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 · 2006-04-19 · SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION · Notices

Notices. Notice

14,604 words·~66 min read·/register/2006/04/19/06-3715·

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

BILLING CODE 3210-01-M SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Proposed Collection; Comment Request Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549. *Extension:* Rule 17a-8, SEC File No. 270-53, OMB Control No. 3235-0092. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is publishing the following summary of collection for public comment.
The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval. • Rule 17a-8—Financial Recordkeeping and Reporting of Currency and Foreign Transactions. Rule 17a-8 (17 CFR 240.17a-8) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (17 U.S.C. 78a *et seq.* ) (the “Act”) requires brokers and dealers to make and keep certain reports and records concerning their currency and monetary instrument transactions. The requirements allow the Commission to ensure that brokers and dealers are in compliance with the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act of 1970 (“Bank Secrecy Act”) and with the Department of the Treasury regulations under that Act.
The reports and records required under this rule initially are required under Department of the Treasury regulations, and additional burden hours and costs are not imposed by this rule. Written comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication. Comments should be directed to
(1)Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC, 20503 or by sending an e-mail to: *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov;* and
(ii)R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312 or send an e-mail to: *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov.* Comments must be submitted to OMB within 60 days of this notice. Dated: April 12, 2006. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-5797 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Securities Act of 1933 Release No. 8676] [Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Release No. 53641] Order Approving Public Company Accounting Oversight Board Budget and Annual Accounting Support Fee for Calendar Year 2006 April 13, 2006. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Act”) established the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”) to oversee the audits of public companies and related matters, to protect investors, and to further the public interest in the preparation of informative, accurate and independent audit reports. The PCAOB is to accomplish these goals through registration of public accounting firms and standard setting, inspection, and disciplinary programs. Section 109 of the Act provides that the PCAOB shall establish a reasonable annual accounting support fee, as may be necessary or appropriate to establish and maintain the PCAOB. Section 109(h) amends Section 13(b)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require issuers to pay the allocable share of a reasonable annual accounting support fee or fees, determined in accordance with Section 109 of the Act. Under Section 109(f), the aggregate annual accounting support fee shall not exceed the PCAOB's aggregate “recoverable budget expenses,” which may include operating, capital and accrued items. Section 109(b) of the Act directs the PCAOB to establish a budget for each fiscal year in accordance with the PCAOB's internal procedures, subject to approval by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”). The PCAOB adopted a budget for calendar year 2006 on November 22, 2005 and submitted it to the Commission for approval on January 24, 2006. In accordance with its responsibilities to oversee the PCAOB, the Commission reviewed the budget proposed by the PCAOB for 2006 and its aggregate accounting support fee for 2006, which will fund the PCAOB's expenditures. In an effort to address any issues relating to the PCAOB's proposed budget for 2006 before it was approved by the PCAOB and submitted to the Commission for review and approval, the Commission's review of the PCAOB's proposed budget for 2006 began in August 2005 with a meeting between Commission and PCAOB staffs to discuss the types of supporting information the Commission would need to begin its review of the PCAOB's 2006 budget, including questions to be addressed by the PCAOB regarding its proposed budget and accounting support fee. Also, prior to the PCAOB's final consideration of its 2006 budget estimates and approval of its proposed budget for 2006, the PCAOB board members met, either in person or by phone, with each Commissioner to discuss the PCAOB's development of a strategic plan and other matters impacting the PCAOB's budget. In December, shortly after the PCAOB approved its proposed budget for 2006, the PCAOB briefed the Commission staff on its inspection program for 2005 and its plans for 2006 and provided responses to the staff's questions regarding its inspection program. Over the course of the Commission's review, staff from the Commission's Offices of the Chief Accountant, Executive Director and Information Technology dedicated a substantial amount of time to the review and analysis of the PCAOB's programs, projects and budget estimates, and attended several meetings with board members, management and staff of the PCAOB to develop an understanding of the PCAOB's budget and operations. During the course of the Commission's review, the Commission staff relied upon representations and supporting documentation from the PCAOB. After considering the above, the Commission did not identify any proposed disbursements in the budget that are not properly recoverable through the annual accounting support fee, and the Commission believes that the aggregate proposed 2006 annual accounting support fee does not exceed the PCAOB's aggregate recoverable budget expenses for 2006. Based on the foregoing, the Commission has determined that the PCAOB's 2006 budget and annual accounting support fee are consistent with Section 109 of the Act. Accordingly, *It is ordered,* pursuant to Section 109 of the Act, that the PCAOB budget and annual accounting support fee for calendar year 2006 are approved. By the Commission. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-5796 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Securities Act of 1933 Release No. 8677] [Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Release No. 53642] Order Regarding Review of Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Support Fee for 2006 Under Section 109 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 April 13, 2006. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Act”) establishes criteria that must be met in order for the accounting standards established by an accounting standard-setting body to be recognized as “generally accepted” for purposes of the federal securities laws. Section 109 of the Act provides that all of the budget of an accounting standard-setting body satisfying these criteria shall be payable from an annual accounting support fee assessed and collected against each issuer, as may be necessary or appropriate to pay for the budget and provide for the expenses of the standard setting body, and to provide for an independent, stable source of funding, subject to review by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”). Under Section 109(f), the annual accounting support fee shall not exceed the amount of the standard setter's “recoverable budget expenses.” Section 109(h) amends Section 13(b)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require issuers to pay the allocable share of a reasonable annual accounting support fee or fees, determined in accordance with Section 109 of the Act. On April 25, 2003, the Commission issued a policy statement concluding that the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) and its parent organization, the Financial Accounting Foundation (“FAF”), satisfied the criteria for an accounting standard-setting body under the Act, and recognizing the FASB's financial accounting and reporting standards as “generally accepted” under Section 108 of the Act. 1 As a consequence of that recognition, the Commission undertook a review of the FASB's accounting support fee for calendar year 2006. In connection with its review, the Commission also reviewed the proposed budget for the FAF and the FASB for calendar year 2006. 1 Financial Reporting Release No. 70. Section 109 of the Act also provides that the standard setting body can have additional sources of revenue for its activities, such as earnings from sales of publications, provided that each additional source of revenue shall not jeopardize the actual or perceived independence of the standard setter. In this regard, the Commission also considered the interrelation of the operating budgets of the FAF, the FASB and the Government Accounting Standards Board (“GASB”), the FASB's sister organization, which sets accounting standards used by state and local government entities. The Commission has been advised by the FAF that neither the FAF, the FASB nor the GASB accept contributions from the accounting profession. After its review, the Commission determined that the 2006 annual accounting support fee for the FASB is consistent with Section 109 of the Act. Accordingly, *It is ordered,* pursuant to Section 109 of the Act, that the FASB may act in accordance with this determination of the Commission. By the Commission. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-5798 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53635; File No. SR-Amex-2005-075] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and Amendments No. 2 and 3 Thereto Relating to the Establishment of a New Class of Registered Options Trader Called a Supplemental Registered Options Trader (“SROT”) April 12, 2006. I. Introduction On July 14, 2005, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to establish a new class of Registered Options Trader called a Supplemental Registered Options Trader (“SROT”). On November 4, 2005, the Amex filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 3 On December 7, 2005, the Amex filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change. 4 On January 13, 2006, the Amex filed Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change. 5 The proposed rule change, as amended, was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on January 26, 2006. 6 The Commission received no comments from the public in response to the proposed rule change. This order approves the proposed rule, as amended by Amendments No. 2 and 3. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 Amendment No. 1 replaced and superseded the original filing in its entirety. 4 Amendment No. 2 replaced and superseded Amendment No. 1. 5 Amendment No. 3 made clarifying changes to the Purpose section, as well as changes to the proposed rule text relating to allocation of executed contracts and affiliation limitations. 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53161 (January 20, 2005), 71 FR 4388. II. Description Amex proposes to adopt Amex Rule 993—ANTE to establish a new category of registered options trader called an SROT. Amex also proposes to adopt amendments to existing Amex Rules 900—ANTE, 918—ANTE, 935—ANTE, 936—ANTE, 936C—ANTE, 950—ANTE, 951—ANTE, 958—ANTE and 958A—ANTE to incorporate this new category of trader into relevant existing rules. The Amex proposes to define an SROT as a ROT that is a member organization so designated by the Exchange and would be granted remote quoting rights to enter bids and offers electronically only from off the Exchange's physical trading floor, 7 in at least 300 option classes. A member organization requesting approval to act as an SROT would file an application with the Exchange, and the Exchange would initially choose a maximum of six
(6)SROTs, based upon criteria including adequacy of resources, operational history, market making and/or specialist experience in a broad array of securities, and the ability to interact with order flow in all types of markets. The Exchange proposes to designate a committee (“Committee”) to make SROT approval decisions, including granting, withdrawing, denying, and deferring approval. 8 The proposed rule also includes provisions that govern SROT applicant withdrawal, as well as suspension and/or termination of SROT appointments. 7 *See* proposed Amex Rule 900—ANTE (50). 8 Pursuant to paragraph (a)(vi) to proposed Amex Rule 993—ANTE, the Committee may not defer a determination of the approval of the application of an SROT applicant unless the basis for such deferral has been objectively determined by the Committee, subject to Securities and Exchange Commission approval or effectiveness pursuant to a proposed rule change filed under Section 19(b) of the Act. The Committee would be required to provide written notification to any SROT applicant whose application is the subject of such deferral, describing the objective basis for such deferral. The Exchange would determine the number and type of option classes assigned to an SROT, with a minimum of 300 option classes per SROT. SROTs would be required to purchase or lease one seat for every thirty
(30)option classes quoted and would be required to provide continuous two-sided quotations in at least 60% of the series of their assigned classes. The proposed rule would require that SROTs maintain information barriers and that no SROT be assigned to an options class where the SROT has a direct or indirect affiliate who is a specialist, ROT or SROT in such option class. Commentary to proposed Amex Rule 993—ANTE also provides that quoting rights and the designation as an SROT are non-transferable and that SROTs may trade in a market-making capacity only in the classes of options to which he/she is assigned. Amex proposes to modify Amex Rule 935—ANTE, which governs the allocation of unexecuted contracts to include SROTs. As proposed, when more than one market participant is quoting at the Amex Best Bid or Offer (“ABBO”), and an SROT is not interacting with its own firm's orders, the allocations in Amex Rule 935—ANTE (a)(1)-(4) would apply. However, when more than one market participant is quoting at the ABBO, and an SROT is interacting with its own firm's orders, the ANTE System will allocate the remaining contracts after non-broker dealer customer orders as follows:
(i)20% to an SROT interacting with its own firm's orders;
(ii)20% to the specialist; and
(iii)the balance to registered options traders. Amex also proposes to modify Amex Rule 958—ANTE, which governs ANTE options transactions of registered options traders and imposes certain obligations, including engaging in transactions that are reasonably calculated to contribute to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, making competitive bids and offers necessary, in a market making capacity, to contribute to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, to include SROTs. Furthermore, Amex proposes to modify Amex Rule 958A—ANTE, which is the Exchange's Firm Quote Rule, to apply to SROTs. III. Discussion After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 9 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposal, as amended, is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 10 which require, among other things, that a national securities exchange's rules be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 9 In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). Currently, the Exchange permits ROTs to submit quotes only from the physical trading floor. Under the proposal, a new class of market participant, SROTs, would be permitted to quote electronically from off the Exchange's physical trading floor. Introducing a new class of market participant able to enter quotes from off the physical trading floor should attract new market makers to the Exchange, which should increase the liquidity available in those classes to which SROTs are assigned. The Commission notes that the Committee will determine, based on specified criteria, which member organizations should be chosen to act as SROTs. The existence of order flow commitments between an SROT applicant and order flow providers is one factor the Committee will evaluate in making its decisions. The Exchange represents, and the Commission emphasizes, that a future change to, or termination of, any such commitments would not be used by the Exchange at any point in the future to terminate or take remedial action against an SROT and that the Committee would not take remedial action solely because orders subject to any such commitments were not subsequently routed to the Exchange. Similarly, the Exchange has included the “willingness to promote the Exchange” as a factor that the Committee may consider when making its application decisions. The Exchange represents, and the Commission emphasizes, that the Committee would not apply this factor to in any way restrict, either directly or indirectly, an SROT's activities as a market maker or specialist on other exchanges, or to restrict how SROTs handle orders held by them in a fiduciary capacity to which they owe a duty of best execution. The Exchange also represents that should the Committee decide not to approve an SROT applicant, or should an SROT's appointment be suspended or terminated in one or more classes, an SROT applicant or an SROT, respectively, would be entitled to a hearing under Article IV, Section 1(g) of the Amex Constitution and Amex Rule 40. Additionally, should the Committee decide to defer an SROT application, the Committee must provide written notification to any SROT applicant whose application is the subject of such deferral, describing the objective basis for such deferral. Proposed Amex Rule 993(a)(vi)—ANTE prohibits the Committee from deferring a determination of the approval of the application of an SROT applicant unless the basis for such deferral has been objectively determined by the Committee, subject to Securities and Exchange Commission approval or effectiveness pursuant to a proposed rule change filed under Section 19(b) of the Act. Proposed Amex Rule 993(c)—ANTE sets forth the obligations that an SROT would be required to fulfill. Specifically, an SROT would be required to generate continuous, two-sided quotations in not less than 60% of the series of their assigned classes. The Commission believes that these obligations for SROTs are consistent with the Act. In particular, the Commission believes that SROT's affirmative obligations are sufficient to justify the benefits they receive as market makers. The Exchange also represents that information barriers would be in place to prevent the misuse of material, non-public information with any affiliates that may conduct a brokerage business in option classes assigned to an SROT, or that may act as a market maker in any security underlying options assigned to an SROT. SROTs would also be required to comply with Amex Rule 193 regarding the misuse of material non-public information between the affiliate and the specialist organization. The Commission believes that the trade allocation algorithm that would apply to SROTs is consistent with the Act and should encourage SROTs to quote competitively. Finally, the Commission notes that an SROT would be permitted to trade in a market making capacity only in the classes of options in which the SROT is assigned and, furthermore, that quoting rights and designation of an SROT would be non-transferable. As such, the Commission believes that Amex's proposal to adopt Amex Rule 993—ANTE to establish a new category of registered options trader called an SROT and the corresponding amendments to existing Amex Rules 900—ANTE, 918—ANTE, 935—ANTE, 936—ANTE, 936C—ANTE, 950—ANTE, 951—ANTE, 958—ANTE and 958A—ANTE, are consistent with the Act. IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 11 that the proposed rule change (SR-Amex-2005-075), as amended by Amendments No. 2 and 3, be, and it hereby is, approved. 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 12 12 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-5800 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53637; File No. SR-CBOE-2004-65] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto Relating to Restrictions on Arbitrators serving on CBOE's Arbitration Committee April 12, 2006. I. Introduction On October 14, 2004, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to amend rules concerning restrictions on the activities of arbitrators who serve as members of the CBOE Arbitration Committee (“Committee”). On December 13, 2005 and February 15, 2006, CBOE filed Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, to the proposed rule change including amendments to CBOE Rules 18.10, 18.13 and 18.14 concerning the removal of arbitrators and restrictions on the activities of arbitrators who serve as members of the Committee. 3 The proposed rule change, as amended, was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on March 13, 2006. 4 The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change, as amended. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 Amendment No. 1 replaced the original filing in its entirety. Amendment No. 2 replaced the rule text in the original filing and Amendment No. 1 in their entirety. Also, Amendment No. 2 supplemented the “Purpose” section of Amendment No. 1 with additional explanations as to the basis for certain proposed rule amendments. 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53431 (March 7, 2006), 71 FR 12755 (March 13, 2006). II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change Proposed Changes to CBOE Rule 18.10 The Exchange proposes to amend CBOE Rule 18.10 to codify its unwritten policy that restricts members of the Committee from representing parties as counsel 5 in any arbitration dispute, claim or controversy that has been submitted to CBOE for resolution (“CBOE Arbitration”). This restriction would extend for six months after the date on which a Committee member ceases being a member of the Committee. Moreover, if a Committee member is appointed as an arbitrator in a pending CBOE Arbitration (“Pending CBOE Arbitration”) and subsequently ceases being a member of the Committee, but continues to serve as an arbitrator in the Pending CBOE Arbitration, that person cannot represent a party as counsel in a separate CBOE Arbitration until he or she has ceased serving as an arbitrator in the Pending CBOE Arbitration. 5 CBOE Rule 18.17 provides: “All parties shall have the right to representation by counsel at any stage of the proceedings.” Since persons who are eligible to act as “counsel” in CBOE arbitration proceedings are not limited to licensed attorneys, the proposed rule change would apply to any person acting as “counsel” in a CBOE arbitration proceeding whether the person is a licensed attorney or not. Under CBOE rules, any CBOE Arbitration between parties who are members or persons associated with a member shall be resolved by an arbitration panel that consists of three members of the Committee. 6 The Committee is maintained primarily as a means for managing a pool of qualified industry arbitrators that is composed of a cross-section of Exchange members and/or former members or associated persons of members or other individuals who are knowledgeable about the securities industry. 7 All Committee members are appointed in accordance with Exchange governance rules and guidelines. 8 6 *See* CBOE Rule 18.2(a). Rule 18.2(a) specifically provides that the arbitration panel appointed to resolve member-to-member arbitrations shall consist of “not less than three members of the Arbitration Committee.” However, as a matter of practice, arbitration panels typically consist only of three members of the Arbitration Committee. 7 Unlike other Exchange committees, the Arbitration Committee does not meet as a whole except for training or to administer the annual Committee orientation. For a CBOE Arbitration involving customers or non-Exchange members and a member(s), CBOE rules require that the dispute be resolved by an arbitration panel that consists of no less than three arbitrators, the majority of which consists of arbitrators who are not from the securities industry (“Public Arbitrators”). ( *See* CBOE Rule 18.10). In non-member CBOE Arbitrations, members of the Arbitration Committee may be appointed as industry arbitrators. 8 *See* CBOE Rule 18.10. The Exchange has long adhered to an unwritten policy that prohibits a Committee member who is an attorney from representing a party in a CBOE Arbitration while that person is serving on the Committee. This policy is consistent with the Exchange's belief that, while serving on the Arbitration Committee, arbitrators should be committed to the impartial resolution of any disputes that come before them and should avoid circumstances that could disqualify them from being appointed in future arbitrations or give rise to the appearance of partiality. The Exchange does not believe that a Committee member should act as an advocate in a CBOE Arbitration while serving as a member of the CBOE Arbitration Committee. Accordingly, the Exchange feels it would be prudent to codify its unwritten policy within the rules governing CBOE Arbitrations. Additionally, the Exchange notes that the proposed rule text relating to restricting an arbitrator from representing a party as counsel in any CBOE Arbitration (proposed Rule 18.10(c)) also would extend to restrict an arbitrator from representing a party as counsel in any capacity, not just acting as an attorney. In addition, the Exchange believes that a sufficient period of time should pass after an arbitrator is no longer a member of the Committee before that individual may represent a party as counsel in a CBOE Arbitration. Without this required separation period, a former Committee member conceivably could appear as counsel to a party before other members of the Committee in a CBOE arbitration immediately after resigning from the Committee. Although CBOE does not believe that membership on the Arbitration Committee necessarily creates meaningful relationships with other Committee members, such that present Committee members could not be impartial in considering a case on which a recently retired Committee member serves as counsel, a prescribed waiting period is a sensible precaution against the appearance of partiality. The Exchange believes that a six-month waiting period would be appropriate and would help to eliminate the appearance of partiality that could otherwise exist. Finally, the rule proposal provides that, if a Committee member is appointed as an arbitrator to a pending CBOE Arbitration and subsequently ceases to be a member of the Committee, but continues to serve as an arbitrator in the pending CBOE Arbitration, that person cannot represent a party in a separate CBOE Arbitration as counsel until the arbitrator ceases to be appointed as an arbitrator in the pending CBOE Arbitration. This provision of the proposed rule would address the unlikely, but possible, situation in which an arbitration proceeding remains pending more than six months after the date on which an appointed arbitrator to that case ceased being a member of the Committee. 9 The Exchange believes that this provision is consistent with the purpose of this rule change, which is the avoidance of the appearance of partiality on the part of a CBOE Arbitrator. 9 Proposed CBOE Rule 18.10(c)(ii). The proposed rules supplement existing policies and procedures that are in place to screen arbitrators for conflicts, potential conflicts, and the appearance of conflicts prior, and subsequent, to appointment. Specifically, CBOE policies and procedures require any arbitrator, prior to or subsequent to appointment to a CBOE Arbitration, to disclose any information that presents a conflict, existing or potential, or creates the appearance of a conflict with any party, fact, or circumstance related to the case in question. 10 Arbitrators also are required to disclose any new information or circumstances that may arise after their appointment that would create a similar conflict or potential for conflict. Thus, if a former member of the Arbitration Committee were to serve as counsel to a party before a CBOE arbitration panel, the appointed arbitrators would be required to disclose any past relationships with the former Committee member regardless of how much time has passed since that former member resigned from the Committee. 11 10 *See* CBOE Rule 18.13. 11 *Id.* Proposed Changes to CBOE Rules 18.13 and 18.14 The Exchange also proposes to adopt new rules governing the process for removing or disqualifying arbitrators:
(1)When the appointed arbitrator has conflicts of interest with the parties or subject matter or if there is evidence of arbitrator bias, or
(2)for failing to comply with arbitrator disclosure requirements. Specifically, Exchange Rules 18.13 and 18.14 would be amended to provide greater safeguards against the possibility that a CBOE Arbitration could proceed with an appointed arbitrator who should, by rule, not be hearing and resolving the arbitration. These amendments would be substantially similar to those recently proposed by the NASD. 12 12 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51856 (June 15, 2005); 70 FR 36442 (June 23, 2005) (proposing new NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes (“Proposed Customer Code”)); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51857 (June 15, 2005); 70 FR 36430 (June 23, 2005) (proposing new NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes (“Proposed Industry Code”)). Rule 18.13(a)-(c) currently outlines the disclosures that a CBOE arbitrator must make that help to assess whether the arbitrator would be precluded from rendering an objective and impartial decision in a CBOE Arbitration. 13 Proposed Rules 18.13(d)(1) and 18.13(d)(2) provide that the Director of Arbitration may remove an arbitrator based on the disclosures made under Rule 18.13(a)-(c) and information not known to the parties when the arbitrator was selected. The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 18.13(d), in proposed Rule 18.13(d)(3), to clarify that the Director of Arbitration will grant a party's request to disqualify an arbitrator if it is reasonable to infer, based on information known at the time of the request, that the arbitrator is biased, lacks impartiality, or has an interest in the outcome of the CBOE Arbitration. Such interest or bias must be direct, definite, and capable of reasonable demonstration, rather than being remote or speculative. In addition, proposed Rule 18.13(d)(4) would help to ensure that parties to a CBOE Arbitration are informed of the disclosure of any new information that is required to be disclosed by an arbitrator under Rule 18.13 unless either the Director of Arbitration removes the arbitrator or the arbitrator withdraws voluntarily as soon as the arbitrator learns of any interest, relationship, or circumstances described under Rule 18.13(a) that might preclude the arbitrator from rendering an objective and impartial determination in the CBOE Arbitration. These proposed changes are substantially similar to the standards proposed by NASD. 14 13 *See* CBOE Rule 18.13(a)-(c). 14 *See* Proposed Customer Code and Proposed Industry Code, *supra* note 11. Also, this proposal would amend CBOE Rule 18.14, which currently provides the process by which the Exchange fills vacancies of an arbitrator, who for any reason, is unable to perform as an arbitrator. 15 The Exchange proposes to provide within Rule 18.14 a more detailed process by which the Director of Arbitration may remove or disqualify an arbitrator based on:
(1)Conflicts of interest or bias involving an arbitrator;
(2)challenges for cause; and
(3)information required to be disclosed pursuant to Rule 18.13 and that was not previously disclosed. 16 These proposed changes are also substantially similar to proposed NASD arbitration rules governing the same subject matter. 17 15 Such reasons include the disqualification, resignation, death, disability, or withdrawal of the arbitrator. 16 Proposed Rule 18.14(c) also would provide standards to be used in deciding challenges for cause, which standards are identical to those provided under proposed Rule 18.13(d). 17 *See* Proposed Customer Code and Proposed Industry Code, *supra* note 12. III. Discussion and Findings After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange, and in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. 18 Section 6(b)(5) requires, among other things, that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and national market system, and in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Commission believes that the proposed rule change furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5), in that it is designed to protect investors and the public interest by strengthening the integrity of the CBOE Arbitration program. The proposed rule change does so by limiting the possibility of conflicts of interest:
(1)By restricting members of the Committee from representing parties to an arbitration while serving on the Committee and for six months after ceasing to be a member of the Committee, and
(2)by adopting new rules governing the process for removing or disqualifying arbitrators when the appointed arbitrator has conflicts of interest with the parties or subject matter or if there is evidence of arbitrator bias, as well as for failing to comply with arbitrator disclosure requirements. 18 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). IV. Conclusions *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 19 that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2004-65), as amended, be, and hereby is, approved. 19 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 20 20 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-5853 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53634; File No. SR-ISE-2006-16] Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Regulatory Fees April 12, 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 April 3, 2006, the International Securities Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or the “ISE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The ISE is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to change its Regulatory Fees. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room, and at the Exchange's Web site: *http://www.iseoptions.com/legal/proposed_rule_changes.asp.* 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 ISE currently charges a uniform regulatory fee of $3,500 on an annual basis to all its members regardless of whether they are a Primary Market Maker (“PMM”), a Competitive Market Maker (“CMM”) or an Electronic Access Member (“EAM”). The Exchange has determined that the cost of surveilling its members far exceeds the amount that is generated by the current fees. In order to partially bridge this gap, the Exchange proposes to increase these fees as follows: for PMMs, ISE proposes a fee of $7,500 for the first PMM membership; $1,500 for each additional PMM membership; and $1,000 for each CMM membership. For CMMs (who are not also PMMs), ISE proposes a fee of $5,000 for the first CMM membership and $1,000 for each additional CMM membership. Finally, for EAMs, ISE proposes a fee of $5,000 for each EAM membership. The Exchange estimates that its largest members will be impacted by a nominal increase in the range of $15,000-$18,000 per year. And while some members will be affected more than others, the Exchange believes the increase is justified as it enables ISE to partially recoup the expense incurred in fulfilling its regulatory responsibilities with respect to its members. Under the proposed fee change, the amount of the regulatory fee is tiered, depending on whether the member is a PMM, a CMM or an EAM. The reason for the tiered structure is that the resources dedicated to surveilling the activities of a member vary on the type of membership. For example, the Exchange has rules that apply to a PMM that do not apply to a CMM or an EAM. These rules necessitate surveillance activities. Generally, PMMs are subject to more rules than CMMs are and CMMs are subject to more rules than EAMs are. As such, the Exchange believes that a tiered fee system is the most equitable method of assessing these fees. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 5 which requires that an exchange have an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities. In particular, these fees would permit the Exchange to partially recoup the expense incurred in fulfilling its regulatory responsibilities with respect to its members. 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received from Members, Participants, or Others The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the foregoing rule change establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 6 and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 7 thereunder. 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. 8 6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 7 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). 8 *Id.* 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 Comment • Use the Commission's Internet comment form *(http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml);* or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-ISE-2006-16 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 No. SR-ISE-2006-16. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-ISE-2006-16 and should be submitted on or before May 10, 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. 5 [FR Doc. E6-5794 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53644; File No. SR-NASD-2006-048] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto to Modify Order Delivery Charges for Orders Delivered to Nasdaq Market Center Participants April 13, 2006. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on April 7, 2006, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”), through its subsidiary, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (“Nasdaq”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by Nasdaq. On April 12, 2006, Nasdaq filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 3 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 In Amendment No. 1, Nasdaq made non-substantive technical changes to clarify its Statement on Burden on Competition and to conform certain language of the proposed rule text to the current NASD Rule 7010. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change Nasdaq proposes to modify the imposition of fees for orders delivered to Nasdaq Market Center participants that elect to have orders delivered to their Quotes/Orders through the Nasdaq Market Center. Nasdaq plans to implement the proposed rule change, as amended, immediately upon approval by the Commission, if the Commission grants approval. The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is in *italics;* proposed deletions are in [brackets]. 7010. System Services (a)—(h) No Change
(i)Nasdaq Market Center, Brut, and Inet Order Execution and Routing
(1)The following charges shall apply to the use of the order execution and routing services of the Nasdaq Market Center, Brut, and Inet (the “Nasdaq Facilities”) by members for all Nasdaq-listed securities subject to the Nasdaq UTP Plan and for Exchange-Traded Funds that are not listed on Nasdaq. The term “Exchange-Traded Funds” shall mean Portfolio Depository Receipts, Index Fund Shares, and Trust Issued Receipts as such terms are defined in Rule 4420(i), (j), and (l), respectively. Order Execution Order that accesses the Quote/Order of a market participant that does not charge an access fee to market participants accessing its Quotes/Orders through the Nasdaq Facilities: Charge to member entering order: Members with an average daily volume through the Nasdaq Facilities in all securities during the month of
(i)more than 30 million shares of liquidity provided, and
(ii)more than 50 million shares of liquidity accessed and/or routed $0.0028 per share executed (or, in the case of executions against Quotes/Orders at less than $1.00 per share, 0.1% of the total transaction cost). Other members $0.0030 per share executed (or, in the case of executions against Quotes/Orders at less than $1.00 per share, 0.1% of the total transaction cost). Credit to member providing liquidity: Members with an average daily volume through the Nasdaq Facilities in all securities during the month of more than 30 million shares of liquidity provided $0.0025 per share executed (or $0, in the case of executions against Quotes/Orders at less than $1.00 per share). Other members $0.0020 per share executed (or $0, in the case of executions against Quotes/Orders at less than $1.00 per share). Order that [accesses ] *is delivered to* the Quote/Order of a market participant [that charges an access fee to market participants accessing its Quotes/ Orders] through the Nasdaq Facilities: Charge to member [entering] *receiving order:* *All members* [Members with an average daily volume through the Nasdaq Facilities in all securities during the month of more than 500,000 shares of liquidity provided] $0.001 per share executed [(but no more than $10,000 per month)] [Other members $0.001 per share executed] The text of the proposed rule change, as amended, is also available on Nasdaq's Internet Web site ( *http://www.nasdaq.com* ), at Nasdaq'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, Nasdaq included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose Nasdaq proposes to change the way fees are imposed for orders delivered to the Quotes/Orders of Nasdaq Market Center participants through the Nasdaq Market Center. Currently, Nasdaq imposes a $0.001 per share executed delivery fee on Nasdaq Market Center users who enter orders that are delivered to other Nasdaq Market Center participants that charge an access fee. Nasdaq proposes to modify this fee structure so as to impose a $0.001 delivery fee on participants that receive orders (order delivery participants) from the Nasdaq Market Center and eliminate the $0.001 delivery fee currently charged against the user who entered the order. Nasdaq's order delivery service is a service provided to participants that wish to participate in the Nasdaq Market Center liquidity pool and control their execution decision external to Nasdaq systems. Order delivery is not a functionality or service that is required to be offered to participants, and it involves additional direct and indirect costs to operate. Specifically, order delivery consumes excess processing and networking capacity and requires unique specifications, requirements, and system development. These costs are directly related to the firms using order delivery, and the benefits of order delivery accrue directly to the firms participating in the system as order delivery participants. Nasdaq believes that the proposed fee change more fairly and accurately aligns fees for order delivery within the Nasdaq Market Center by charging the firm that chooses to use order delivery functionality rather than the firm that has its order delivered. This fee modification better reflects the value of the benefits that accrue to order delivery recipients in the system. Furthermore, by no longer assessing a charge to the order entering firm, firms accessing liquidity within the Nasdaq Market Center can be more certain of their cost of using the system. 2. Statutory Basis Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A of the Act, 4 in general, and with Section 15A(b)(5) of the Act, 5 in particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facility or system which the NASD operates or controls. In particular, Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change more fairly and accurately aligns its fees for delivering orders to Nasdaq Market Center participants with the benefits accruing to entities that receive such order flow. In addition, to the extent that Nasdaq's proposal correctly assigns costs of order delivery to the small number of order delivery recipients that benefit from that functionality, the proposal also is a tangible benefit to the large number of market participants, including public investors, that will no longer be required to subsidize it. 4 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3. 5 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Assessment of the competitive impact of any proposal must begin with a proper understanding of the notion of competition among market centers. Such understanding must be informed by the Act itself and by the commonly accepted principles of U.S. competition law generally ( *e.g.* , the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Act), as applied by the courts and by the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. The objective of assuring competition among markets is cited in Section 11A of the Act 6 alongside, *inter alia* , the objectives of achieving “economically efficient execution of securities transactions” and of creating “the opportunity for more efficient and effective market operations.” 7 Not surprisingly, in antitrust law, the notion of competition is also always seen through the prism of economic efficiency. The law views competition as a force that encourages greater efficiency of operations, lower prices, and better service to market participants. Market behavior that promotes efficiency, lower fees, and better service is what both the Act and the antitrust laws seek to encourage. 6 15 U.S.C. 78k-1 *et seq.* 7 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1). As the Commission is aware, Nasdaq operates in the intensely competitive global exchange marketplace for listings, financial products, and market services. Nasdaq's ability to compete in this environment is based on a number of factors including technological quality, fairness and market transparency, price of services, quality of our markets (including spreads and depth of market), customer service, total transaction costs, and speed of our execution services. Relying on its array of services and benefits, Nasdaq competes with exchanges, Electronic Communication Networks (“ECNs”), and other Alternative Trading Systems (“ATSs”) for the privilege of providing market and listing services to broker-dealers and issuers. Moreover, within Nasdaq's own systems, ECNs and other ATSs compete with market makers and agency broker-dealers for retail and institutional order flow. It is in both arenas that Nasdaq's current method of imposing fees for order delivery services negatively impacts the overall competitive environment. First, Nasdaq's current imposition of fees for order delivery on parties entering orders into the Nasdaq Market Center creates disincentives for order flow providers to send orders to Nasdaq for processing and thereby harms Nasdaq's ability to compete with other markets operated by self-regulatory organizations—none of which provide order delivery, and consequently do not charge for it. For the same reasons, the present non-alignment of order delivery costs with those market participants that actually benefit from this functionality results in an improper subsidization of order delivery ECNs within Nasdaq's own system to the detriment of competing market makers and agency brokers that compete with those order delivery ECNs for retail and institutional order flow. These negative competitive impacts are mitigated by Nasdaq's fee proposal. By imposing a portion of order delivery costs on firms that take advantage of Nasdaq's order delivery functionality, the proposal promotes efficiency, transparency, and lower prices, and is therefore pro-competitive. This is in contrast to the existing regime where order delivery ECNs are able to free-ride on Nasdaq's neutral execution algorithms that deliver orders to the ECNs without cost and provide them with little incentive to enhance their product or services. Nasdaq's proposal would ensure that ECNs more fully support the costs of Nasdaq's distribution of their services. In return, the overwhelming majority of Nasdaq's users would benefit from lower execution prices (and equally important, from the predictability of trade execution charges), while ECNs would have increased financial incentives to operate more efficiently. Finally, to the extent that the pricing change enhances Nasdaq's ability to attract order flow, the overall competitive environment among market centers would be enhanced. All results, by definition, are pro-competitive. 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-NASD-2006-048 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-NASD-2006-048. 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 offices 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-NASD-2006-048 and should be submitted on or before May 10, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 8 8 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-5855 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53643; File No. SR-Phlx-2006-23] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto to Amend the Fees Related to Off-Floor Traders April 13, 2006. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on March 31, 2006, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Phlx. On April 12, 2006, the Phlx filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 3 The Phlx filed the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 4 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 5 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 In Amendment No.1, the Exchange made non-substantive, technical changes to the proposed rule text and clarified the purpose of the proposal. 4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 5 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Phlx proposes to:
(1)Eliminate the Exchange's off-floor trader annual fee of $350.00;
(2)eliminate the Exchange's off-floor trader initial registration fee of $100.00; and
(3)adopt a monthly off-floor examination fee of $30.00 per off-floor trader for off-floor traders associated with member organizations for whom the Exchange is the Designated Examining Authority (“DEA”). 6 The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is in *italics* ; proposed deletions are in [brackets]. 6 Every person who is compensated directly or indirectly by a member or participant organization for which the Exchange is the DEA, or any other associated person of such member or participant organization, and who executes, makes trading decisions with respect to, or otherwise engages in proprietary or agency trading of securities, including, but not limited to, equities, preferred securities, convertible debt securities or options off the floor of the Exchange (“off-floor traders”), must successfully complete the Uniform Registered Representative Examination Series 7. *See* Phlx Rule 604(e)(i). Appendix A *Off-Floor Examinations Fee* — *$30.00 monthly per Off-Floor Trader* [Off-Floor Trader Initial Registration Fee—$100.00] [Off-Floor Trader Annual Fee—$350.00] II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Phlx included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Phlx has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The purpose of adopting the monthly off-floor examination fee is to continue to help off-set the Exchange's costs associated with conducting examinations and routine financial condition monitoring of member organizations that do not necessarily generate off-setting revenue for the Exchange or send orders to the Exchange. The Exchange also incurs administrative costs, such as costs incurred in conducting reviews of individuals with prior disciplinary history. Replacing the initial off-floor trader registration fee and the annual off-floor trader fee with a monthly off-floor examination fee allows the Exchange to bill member organizations in monthly increments, which should more closely align the number of off-floor traders that are registered with the Exchange with the fee being charged. Replacing such fees with the proposed monthly off-floor examination fee should therefore allow the Exchange to more accurately charge those applicable off-floor traders and help off-set those costs associated with such examinations, monitoring, and reviews. This proposal is scheduled to become effective on April 1, 2006. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, 7 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, 8 in particular, because it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among members of the Exchange. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 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 The Phlx 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 The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 9 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) 10 thereunder. Accordingly, the proposed rule change is effective upon filing with the Commission. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 11 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 10 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). 11 The effective date of the original proposed rule change is March 31, 2006, and the effective date of Amendment No. 1 is April 12, 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 such period to commence on April 12, 2006, the date on which the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File No. SR-Phlx-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 No. SR-Phlx-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 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 Phlx. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-2006-23 and should be submitted on or before May 10, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 12 12 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jill M. Peterson, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-5854 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration # 10448 and # 10449] Arkansas Disaster # AR-00005 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Arkansas (FEMA-1636-DR), dated April 12, 2006. *Incident:* Severe storms and tornadoes. *Incident Period:* April 1, 2006 through April 3, 2006. *Effective Date:* April 12, 2006. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* June 12, 2006. *Economic Injury
(EIDL)Loan Application Deadline Date:* January 12, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, National Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on April 12, 2006, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans):* Conway, Cross, Fulton, Greene, Lawrence, Randolph, White *Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only):* Arkansas Baxter, Clay, Cleburne, Craighead, Crittenden, Faulkner, Independence, Izard, Jackson Lonoke, Perry, Poinsett Pope, Prairie, Sharp, St. Francis, Van Buren, Woodruff Yell Missouri Dunklin, Howell, Oregon, Ozark, Ripley The Interest Rates are: Percent *For Physical Damage:* Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere 5.750 Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere 2.875 Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere 7.408 Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) with Credit Available Elsewhere 5.000 Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 *For Economic Injury:* Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 10448 C and for economic injury is 10449 O. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Allan I. Hoberman, Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-5836 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration # 10446 and # 10447] Indiana Disaster # IN-00005 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Indiana dated April 13, 2006. *Incident:* Severe Storms and Tornadoes. *Incident Period:* March 31, 2006 through April 9, 2006. *Effective Date:* April 13, 2006. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* June 12, 2006. *Economic Injury
(EIDL)Loan Application Deadline Date:* January 16, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, National Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:* Daviess, Lawrence, Orange, Shelby *Contiguous Counties:* Indiana Bartholomew, Crawford, Decatur, Dubois, Greene, Hancock, Jackson, Johnson, Knox, Marion, Martin, Monroe, Pike, Rush, Washington The Interest Rates are: Percent Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere 5.750 Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere 2.875 Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere 7.408 Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) with Credit Available Elsewhere 5.000 Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 10446 C and for economic injury is 10447 O. The States which received an EIDL Declaration # is Indiana. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Dated: April 13, 2006. Hector V. Barreto, Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-5837 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5327] Arms Control and Nonproliferation Advisory Board (ACNAB); Meeting Notice Closed Meeting In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app 2 § 10(a)(2), the Department of State announces a meeting of the Arms Control and Nonproliferation Advisory Board (ACNAB) to take place on May 11, 2006, at the Department of State, Washington, DC. Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app 2 § 10(d) and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), it has been determined that this Board meeting will be closed to the public in the interest of national defense and foreign policy because the Board will be reviewing and discussing matters classified in accordance with Executive Order 12958. The purpose of the ACNAB is to provide the Department with a continuing source of independent advice on all aspects of arms control, disarmament, international security, and public diplomacy. The agenda for this meeting includes classified briefings and other discussions related to the Board's on-going studies on current U.S. policy and issues regarding the National Strategy for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction, Counter-Terrorism and Space Policy. For more information, contact Matthew Zartman, Deputy Executive Director of the Arms Control and Nonproliferation Advisory Board, Department of State, Washington, DC 20520, telephone:
(202)736-4244. Dated: April 10, 2006. Dr. George W. Look, Executive Director of The Secretary's Arms Control and Nonproliferation Advisory Board, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-5871 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-27-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5376] Announcement of Meetings of the International Telecommunication Advisory Committee *Summary:* This notice announces the program of International Telecommunication Advisory Committee meetings to prepare for meetings of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD)WPIE and CISP committee meetings of May 29-31, 2006. The International Telecommunication Advisory Committee
(ITAC)will meet to prepare for the OECD WPIE and CISP meeting on the following dates: May 4, 11, 18, and 25. All meetings will be from 2-4 p.m. and will be held in Room 2533 at the Harry S Truman Building (Main State) 2201 C Street, Washington. These meetings are open to the public. People planning to attend the meeting should send their clearance information (name, affiliation, SSN and date of birth) to *mccorklend@state.gov* not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting. Enter through the C Street doors, and be prepared to present a picture ID. Particulars on conference bridges is available from *minardje@state.gov* , telephone 202 647-3234. Dated: April 12, 2006. Anne D. Jillson, Foreign Affairs Officer, International Communications & Information Policy, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-5870 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-07-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5377] Third Public Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Persons With Disabilities *Summary:* The Advisory Committee on Persons with Disabilities will conduct its third public meeting on May 1, 2006 from 9 a.m.-4 p.m. Reagan Building and International Trade Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. See, *http://www.itcdc.com/index.php.* Attendees must have valid, government-issued identification in order to enter the building. The Advisory Committee is made up of the Secretary of State, the Administrator for International Development and an Executive Director (all ex-officio members); and eight members from outside the United States government: Senda Benaissa, Walter Bollinger, Joni Eareckson Tada, Vail Horton, John Kemp, Albert H. Linden, Jr., Kathleen Martinez, and John Register. Established on June 23, 2004, the Advisory Committee serves the Secretary and the Administrator in an advisory capacity with respect to the consideration of the interests of persons with disabilities in formulation and implementation of U.S. foreign policy and foreign assistance. The Committee is established under the general authority of the Secretary and the Department of State as set forth in Title 22 of the United States Code, in particular Sections 2656 and 2651a, and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended. Dated: April 13, 2006. Stephanie Ortoleva, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-5868 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-18-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary [Docket No. OST-2006-24502] Notice Seeking Comments on Data Collection for the Small Community Air Service Development Program, 49 U.S.C. 41743 AGENCY: Office of the Secretary. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Department of Transportation's
(DOT)request for comments regarding data collection by the Department under the Small Community Air Service Development Program. DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by June 19, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT DMS Docket Number OST-2006-24502 by any of the following methods: • Web site: *http://dms.dot.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site. • Fax: 1-202-493-2251. • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal Holidays. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. *Instructions:* All submissions must include the agency name and docket number for this data collection. For detailed instructions on submitting comments, see the Public Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to *http://dms.dot.gov* including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading under Regulatory Notes. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://dms.dot.gov* at any time or to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aloha Ley, Small Community Air Service Development Program, X-50, Office of Aviation Analysis, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-2347. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Small Community Air Service Development Program. *OMB Control Number:* XXXX-XXXX. *Type of Request:* Comments on data collection. *Abstract:* The Department of Transportation needs to collect certain information from eligible grant applicants in order to evaluate community proposals for financial grants to address their air service/air fare needs under the criteria set forth in 49 U.S.C. 41743 for the Small Community Air Service Development Program (Small Community Program) (Grant Application Form). In addition, the Department needs to collect information from those communities selected for grant awards regarding improvements to their air services and air fares, the community's expenditures made in conjunction with the authorized air service/fare improvements, and the effectiveness of the expenditures for such service(s). The purpose of these collections is to permit the Department to monitor the effects of the Small Community Program on the use of the air service at the local airport (Enplanement Report); to effectively and efficiently process a community's reimbursement requests during implementation of the air service/air fare improvements (Reimbursement Form); and to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the project being implemented with federal funding provided under the Small Community Program (Final Report). *Respondents:* Eligible local communities or consortia of communities and/or local airports serving those communities. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 380. This consists of approximately 100 grant applicants each year; 120 grant recipients filing enplanement reports and reimbursement requests; and 40 grant recipients filing final reports each year. *Estimated Total Burden on Respondents:* 13,200 hours. This consists of 8,000 hours for the application process; 480 hours for enplanement reports; 400 hours for final reports, and 4,320 hours for reimbursement requests. For applications, this assumes a maximum of 80 hours to prepare an application for 100 respondents; one hour each to complete the enplanement report four times per year assuming 120 grant recipients; ten hours to complete the final report, assuming 40 grant recipients file final reports each year; and three hours to complete a reimbursement request, assuming 120 grant recipients file one reimbursement request each month. With the exception of the reimbursement requests, which must include an original signature and supporting documentation, respondents are permitted to submit the collection data electronically to the Department. The Department expects to transition into an electronic submission system for reimbursement requests within the next 12 months. *Comments are invited on:*
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is reasonable for the proper performance of the grant award functions of the Department under the Small Community Program, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and
(d)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. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Issued in Washington, DC, on April 13, 2006. Todd Homan, Acting Director, Office of Aviation Analysis. [FR Doc. E6-5838 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration [Docket No. FHWA-2006-24493] Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments for New Information Collection AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The FHWA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)approval for a new information collection, which is summarized below under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. We are required to publish this notice in the **Federal Register** by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Please submit comments by June 19, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT DMS Docket Number 2006-24493 to the Docket Clerk, via the following methods: • Web site: *http://dms.dot.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site. • Fax: 1-202-493-2251. • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://dms.dot.gov* at any time or to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Chris Jaeschke,
(703)404-6306, Planning and Programming (HFPP-15), Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 21400 Ridgetop Circle. Sterling, VA 20166. Office hours are from 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* George Washington Birthplace National Historic Site, Visitor Transportation Survey. *Background:* The transportation related data that is collected is used for management decisions that affect visitor access and mobility, including estimates of the facility's future highway needs and assessments of highway system performance. The information is used by the FHWA to develop and implement legislation and by State and Federal transportation officials to adequately plan, design, and administer effective, safe, and efficient transportation systems in and around the subject facility. This data is essential to the FHWA and Congress in evaluating the effectiveness of the Federal-Lands Highway Program (FLHP). The data that is required by the FLHP is continually reassessed and streamlined by the FHWA. *Respondents:* General public visitors to the National Historic Site. *Estimated Average Burden Per Response:* The estimated average reporting burden per response is 10 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* The estimated total annual burden for all respondents is 17 hours. *Public Comments Invited:* You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including:
(1)Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the FHWA's performance;
(2)the accuracy of estimated burdens;
(3)ways for the FHWA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and
(4)ways that burdens could be minimized, including use of electronic technology, without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection. Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48. James R. Kabel Chief, Management Programs and Analysis Division. [FR Doc. E6-5815 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Transit Administration Environmental Impact Statement on New Transit Operations in Madison, WI AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration
(FTA)and the City of Madison, WI (Madison) intend to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS)in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)for a proposal by Madison to implement new transit operations in an approximately 13-mile travel corridor extending from the City of Middleton on the west, through the campus of the University of Wisconsin-Madison to the Isthmus of Madison, WI to the American Parkway interchange on US 151, southwest of Sun Prairie, WI and encompassing the surrounding urbanized areas. Growing mobility challenges coupled with very limited opportunity for highway capacity expansion has prompted the communities in the area to consider investment in transportation improvements, both to supplement and enhance existing Metro bus service and to extend service to new markets throughout the corridor and in the region. Alternatives proposed to be considered in the draft EIS include No Build, the Transportation System Management
(TSM)Alternative and various Build Alternatives. DATES: *Comment Due Date:* Written comments on the scope of alternatives and impacts to be considered should be sent to Madison by May 29, 2006. *Scoping Meetings:* An agency scoping meeting will be held at 1 p.m. on Wednesday, April 26, 2006, at Monona Terrace, One John Nolen Drive, in Madison, WI. A public scoping meeting open house will be held at the same location on Wednesday, April 26, 2006, from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. The scoping meeting sites are accessible to mobility-impaired individuals. If you need an interpreter, materials in alternate formats, or other accommodations to access this service, activity or program, please contact the City of Madison, Department of Planning and Development at
(608)266-4635, TDD
(608)266-4747. Please do so at least 48 hours prior to the meeting so that the proper arrangements can be made. ADDRESSES: Send written comments on the project scope to David M. Trowbridge, Transport 2020 Project Manager, City of Madison Department of Planning and Development, 215 MLK Jr. Blvd., Madison, WI 53703-3348 or *dtrowbridge@cityofmadison.com*
(608)267-1148. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victor Austin, Federal Transit Administration, Region 5 at
(312)886-1625. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Scoping The FTA and the City of Madison invite all interested individuals, organizations, businesses, and federal, state, and local agencies to comment on the purpose and need, project alternatives, and scope of the EIS. During the scoping process, comments should focus on the purpose and need for a project, identifying specific transportation problems to be evaluated, or on proposing transportation alternatives that may be less costly, more effective, or have fewer environmental impacts while improving mobility in the corridor. Following the public scoping process, public outreach activities with interested parties or groups throughout the duration of work on the EIS will continue. The project Web site, *http://www.transport2020.net,* will be updated periodically to reflect the status of the project. Additional opportunities for public participation will be announced through mailings, notices, and press releases. Those wishing to be placed on the project mailing list may do so by contacting David M. Trowbridge, Transport 2020 Project Administrator at
(608)267-1148 or signing up at *http://transport2020.net/Mailing.htm.* II. Description of Study Area and Project need The Study Area includes the Isthmus, the University of Wisconsin and the most densely developed commercial and residential areas of central Dane County, extending from the city of Middleton on the west, through the campus of the University of Wisconsin-Madison to the Isthmus of Madison, WI to the American Parkway interchange on US 151, southwest of Sun Prairie, WI. This area contains the most serious congestion and mobility challenges in the region. The area also contains existing rail and roadway facilities that can support the proposed transportation strategies and systems. Worsening mobility problems in Dane County's primary regional center, the central area of Madison which includes the city's commercial core, the University of Wisconsin Madison and major special events destinations, threatens to damage the region's high quality of life and the regional center's ability to absorb desirable residential and commercial growth. Because of geographical constraints of the isthmus, environmental concerns primarily with area lakes, and quality-of-life issues presented by the public, the possibility of addressing the area's transportation problems through roadway capacity expansion is limited. Given growing mobility challenges, coupled with very limited opportunity for highway capacity expansion to address them, a potentially promising alternative is investment in transit to supplement and enhance existing Metro bus service and to extend service to new markets throughout this regional corridor. III. Alternatives A Locally Preferred Alternative
(LPA)emerged from the evaluation and public involvement process conducted previously (Transport 2020). The alternatives analyzed in that study are fully described in the *Transport 2020 Transportation Alternatives Analysis for the Dane County/Greater Madison Metropolitan Area* final report dated August 23, 2002. The DEIS will assess the environmental impacts of a range of alternatives including
(1)The No Build Alternative;
(2)the Transportation System Management
(TSM)Alternative; and
(3)the Build Alternatives using existing rail corridors, with possible street-running alternative alignments. The No-Build Alternative will include existing transit services and facilities and those planned and programmed as new transportation services, facilities, and system management improvements that are already included in the 2035 Regional Transportation System Plan for Southeastern Wisconsin. The TSM Alternative will include operational and low cost capital investments to the existing transit services in the corridor, providing a level of capital investment that is greater than the No-Build Alternative but significantly less than other Build Alternatives. Build Alternatives would include both street-running and rail alternatives using either bus or rail technology. The Build Alternatives will include but not be limited to the refinement of the initial Start-Up System, or Minimum Operable Segment
(MOS)identified in the Locally Preferred Alternative from the prior Alternatives Analysis. The MOS includes:
(1)Expanding the Madison Metro local bus system;
(2)Adding new express bus routes running inbound during a.m. peak periods and outbound during p.m. peak periods;
(3)Adding new park and ride lots, primarily at express bus route terminal locations; and
(4)Adding commuter rail service running approximately 13 miles between Middleton and East Towne using FRA-compliant, self-propelled vehicles (DMUs). In addition to these initially identified alternatives, other alternatives generated by the scoping process may be considered. IV. Potential Impacts for Analysis The EIS will evaluate the impacts of all reasonable alternatives on land use, zoning, displacements, parklands, economic development, community disruptions, environmental justice, aesthetics, air quality, noise and vibration, wildlife, vegetation, threatened and endangered species, farmland, water quality, wetlands, waterways, floodplains, hazardous materials, and cultural, historic, and archaeological resources. The EIS will take into account both positive and negative impacts, direct and indirect impacts, short-term and long-term impacts and site-specific and corridor wide impacts. Evaluation criteria will be consistent with all Federal, State of Wisconsin and local criteria, regulations and policies. The EIS will identify measures to avoid or mitigate significant adverse environmental impacts. To ensure that all significant issues related to this proposed action are identified and addressed, scoping comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments and questions should be directed to Madison as noted in the ADDRESSES section above. V. FTA Procedures In accordance with FTA policy, all federal laws, regulations and executive orders affecting project development, including but not limited to, the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508 and 23 CFR part 771), the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Executive Order 12898 regarding environmental justice, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Endangered Species Act, and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, will be addressed to the maximum extent possible during the NEPA process. A DEIS will be prepared and made available for public and agency review and comment. A public hearing will be held on the DEIS. Based on the DEIS and the public and agency comments received, the preferred alternative will be further refined as necessary and the Final Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. Issued on: April 12, 2006. Don Gismondi, Deputy Regional Administrator. [FR Doc. 06-3715 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 11
6 references not yet in our index
  • 17 CFR 240.17
  • 17 USC 78a
  • 17 CFR 240.19
  • 15 USC 78
  • 49 CFR 1.48
  • 23 CFR 771
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice
U.S.C.§ 3501
U.S.C.§ 78s
U.S.C.§ 78c
U.S.C.§ 78f
C.F.R.§ 200.30-3
U.S.C.§ 552
U.S.C.§ 78k–1
U.S.C.§ 552b
Fed. Reg.Notices
Cite17 CFR 240.17
Cite17 USC 78a
Cite17 CFR 240.19
Cites 17 · 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.