate modifications and additions as part of the deepwater port. Two new platforms would be constructed to support liquefied natural gas
(LNG)storage tanks, and a patent-pending berthing system to berth the LNG carriers would be installed. Freeport-McMoRan Energy LLC
(FME)proposes the installation of approximately 192 miles of natural gas and natural gas liquid
(NGL)transmission pipelines on the OCS, varying in size ranging from 12 to 36 inches in diameter. Five proposed pipelines would connect the deepwater port with several existing gas distribution pipelines, one of which would connect with a gas distribution pipeline near Coden, Alabama. The NGL derived from natural gas conditioning ( *i.e.* ethane, propane, and butanes) would be delivered via a 12-inch pipeline to an existing NGL facility near Venice, Louisiana. A proposed metering platform would be installed at Main Pass 164 and would also provide a tie-in location for two lateral transmission lines. The proposed project would sit atop a salt dome, approximately 2 miles in diameter. An on-site total gas storage capacity of approximately 28 billion cubic feet would be provided in three salt caverns to be constructed under the deepwater port. The deepwater port facility would consist of LNG storage tanks, LNG carrier berthing provisions, LNG unloading arms, low and high pressure pumps, vaporizers, a gas conditioning plant, salt cavern gas storage, compression, dehydration, metering, utility systems, general facilities and accommodations. The terminal would be able to receive LNG carriers ranging in capacity between 60,000 and 160,000 cubic meters. LNG would be stored in six tanks located on two new fixed platforms. Each tank would have an approximate gross capacity of 24,660 cubic meters, for a total net capacity of approximately 145,000 cubic meters. Four unloading arms would be provided to offload the LNG carriers at a rate of 10,500 to 12,000 cubic meters per hour. The facility would have living quarters to routinely accommodate up to 50 personnel, but would be capable of accommodating up to 94 personnel for brief periods. The FME MPEH would be designed to handle a nominal capacity of 7.0 million metric tons per year of LNG, or 350 billion cubic feet per year of gas. This is equivalent to an average delivery of approximately 1.0 billion cubic feet per day (bcfd). The facility would be capable of delivering a peak of 1.6 bcfd of pipeline-quality natural gas during periods of high demand, and a peak of 85,000 barrels per day of natural gas liquids. Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity The onshore portion of this project shoreward of the mean high water line falls under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC)and must receive a separate authorization from the FERC. As required by their regulations, FERC will also maintain a docket. The FERC docket numbers for this project are CP04-68-000 and CP04-69-000. To submit comments to the FERC docket, send an original and two copies of your comments to Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Label one copy of the comments to the Attention of Gas Branch 2. The FERC strongly encourages electronic filing of any comments or interventions or protests to this proceeding. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the FERC's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* under the “e-Filing” link and the link to the Users Guide. Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at 1-866-208 FERC
(3372)or on the FERC Internet Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ). Using the “eLibrary” link, select “General Search” from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and “Docket Number” ( *i.e.* , CP04-68-000 or CP04-69-000), and follow the instructions. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at 1-866-208-3676, TTY 202-502-8659, or at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* . The eLibrary link on the FERC Internet Web site also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings. In addition, the FERC now offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. To register for this service, go to *http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm* . Department of Army Permit On July 22, 2005, the New Orleans District, Army Corps of Engineers issued a joint public notice advising all interested parties of the proposed activity for which a Department of the Army permit is being sought and soliciting comments and information necessary to evaluate the probable impact on the public interest. Comments should be furnished to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, OD-SW, P.O. Box 60267, New Orleans, LA 70160-0267. Dated: March 9, 2006. Joel C. Richard, Secretary, Maritime Administration. [FR Doc. E6-3594 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-81-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration [Docket: RSPA-00-7666] Request for Public Comments and Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)Approval of an Existing Information Collection (2137-0610) AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT. SUMMARY: This notice requests public participation in the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)approval process for the renewal of an existing PHMSA information collection. In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection Request
(ICR)described below has been forwarded to OMB for extension of the currently approved collection. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and the expected burden. PHMSA published a **Federal Register** Notice soliciting comments on the following information collection and received none. The purpose of this notice is to allow the public an additional 30 days from the date of this notice to submit comments. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 13, 2006. ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725—17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention DOT Desk Officer. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Fuentevilla at
(202)366-6199, or by e-mail at *William.Fuentevilla@dot.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments are invited on whether the collection of information described below is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. PHMSA published a **Federal Register** Notice with a 60-day comment period for this ICR on December 29, 2005 (70 FR 77247), and received no comments. This ICR relates to the rule at 49 CFR part 192, subpart O, which covers pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas for natural gas transmission pipeline operators. The Gas Transmission Integrity Management rule became effective February 14, 2004. The regulation improves pipeline safety through
(1)accelerating the integrity assessment of pipelines in high consequence areas,
(2)improving integrity management systems within companies,
(3)improving the government's role in reviewing the adequacy of integrity programs and plans, and
(4)providing increased public assurance in pipeline safety. This information collection requires operators of gas transmission pipelines located in or near high consequence areas to submit to PHMSA a written integrity management program and records showing compliance with 49 CFR part 192, subpart O. Operators must maintain these records for the life of the pipeline and PHMSA or State regulators may review the records during inspections. The regulation also requires each operator to submit four overall performance measures to PHMSA semi-annually. This information collection supports DOT's strategic goal of safety by reducing the number of incidents in natural gas transmission pipelines. As used in this notice, “information collection” includes all work related to preparing and disseminating information related to this recordkeeping requirement including completing paperwork, gathering information and conducting telephone calls. *Type of Information Collection Request:* Renewal of Existing Collection. *Title of Information Collection:* Pipeline Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas (Gas Transmission Pipeline Operators). *Respondents:* 721. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 1,030,309 hours. Issued in Washington, DC on March 9, 2006. Florence L. Hamn, Director of Regulations, Office of Pipeline Safety. [FR Doc. 06-2447 Filed 3-9-06; 3:26 pm]
Connectionstraces to 11
Traces to 11 documents
10 references not yet in our index
  • 17 CFR 240.19
  • 17 CFR 19
  • Pub. L. 87-256
  • 22 CFR 62
  • Pub. L. 104-319
  • Pub. L. 106-113
  • Pub. L. 105-383
  • Pub. L. 107-295
  • 46 CFR 388
  • 49 CFR 192
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice
U.S.C.§ 78s
U.S.C.§ 78f
U.S.C.§ 552
C.F.R.§ 200.30-3
U.S.C.§ 78q–1
U.S.C.§ 637
C.F.R.§ 121.406
C.F.R.§ 121.1202
U.S.C.§ 501
Cite17 CFR 240.19
Cite17 CFR 19
Pub. L.Pub. L. 87-256
Cites 21 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.