Rules and Regulations. Notice of briefing

8,502 words·~39 min read·/register/2006/06/19/06-5515

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

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53973; File No. SR-Amex-2006-34] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to Minor Rule Violations and the Bunching of Odd-Lot Orders June 12, 2006. On April 12, 2006, 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 include violations of its rule governing the bunching of odd-lot orders (Amex Rule 208) in Amex Rule 590, its Minor Rule Violation Plan (“Plan”).

The proposed rule change was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on May 10, 2006. 3 The Commission received no comments regarding the proposal. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53749 (May 2, 2006), 71 FR 27298. The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 4 In particular, the Commission believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 5 because handling violations of Amex Rule 208 pursuant to the Plan would enable prompt resolution of such violations in the interest of protecting investors and the public interest.

The Commission also believes that the proposal is consistent with Sections 6(b)(1) and 6(b)(6) of the Act, 6 which require that the rules of an exchange enforce compliance with, and provide appropriate discipline for, violations of Commission and Exchange rules. In addition, because existing Amex Rule 590 provides procedural rights to a person fined under the Plan to contest the fine and permits a hearing on the matter, the Commission believes the Plan, as amended by this proposal, provides a fair procedure for the disciplining of members and persons associated with members, consistent with Sections 6(b)(7) and 6(d)(1) of the Act. 7 4 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). 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1) and 78f(b)(6). 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7) and 78f(d)(1).

Finally, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the public interest, the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as required by Rule 19d-1(c)(2) under the Act 8 which governs minor rule violation plans. The Commission believes that the change to the Plan will strengthen the Exchange's ability to carry out its oversight and enforcement responsibilities as a self-regulatory organization in cases where full disciplinary proceedings are unsuitable in view of the minor nature of the particular violation. 8 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).

In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission in no way minimizes the importance of compliance with Amex rules and all other rules subject to the imposition of fines under the Plan. The Commission believes that the violation of any self-regulatory organization's rules, as well as Commission rules, is a serious matter. However, the Plan provides a reasonable means of addressing rule violations that do not rise to the level of requiring formal disciplinary proceedings, while providing greater flexibility in handling certain violations.

The Commission expects that Amex will continue to conduct surveillance with due diligence and make determinations based on its findings, on a case-by-case basis, as to whether a fine of more or less than the recommended amount is appropriate for a violation of Amex Rule 208 under the Plan or whether such a violation requires formal disciplinary action. *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 9 and Rule 19d-1(c)(2) under the Act, 10 that the proposed rule change (SR-Amex-2006-34) be, and hereby is, approved and declared effective. 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 10 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).

For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 11 11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12); 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(44). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-9579 Filed 6-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53976; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-39] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change Regarding the e-DPM Membership Ownership Requirement June 12, 2006.

On April 20, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” 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 clarify the membership ownership requirements for e-DPMs set forth in CBOE Rule 8.92(d). Specifically, the proposal clarifies that a parent company of an e-DPM entity may own or lease the required memberships on behalf of the e-DPM entity provided such memberships are dedicated solely to the e-DPM organization's e-DPM activity.

The proposed rule change was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on May 12, 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. 53771 (May 8, 2006), 71 FR 27757. The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange 4 and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6 of the Act 5 and the rules and regulations thereunder.

The Commission specifically finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 6 in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments 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. The Commission believes that the proposal should provide more flexibility to e-DPM organizations in satisfying the membership ownership requirements of CBOE Rule 8.92. 4 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 5 15 U.S.C. 78f. 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 7 that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2006-39) is approved. 7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

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. E6-9577 Filed 6-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53972; File No. SR-NASD-2006-069] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Extending the Pilot Relating To Manning Price-Improvement Standards for Decimalized Securities June 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 June 1, 2006, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by NASD. NASD has designated the proposal as constituting a “non-controversial” proposed rule change under section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders it 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). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change NASD is proposing to extend through December 31, 2006, the current pilot price-improvement standards for decimalized securities contained in NASD Interpretive Material (“IM”) 2110-2—Trading Ahead of Customer Limit Order (“Manning Rule”).

There are no proposed changes to rule text. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, NASD included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. NASD has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose NASD's Manning Rule requires an NASD member firm to provide a minimum level of price improvement to incoming orders in Nasdaq and exchange-listed securities if the firm chooses to trade as principal with those incoming orders at prices equal to or better than customer limit orders the firm currently holds. 5 If a firm fails to provide the minimum level of price improvement to the incoming order, the firm must execute its held customer limit orders at the price at which the firm traded for its own account or better.

Generally, if a firm fails to provide the requisite amount of price improvement and also fails to execute its held customer limit orders, it is in violation of the Manning Rule. 5 The Commission recently approved amendments to the Manning Rule to require members to provide price improvement to customer limit orders in certain circumstances and expand the application of the Manning Rule to exchange-listed securities. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52210 (August 4, 2005), 70 FR 46897 (August 11, 2005) (SR-NASD-2004-089).

These amendments became effective January 2, 2006. *See* NASD Notice to Members 05-64. The Commission also recently approved further amendments to the Manning Rule to codify NASD's existing position that the Manning Rule applies to all members, whether acting as a market maker or not. These amendments became effective April 14, 2006. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53653 (April 14, 2006), 71 FR 20429 (April 20, 2006) (SR-NASD-2006-035). On April 6, 2001, 6 the Commission approved, on a pilot basis, price improvement standards for decimalized securities contained in the Manning Rule, which added the following language to IM-2110-2: 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44165 (April 6, 2001), 66 FR 19268 (April 13, 2001) (SR-NASD-2001-27).

For Nasdaq securities authorized for trading in decimals pursuant to the Decimals Implementation Plan For the Equities and Options Markets, the minimum amount of price improvement necessary in order for a market maker to execute an incoming order on a proprietary basis in a security trading in decimals when holding an unexecuted limit order in that same security, and not be required to execute the held limit order, is as follows:

(1)For customer limit orders priced at or inside the best inside market displayed in Nasdaq, the minimum amount of price improvement required is $0.01; and

(2)For customer limit orders priced outside the best inside market displayed in Nasdaq, the market maker must price improve the incoming order by executing the incoming order at a price at least equal to the next superior minimum quotation increment in Nasdaq (currently $0.01). 7 7 Pursuant to the terms of the Decimals Implementation Plan for the Equities and Options Markets, the minimum quotation increment for Nasdaq securities at the outset of decimal pricing is $0.01. On June 9, 2005, the Commission adopted Rule 612 of Regulation NMS which establishes minimum pricing increments for NMS stocks ( *e.g.* , Nasdaq and exchange-listed securities). Rule 612 of Regulation NMS prohibits market participants from displaying, ranking, or accepting quotations, orders, or indications of interest in any NMS stock priced in an increment smaller than $0.01 if the quotation, order, or indication of interest is priced equal to or greater than $1.00 per share. If the quotation, order, or indication of interest is priced less than $1.00 per share, the minimum pricing increment is $0.0001. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005) (File No. S7-10-04). Rule 612 of Regulation NMS became effective on January 31, 2006. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52196 (August 2, 2005), 70 FR 45529 (August 8, 2005). Given the adoption and implementation of Rule 612 of Regulation NMS, Nasdaq, among other market centers, implemented changes to its trading systems to accept, rank, execute and disseminate priced quotations in accordance with Rule 612 of Regulation NMS. Quotations submitted to Nasdaq that are not in compliance with Rule 612 of Regulation NMS are rejected. Since approval, these standards continue to operate on a pilot basis that terminates on June 30, 2006. 8 NASD has determined to seek an extension of its current Manning Rule pilot until December 31, 2006. NASD believes that such an extension provides for an appropriate continuation of the current Manning Rule price improvement standards while the Commission continues to analyze the issues related to customer limit order protection in a decimalized environment. NASD is not proposing any other changes to the pilot at this time. NASD proposes to make the proposed rule change operative on July 1, 2006. 8 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53026 (December 27, 2005), 71 FR 377 (January 4, 2006) (SR-NASD-2005-152). 2. Statutory Basis NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, 9 which requires, among other things, that NASD rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. NASD believes that the proposed rule change will improve treatment of customer limit orders and enhance the integrity of the market. 9 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3(b)(6). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition NASD does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others Written comments were neither solicited nor received by NASD. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:

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

(ii)impose any significant burden on competition; and

(iii)become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, provided that NASD has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as designated by the Commission, 10 the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 10 Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The NASD provided notice to the Commission four business days prior to filing the proposed rule change, and the Commission has determined to waive the five business day pre-filing notice requirement. 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 11 *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 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-2006-069 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2006-069. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of NASD. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2006-069 and should be submitted on or before July 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. E6-9530 Filed 6-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53971; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2006-22] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Increasing the Maximum Weighting of Certain Component Stocks in Indexes or Portfolios Underlying Investment Company Units June 12, 2006. Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on May 22, 2006, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by NYSE Arca. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons, and is approving the proposal on an accelerated basis. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange, through its wholly owned subsidiary NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (“NYSE Arca Equities”), proposes to amend its rules governing NYSE Arca, L.L.C., the equities trading facility of NYSE Arca Equities. The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .01(a)(3) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), to increase from 25 percent to 30 percent the maximum weight of the most heavily weighted component stock of an index or portfolio underlying a series of Investment Company Units (“ICUs”). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the NYSE Arca Web site ( *http://www.nysearca.com* ), at the Commission's Public Reference Room, and the principal office of NYSE Arca. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, NYSE Arca 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 III below. NYSE Arca 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 NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) provides listing standards for ICUs to permit listing and trading of these securities pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Exchange Act. 3 Rule 19b-4(e) provides that the listing and trading of a new derivative securities product by a self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) shall not be deemed a proposed rule change, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(c)(1) under the Exchange Act, 4 if the Commission has approved, pursuant to section 19(b) of the Exchange Act, 5 the SRO's trading rules, procedures and listing standards for the product class that would include the new derivative securities product, and the SRO has a surveillance program for the product class. 6 These standards are frequently referred to as “generic” listing standards. 3 17 CFR 240.19b-4(e). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(c)(1). 5 15 U.S.C. 78s(b). 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40761 (December 8, 1998), 63 FR 70952 (December 22, 1998) (File No. S7-13-98). In October of 1999, the Commission approved PCX Equities 7 Rule 5.2(j)(3), which sets forth the rules related to the listing and trading criteria for ICUs. 8 In July 2001, the Commission also approved the Pacific Exchange's 9 generic listing standards for the listing and trading, or the trading pursuant to unlisted trading privileges, of ICUs under PCX Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3). 10 7 PCX Equities, Inc. was the predecessor to NYSE Arca Equities. 8 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 41983 (October 6, 1999), 64 FR 56008 (October 15, 1999) (SR-PCX-98-29). 9 The Pacific Exchange, Inc. was the predecessor to NYSE Arca. 10 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44551 (July 12, 2001), 66 FR 37716 (July 19, 2001) (SR-PCX-2001-14). NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) provides that, upon the initial listing of a series of ICUs under Rule 19b-4(e), component stocks that in the aggregate account for at least 90 percent of the weight of the index or portfolio underlying such series must have a minimum market value of at least $75 million. In addition, the component stocks in the index or portfolio must have a minimum monthly trading volume during each of the last six months of at least 250,000 shares for stocks representing at least 90 percent of the weight of the index or portfolio. These standards assure that the underlying index's or portfolio's component stocks are generally actively traded and with substantial market capitalization. Currently, Commentary .01(a)(3) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) also provides that the most heavily weighted component stock in an underlying index or portfolio cannot exceed 25 percent of the weight of the index or portfolio, and the five most heavily weighted component stocks cannot exceed 65 percent of the weight of the index or portfolio. The Exchange proposes to increase from 25 percent to 30 percent the permissible weight of the most heavily weighted component stock in an underlying index or portfolio. 11 The five most heavily weighted stocks would continue to be required to represent no more than 65 percent of the weight of the index or portfolio. The Exchange states that this change will provide additional flexibility to issuers of ICUs to be listed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) in developing ICUs based on indexes or portfolios. 11 The New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”) recently proposed a substantially identical revision to its ICU rules. *See* SR-NYSE-2006-39, available on the NYSE Web site ( *http://www.nyse.com* ), and *infra* note 18. The Exchange notes that unit investment trusts and mutual funds are subject to Internal Revenue Code Subchapter M requirements applicable to regulated investment companies. In order to maintain regulated investment company status, these entities would be required to rebalance their portfolios quarterly to avoid any one stock exceeding a 25 percent weighting in the trust's or fund's portfolio. 12 12 According to NYSE Arca, under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code, for a fund to qualify as a regulated investment company, the securities of a single issuer can account for no more than 25 percent of a fund's total assets, and at least 50 percent of a fund's total assets must be comprised of cash (including government securities) and securities of single issuers whose securities account for less than 5 percent of such fund's total assets. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Exchange Act, 13 in general, and furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act, 14 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system. 13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 14 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others No written comments were neither solicited nor received. III. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange 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 *rules-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File No. SR-NYSEArca-2006-22 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-NYSEArca-2006-22. 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 NYSE Arca. 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-NYSEArca-2006-22 and should be submitted July 10, 2006. IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 15 In particular, the Commission believes that the proposal is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act, 16 which requires 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 a national market system, and, in general, to and protect investors and the public interest. The Commission believes that the proposed rule is reasonably designed to provide additional flexibility in listing ICUs under the Exchange's generic listing standards. The Commission further believes that the proposed rule change will serve to protect investors and the public interest by maintaining the size and liquidity requirements applicable to the securities underlying the relevant index or portfolio. 15 In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered its impact on efficiency, competition, and a capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 16 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). Under section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, 17 the Commission may not approve any proposed rule change prior the thirtieth day after the date of publication of the notice of filing thereof, unless the Commission finds good cause for so doing. The Commission hereby finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after publishing notice of the filing thereof in the **Federal Register.** The Commission notes that it has previously approved similar proposals by the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”), and Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE”) to increase to 30 percent the permissible weight of the most heavily weighted component stock in an underlying index. 18 17 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 18 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 44532 (July 10, 2001), 66 FR 37078 (July 16, 2001) (SR-Amex-2001-25) (approving an increase for indexes underlying Portfolio Depositary Receipts and Index Fund shares listed on the Amex) and 44908 (October 4, 2001), 66 FR 52161 (October 12, 2001) (SR-CBOE-2001-38) (approving an increase for indexes underlying Index Portfolio Receipts and Index Portfolio Shares listed on the CBOE). *See also* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53934 (June 1, 2006), 71 FR 33326 (June 8, 2006) (NYSE 2006-39) (approving an increase for indexes or portfolios underlying a series of Investment Company Units listed on NYSE). For the reasons set forth above, the Commission finds good cause to accelerate approval of the proposed rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act. V. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2006-22) is hereby approved on an accelerated basis. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 19 19 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jill M. Peterson, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-9534 Filed 6-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5446] Update on Current Universal Postal Union Issues AGENCY: Department of State. ACTION: Notice of briefing. The Department of State will host a briefing on Wednesday, July 19, 2006, to provide an update on current Universal Postal Union issues, including the results of the March 2006 session of the UPU Postal Operations Council in Bern. The briefing will be held from 1:30 p.m. until approximately 4 p.m., on July 19, 2006 in Room 1207 of the Department of State, 2201 C Street, NW., Washington, DC. The briefing will be open to the public up to the capacity of the meeting room of 50. Special attention will be paid to further reform of the UPU, terminal dues, priorities of the Consultative Committee, the UPU's efforts to measure service performance and achievement of UPU strategic plans, and the U.S. Government policy toward extraterritorial offices of exchange. Dennise Mathieu, Director of the Office of Technical Specialized Agencies of the Department of State, will chair the briefing. Entry to the Department of State building is controlled and will be facilitated by advance arrangements. In order to arrange admittance, persons desiring to attend the briefing should, no later than close of business on July 18, 2006, notify the Office of Technical and Specialized Agencies, Bureau of International Organization Affairs, Department of State, preferably by fax. The name of the meeting and the individual's name, Social Security number, date of birth, professional affiliation, address and telephone number should be indicated. The fax number to use is

(202)647-8902. Voice telephone is

(202)647-1044. This request applies to both government and non-government individuals. All attendees must use the main entrance of the Department of State at 22nd and C Streets, NW. Please note that under current security restrictions, C Street is closed to vehicular traffic between 21st and 23rd Streets. Taxis may leave passengers at 21st and C Streets, 23rd and C Streets, or 22nd Street and Constitution Avenue. One of the following means of identification will be required for admittance: Any U.S. driver's license with photo, a passport, or any U.S. Government agency identification card. Questions concerning the briefing may be directed to Mr. Dennis Delehanty at

(202)647-4197 or via e-mail at *delehantydm@state.gov.* Dated: June 12, 2006. Dennise Mathieu, Office Director for Postal Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-9595 Filed 6-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-19-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary Privacy Act of 1974: System of Records AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT. ACTION: Notice to establish a system of records. SUMMARY: DOT intends to establish a system of records under the Privacy Act of 1974. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 31, 2006. If no comments are received, the proposal will become effective on the above date. If comments are received, the comments will be considered and, where adopted, the documents will be republished with changes. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kara Spooner, Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590,

(202)366-1965 (telephone),

(202)366-7373 (fax), *kara.spooner@dot.gov* (Internet address). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of Transportation system of records notice subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, has been published in the **Federal Register** and is available from the above mentioned address. DOT/ALL 16 System name: Mailing Management Systems. Security classification: Unclassified, non-sensitive. System location: Records are maintained at the Department of Transportation

(DOT)in Washington, DC, the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts, the Transportation Safety Institute in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation in Massena, New York. Categories of individuals covered by the system: Members of the public and Department of Transportation and other government agency employees who have requested to receive one-time or periodic mailings from DOT. Categories of records in the system: Individual name, contact information, title and organization, if applicable, details regarding the requested publication and payment information for those publications for sale. Authority for maintenance of the system: 5 U.S.C. 301; 49 U.S.C. 322. Purpose(s): To provide individuals and other government agencies, at their request, with mailed copies of publicly available information about DOT and its operating administrations' programs. Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:

(1)The address portion of the records is compared against a master address list of the United States Postal Service to verify valid addresses;

(2)to printing services that are contracted by DOT to print and mail the reports and other publications. Disclosure to consumer reporting agencies: None. Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system: Storage: Records are stored manually in file folders and electronically in mailing management system applications and databases. Retrievability: Records are retrievable by customer number, customer name, customer address, mailing list title and publication ID number. Safeguards: Access to the system is limited to individuals responsible for distributing mailings of publications and the system administrator through the use of user IDs and passwords. Physical access to the system and manual records is restricted through security guards and access badges to enter the facility where equipment and records are located. Records received in hard copy (e.g., requests submitted by letter or fax) are kept in files stored in locked file cabinets, with access limited to those who conduct the distribution or administer the system. Retention and disposal: System records, with the exception of those at the VOLPE center, are retained until either the request has been met, the individual requests removal from the system, or the individual's address cannot be verified as valid by the United States Postal Service, depending on the database. Payment information associated with publication requests for which there is a charge is retained for 30 days or less. Records maintained at the Volpe center are retained for up to five years. System manager(s) and address: Office of the Secretary of Transportation Information Services, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590; Federal Highway Administration Office of Information Management, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590; Director, Office of Administration, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, 55 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02142; Director, Transportation Safety Institute, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73169; Director, Office of Administration, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation at 180 Andrews Street, Massena, New York 13662-0520. Notification procedure: Individuals seeking to determine whether their information is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Department of Transportation Freedom Of Information Act and Privacy Act Office at 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington DC 20590. Requests should include name, address and telephone number and describe the records you seek. Record access procedures: Same as “Notification procedure.” Contesting record procedures: Same as “System Manager. “ Record source categories: Individuals provide their name and mailing address directly as part of the request to obtain copies of publications. These requests are accepted by the Department of Transportation, its operating administrations, and its contractors by telephone, fax, public Web site, postal mail, and e-mail. Exemptions claimed for the system: None. Dated: June 13, 2006. Kara Spooner, Departmental Privacy Officer. [FR Doc. E6-9581 Filed 6-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary Privacy Act of 1974: System of Records AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT. ACTION: Notice to establish a system of records. SUMMARY: DOT intends to establish a system of records under the Privacy Act of 1974. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 31, 2006. If no comments are received, the proposal will become effective on the above date. If comments are received, the comments will be considered and, where adopted, the documents will be republished with changes. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kara Spooner, Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590,

(202)366-1965 (telephone),

(202)366-7373 (fax), *kara.spooner@dot.gov* (Internet address). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of Transportation system of records notice subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, has been published in the **Federal Register** and is available from the above mentioned address. DOT/ALL 17 System name: Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Case Files. Security classification: Unclassified, non-sensitive. System location: These records are located at Department of Transportation

(DOT)Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA)and Privacy Act

(PA)offices located in Washington, DC, as well as FOIA Coordination offices at regional locations. Categories of individuals covered by the system: Individuals who submit FOIA and PA requests and administrative appeals to DOT. Categories of records in the system: This system contains records and related correspondence on individuals who have filed requests for information under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act of 1974, including requests for review of initial denials of such requests; copies of requested records and records under administrative appeal. Authority for maintenance of the system: 5 U.S.C. 552, Freedom of Information Act, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. Purpose(s): These records are maintained to process individuals' requests made under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act of 1974. Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses: To another Federal agency

(a)with an interest in the record in connection with a referral of a Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA)request to that agency for its views or decision on disclosure, or

(b)in order to obtain advice and recommendations concerning matters on which the agency has specialized experience or particular competence that may be useful to DOT in making required determinations under the FOIA. See also Prefatory Statement of General Routine Uses. Disclosure to consumer reporting agencies: None. Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system: Storage: Records are stored manually in file folders and electronically in databases. Retrievability: Records are retrieved by the name of the individual who made the request or FOIA case tracking or control number. Safeguards: Computer records are maintained in a secure, password protected computer system. Paper records are maintained in lockable file cabinets. All records are maintained in secure, access-controlled areas or buildings. Retention and disposal: Records are retained according to the National Archives' General Records Schedule 14 for FOIA request, appeal, control, reports and administrative files and Privacy Act request, amendment case, accounting of disclosure, control and administrative files. System manager(s) and address: Freedom of Information Act Officer, Department of Transportation, 400 7th Street, SW., Room 5432, Washington, DC 20590, for all elements of the Department of Transportation except the Federal Aviation Administration; Freedom of Information Act Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, Washington, DC 20591. Notification procedure: Same as “System Manager.” Record access procedures: Same as “System Manager.” Contesting record procedures: Same as “System Manager.” Record source categories: Those individuals who submit initial requests and administrative appeals pursuant to FOIA and PA, the agency records obtained in the process of responding to such requests and appeals, and DOT personnel who handle such requests and appeals. Exemptions claimed for the system: During the course of a FOIA or PA action, exempt materials from other systems of records may in turn become part of the case records in this system. To the extent that copies of exempt records from those ‘other’ systems of records are entered into the FOIA/PA case file, the same exemptions apply for those records, as are claimed for the original systems of records which they are a part. Dated: June 13, 2006. Kara Spooner, Departmental Privacy Officer. [FR Doc. E6-9580 Filed 6-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Approval of Noise Compatibility Program for Scottsdale Airport, Scottsdale, AZ AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)announces its findings on the noise compatibility program submitted by the City of Scottsdale, Arizona under the provisions of Title I of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act, as amended, (Public Law 96-193) (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and 14 CFR part 150. These findings are made in recognition of the description of Federal and nonfederal responsibilities in Senate Report No. 96-52 (1980). On January 21, 2005, the FAA determined that the noise exposure maps submitted by the City of Scottsdale under Part 150 were in compliance with applicable requirements. DATES: *Effective Date:* The effective date of the FAA's approval of the Noise Compatibility Program for Scottsdale Airport is May 30, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Simmons, Environmental Protection Specialist, Airports Division, Arizona Standards Section, AWP-623.4, Western-Pacific Region, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 92007, Los Angeles, California, 90009-2007. Telephone: 310/725-3614. Documents reflecting this FAA action may be reviewed in the Office of the Airports Division, 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Room 3012, Hawthorne, California, 90261. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA has given its overall approval to the Noise Compatibility Program for Scottsdale Airport, effective May 30, 2006. Under section 104(a) of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979, as amended (herein after referred to as the “Act”) [recodified as 49 U.S.C. 47504], an airport operator who has previously submitted a Noise Exposure Map may submit to the FAA a Noise Compatibility Program which sets forth the measures taken or proposed by the airport operator for the reduction of existing non-compatible land uses and prevention of additional non-compatible land uses within the area covered by the Noise Exposure Maps. The Act requires such programs to be developed in consultation with interested and affected parties including local communities, government agencies, airport users, and FAA personnel. Each airport noise compatibility program developed in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulation

(FAR)Part 150 is a local program, not a Federal program. The FAA does not substitute its judgment for that of the airport proprietor with respect to which measures should be recommended for action. The FAA's approval or disapproval of FAR Part 150 program recommendations is measured according to the standards expressed in Part 150 and the Act and is limited to the following determinations: a. The Noise Compatibility Program was developed in accordance with the provisions and procedures of FAR Part 150; b. Program measures are reasonably consistent with achieving the goals of reducing existing non-compatible land uses around the airport and preventing the introduction of additional non-compatible land uses; c. Program measures would not create an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce, unjustly discriminate against types or classes of aeronautical uses, violate the terms of airport grant agreements, or intrude into areas preempted by the Federal Government; and d. Program measures relating to the use of flight procedures can be implemented within the period covered by the program without derogating safety, adversely affecting the efficient use and management of the navigable airspace and air traffic control systems, or adversely affecting other powers and responsibilities of the Administrator prescribed by law. Specific limitations with respect to FAA's approval of an airport noise compatibility program are delineated in FAR Part 150, section 150.5. Approval is not a determination concerning the acceptability of land uses under Federal, State, or local law. Approval does not by itself constitute an FAA implementing action. A request for Federal action or approval to implement specific noise compatibility measures may be required, and an FAA decision on the request may require an environmental assessment of the proposed action. Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the implementation of the program nor a determination that all measures covered by the program are eligible for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA under the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended. Where federal funding is sought, requests for project grants must be submitted to the FAA Airports Division Office in Hawthorne, California. The City of Scottsdale submitted to the FAA on October 13, 2004, the Noise Exposure Maps, descriptions, and other documentation produced during the noise compatibility planning study conducted from September 28, 1982 through October 13, 2004. The Scottsdale Airport Noise Exposure Maps were determined by FAA to be in compliance with applicable requirements on January 21, 2005. Notice of this determination was published in the **Federal Register** on February 7, 2005. The Scottsdale Airport study contains a proposed noise compatibility program comprised of actions designed for phased implementation by airport management and adjacent jurisdictions from September 28, 1982 to beyond the year 2009). It was requested that the FAA evaluate and approve this material as a Noise Compatibility Program as described in 49 U.S.C. 47504 (formerly Section 104(b) of the Act). The FAA began its review of the program on October 13, 2004 and was required by a provision of the Act to approve or disapprove the program within 180 days (other than the use of new or modified flight procedures for noise control). Failure to approve or disapprove such program within the 180-day period shall be deemed to be an approval of such program. The submitted program contained thirty

(30)proposed actions for noise abatement, land use planning and program management on and off the airport. The FAA completed its review and determined that the procedural and substantive requirements of the Act and FAR Part 150 have been satisfied. The overall program was approved by the Acting Associate Administrator for Airports, effective May 30, 2006. Outright approval was granted for twenty-eight

(28)of the thirty

(30)specific program measures and

(1)program element was approved in part and disapproved in part. The approved measures included such items as: Continued Informal Preferential Use of Runway 3; Continuation to encourage Stage 2 Aircraft to use Runway 21 for landings and Runway 3 for takeoffs; Continuation to discourage right downwind and right base pattern entry, long straight-in approaches, and right turn-outs prior to reaching the airport boundary for aircraft using Runway 3; Continuation to encourage right turns as soon as practical and discourage straight-out and left turns on departure from Runway 21. Continuation to prohibit stop-and-go operations, intersections take-offs, formations, and simulated single engine take-offs and training go arounds by multi-engine aircraft on Runway 21; Continuation to discourage descents below 2,500 feet mean sea level

(MSL)for practice instrument approaches; Continuation to encourage National Business Aviation Association

(NBAA)standard or manufacturer's comparable noise abatement procedures; Continuation to prohibit touch-and-go operations between 9:30 p.m. and 6 a.m.; Continuation to prohibit maintenance run-up operations between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.; Continuation to encourage use of AOPA Noise Awareness Steps by light single-engine aircraft; Request Air Traffic Control to coordinate on any new approach, departure, or routing procedures when ASR-11 radar installation is complete; Relocate the existing run-up area from the approach end of Runway 21 to the proposed site in the central portion of the airport; Inform transient helicopter pilots of the noise abatement flights paths; Change Phoenix Sectional Aeronautical Chart to depict additional populated places; Within their respective General Plans, the cities of Scottsdale and Phoenix should maintain the compatibility planned areas within the 55 DNL contour; The cities of Scottsdale and Phoenix should maintain the compatibly-zoned areas within the project study area; The City of Scottsdale should consider rezoning the parcel located directly north of the airport, within the 65 DNL noise contour, to a compatible land use. The parcel is currently utilized as a golf course. The cities of Scottsdale and Phoenix should enact Project Review Guidelines for those areas impacted by Airport operations; The cities of Scottsdale and Phoenix should adopt the overlay zones contained within the proposed Project Review Guidelines; If the Project Review Guidelines and Overlay Zoning Alternatives are not implemented, the City of Scottsdale should consider amending the subdivision regulations to require the issuance of navigation easements and fair disclosure notices for the areas contained within the AC-1, AC-2, and AC-3 of the overlay zoning; The City of Scottsdale should consider amending its current building codes to incorporate prescriptive noise standards; Should the Project Review Guidelines alternatives not be implemented, the City of Scottsdale should consider incorporating the 2009 noise contours into its general plan to allow for an additional level of fair disclosure; The City of Phoenix should consider rezoning the areas located north of the Central Arizona Project

(CAP)canal, which are currently zoned for residential land, uses and planned industrial or commercial land uses; Update Noise Exposure Maps and Noise Compatibility Program; Monitor implementation of the updated Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program; Continue noise complaint tracking program; Continue and expand airport signage program; and Airport Pilot and Community Outreach Program. Approval was not granted to three

(3)proposed program elements and one

(1)program element was disapproved in part. The disapproved measures included such items as: Encourage the use of published approach patterns for Runway 21; The City will encourage FAA to chart visual flight procedures to provide pilots with minimum safe flying altitudes and paths on approach; and Construction of a run-up enclosure. These determinations are set forth in detail in the Record of Approval signed by the Acting Associate Administrator for Airports, May 30, 2006. The Record of Approval, as well as other evaluation materials and the documents comprising the submittal, are available for review at the FAA office listed above and at the administrative offices of the City of Scottsdale. The Record of Approval also will be available on-line at: *http://www.faa.gov/arp/environmental/14cfr150/index14.cfm* . Issued in Hawthorne, California on June 9, 2006. George E. Aiken, Acting Manager, Airports Division, Western-Pacific Region, AWP-600. [FR Doc. 06-5515 Filed 6-16-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 9

Traces to 9 documents

U.S. Code