Notices. Issuance of environmental assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for license amendment

7,708 words·~35 min read·/register/2006/05/11/06-4361·

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

BILLING CODE 4510-30-P NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION National Science Board; Workshop on Fostering Transformative Research—Views From Industry and Private Foundations *Date:* May 16, 2006. *Place:* National Science Foundation, Arlington, Virginia, Room 1235. *Contact Information:* Please refer to the National Science Board Web site ( *http://www.nsf.gov/nsb* ) for updated schedule. NSB Office: Ann Ferrante,

(703)292-7000. *Status:* This Workshop is open to the public. Provisional Agenda 8 a.m.-8:30 a.m. Registration. 8:30 a.m.-8:50 a.m. Welcoming Remarks. Dr. Nina Fedoroff, Chair, Task Force on Transformative Research, NSB. 8:50 a.m.-9 a.m. Introduction and Overview. Dr. Michael Crosby, Executive Officer, NSB. 9 a.m.-11:15 a.m. Session I: Foundation Perspectives. 12:30 p.m.-2:45 p.m. Session II: Industry Perspectives. 2:45 p.m.-3 p.m. Break. 3 p.m.-4:30 p.m. Session III: Other Perspectives. 4:30 p.m.-4:45 p.m. Summaries of Discussions and Next Steps for the Task Force. Michael P. Crosby, Executive Officer and NSB Office Director. [FR Doc. E6-7213 Filed 5-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 030-05976] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Western Ecology Division, Corvallis and Newport Facilities, OR: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of environmental assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for license amendment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D. Blair Spitzberg, Ph.D., Chief, Fuel Cycle and Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region IV, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, TX 76011. Telephone:

(817)860-8100; e-mail: *dbs@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)is considering issuance of an amendment to Material License No. 36-12343-02 issued to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Western Ecology Division (EPA or the licensee). This license pertains to the following three EPA facilities located in Oregon:

(1)Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory;

(2)Willamette Research Station (also in Corvallis); and

(3)the Pacific Coastal Ecology Branch facility in Newport. Granting the amendment request would authorize the release of these facilities for unrestricted use, and would terminate the license as requested. In accordance with conditions in its license, the EPA was authorized to use radioactive material at its three facilities to conduct tracer studies involving marine organisms and plants (excluding animal studies); perform sample analysis; conduct tests for soil moisture; and for instrument calibration. On November 30, 2004 (as supplemented by letter dated December 27, 2005), EPA requested that NRC release the three facilities for unrestricted use and to terminate the license. The licensee conducted radiological surveys of the subject facilities and concluded that the license termination criteria specified in subpart E to 10 CFR part 20 for unrestricted release have been met. The amendment will be issued if NRC determines that the request meets the standards specified in 10 CFR part 20 and related NRC guidance documents. II. Environmental Assessment

(EA)*Identification of Proposed Action:* The proposed action is to enable the licensee to use its subject facilities in any manner without NRC restriction. The NRC proposes to accomplish this by terminating NRC License No. 36-12343-02 because the licensee has permanently ceased all licensed activities and transferred or disposed of all licensed radioactive materials. *The Need for the Proposed Action:* The licensee has permanently ceased all licensed activities at its subject facilities. The EPA desires to release these facilities for unrestricted use. The facilities will continue to be used for research with non-licensed materials. When the licensing action is complete, the licensee will be in compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 30.36, “Expiration and Termination of Licenses and Decommissioning of Sites and Separate Buildings or Outdoor Areas.” *Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action:* NRC Materials License No. 36-12343-02 authorizes the EPA to possess small quantities of radioactive material, in both sealed and unsealed form. Under its license, the EPA's use of licensed material included the performance of tracer studies involving marine organisms and plants (excluding animal studies), use in gas chromatographs for sample analysis, use in Troxler Model 4300 Series gauges to measure soil moisture, and use in a liquid scintillation counter for instrument calibration. By letter dated November 30, 2004, EPA requested that NRC release the subject facilities for unrestricted use and terminate the license. A final status survey report

(FSSR)was completed by the licensee, and a copy of the report was attached to the November 30, 2004, letter. During the November 2005 NRC inspection, EPA identified additional previous locations of use that had not been documented in the November 2004 FSSR submittal. An addendum to the FSSR was attached to a letter from EPA dated December 27, 2005. As discussed below, the EPA concluded that all three facilities were sufficiently free of radioactive material to permit unrestricted release of the facilities. As part of its amendment request, the licensee conducted a historical review of its three facilities and found that the radionuclides of concern were carbon-14, calcium-45, chromium-51, hydrogen-3, phosphorus-32, sulfur-35, nickel-63, americium-241, and barium-133. Radioactive materials were used at the two Corvallis facilities from 1977 to 2004. Radioactive materials were used at the Newport facility from 1987-1995 under NRC License No. 36-23261-01. (This license was terminated in July 1995 after NRC License No. 36-12343-02 was amended to bring the Newport facility within its scope). To demonstrate compliance with the radiological criteria for unrestricted release as specified in 10 CFR 20.1402, the licensee developed derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs). The NRC compared the licensee's proposed DCGLs to the screening criteria provided in NUREG-1757, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,” Volume 2. The NRC concluded that the proposed DCGLs were acceptable for use as release criteria. The EPA's historical assessment identified two incidents that may have involved leaking sealed sources at the Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory. One event occurred in March 1979 involving a sealed source containing a tritium-scandium foil. At the time of the event, the laboratory was cleaned and decontaminated. Significant remodeling had taken place since the laboratory had been cleaned and decontaminated, so additional NRC confirmatory surveys were not performed in this area. A second event occurred in June 1982 involving either a leaking nickel-63 sealed source detector or radiotracers injected into a gas chromatograph. The licensee believed that the detector did not leak and that the contamination was tritium, not nickel-63. The laboratory was decontaminated and the event reported to the NRC at the time. The NRC staff reviewed the docket file records and the FSSR to identify any non-radiological hazards that may have impacted the environment. No additional hazards or impacts were identified. The licensee's radiation safety program allowed unrestricted release of previous locations of use once the areas were shown to be free from residual contamination. Final status surveys of the former locations of use were conducted when the laboratories were removed from service. Additional limited final status surveys were performed in 12 previous locations of use within the three subject facilities during November 2004, because the historical survey records were not adequate or complete to show that the locations were free from residual contamination. Final status surveys on remaining locations of use that had not been previously released were also performed during June 2004, November 2004 and December 2005. These final status surveys were conducted in buildings and laboratories identified during the historical assessment as previous locations of use with licensed radioactive materials. The NRC conducted a confirmatory survey of 26 separate locations in the subject facilities during the NRC's November 2005 inspection. The NRC focused these confirmatory surveys in previous locations of use that were identified in the licensee's historical assessment as locations that potentially used licensed material in unsealed form. The confirmatory survey included the site at the Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory where a leak from a sealed source may have occurred in June 1982. These confirmatory surveys also included the licensee-identified previous locations of use that were not in the original FSSR submittal dated November 2004. The surveys included ambient gamma exposure rate measurements, as well as, fixed and removable surface contamination measurements. The removable surface contamination measurements included measurements for hydrogen-3 and carbon-14. None of the confirmatory sample results exceeded the proposed DCGLs identified in the FSSR. In its FSSR, the licensee stated that radioactive waste material from previously licensed operations was transferred to an authorized waste contractor. All other previously licensed radioactive materials were transferred to authorized recipients. Solid waste disposal did not include on-site burial or incineration. Discharges to sewers were reviewed by inspectors during routine inspections to ensure compliance with the release limits specified in 10 CFR part 20. Accordingly, the NRC finds that surface and groundwater sources were not impacted by previous EPA operations involving licensed material at the subject facilities. *Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives of the Proposed Action:* The licensee seeks NRC approval of the license termination request. The alternatives to the proposed action are:

(1)The no-action alternative, or

(2)to deny the license termination request and require the licensee to take some alternate action. 1. *No-Action Alternative:* One alternative available to the NRC is to take no action by denying the license termination request. The no-action alternative is not feasible because it conflicts with the NRC's regulation (10 CFR 30.36(d)) requiring licensees to decommission their facilities when licensed activities permanently cease. 2. *Environmental Impacts of Alternative 2:* A second alternative is to deny the licensee's request in favor of alternate release criteria as allowed by § 20.1403 (criteria for restricted conditions) or § 20.1404 (alternate criteria). However, the NRC's analysis of the final status survey data confirmed that the proposed DCGLs meet the license termination requirements of § 20.1402. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that the second alternative is not reasonable, and this alternative action is eliminated from further consideration. *Conclusion:* Based on its review, the NRC staff concludes that the environmental impacts associated with the proposed action do not warrant denial of the license termination request. The staff believes that the proposed action will result in no significant environmental impacts. The staff has determined that the proposed action, approval of the license termination, is the appropriate alternative for selection. *Agencies and Persons Contacted:* The NRC staff did not consult with the local U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service or the State Historic Preservation Officer because licensed activities occurred only within the three EPA facilities in Corvallis and Newport, Oregon. There was no evidence of use or release of radioactive material outside of these facilities. Accordingly, there was no impact to historic properties or the cultural resources, endangered species, or critical habitats outside these facilities. The State of Oregon notified the NRC by telephone on March 29, 2006 that it had no comments on the EA. This conversation was documented in a Memorandum to the Docket File dated March 29, 2006. EPA notified the NRC by letter dated March 29, 2006 that it had four clarification comments on the EA. These comments have been incorporated. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed license amendment to release the subject facilities for unrestricted use and terminate the license. On the basis of the EA, the NRC has concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and the license amendment does not warrant the preparation of an environmental impact statement. Accordingly, it has been determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related to this Notice are: 1. NRC, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities,” NUREG-1496, July 1997 (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). 2. Gile, Jay D., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Western Ecology Division, Cessation of Licensed Activities and Request for License Termination, November 30, 2004 (ML043620316, ML043620322, ML043620325, ML043620321). 3. Gile, Jay D., Environmental Protection Agency's Western Ecology Division, NRC Form 314 Certificate of Disposition of Materials, December 1, 2004 (ML043620317). 4. McBride, Kathy, Environmental Protection Agency's Western Ecology Division, NRC Form 314 (Certificate of Disposition of Materials) Retraction Memo, December 14, 2005 (ML060110330). 5. Burr, Dave, Environmental Protection Agency's Western Ecology Division, Decommissioning Audit Response, Addendum to the Final Status Survey Report, Certificate of Disposition of Materials and Request for License Termination, December 27, 2005 (ML060110298, ML060110337, ML060110472, ML060110496). 6. NRC Inspection Report 030-05976/05-001, January 10, 2006 (ML060120525). 7. Burr, Dave, Environmental Protection Agency's Western Ecology Division, EPA Comments on the draft Environmental Assessment, March 29, 2006 (ML060890410). 8. Schlapper, Beth A., Memorandum to Docket File 030-05976, State of Oregon Telephone Response Of No Comment For Comments On The Draft Environmental Assessment, March 29, 2006 (ML060880514). If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room

(PDR)Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at Arlington, Texas this 19th day of April, 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. D. Blair Spitzberg, Chief, Fuel Cycle & Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region IV. [FR Doc. E6-7163 Filed 5-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Notice of Meeting The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste

(ACNW)will hold its 170th meeting on May 23-26, 2006, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The schedule for this meeting is as follows: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 ACNW Working Group Meeting on Low-Level Radioactive Waste

(LLW)Management Issues *8:30 a.m.-8:40 a.m.: Greeting and Introductions* (Open)—The ACNW Chairman, Dr. Michael Ryan, will state the purpose and objectives for this Working Group Meeting. He will also provide an overview of the planned technical sessions for Day 1 and introduce invited panelists and speakers. *Purpose of ACNW Working Group Meeting.* The purposes of this ACNW Working Group Meeting are to: —Obtain current information on commercial LLW management practices. —Identify emerging LLW management issues and concerns. —Solicit stakeholder views on what changes to the regulatory framework for managing LLW should be recommended for Commission consideration. —Solicit stakeholder views on actions the NRC can take to ensure a stable, reliable and adaptable regulatory framework for effective LLW management. —Identify specific impacts, both positive and negative, of potential staff activities. *8:40 a.m.-9:40 a.m.: Existing LLW Licensee Operational Experience and Perspective* (Open)—The Committee will hear presentations by representatives of Chem-Nuclear Systems, LLC and EnergySolutions, LLC. *9:40 a.m.-10:40 a.m.: Alternative Disposal Options and Practices* (Open)—The Committee will hear presentations by Waste Control Specialists and U.S. Ecology—American Ecology. *11 a.m.-11:30 a.m.: NRC's Current LLW Program: Challenges* (Open)—The Committee will hear a presentation by a NRC staff representative regarding the current LLW program. *11:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m.: NRC's 10 CFR Part 61: Historical Perspective* (Open)—The Committee will hear presentations from former NRC staff regarding the development of NRC's LLW regulatory framework. *2 p.m.-3:30 p.m.: State/Compact Disposal Experience* (Open)—The Committee will hear presentations from representatives of the Southwestern Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. *3:30 p.m.-4 p.m.: LLW Definitions and Decommissioning Experience* (Open)—The Committee will hear a presentation by a representative from the Nuclear Energy Institute. *4 p.m.-4:30 p.m.: New License Application Perspectives* (Open)—The Committee will hear a presentation by a representative from Waste Control Specialists, LLC. *4:30 p.m.-5:30 p.m.: Stakeholder and Public Comments* (Open). Wednesday, May 24, 2006 *8:30 a.m.-8:40 a.m.: Greeting and Introductions* (Open)—Dr. Ryan will provide an overview of the planned technical sessions for Day 2 and introduce the invited panelists and speakers. *8:40 a.m.-11 a.m.: Industry Roundtable Discussion* (Open)—Scheduled participants are expected to include representatives from Entergy, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Harvard University, and U.S. Ecology—American Ecology. *12:30 p.m.-3 p.m.: Panel Discussion Concerning NRC's LLW Strategic Assessment* (Open)—Scheduled participants are expected to included representatives from the Washington State Department of Health, the NRC staff, Chem-Nuclear Systems, the Texas Council on Environmental Quality, and the California Radioactive Materials Management. *3 p.m.-4:30 p.m.: Stakeholder and Public Comments* (Open). *4:30 p.m.-5 p.m.: Closing Remarks* (Open)—By Dr. Ryan. *5 p.m.-5:30 p.m.: ACNW Working Group Meeting Impressions—Discussion of Letter Report* (Open)—The Committee will discuss the impressions of the Working Group Meeting and proposed ACNW letters. Thursday, May 25, 2006 *8:25 a.m.-8:30 a.m.: Opening Remarks by the ACNW Chairman* (Open)—The ACNW Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of the meeting. *8:30 a.m.-10:30 a.m.: National Academy of Sciences

(NAS)Report on the Management of Certain Tank Wastes at U.S. Department of Energy

(DOE)Sites* (Open)—Representatives of the NAS staff and an NAS Committee will brief the ACNW on the findings of a Congressionally-mandated study of radioactive waste streams stored in tanks at three DOE sites. *10:45 a.m.-12:15 p.m.: NRC Standard Review Plan

(SRP)for Waste Determinations* (Open)—NMSS representatives will update the Committee on progress in the development of the SRP to be used by the NRC staff to review DOE waste determinations. *1:30 p.m.-3 p.m.: Review of International Commission on Radiological Protection

(ICRP)Draft Report, “The Scope of Radiological Protection Regulations”* (Open)—Briefing by and discussions with representatives of the NRC staff regarding the ICRP draft report for comment titled, “The Scope of Radiological Protection Regulations.” *3:15 p.m.-5:30 p.m.: Discussion of Draft Letters and Reports* (Open)—The Committee will discuss proposed ACNW letters. Friday, May 26, 2006 *10 a.m.-10:10 a.m.: Opening Remarks by the ACNW Chairman* (Open)—The ACNW Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of the meeting. *10:10 a.m.-11:45 a.m.: Overview of NRC Spent fuel Storage Program* (Open)—NMSS representatives will provide an overview of NRC spent fuel storage program. *11:45 a.m.-4 p.m.: Discussion of Draft Letters and Reports* (Open)—The Committee will discuss proposed ACNW letters. *4 p.m.-4:30 p.m.: Miscellaneous* (Open)—The Committee will discuss matters related to the conduct of ACNW activities and specific issues that were not completed during previous meetings, as time and availability of information permit. Discussions may include future Committee Meetings. Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACNW meetings were published in the **Federal Register** on October 11, 2005 (70 FR 59081). In accordance with these procedures, oral or written statements may be presented by members of the public. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Persons desiring to make oral statements should notify Mr. Michael R. Snodderly (Telephone 301-415-6927), between 8:15 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, as far in advance as practicable so that appropriate arrangements can be made to schedule the necessary time during the meeting for such statements. Use of still, motion picture, and television cameras during this meeting will be limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined by the ACNW Chairman. Information regarding the time to be set aside for taking pictures may be obtained by contacting the ACNW office prior to the meeting. In view of the possibility that the schedule for ACNW meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should notify Mr. Snodderly as to their particular needs. Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, the Chairman's ruling on requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and the time allotted, therefore, can be obtained by contacting Mr. Snodderly. ACNW meeting agenda, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are available through the NRC Public Document Room

(PDR)at *pdr@nrc.gov* , or by calling the PDR at 1-800-397-4209, or from the Publicly Available Records System component of NRC's document system (ADAMS) which is accessible from the NRC Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* or *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/* (ACRS & ACNW Mtg schedules/agendas). Video Teleconferencing service is available for observing open sessions of ACNW meetings. Those wishing to use this service for observing ACNW meetings should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACNW Audiovisual Technician (301-415-8066), between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 p.m. ET, at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the availability of this service. Individuals or organizations requesting this service will be responsible for telephone line charges and for providing the equipment and facilities that they use to establish the video teleconferencing link. The availability of video teleconferencing services is not guaranteed. Dated: May 4, 2006. Andrew L. Bates, Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E6-7161 Filed 5-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Meeting on Planning and Procedures; Notice of Meeting The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste

(ACNW)will hold a Planning and Procedures meeting on May 26, 2006, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and

(6)to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to internal personnel rules and practices of ACNW, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Friday, May 26, 2006—8:30 a.m.-9:30 a.m. The Committee will discuss proposed ACNW activities and related matters. The purpose of this meeting is to gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee. Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. Michael R. Snodderly (Telephone: 301/415-6927) between 8:15 a.m. and 5 p.m.

(ET)five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 8:15 a.m. and 5 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes in the agenda. Dated: May 3, 2006. Michael R. Snodderly, Acting Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW. [FR Doc. E6-7162 Filed 5-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53750; File No. SR-Amex-2006-33] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Section 141 of the Company Guide May 2, 2006. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on April 11, 2006, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed this proposal as a “non-controversial” proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing with the Commission. 5 On April 12, 2006, Nasdaq filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 6 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 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 5 The Exchange requested the Commission to waive the five-day pre-filing notice requirement and the 30-day operative delay, as specified in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii). 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). 6 In Amendment No. 1, Nasdaq made minor revisions to Section 141 of the Amex *Company Guide* to reflect changes to set forth in File No. SR-Amex-2005-124. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53430 (March 7, 2006), 71 FR 12744 (March 13, 2006). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to correct Section 141 of the Amex *Company Guide* so that annual fees in connection with Closed-End Fund issuers may not be deferred, waived, or rebated (in all or part). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Amex's Web site at *http://www.amex.com* , at the principal office of the Amex, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those 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 parts of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose According to the Exchange, the purpose of the proposal is to correct Section 141 of the Amex *Company Guide* to properly reflect the fact that annual fees (in all or part) for Closed-End Funds may not be deferred, waived, or rebated in the discretion of the Board. As a result, Section 141 will now provide that the Board of Governors of the Exchange or its designee may, in its discretion, defer, waive, or rebate all or any part of the applicable annual listing fee for stock issues. The Exchange previously adopted in File No. SR-Amex-2004-70 7 the ability of the Board of Governors or its designee, in its discretion, to defer, waive, or rebate all or any part of the applicable annual listing fees, except in the case of issues listed under Sections 106 and 107 of the Amex Company Guide and Rule 1200 (Trust Issued Receipts); and Closed-End Funds. As part of an amendment to File No. SR-Amex-005-127, the Exchange inadvertently omitted Closed-End Funds from the class of issuers whose annual fees cannot be deferred, waived, or rebated. Accordingly, in this rule filing, the Exchange seeks to correct this error so that only stock issues may, in the discretion of the Board of Governors, be deferred, waived, or rebated. 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50270 (August 26, 2004), 69 FR 53750 (September 2, 2004). 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with Section 6(b) 8 of the Act in general and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) 9 in particular in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest. 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change, as amended, will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change, as amended. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing proposed rule change, as amended, has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 10 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder 11 because the proposed rule change:

(1)Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;

(2)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and

(3)does not become operative for 30 days from the date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 12 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 13 thereunder. 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 11 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 13 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the five-day pre-filing notice requirement and the 30-day operative delay. 14 The Commission is exercising its authority to waive the five-day pre-filing notice requirement and believes that the waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Acceleration of the operative delay allows Amex to correct what it represents was an inadvertent omission, in an earlier filing, of Closed-End Funds from the class of issuers whose annual fees cannot be deferred, waived, or rebated. This correction will clarify that only stock issues may, in the discretion of the Board of Governors, be deferred, waived, or rebated. For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposal to be effective and operative upon filing with the Commission. 15 14 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). 15 For the purposes only of waiving the operative date of this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in the furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 16 16 For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change, as amended, under Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period to commence on April 12, 2006, the date on which the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-Amex-2006-33 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2006-33. 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 20549-1090. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Amex. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2006-33 and should be submitted on or before June 1, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 17 17 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-7219 Filed 5-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53756; File No. SR-ISE-2005-56] Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Establishing Fees for Enhanced Sentiment Market Data May 3, 2006. On December 1, 2005, the International Securities Exchange, Inc. (“ISE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to amend its Schedule of Fees to establish fees for enhanced sentiment market data, as described below. On March 14, 2006, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on March 28, 2006. 3 The Commission received no comments on the proposal. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53532 (March 21, 2006), 71 FR 15501 (“Notice”). By this proposed rule change, the Exchange seeks to establish fees for a new product, enhanced sentiment market data, which is based upon the ISE Sentiment Index ®, or ISEE. The ISEE, which is created by the ISE, provides an intra-day picture of how investors view stock prices by assessing customers' option trading activity. More specifically, the ISEE measures opening long customer transactions on the ISE. The ISE updates the current ISEE value hourly during market hours and posts it for free on its Web site. 4 4 *http://www.iseoptions.com/marketplace/statistics/sentiment_index.asp* . The ISEE is a single value for the overall market sentiment. In contrast, the enhanced sentiment market data will provide more specific information that will allow an end user to retrieve a sentiment value for an individual symbol using a query tool. For example, an end user interested in the sentiment value for only the Nasdaq 100 Tracking Stock (symbol QQQQ) would just enter that symbol into the query tool interface to retrieve the sentiment value. Additionally, the enhanced sentiment market data will include a sentiment scanning tool that will allow a user to comb the market for sentiment levels that meet pre-defined parameters. Enhanced sentiment market data will be a purely optional product; it is not necessary to subscribe to this service to trade options on the ISE. 5 5 *See* telephone conversation between Samir Patel, Assistant General Counsel, ISE, and Christopher Chow, Special Counsel, Commission, on April 28, 2006. The Exchange will offer this product to online investors, on a subscription basis, directly and through a Broker Marketing Alliance, an arrangement between ISE and a participating U.S. broker-dealer that markets the enhanced sentiment offering to its customers. The Exchange proposes four subscription levels, based on the number of customer queries. Clients of participating brokers will pay less at each of the same four subscription levels, and the participating broker-dealers will receive a rebate of 35% of the subscription fee collected from subscribers. In addition, the Exchange will pay a bonus rebate to broker-dealers for achieving subscription levels based on the size of their firm and the number of clients that subscribe to the service. 6 6 *See* Notice, *supra* at note 3. The Commission has reviewed carefully the proposed rule change and finds that it is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 7 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b)(4) of the Act, 8 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. The Exchange states that it established the proposed tiered pricing structures for enhanced sentiment data based upon a survey of financial services industry participants regarding their level of interest in proprietary market data offerings, a business plan it developed based on the results of that survey, and the advice of a consultant retained to opine on the structure and amount of fees to charge for the product. 7 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 9 that the proposed rule change as amended be, and hereby is approved. 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 10 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 10 J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-7201 Filed 5-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration [Docket No. FAA-2005-23438] Notice of Request for Public Comments on Interpretation of the On-Demand Flight Time and Rest Period Rules AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice, request for comments. SUMMARY: The FAA has received several related requests for interpretation of the On-Demand Flight and Rest Rules, 14 CFR Sections 121.263(d) and 121.267(b),

(d)and (e). The FAA has decided that it would be beneficial to request public comments on the requesters' questions, before the FAA issues its responses. *See* Notice of Reinstatement of 1980 Public Comment Procedures for Requests for Interpretation of Flight Time, Rest and Duty Period Regulations (70 FR 74863, Dec. 16, 2005). Copies of the requests from members of the public can be found at the DOT public electronic docket, using the docket number FAA-2005-23438. DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 10, 2006. ADDRESSES: Address your comments to the docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2005-23438 at the beginning of your comments, and you should submit two copies of your comments. If you wish to receive confirmation that FAA received your comments, include a self-addressed, stamped postcard. You may also electronically submit comments through the Internet to *http://dms.dot.gov.* You may review the public docket containing comments concerning this document in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Dockets Office is on the plaza level of the NASSIF Building at the Department of Transportation at the above address. Also, you may review public dockets on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constance Subadan, Regulations Division, AGC-200, Office of the Chief Counsel, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone 202-267-3073. Background The FAA has received several related requests for interpretation of sections 135.263(d) and 135.267(b), (d), and (e). The FAA has previously issued interpretations on some, but no all, of the questions. The Agency will take into consideration in developing its responses the public comments it receives. For example, in its response, the FAA intends to clarify two issues on which it has previously stated an opinion, namely:

(1)Whether late arriving passengers or cargo may be considered an unforeseen circumstance or circumstance beyond the certificate holder's or crewmember's control under section 135.263(d); and

(2)whether the rest period under section 135.267(d) must be timely received. The Agency will consider whether to recede from statements or suggestions in prior interpretations that late arriving passengers or cargo are an unforeseen circumstance, because such statements or suggestions may not represent good safety policy. The Agency will also consider whether to recede from statements or suggestions that the implied 14-hour test period, because such statements or suggestions may not represent a valid interpretation of section 135.267(d). Requesters' Questions The requests for interpretation of the On Demand Flight Time and Rest Rules raised the questions set forth below. To put these questions in full context, respondents should look at the letters from the members of the public that are posted on the DOT public electronic docket. *No. 1 (William Gruening):* Scenario/Questions: The crew receives a 10-hour rest period and is scheduled for a 14-hour duty day, starting at 0600, with the first flight at 0700. Total scheduled flight time for the day is 5 hours. They do not receive 10 consecutive hours of rest during the day. The last flight is scheduled to arrive at home base at 1930, and the crew has 30 minutes to complete [post flight] duties. They are scheduled to be off duty at 2000. The certificate holder wants to invoke section 135.263(d) (“circumstances beyond the control”) for the last flight for any of the following reasons:

(a)Passengers are caught in traffic,

(b)there is a 1 hour ground hold for weather,

(c)there is a 1 hour ATC hold in flight,

(d)there is a 1 hour delay for unscheduled maintenance, or

(e)it takes 1 hour longer to taxi out than expected. Because of any of the above circumstances, the crew will arrive 1 hour late and will not have 10 consecutive hours within the preceding 24 hours. 1. May the crew complete the flight or must they be on the ground in time to have 10 hours of rest within the preceding 24 hours, consistent with the interpretation of the similar provision in section 121.471? 2. If the crew may complete the flight, how must the records be documented for record inspections? *No. 2 (Eagle's Wings Aviation Corp):* Scenario/Question: Three situations are presented:

(1)The passengers or cargo arrive late and cause a crew to exceed the duty limit for a charter flight that was scheduled to arrive within duty time limits;

(2)winds or weather more adverse than forecast cause the crew to exceed duty time limits; and

(3)the passengers on a passenger charter flight request a change in itinerary or an additional stop and cause the crew to exceed scheduled completion time and exceed the duty time limit. Does section 135.263(d) excuse a certificate holder or pilot from exceeding the 14-hour duty time limitation in the above situations? *No. 3 (SamaritansAir, Aviation Consultants):* Scenario/Questions: A pilot is required to respond to a pager and be at the airport within 30 minutes of the page. He is also required to be “on call” at the airport starting from 0700. The “call” may not come in until 1600. His duty time is considered to start at 1600 and continues until 0600 the next day. 1. May the pilot perform the above operation without an uninterrupted rest period “free from all restraint” from the certificate holder? 2. May a Part 135 pilot fly under Part 91 rules for a “reposition” or “ferry” flight with non-essential flight crew or passengers on board who are non-paying “customers” of the certificate-holder, when the “sole” intent is to circumvent the 14-hour duty limitation and weather limitations if the flight had to be flown under Part 135 rules? 3. May late arriving passengers be called an “unexpected” delay as a way to circumvent and extend the 14-hour duty time limitation? *No. 4 (Era Aviation):* Scenario/Questions: A Part 135 (one pilot crew) comes on duty at 5:30 a.m. and completes three hours of commercial flight time by 15:15 p.m. The operator receives a mission for the next day in another state and the pilot must depart immediately to ferry the aircraft to the new location at which he will give it to the pilot who will fly the new mission. At that point, the pilot ferrying the aircraft will be free of any duty with the carrier for a week. 1. If it becomes necessary to deliver the aircraft to the new pilot, may the ferry pilot overfly the 14-hour duty day which began at 5:30 a.m., assuming he will be off duty for a week upon delivering the aircraft? 2. If it becomes necessary to deliver the aircraft to the new pilot, may the ferry pilot overfly his original eight hours of flight time, assuming he will be off duty for a week upon delivering the aircraft? 3. Is the assumption correct that all flight time following the original three hours flown under Part 135 may be considered Part 91 flight time and thus free of Part 135 restrictions? 4. Is the assumption correct that all duty after the original Part 135 duty period that ended at 12:30 p.m. may be considered non-Part 135 duty, and thus free of Part 135 restrictions? *No. 5 (Kyle Opp):* Scenario/Questions: A 2-pilot crew receives 24 hours free of duty [on Day 1]. Duty time starts 1 hour prior to scheduled departure, and ends 30 minutes after actual arrival time. Duty time includes 1 hour before scheduled departure and 30 minutes after actual arrival. On Day 2 duty time started at 0700z. The scheduled and actual data are as follows: Scheduled Actual Flight time Duty time at arrival Leg 1 0800-1000 0900-1100 2.0 4:00 Leg 2 1300-1430 1415-1545 1.5 8:45 Leg 3 1730-2000 1900-2130 2.5 14:30 Scheduled: 13.5 hrs Actual: 15 hrs 1. Is the crew prohibited from taking off or boarding Part 135 passengers knowing they will exceed their 14-hour duty day and will actually arrive without the required lookback rest within the previous 24 hours? 2. Can it still be “circumstances beyond the control of the operator” when the operator and crew has the knowledge that Leg 3 while on the ground using actual flight/arrival times knows they will violate the lookback rest requirements? If they proceed anyway, under what section would the FAA take enforcement action? 3. Can the 30 minutes of duty time after actual arrival be waived by the crew, even if it is proscribed in the FAA approved operations manual? If not, must the crew calculate that into the final leg to insure they return with at least 30 minutes left in their duty period? Comments Your comments should address the 6 points raised below. Responses that include these elements provide the FAA a meaningful basis for determining its final responses. 1. What are your views on how the FAA should answer the requesters' questions stated above? 2. What are your views on how the FAA intends to address the issues about late arriving passengers or cargo being an unforeseen circumstance under section 135.263(d) and the timely receipt of section 135.267(d) rest? 3. What industry operational practices support your views? Please provide documentation of such practices. 4. What is the safety policy that supports your views or practices? 5. What regulatory history supports your position? 6. In your opinion, are there any prior FAA interpretations that are controlling or that are at least instructive on the matter? Issued in Washington, DC on May 5, 2006. Rebecca B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations Division. [FR Doc. 06-4361 Filed 5-10-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 9

Traces to 9 documents

CFR

U.S. Code

3 references not yet in our index