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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-07-06 · U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) · Notices

Notices. Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment

19,012 words·~86 min read·/register/2006/07/06/06-6023

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

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)Review; Comment Request AGENCY: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment. SUMMARY: The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 1. *Type of submission, new, revision, or extension:* Revision. 2. *The title of the information collection:* NRC Form 244, Registration Certificate—Use of Depleted Uranium under General License. 3. *The form number if applicable:* NRC Form 244. 4. *How often the collection is required:* On occasion. NRC Form 244 is submitted when depleted uranium is received or transferred under general license. Information on NRC Form 244 is collected and evaluated on a continuing basis as events occur. 5. *Who will be required or asked to report:* Persons receiving, possessing, using, or transferring depleted uranium under the general license established in 10 CFR 40.25(a). 6. *An estimate of the number of annual responses:* 5 (2 NRC licensees and 3 Agreement State licensees). 7. *The estimated number of annual respondents:* 5 (2 NRC licensees and 3 Agreement State licensees). 8. *The number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request:* 5 (1 hour per response—2 hours for NRC licensees and 3 hours for Agreement State licensees). 9. *An indication of whether section 3507(d), Public Law 104-13 applies:* Not applicable. 10. *Abstract:* 10 CFR part 40 establishes requirements for licenses for the receipt, possession, use and transfer of radioactive source and byproduct material. NRC Form 244 is used to report receipt and transfer of depleted uranium under general license, as required by section 40.25. The registration certification information required by NRC Form 244 is necessary to permit the NRC to make a determination on whether the possession, use, and transfer of depleted uranium source and byproduct material is in conformance with the Commission's regulations for protection of public health and safety. A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site: *http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html.* The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice. Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer listed below by August 7, 2006. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date. John A. Asalone, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0031), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Comments can also be e-mailed to *John_A._Asalone@omb.eop.gov* or submitted by telephone at
(202)395-4650. The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, 301-415-7233. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of June, 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services. [FR Doc. E6-10523 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 72-7 and 50-255; License No. DPR-20] Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Consideration of Request for Action Under 10 CFR 2.206 AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Receipt and consideration of request for action under 10 CFR 2.206. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L. Raynard Wharton, Senior Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone:
(301)415-1396; Fax number:
(301)415-8555: E-mail: *Irw@nrc.gov* . Introduction Notice is hereby given that by petition dated April 4, 2006, Mr. Terry J. Lodge (Counsel for Petitioners) has requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)take action with regard to the Nuclear Management Company, LLC
(NMC)Palisades Nuclear Plant (PNP). The petitioners' request that the NRC take enforcement action against PNP by condemning and stopping the use of the two independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) concrete pads, constructed in 1992 and 2003, which hold dry spent fuel storage casks at the plant site. Request As the basis for the request, the petitioners state that both ISFSI concrete pads at PNP do not conform to NRC requirements for earthquake stability standards and pose a distinct hazard in the event of an earthquake. The request concerning slope stability of the 2003 concrete pad is being treated pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations. The request has been referred to the Director of the Spent Fuel Project Office within the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. As provided by 10 CFR 2.206, appropriate action will be taken on this petition within a reasonable time. Representatives of Mr. Lodge spoke with the Petition Review Board on April 26, 2006, to discuss the petition. The results of that discussion were considered in the Board's determination regarding condemning and stopping the use of the two ISFSI concrete pads and in establishing a schedule for the review of the petition. By letter dated June 27, 2006, the Spent Fuel Project Office Deputy Director accepted the petition for review in part, specifically with respect to slope stability of the concrete pad constructed in 2003. Further Information A copy of the petition may be inspected at NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . This document may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Persons who do not have access to the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or
(301)415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 27th day of June, 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. L. Raynard Wharton, Senior Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E6-10525 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362] Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas and Electric Company, the City of Riverside, CA, the City of Anaheim, CA; San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3; Exemption 1.0 Background Southern California Edison Company (the licensee) is the holder of Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-10 and NPF-15, which authorize operation of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2 and Unit 3 (SONGS 2 and 3), respectively. The licenses provide, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) now or hereafter in effect. The facility consists of two pressurized-water reactors located in San Diego County, California. 2.0 Request/action Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 50, Appendix G, which is invoked by 10 CFR 50.60, requires that pressure-temperature (P-T) limits be established for reactor pressure vessels
(RPVs)during normal operating and hydrostatic or leak rate testing conditions. Specifically, 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, states that “[t]he appropriate requirements on both the pressure-temperature limits and the minimum permissible temperature must be met for all conditions,” and “[t]he pressure-temperature limits identified as ‘ASME [American Society for Mechanical Engineers] Appendix G limits' in Table 3 require that the limits must be at least as conservative as limits obtained by following the methods of analysis and the margins of safety of Appendix G of Section XI of the ASME Code [Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code].” Part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Appendix G, also specifies that the editions and addenda of the ASME Code, Section XI, which are incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 50.55a, apply to the requirements in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G. In the 2005 Edition of the Code of Federal Regulations, the 1977 Edition through the 2003 Addenda of the ASME Code, Section XI are incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 50.55a. Finally, 10 CFR 50.60(b) states that, “[p]roposed alternatives to the described requirements in Append[ix] G * * * of this part or portions thereof may be used when an exemption is granted by the Commission under [10 CFR 50.12].” In the licensee's January 28, 2005, license amendment request to implement a pressure-temperature limits report
(PTLR)for SONGS 2 and 3, the licensee identified Combustion Engineering
(CE)Owners Group Topical Report NPSD-683-A, “The Development of a RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Pressure and Temperature Limits Report for the Removal of P-T Limits and LTOP [low temperature overpressure protection] Setpoints from the Technical Specifications,” as the PTLR methodology that would be cited in the administrative control section of the SONGS 2 and 3 Technical Specifications governing PTLR content. CE NPSD-683-A refers to an NRC-approved version of Topical Report CE NPSD-683. The NRC staff evaluated the specific PTLR methodology in CE NPSD-683, Revision 6. This evaluation was documented in the NRC safety evaluation
(SE)of March 16, 2001, which specified additional licensee actions that are necessary to support a licensee's adoption of CE NPSD-683, Revision 6. The final approved version of this report was reissued as CE NPSD-683-A, Revision 6, which included the NRC SE and the required additional action items as an attachment to the report. One of the additional specified actions stated that if a licensee proposed to utilize the methodology in CE NPSD-683, Revision 6, for the calculation of flaw stress intensity factors due to membrane stress from pressure loading (K IM ), an exemption was required since the methodology for the calculation of K IM values in CE NPSD-683, Revision 6, could not be shown to be conservative with respect to the methodology for the determination of K IM provided in editions and addenda of the ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix G, through the 2003 Addenda. Therefore, in connection with the licensee's January 28, 2005, license amendment request, as supplemented by its letter dated January 12, 2006, the licensee also submitted an exemption request, consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.60, to apply the K IM calculational methodology of CE NPSD-683-A, Revision 6, as part of the SONGS 2 and 3 PTLR methodology. During the NRC staff's review of CE NPSD-683, Revision 6, the NRC staff evaluated the K IM calculational methodology of CE NPSD-683, Revision 6, versus the methodologies for K IM calculation given in the ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix G. In the staff's March 16, 2001 SE, the staff noted, “[t]he CE NSSS [nuclear steam supply system] methodology does not invoke the methods in the 1995 edition of Appendix G to the Code for calculating K IM factors, and instead applies FEM [finite element modeling] methods for estimating the K IM factors for the RPV shell * * * the staff has determined that the K IM calculation methods apply FEM modeling that is similar to that used for the determination of the K IT factors [as codified in the ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix G]. The staff has also determined that there is only a slight non-conservative difference between the P-T limits generated from the 1989 edition of Appendix G to the Code and those generated from CE NSSS methodology as documented in Evaluation No. 063-PENG-ER-096, Revision 00. The staff considers that this difference is reasonable and that it will be consistent with the expected improvements in P-T generation methods that have been incorporated into the 1995 edition of Appendix G to the Code.” In summary, the staff concluded in its March 16, 2001, SE that the calculation of K IM using the CE NPSD-683, Revision 6, methodology would lead to the development of P-T limit curves, which may be slightly non-conservative with respect to those which would be calculated using the ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix G, and that such a difference was to be expected with the development of more refined calculational techniques. Furthermore, the staff concluded in its March 16, 2001, SE that P-T limit curves that would be developed using the methodology of CE NPSD-683, Revision 6, would be adequate for protecting the RPV from brittle fracture under all normal operating and hydrostatic/leak test conditions. 3.0 Discussion Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 when
(1)the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and
(2)when special circumstances are present. This exemption results in changes to the plant by allowing the use of an alternative methodology for calculating flaw stress intensity factors in the reactor pressure vessel due to membrane stress from pressure loadings in lieu of meeting the requirements in 10 CFR 50.60. As stated above, 10 CFR 50.12 allows NRC to grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50. In addition, the granting of the exemption will not result in violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the Commission's regulations. Therefore, the exemption is authorized by law. The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.60 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, is to ensure that appropriate pressure-temperature limits and the minimum permissible temperature are established for the reactor pressure vessel under normal operating and hydrostatic or leak rate conditions. The licensee's alternative methodology for establishing the P-T limits and low-temperature overpressure protection setpoints are described in Combustion Engineering Owners' Topical Report NPSD-683-A, and has been approved by the NRC staff. Based on the above, no new accident precursors are created by using the alternative methodology, thus, the probability of postulated accidents is not increased. Also, based on the above, the consequences of postulated accidents are not increased. In addition, the licensee will use an NRC-approved methodology for establishing P-T limits and minimum permissible temperatures for the reactor vessel. Therefore, there is no undue risk to the public health and safety. The exemption results in changes to the plant by allowing an alternative methodology for calculating flaw stress intensity factors in the reactor vessel. This change to the calculation of stresses in the reactor vessel material has no relation to security issues. Therefore, the common defense and security is not impacted by this exemption. Special circumstances, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), are present in that continued operation of SONGS 2 and 3 with P-T limit curves developed in accordance with the ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix G, without the authorization to utilize the alternative K IM calculational methodology of CE NPSD-683-A, Revision 6, is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G. Application of the K IM calculational methodology of CE NPSD-683-A, Revision 6, in lieu of the calculational methodology specified in the ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix G, provides an acceptable alternative evaluation procedure, which will continue to meet the underlying purpose of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G. The underlying purpose of the regulations in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, is to provide an acceptable margin of safety against brittle failure of the RCS during any condition of normal operation to which the pressure boundary may be subjected over its service lifetime. Based on the staff's March 16, 2001, SE regarding CE NPSD-683, Revision 6, and the licensee's rationale to support the exemption request, the staff accepts the licensee's determination that an exemption would be required to approve the use of the K IM calculational methodology of CE NPSD-683-A, Revision 6. The staff concludes that the application of the technical provisions of the K IM calculational methodology of CE NPSD-683-A, Revision 6, by SONGS 2 and 3 provides sufficient margin in the development of RPV P-T limit curves such that the underlying purpose of the regulations (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G) continues to be met. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the exemption requested by the licensee is justified based on the special circumstances of 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), “[a]pplication of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule.” Based upon a consideration of the conservatism that is explicitly incorporated into the methodologies of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, and ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix G, the staff concludes that application of the K IM calculational methodology of CE NPSD-683-A, Revision 6, as described, would provide an adequate margin of safety against brittle failure of the RPV. Therefore, the staff concludes that the exemption is appropriate under the special circumstances of 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), and that the application of the technical provisions of the K IM calculational methodology of CE NPSD-683-A, Revision 6, should be approved for use in the SONGS 2 and 3 PTLR methodology. 4.0 Conclusion Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants Southern California Edison Company an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, to allow application of the K IM calculational methodology of CE NPSD-683-A, Revision 6, in establishing the PTLR methodology for SONGS 2 and 3. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment (71 FR 19553; dated April 14, 2006). This exemption is effective upon issuance. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of June 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Catherine Haney, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-10529 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Proposed Collection; Comment Request *Upon written request, copies available from:* Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549. *Extension:* Rule 20a-1, SEC File No. 270-132, OMB Control No. 3235-0158. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit the existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for extension and approval. The title of the collection of information is “Rule 20a-1 under the Investment Company Act of 1940, Solicitation of Proxies, Consents and Authorizations.” Rule 20a-1 (17 CFR 270.20a-1) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 *et seq.* ) requires that the solicitation of a proxy, consent, or authorization with respect to a security issued by a registered investment company (“fund”) be in compliance with Regulation 14A (17 CFR 240.14a-1 *et seq.* ), Schedule 14A (17 CFR 240.14a-101), and all other rules and regulations adopted under section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78n(a)). It also requires a fund's investment adviser, or a prospective adviser, to transmit to the person making a proxy solicitation the information necessary to enable that person to comply with the rules and regulations applicable to the solicitation. Regulation 14A and Schedule 14A establish the disclosure requirements applicable to the solicitation of proxies, consents and authorizations. In particular, Item 22 of Schedule 14A contains extensive disclosure requirements for fund proxy statements. Among other things, it requires the disclosure of information about fund fee or expense increases, the election of directors, the approval of an investment advisory contract and the approval of a distribution plan. The Commission requires the dissemination of this information to assist investors in understanding their fund investments and the choices they may be asked to make regarding fund operations. The Commission does not use the information in proxies directly, but reviews proxy statement filings for compliance with applicable rules. It is estimated that funds file approximately 1,565 proxy solicitations annually with the Commission. That figure includes multiple filings by some funds. The total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden of the collection of information is estimated to be approximately 166,203 hours (1,565 responses × 106.2 hours per response). Written comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication. Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312, or via e-mail to: *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov.* Dated: June 20, 2006. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-10491 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54063] Order Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 608(e) Thereunder Extending a De Minimis Exemption for Transactions in Certain Exchange-Traded Funds From the Trade-Through Provisions of the Intermarket Trading System June 28, 2006. This order extends, through February 4, 2007, a *de minimis* exemption to the provisions of the Intermarket Trading System Plan (“ITS Plan”), 1 a national market system plan, 2 governing intermarket trade-throughs that currently is due to expire on June 28, 2006. The *de minimis* exemption was originally issued by the Commission on August 28, 2002 3 and extended on May 30, 2003, 4 on March 3, 2004, 5 on December 3, 2004, 6 and on September 6, 2005. 7 1 The self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) participating in the ITS Plan include the American Stock Exchange LLC, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc., the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., the National Stock Exchange, Inc. (formerly the Cincinnati Stock Exchange, Inc.), the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”), the New York Stock Exchange, Inc., the Pacific Exchange, Inc., and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (collectively, the “participants”). *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 19456 (January 27, 1983), 48 FR 4938 (February 3, 1983). 2 Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) Rule 608(c) (formerly Rule 11Aa3-2(d)), 17 CFR 242.608(c), promulgated under Section 11A, 15 U.S.C. 78k-1, of the Act requires each SRO to comply with, and enforce compliance by its members and their associated persons with, the terms of any effective national market system plan of which it is a sponsor or participant. Rule 608(e) (formerly Rule 11Aa3-2(f)), 17 CFR 242.608(e), under the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt, either unconditionally or on specified terms and conditions, any SRO, member of an SRO, or specified security from the requirement of the rule if the Commission determines that such exemption is consistent with the public interest, the protection of investors, the maintenance of fair and orderly markets and the removal of impediments to, and perfection of the mechanisms of, a national market system. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46428 (August 28, 2002), 67 FR 56607 (September 4, 2002) (the “August 2002 Order”). The August 2002 Order granted relief through June 4, 2003. 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47950 (May 30, 2003), 68 FR 33748 (June 5, 2003) (the “May 2003 Order”). The May 2003 Order granted relief through March 4, 2004. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49356 (March 3, 2004), 69 FR 11057 (March 9, 2004) (the “March 2004 Order”). The March 2004 Order granted relief through December 4, 2004. 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50795 (December 3, 2004), 69 FR 71445 (December 9, 2004) (the “December 2004 Order”). The December 2004 Order granted relief through September 4, 2005. 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52382 (September 6, 2005), 70 FR 53695 (September 9, 2005) (the “September 2005 Order”). The September Order granted relief through June 28, 2006. Specifically, this order continues the *de minimis* exemption from compliance with Section 8(d)(i) of the ITS Plan with respect to two specific exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”), the Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF (“DIA”) and the Standard & Poor's 500 Index ETF (“SPY”). 8 By its terms, the September 2005 Order continued the exemption from the trade-through provisions of the ITS Plan of any transactions in the two ETFs that are effected at prices at or within three cents away from the best bid and offer quoted in the Consolidated Quote System (“CQS”) through June 28, 2006. 8 The Commission limited the *de minimis* exemption to these two securities because they share certain characteristics that may make immediate execution of their shares highly desirable to certain investors. In particular, trading in the two ETFs is highly liquid and market participants may value an immediate execution at a displayed price more than the opportunity to obtain a slightly better price. Unlike prior orders, the December 2004 and September 2005 extensions of the *de minimis* exemption applied only to the DIA and the SPY, and not the QQQ, because, on December 1, 2004, trading of the QQQ transferred from the American Stock Exchange to Nasdaq, and thus trades in the QQQ ceased to be subject to the trade-through provisions of the ITS Plan. Accordingly, an exemption for the QQQ was no longer necessary. *See* December 2004 Order and September 2005 Order. In the Commission's previous orders to issue and extend the *de minimis* exemption, 9 the Commission discussed its basis for determining that the *de minimis* exemption is consistent with the public interest, the protection of investors, the maintenance of fair and orderly markets and the removal of impediments to, and perfection of the mechanisms of, a national market system. In the September 2005 Order, the Commission further noted that: 9 *See supra* notes 3 to 7. In March 2004 and in May 2003, the Commission extended the three cent *de minimis* exemption for additional nine-month periods, in order to assess trading data associated with the *de minimis* exemption and to consider whether to adopt the *de minimis* exemption on a permanent basis, to adopt some other alternative solution, or to allow the exemption to expire. As a result of its review of trading data associated with the *de minimis* exemption, the Commission has proposed, as part of its market structure initiatives, Regulation NMS under the Act, which would include a new rule relating to trade-throughs. On April 6, 2005, the Commission approved Regulation NMS under the Act. 10 In Regulation NMS, the Commission adopted an approach that, among other things, protects only automated quotations and excludes manual quotations from trade-through protection, and renders the *de minimis* exemption unnecessary. Given the significant systems and other changes necessary to implement Rule 610 and Rule 611, 11 the Commission originally established delayed compliance dates for Rule 610 and Rule 611, the first of which was scheduled to begin on June 29, 2006. 12 In the September 2005 Order, the Commission stated that until Regulation NMS is implemented, the reasons for maintaining the *de minimis* exemption in effect continue to be valid, and thus the Commission extended the *de minimis* exemption though June 28, 2006, which was the date before the initial compliance date for Rule 610 and Rule 611. 10 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005). 11 Rule 610 generally prohibits national securities exchanges and national securities associations from imposing unfairly discriminatory terms that prevent or inhibit access to quotations, and establishes a limit on access fees, and requires each national securities exchange and national securities association to adopt, maintain, and enforce written rules that prohibit their members from engaging in a pattern or practice of displaying quotations that lock or cross protected quotations. Rule 611 requires trading centers to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the execution of trades at prices inferior to protected quotations displayed by other trading centers, subject to an applicable exception. 12 *See supra* note 10. On May 18, 2006, the Commission extended the compliance dates for Rule 610 and Rule 611 to give trading centers additional time to finalize the development of their new or modified trading systems, and to give the securities industry sufficient time to establish the necessary access to such trading systems. 13 The initial compliance date was extended to a series of five dates, beginning on October 16, 2006, for different functional stages of compliance, with February 5, 2007 (the “Trading Phase Date”) being the final date for full operation of Regulation NMS-compliant trading systems for initial trade-through protection under Rule 611, as described in the NMS Extension Release. 13 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53829 (May 18, 2006), 71 FR 30037 (May 24, 2006) (“NMS Extension Release”). Therefore, to maintain the status quo and avoid requiring market participants to make short-term trading or programming changes pending the extended implementation period for Rule 610 and Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, it is appropriate to extend the *de minimis* exemption through February 4, 2007, the day before the Trading Phase Date. 14 The Commission emphasizes, as it did in the previous orders, 15 that the *de minimis* exemption does not relieve brokers and dealers of their best execution obligations under the federal securities laws and SRO rules. 14 The Commission expects most trading centers to be operating consistent with the requirements of Rule 611 by the Trading Phase Date. 15 *See supra* notes 3 to 7. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 11A of the Act and Rule 608(e) thereunder, 16 that participants of the ITS Plan and their members are hereby exempt from Section 8(d) of the ITS Plan during the period covered by this Order with respect to transactions in DIAs and SPYs that are executed at a price that is no more than three cents lower than the highest bid displayed in CQS and no more than three cents higher than the lowest offer displayed in CQS. This Order extends the *de minimis* exemption from June 29, 2006 through February 4, 2007. 16 17 CFR 242.608(e). By the Commission. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-10493 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54066; File No. SR-BSE-2006-24] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend a Pilot Program That Allows for No Minimum Size Order Requirement for the Price Improvement Period Process on the Boston Options Exchange June 29, 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 19, 2006, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (“BSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which items have been prepared by BSE. The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as a “non-controversial” 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 proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is *underlined* ; proposed deletions are in [brackets]. Chapter V, Section 18 Supplementary Material to Section 18 .01 During the extended Pilot Period [from August 7, 2005 to July 18, 2006], there will be no minimum size requirement for Customer Orders to be eligible for the PIP process. During this extended Pilot Period, BOXR will continue to submit certain data, periodically as required by the Commission, to provide supporting evidence that, among other things, there is meaningful competition for all size PIP orders, that there is significant price improvement for all orders executed through the PIP, and that there is an active and liquid market functioning on BOX outside of the PIP mechanism. Any data which is submitted to the Commission by BOXR will be provided on a confidential basis. *The Pilot Period shall expire on July 18, 2007.* .02 No Change. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend a Pilot Program under the Rules of the Boston Options Exchange (“BOX”) for an additional year. The Pilot Program allows BOX to have no minimum size requirement for orders entered into the Price Improvement Period (“PIP”) process. 5 The proposed rule change retains the text of Supplementary Material .01 to Section 18 of Chapter V of the BOX Rules and seeks to extend the operation of the PIP Pilot Program until July 18, 2007. 5 The Pilot Program is currently set to expire on July 18, 2006. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52149 (July 28, 2005), 70 FR 44704 (August 3, 2005). *See also* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49068 (January 13, 2004), 69 FR 2768 (January 20, 2004) (“Original PIP Pilot Program Approval Order”). The Exchange notes that the PIP Pilot Program provides small customer orders with benefits not available under the rules of other exchanges. One of the important factors of the PIP Pilot Program is that it guarantees members the right to trade with their customer orders that are less than 50 contracts. In particular, any order entered into the PIP is guaranteed an execution at the end of the auction at a price at least a penny better than the national best bid or offer. In further support of this proposed rule change, and as required by the Original PIP Pilot Program Approval Order, the Exchange represents that it has been submitting to the Commission a monthly PIP Pilot Program Report, offering detailed data from and analysis of the PIP Pilot Program. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the data demonstrates that there is sufficient investor interest and demand to extend the Pilot Program for another year. The Exchange represents that the proposed rule change is designed to provide investors with real and significant price improvement regardless of the size of the order. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, 6 in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 7 in particular, in that it is designed to provide price improvement to any order, which is consistent with the public interest and protection of investors from a best execution standpoint. Additionally, the Exchange believes that price improvement to any size order creates competition for the best execution of all orders, without unduly burdening competition. 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 7 7 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 result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The Exchange has designated the foregoing rule change as a “non-controversial” rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 8 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder 9 because the rule change does not:
(i)Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii)impose any significant burden on competition; or
(iii)become operative for 30 days from the day 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. The Exchange asserts that this proposed rule filing does not raise any additional or substantive issues from those raised when the Exchange sought to implement the Pilot Program. The Exchange also asserts that the information provided in the Pilot Program Reports supports the representations made at that time. 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 9 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 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. 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-BSE-2006-24 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BSE-2006-24. 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 BSE. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BSE-2006-24 and should be submitted on or before July 27, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 10 10 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-10533 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54067; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-57] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Amend CBOE Rule 8.7 Relating to Bid/Ask Differentials June 29, 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 21, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The CBOE has filed this proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend CBOE Rule 8.7, “Obligations of Market-Makers,” relating to bid/ask differentials in Hybrid and Hybrid 2.0 classes. The text of the proposed rule change appears below. Additions are *italicized.* Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated Rules Rule 8.7—Obligations of Market-Makers Rule 8.7.
(a)No change.
(b)No change. (i)-(iii) No change.
(iv)To price options contracts fairly by, among other things, bidding and/or offering in the following manner:
(A)No change.
(B)No change.
(C)Option Classes Trading on the Hybrid Trading System and Hybrid 2.0 Platform. Except as provided in subparagraphs
(i)and
(ii)below, option classes trading on the Hybrid Trading System and the Hybrid 2.0 Platform may be quoted electronically with a difference not to exceed $5 between the bid and offer regardless of the price of the bid. The provisions of Rule 8.7(b)(iv)(A) shall apply to any quotes given in open outcry in Hybrid classes and Hybrid 2.0 classes. i. The $5 bid/ask differential stated in subparagraph
(C)above shall not apply to *at-the-money series or* in-the-money series where the quote width on the primary market of the underlying security, or the quote width calculated by the Exchange or its agent for various indices pursuant to Interpretation .08, is wider than $5. For these series, the bid/ask differential may be as wide as the quote width on the primary market of the underlying security or calculated by the Exchange or its agent, as applicable * . For purposes of this subparagraph (C)(i), “in-the-money series” are defined as follows: for call options, all strike prices below the offer or last sale in the underlying security (whichever is higher); and for put options, all strike prices above the bid or last sale in the underlying security (whichever is lower); * and ii. No change. (c)-(e) No change. * * * Interpretations and Policies: .01-.13 No change. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The CBOE proposes to amend CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv)(C)(i) relating to bid/ask differentials in the Hybrid Trading System and Hybrid 2.0 Platform classes. Specifically, the CBOE proposes to revise the text of CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv)(C)(i) to include an interpretation of the meaning of “in-the-money” series and to include “at-the-money” series within the provisions of that paragraph. Recently, the CBOE amended its Rule 8.7 to provide, among other things, an exception to the general requirement that option classes trading on the Hybrid Trading System and the Hybrid 2.0 Platform may be quoted electronically with bid/ask differentials not to exceed $5 between the bid and offer regardless of the price of the bid. 5 One exception to this general requirement is that the $5 bid/ask differential does not apply to in-the-money series where the quote width on the primary market of the underlying security, or the quote width calculated by the Exchange or its agent for various indices pursuant to Interpretation .08 of CBOE Rule 8.7, is wider than $5. For these in-the-money series, the bid/ask differential may be as wide as the quote width on the primary market of the underlying security or the quote width calculated by the Exchange or its agent, as applicable. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53229 (February 6, 2006), 71 FR 7095 (February 10, 2006) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of File No. SR-CBOE-2006-12). The CBOE proposes to include in the text of CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv)(C)(i) an interpretation of the meaning of “in-the-money” series. The Exchange proposes that, for call options, “in-the-money” series include all strike prices below the offer or last sale in the underlying security, whichever is higher, and for put options, “in-the-money” series include all strike prices at or above the bid or last sale in the underlying security, whichever is lower. The CBOE believes that its proposed interpretation is consistent with the definition of “in-the-money” series included in the Options Disclosure Document (“ODD”), “Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options.” 6 6 In the ODD, “in-the-money” series are defined as: “A call option is said to be *in the money* if the current market value of the underlying interest is above the exercise price of the option. A put option is said to be *in the money* if the current market value of the underlying interest is below the exercise price of the option.” The CBOE also proposes to amend paragraph (b)(iv)(C)(i) of CBOE Rule 8.7 to state that the $5 bid/ask differential also will not apply to at-the-money series where the quote width on the primary market of the underlying security, or the quote width calculated by the Exchange or its agent for various indices pursuant to Interpretation .08 of CBOE Rule 8.7, is wider than $5. The Exchange proposes that, for these at-the-money series, the bid/ask differential may be as wide as the quote width on the primary market of the underlying security or the quote width calculated by the Exchange or its agent, as applicable. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act. 7 Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements under Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 8 that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposal. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one that:
(i)Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii)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. In addition, as required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), 9 the CBOE provided the Commission with written notice of its intention to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to filing the proposal with the Commission. Therefore, the foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 10 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 11 9 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 11 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the 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. 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-CBOE-2006-57 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-CBOE-2006-57. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-2006-57 and should be submitted on or before July 27, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 12 12 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-10530 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54065; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-54] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change to Retroactively Credit Certain DPM Linkage-Related Transaction Fees June 29, 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 May 31, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons, and is granting accelerated approval to the proposed rule change. 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 proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to retroactively credit Designated Primary Market-Makers (“DPMs”) for certain fees they incur in executing orders under the Intermarket Options Linkage Plan (“Linkage”). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website ( *http://www.cboe.com* ), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the CBOE Fees Schedule to retroactively establish certain fee relief that was provided prospectively in a previous CBOE rule change filing, SR-CBOE-2006-44 (“Previous Filing”). 3 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53866 (May 25, 2006), 71 FR 31237 (June 1, 2006) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of File No. SR-CBOE-2006-44). In the Previous Filing, the Exchange amended Section 21 of the CBOE Fees Schedule to enhance the credits provided to DPMs under the DPM Linkage Fees Credit Program (“Program”). Under the enhanced Program established by the Previous Filing, the Exchange credits DPMs for certain fees they incur related to the execution of:
(i)Outbound principal acting as agent (“P/A”) orders; and
(ii)outbound Principal orders on behalf of orders that are for the account of a broker-dealer (“P orders”). The purpose of the Program is to offset the additional costs DPMs incur in routing orders to other exchanges in order to obtain the National Best Bid or Offer (“NBBO”). The Previous Filing established the enhanced Program as of May 18, 2006. In this filing, the Exchange proposes to extend this fee relief retroactively back to all applicable transactions occurring since May 1, 2006, a total of 13 business days. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange states that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 4 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 5 in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among CBOE members. 4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange states that no written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File No. SR-CBOE-2006-54 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2006-54. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commissions Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2006-54 and should be submitted by July 27, 2006. IV. Commission 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 requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 6 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, 7 in that, by retroactively crediting DPMs for certain fees they incur in executing Linkage orders, the proposed rule change should help to ensure the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among the Exchange's members. As noted above, the Exchange recently established the proposed fees on a going-forward basis. 8 6 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* U.S.C. 78c(f). 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). 8 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53866, *supra* at note 3. The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 9 for approving the proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after publication of the notice of filing thereof in the **Federal Register** . The proposal would allow the Exchange to apply the Program retroactively, for 13 additional business days. The Commission did not receive any comments regarding the Previous Filing, and therefore believes that retroactively crediting DPMs for certain fees they incur in executing Linkage orders would not raise any new or novel regulatory issues. 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). V. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 10 that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2006-54) is approved on an accelerated basis. 10 *Id.* For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 11 11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-10534 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54064; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-59] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change to Extend the Options Intermarket Linkage Fees Pilot Program June 28, 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 15, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to extend until July 31, 2007 the Options Intermarket Linkage (“Linkage”) fee pilot program. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Commission's Public Reference Room, at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Exchange's Web site ( *http://www.cboe.com* ). II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change as amended and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange's fees for Principal (“P”) and Principal Acting as Agent (“P/ A”) orders 3 are operating under a pilot program scheduled to expire on July 31, 2006. 4 The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to extend the pilot program until July 31, 2007. 5 3 Under the Plan for the Purpose of Creating and Operating an Options Intermarket Linkage (“Plan”) and CBOE Rule 6.80(12), which tracks the language of the Plan, a “Linkage Order” means an Immediate or Cancel Order routed through the Linkage as permitted under the Plan. There are three types of Linkage Orders:
(i)A “P/A Order,” which is an order for the principal account of a specialist (or equivalent entity an another Participant Exchange that is authorized to represent Public Customer orders), reflecting the terms of a related unexecuted Public Customer order for which the specialist is acting as agent;
(ii)a “P Order,” which is an order for the principal account of an Eligible Market Maker and is not a P/A Order; and
(iii)a “Satisfaction Order,” which is an order sent through the Linkage to notify a member of another Participant Exchange of a Trade-Through and to seek satisfaction of the liability arising from that Trade-Through. 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52073 (July 20, 2005), 70 FR 43474 (July 27, 2005), (SR-CBOE-2005-54). 5 The Exchange also proposes to amend Section 21 of the Fees Schedule to change the Linkage fees pilot expiration date included in that section. The Exchange assesses its members the following Linkage order transaction fees:
(i)$.24 per contract for equity, QQQQ and SPDR options;
(ii)$.26 per contract for DIA options;
(iii)$.35 or $.20 per contract, depending on the premium, for OEF options and $.45 or $.25 per contract, depending on the premium, for other index options;
(iv)$.30 per contract RAES access fee, if a Linkage order is executed in whole or in part on RAES; and
(v)$.10 per contract license fee on transactions in MNX and NDX options. 6 Satisfaction orders are not assessed Exchange fees. 6 *See* CBOE Fees Schedule, Footnote 15. The Exchange believes that extension of the Linkage fee pilot program until July 31, 2007 will give the Exchange and the Commission further opportunity to evaluate the appropriateness of Linkage fees. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange states that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 7 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 8 in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among CBOE members and other persons using its facilities. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others No written comments were solicited or received by the Exchange with respect to this proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period
(i)as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or
(ii)as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
(A)By order approve such proposed rule change; or
(B)Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File No. SR-CBOE-2006-59 on the subject line. Paper Comments: • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2006-59. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commissions Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2006-59 and should be submitted by July 27, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 9 9 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-10535 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54058; File No. SR-NASD-2006-073] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to the Amendment of NASD Interpretive Material 2210-4 To Require Certain Member Firms To Provide a Hyperlink to the NASD's Internet Home Page June 28, 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 8, 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, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by NASD. On June 26, 2006, NASD filed with the Commission Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 3 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 Amendment No. 1 replaced and superseded the original rule filing in its entirety. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change NASD is proposing to amend NASD Interpretive Material (“IM”) 2210-4 to require a member firm or a person associated with a member firm that refers, on its Internet Web site, to the firm's membership in NASD to provide a hyperlink to NASD's Web site. Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language is in *italics.* IM-2210-4. Limitations on Use of NASD's Name Members may indicate NASD membership in conformity with Article XV, Section 2 of the NASD By-Laws in one or more of the following ways:
(1)through (2). No change. *(3) on a member's internet Web site provided that the member provides a hyperlink to NASD's internet home page, www.nasd.com, in close proximity to the member's most prominent indication of NASD membership. A member is not required to provide more than one such hyperlink on its Web site. This provision also shall apply to an internet Web site relating to the member's investment banking or securities business maintained by or on behalf of any person associated with a member.*
(b)Not applicable.
(c)Not applicable. 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 Currently, many broker-dealers refer to their membership in NASD on their internet Web sites, often in a description of the firm or in an “about us” section. The proposed rule change would require a firm, when referencing membership in NASD on its Web site, to include an accompanying hyperlink to NASD's Internet home page, *http://www.nasd.com.* The proposed rule change also would apply to an Internet Web site relating to a firm's investment banking or securities business that is maintained by or on behalf of any person associated with the firm. 4 The proposed rule change would require a firm (and persons associated with a firm where applicable) to provide a hyperlink in close proximity to the most prominent indication of the firm's membership in NASD. 5 However, the proposed rule change would not create an independent obligation requiring a firm (or persons associated with a firm where applicable) to refer to the firm's NASD membership on an Internet Web site. The proposed rule change only would apply to the extent that a firm or a person associated with a firm chooses to represent on its Web site that the firm is a member of NASD. 4 This requirement is intended to capture, among other things, situations where a person associated with an NASD member firm maintains its own Internet Web site or “home page” that relates to a member's investment banking or securities business. For example, NASD understands that independent contractors or their firms sometimes maintain a separate home page for each independent contractor for marketing purposes. 5 While a member would be free to provide hyperlinks relating to subsequent or additional references to NASD on its Web site, it would not be required to provide more than one hyperlink. In addition, a member would be permitted to make the word NASD itself a live hyperlink or to provide a separate hyperlink to NASD's home page so long as it is in “close proximity” to the member's most prominent indication of its NASD membership. The proposed rule change is intended to help investors understand the significance of a firm being an NASD member and also is designed to facilitate access to the information on *http://www.nasd.com.* NASD believes that facilitating investor access to NASD's Web site will enhance investor protection and lead to better educated and informed investors. The proposed rule change is similar to a rule adopted by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (“SIPC”), which requires that its members provide a live hyperlink to SIPC's Web site, *http://www.SIPC.org,* when referring to membership in SIPC. 6 6 *See* Article 11, Section 4 of SIPC Bylaws. NASD will announce the effective date of the proposed rule change in a *Notice to Members* to be published no later than 60 days following Commission approval. The effective date will be 180 days following publication of the *Notice to Members* announcing Commission approval. 2. Statutory Basis NASD believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the provisions of Sections 15A(b)(6) of the Act, 7 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 facilitating investor access to NASD's Web site will lead to better educated and informed investors and help investors understand the significance of NASD membership. 7 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 Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period
(i)as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or
(ii)as to which NASD consents, the Commission will:
(A)By order approve such proposed rule change, or
(B)Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-NASD-2006-073 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-2006-073. 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 provision 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 submission should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2006-073 and should be submitted on or before July 27, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 8 8 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-10531 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54070; File No. SR-Phlx-2005-73)] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change and Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto Relating to the Exchange's Obvious Error Rule June 29, 2006. I. Introduction On November 14, 2005, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx” 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 Phlx Rule 1092 with respect to:
(1)the definition of “obvious error” and
(2)the definition of “Theoretical Price.” On November 18, 2005, the Phlx submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 3 On April 6, 2006, the Phlx submitted Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change. 4 The proposed rule change and Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 were published for comment in the **Federal Register** on May 15, 2006. 5 The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change, as amended. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 Amendment No. 1 corrected technical errors in the proposed rule text. 4 Amendment No. 2 deleted the proposed revisions to Phlx Rule 1092(c) that related to an erroneous print disseminated by the underlying market that is later cancelled or corrected by the underlying market and an erroneous quote in the underlying market. Thus, the Exchange does not propose to make any changes to Phlx Rule 1092(c). 5 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53776 (May 9, 2006). II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change The Phlx proposes to amend its Obvious Error Rule, Phlx Rule 1092. Currently, Phlx Rule 1092(a) defines “obvious error” as the execution price of a transaction that is higher or lower than the Theoretical Price (if the Theoretical Price is less than $3.00) for the series by an amount of 35 cents or more, or, during unusual market conditions ( *i.e.* , the Exchange has declared an unusual market condition status for the option in question), by an amount of 50 cents or more. Where the Theoretical Price is $3.00 or more, “obvious error” is defined as the execution price of a transaction that is higher or lower than the Theoretical Price for the series by an amount equal to at least two times the allowable maximum bid/ask spread for the series, so long as the amount is 50 cents or more, and three times the allowable bid/ask spread during unusual market conditions. The proposed rule change would revise the definition of “obvious error” by deeming an “obvious error” to have occurred when the execution price of a transaction is higher or lower than the Theoretical Price for a series by an amount equal to at least the amount shown below: Theoretical price Minimum amount Below $2 $.25 $2 to $5 .40 Above $5 to $10 .50 Above $10 to $20 .80 Above $20 1.00 The Exchange believes that the proposed new definition of “obvious error” would facilitate the efficient determination by Floor Officials regarding whether a trade resulted from an obvious error by setting minimum amounts by which the transaction price differs from the Theoretical Price without requiring such Floor Officials to conduct an inquiry into the volume of all exchanges each time they review a transaction under the rule. The proposed definition of “obvious error” would apply during both normal and unusual market conditions, which in the Exchange's view would further streamline the Floor Officials' process of determining whether an obvious error exists. 6 6 The Commission recently approved the Exchange's proposal to establish the position of neutral Referee who, among other things, would review Floor Officials' obvious error rulings. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53548 (March 24, 2006), 71 FR 16389 (March 31, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2005-42). Phlx Rule 1092(b) defines “Theoretical Price” as the last bid or offer, just prior to the transaction, on the exchange that has the most total volume in that option over the most recent 60 calendar days; or, if there are no quotes for comparison purposes, as determined by two Floor Officials and designated personnel in the Exchange's Market Surveillance Department. The proposed rule change would revise the definition of “Theoretical Price” as, respecting series traded on at least one other options exchange, the mid-point of the National Best Bid and Offer (“NBBO”) just prior to the transaction. According to the Exchange, currently all options exchanges, including the Phlx, have rules permitting specialists and market makers to disseminate electronic quotations with a bid/ask differential of up to $5.00, regardless of the price of the bid. 7 For the most part, the Phlx believes that such quotations do not reflect the NBBO. Under current Phlx Rule 1092, the Theoretical Price, defined as the last bid or offer just prior to the transaction on the market with the highest volume, could differ from the NBBO by a significant amount if the bid/ask differential on such market in the series is $5.00 wide. To account for this potential discrepancy between the Theoretical Price as established by rule and the actual NBBO, the proposal would revise the definition of the term “Theoretical Price” to mean the mid-point of the NBBO just prior to the transaction. The Exchange believes that this new definition should provide Exchange Floor Officials with a more accurate measure of the price on which to base their determination that a transaction resulted from an obvious error. The Exchange also proposes to delete Commentary .02 to Phlx Rule 1092 from the Rule. 8 This Commentary sets forth how Theoretical Price would be determined under current Phlx Rule 1092(c). 7 *See, e.g.* , Exchange Rule 1014(c)(i)(A)(2). 8 Phlx Rule 1092(b) would retain the provision that if there are no quotes for comparison purposes, two Floor Officials and designated personnel in the Exchange's Market Surveillance Department would determine Theoretical Price. III. Discussion 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 9 and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act 10 and the rules and regulations thereunder. Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 11 in that the proposal promotes just and equitable principles of trade, removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and protects investors and the public interest. 9 In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The Commission considers that in most circumstances trades that are executed between parties should be honored. On rare occasions, the price of the executed trade indicates an “obvious error” may exist, suggesting that it is unrealistic to expect that the parties to the trade had come to a meeting of the minds regarding the terms of the transaction. In the Commission's view, the determination of whether an “obvious error” has occurred should be based on specific and objective criteria and subject to specific and objective procedures. The Phlx's proposal would provide specific and objective numerical criteria to be used by Floor Officials to determine whether a particular transaction involved an obvious error. In addition, the Exchange's proposal to base the definition of Theoretical Price on the midpoint of the NBBO would ensure that the Phlx's obvious error rule is consistent with the Options Intermarket Linkage Plan, which requires exchanges to avoid trade-throughs. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the Exchange's proposal is consistent with the Act. IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 12 that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2005-73), as amended, is approved. 12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(2). 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-10532 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice: 5462] Memorandum of Agreement Between the U.S. Department of State and the Colorado Department of Human Services Regarding Performance of Duties as an Accrediting Entity Under the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 AGENCY: Department of State. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of State (the Department) is the lead Federal agency for implementation of the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (the Convention) and the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (IAA). Among other things, the IAA gives the Secretary of State responsibility for the accreditation of agencies and approval of persons to provide adoption services under the Convention. The IAA requires the Department to enter into agreements with one or more qualified entities under which such entities will perform the tasks of accrediting agencies and approving persons, monitoring compliance of such agencies and persons with applicable requirements, and other related duties set forth in section 202(b) of the IAA. This notice is to inform the public that on June 29, 2006, the Department exercised its authority under the IAA and entered into an agreement with the Colorado Department of Human Services under which the Department designated the Colorado Department of Human Services as an accrediting entity. In its role as an accrediting entity, the Colorado Department of Human Services will be accrediting or approving qualified adoption service providers located in and licensed by the State of Colorado to enable them to provide adoption services in cases subject to the Convention once the Convention enters into force for the United States. As the U.S. Central Authority for the Convention, the Department will monitor the performance of the Colorado Department of Human Services and approve fees charged by it as an accrediting entity. The text of the Memorandum of Agreement, signed on June 29, 2006 by Maura Harty, Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State and signed on June 13, 2006 by Marva Livingston Hammons, Executive Director, Department of Human Services, State of Colorado, is included at the end of this Notice. Also included at the end of the Memorandum of Agreement is its Attachment 1, Colorado Revised Statutes § 26-6-104(6.5). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mikiko Stebbing at 202-736-9086. Hearing or speech-impaired persons may use the Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf
(TDD)by contacting the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department, pursuant to section 202(a) of the IAA, must enter into an agreement with at least one qualified entity and designate it as an accrediting entity. Accrediting entities may be
(1)nonprofit private entities with expertise in developing and administering standards for entities providing child welfare services; or
(2)State adoption licensing bodies that have expertise in developing and administering standards for entities providing child welfare services and that accredit only agencies located in that State. Colorado's Department of Human Services is a State adoption licensing body with expertise in developing and administering standards for entities providing child welfare services and only accredits agencies located in the State of Colorado. The final rule on accreditation of agencies and approval of persons (22 CFR Part 96) was published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 8064-8066, February 15, 2006) and became effective on March 17, 2006. The final rule establishes the regulatory framework for the accreditation and approval function and provides the standards that the designated accrediting entities will follow in accrediting or approving adoption service providers. Memorandum of Agreement Between the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs and the Colorado Department of Human Services Parties & Purpose of the Agreement The Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs (Department) and the Colorado Department of Human Services (Colorado), with its principal office located at 1575 Sherman Street, Denver, CO 80203-1714, hereinafter the “Parties”, are entering into this agreement for the purpose of designating Colorado as an accrediting entity under the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (IAA), Public Law 106-279 and 22 CFR Part 96. Authorities The Department enters into this agreement pursuant to Sections 202 and 204 of the IAA, 22 CFR Part 96, and Delegation of Authority 261. Colorado has full authority to enter into this MOA pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes § 26-6-104(6.5), a copy of which is attached hereto as Attachment 1. The Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Human Services is authorized to sign on Colorado's behalf. Definitions For purposes of this memorandum of agreement, terms used here that are defined in 22 CFR 96.2 shall have the same meaning as they have in 22 CFR 96.2. In addition, the terms “transitional application deadline”
(TAD)and “deadline for initial accreditation or approval”
(DIAA)shall have the meaning given them in 22 CFR 96.19 and “uniform notification date”
(UND)shall have the meaning given it in 22 CFR 96.58. The Parties agree as follows: Article 1—Designation and Jurisdiction of the Accrediting Entity The Department hereby designates Colorado as an accrediting entity and thereby authorizes it to accredit (including temporarily accredit) agencies and approve persons that are located in Colorado and that are licensed as a child placement agency in the State of Colorado, in accordance with the procedures and standards set forth in 22 CFR Part 96, and to perform all of the accrediting entity functions set forth in 22 CFR 96.7. Article 2—Accreditation Responsibilities and Duties of the Accrediting Entity
(1)Colorado agrees to perform all accrediting entity functions set forth in 22 CFR 96.7(a) and to perform its functions in accordance with the Convention, the IAA, Part 96 of 22 CFR and any other applicable regulations, and as additionally specified in this agreement. In performing these functions, Colorado will operate under policy direction from the Department regarding U.S. obligations under the Convention and regarding the functions and responsibilities of an accrediting entity.
(2)Colorado will take appropriate staffing, funding, and other measures to allow it to carry out all of its functions and fulfill all of its responsibilities, and will use the Adoptions Tracking System and the Hague complaint registry (ATS/HCR) as directed by the Department, including by updating required data fields in a timely fashion.
(3)In carrying out its accrediting entity functions Colorado will:
(a)Prepare to accept applications by the TAD by expending its own funds and other resources for materials development, staff training, travel and meeting attendance in advance of receiving any fees for its services as an accrediting entity;
(b)Make decisions on accreditation and approval in accordance with the procedures set forth in 22 CFR Part 96 and using only the standards in subpart F of 22 CFR Part 96 and the substantial compliance weighting system approved by the Department pursuant to Article 3, paragraph 5, below;
(c)Make decisions on temporary accreditation in accordance with the procedures and standards in subpart N of 22 CFR Part 96 and the procedures presented to the Department pursuant to Article 3, paragraph 3, subsection (a), below;
(d)Charge applicants for accreditation, approval, or temporary accreditation only fees approved by the Department pursuant to Article 3, paragraph 4 below;
(e)Consistent with 22 CFR 96.19 and 96.97, use its best efforts to evaluate and decide by the DIAA all applications for accreditation, temporary accreditation, or approval that were submitted by the TAD;
(f)Review complaints, including complaints regarding conduct alleged to have occurred abroad, in accordance with subpart J of 22 CFR Part 96 and the additional procedures approved by the Department pursuant to Article 3, paragraph 3, subsections
(c)and
(d)below. Colorado will exercise its discretion in determining which methods are most appropriate to review complaints regarding conduct alleged to have occurred abroad.
(g)Take adverse actions against accredited agencies, temporarily accredited agencies, and approved persons in accordance with subparts K and N of 22 CFR Part 96, and cooperate with the Department in any case in which the Department considers exercising its adverse action authorities because the accrediting entity has failed or refused after consultation with the Department to take what the Department considers to be appropriate enforcement action;
(h)Assume full responsibility for defending adverse actions in court proceedings, if challenged by the adoption service provider or the adoption service provider's board or officers;
(i)Refer an adoption service provider to the Department for debarment if, but only if, it concludes after investigation that the adoption service provider's conduct meets the standards for action by the Secretary set out in 22 CFR 96.85;
(j)Promptly report any change in the accreditation (including temporary accreditation) or approval status of an adoption service provider to the relevant state licensing authority.
(k)Maintain and use only the required procedures approved by the Department and those procedures presented to the Department pursuant to Article 3 of this agreement whenever they apply. Article 3—Preparatory Tasks (Tasks Preceding the Transitional Application Deadline)
(1)*Accreditation Materials and Training:* In coordination with any other designated accrediting entities, by a date agreed upon by the Parties, Colorado will:
(a)Develop forms, training materials, and evaluation practices;
(b)Determine whether joint training of evaluators or other personnel is practical, and, if so, assist in conducting or participate in any joint training sessions;
(c)Develop explanatory guidance to assist applicants for accreditation, temporary accreditation, and approval in achieving substantial compliance with the applicable standards.
(2)*Development of Internal Review Procedure:* Colorado will develop and present to the Department for approval, by a date agreed upon by the Parties, procedures that it will maintain and use to determine whether to terminate adverse actions against an accredited agency or approved person on the grounds that the deficiencies necessitating the adverse action have been corrected.
(3)*Development of Other Procedures:* Colorado will develop and present to the Department, by a date agreed upon by the Parties, procedures that it will maintain and use:
(a)To evaluate whether a candidate for temporary accreditation meets the applicable eligibility requirements set forth in 22 CFR 96.96;
(b)To carry out its annual monitoring duties;
(c)To review thoroughly complaints or information referred to it through the Hague Complaint Registry or from the Department directly, including procedures for obtaining complete and accurate information about conduct alleged to have occurred abroad;
(d)To review complaints that it receives about its own actions as an accrediting entity for Hague adoption service providers;
(e)To make the public disclosures required by 22 CFR 96.91; and
(f)To ensure the reasonableness of charges for the travel and maintenance of its site evaluators, such as for travel, meals and accommodations.
(4)*Fee Schedule Development:*
(a)Colorado will develop a fee schedule for accreditation, temporary accreditation, and approval services that meets the requirements of 22 CFR 96.8. Fees will be set based on the principle of recovering no more than the full cost, as defined in OMB Circular A-25 paragraph 6(d)(1), of accreditation, temporary accreditation, and approval services. Colorado will submit a fee schedule developed using this methodology together with comprehensive documentation justifying the proposed fees to the Department for approval by a date agreed upon by the Parties.
(b)The approved fee schedule can be amended with the approval of the Department.
(5)*Substantial Compliance Weighting Systems Development:*
(a)Colorado will develop a substantial compliance weighting system as described in 22 CFR 96.27, and will submit it to the Department for approval by a date agreed upon by the Parties.
(b)Colorado will develop a separate substantial compliance weighting system to be used in evaluating temporarily accredited agencies that incorporates the performance standards in 22 CFR 96.104 and will submit it to the Department for approval by a date agreed upon by the Parties.
(c)In developing the systems described in paragraphs
(a)and
(b)of this section, Colorado will coordinate with any other accrediting entities, and consult with the Department to ensure consistency between the systems used by accrediting entities. These systems can be amended with the approval of the Department. Article 4—Initial Accreditation (Including Temporary Accreditation) and Approval Tasks
(1)The Department will consult with Colorado and all other accrediting entities before establishing the transitional application deadline (TAD), the uniform notification date (UND), and the deadline for initial accreditation or approval (DIAA).
(2)Within an agreed number of days following the TAD, Colorado will make public the names and addresses of agencies and persons that have applied to be accredited (including temporarily accredited) or approved, provide a mechanism for the public to comment on applicants, and consider comments received from the public in its decisions on applicants. With respect to additional applications received prior to entry into force of the Convention, Colorado will make the names of such applicants public within an agreed number of days following receipt. Colorado will consider any public comments in its decisions on the additional applicants.
(3)In conformity with 22 CFR 96.58, Colorado will not release its accreditation (including temporary accreditation) and approval decisions prior to the UND. Colorado will prepare the list of decisions to be announced on the UND and transmit the information as directed by the Department. Colorado will immediately notify the Department of any corrections, so that the Department may rely upon this list in compiling the list of initially accredited and approved adoption service providers that it will deposit with the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. Article 5—Data Collection, Reporting and Records
(1)*Adoptions Tracking System/Hague Complaint Registry (ATS/HCR):*
(a)Colorado will maintain and fund a computer and internet connection for use with the ATS/HCR that meets system requirements set by the Department;
(b)The Department will provide software or access tokens needed by individuals for secure access to the ATS/HCR and facilitate any necessary training in use of the ATS/HCR;
(c)Colorado will ensure that only individuals that the Department has approved for access have access to the ATS/HCR and to any secure access tokens or passwords.
(2)*Annual Report:* Colorado will report on dates agreed upon by the Parties, in the format specified by the Department, the information required in 22 CFR 96.93 as provided in that section through ATS/HCR.
(3)*Additional Reporting:* Colorado will provide any additional status reports or data as required by the Department, and in the format required by the Department.
(4)*Accrediting Entity Records:* Colorado will retain all records related to its accreditation functions and responsibilities for a minimum of six years after their creation, or until any litigation, claim or audit related to the records filed or noticed within the six year period is finally terminated, whichever is longer. Article 6—Department Oversight and Monitoring
(1)*Accrediting Entity Obligations:* To facilitate oversight and monitoring by the Department, Colorado will:
(a)Provide copies of its forms and other materials to the Department and give Department personnel the opportunity to participate in any training sessions for its evaluators or other personnel;
(b)Allow the Department to inspect all records relating to its accreditation functions and responsibilities and provide to the Department copies of such records as requested or required for oversight, including to evaluate renewal or maintenance of the accrediting entity's designation, and for purposes of transferring adoption service providers to another accrediting entity;
(c)Submit to the Department by a date agreed upon by the Parties an annual declaration signed by the Licensing Administrator confirming that Colorado is complying with the IAA, 22 CFR Part 96, any other applicable regulations, and this agreement in carrying out its functions and responsibilities;
(d)Make appropriate senior-level officials available to attend a yearly performance review meeting with the Department;
(e)Immediately report to the Department events which have a significant impact on its ability to perform its functions and responsibilities as an accrediting entity, including financial difficulties, changes in key personnel or other staffing issues, State legislative or regulatory changes; legal or disciplinary actions against Colorado and conflicts of interest;
(f)Notify the Department of any requests for information that it receives from Central Authorities of other Hague signatories, or any other foreign government authorities (except for routine requests concerning accreditation, temporary accreditation, or approval status or other information publicly available under subpart M of Part 96), and consult with the Department before releasing information;
(g)Consult immediately with the Department about any issue or event that may affect compliance with the IAA or U.S. compliance with obligations under the Convention.
(2)*Departmental Approval Procedures:* In all instances in which the Department must approve a policy, system, fee schedule, or procedure before Colorado can bring it into effect or amend it, Colorado will submit the policy, system, fee schedule, or procedure or amendment in writing to the Department's AE Liaison via email where possible. The AE Liaison will be responsible for coordinating the Department's approval process and arranging any necessary meetings or telephone conferences with Colorado. Formal approval by the Department will be conveyed in writing by the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Overseas Citizens Services or her or his designee.
(3)*Suspension or Cancellation:* When the Department is considering suspension or cancellation of Colorado's designation:
(a)The Department will notify Colorado in writing of the identified deficiencies in its performance and the time period in which the Department expects correction of the deficiencies;
(b)Colorado will respond in writing to either explain the actions that it has taken or plans to take to correct the deficiencies or to demonstrate that the Department's concerns are unfounded within 10 business days;
(c)Upon request, the Department will also meet with the accrediting entity by teleconference or in person;
(d)If the Department, in its sole discretion, is not satisfied with the actions or explanation of Colorado, it will notify Colorado in writing of its decision to suspend or cancel Colorado's designation and this agreement;
(e)Colorado will stop or suspend its actions as an accrediting entity as directed by the Department in the notice of suspension or cancellation, and cooperate with any Departmental instructions in order to transfer adoption service providers it accredits (including temporarily accredits) or approves to another accrediting entity, including by transferring a reasonable allocation of collected fees for the remainder of the accreditation or approval period of such adoption service providers.
(4)*Complaint Procedures:* By a date agreed upon by the Parties, the Parties will agree upon procedures for handling complaints against the accrediting entity received by the Department or referred to the Department because the complainant was not satisfied with the accrediting entity's resolution of the complaint. These complaint procedures may be incorporated into the Department's general procedures for handling instances in which the Department is considering whether a deficiency in the accrediting entity's performance may warrant suspension or cancellation of its designation. Article 7—Other Issues Agreed by the Parties
(1)*Conflict of interest:* Colorado shall disclose to the Department the name of any organization of which it is a member that also has as members intercountry adoption service providers. Colorado shall demonstrate to the Department that it has procedures in place to prevent any such membership from influencing its actions as an accrediting entity and shall maintain and use these procedures.
(2)*Liability:* Colorado agrees to maintain sufficient resources to defend challenges to its actions as an accrediting entity, and to inform the Department immediately of any events that may affect its ability to defend itself. Colorado agrees that it will consult with the Department immediately if it becomes aware of any legal proceedings related to its acts as an accrediting entity, or of any legal proceedings not related to its acts as an accrediting entity that may threaten its ability to continue to function as an accrediting entity. Article 8—Liaison Between the Department and the Accrediting Entity
(1)Colorado's principal point of contact for communications relating to its functions and duties as an accrediting entity will be the Licensing Administrator in the Department of Human Services. The Department's principal point of contact for communication is the Accrediting Entity Liaison officer in the Office of Children's Issues, Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State.
(2)The parties will keep each other currently informed in writing of the names and contact information for their principal points of contact. As of the signing of this Agreement, the respective principal points of contact are as set forth in Attachment 2. Article 9—Certifications and Assurances
(1)Colorado certifies that it will comply with all requirements of applicable State and Federal law.
(2)Colorado certifies that it satisfies all of the accrediting entity performance criteria set forth in 22 CFR 96.6 and agrees to continue to do so throughout the duration of its designation.
(3)Colorado agrees to indemnify the Department and any persons acting on its behalf and to hold them harmless from any claim, loss or other liability that is caused by Colorado's fault or negligence in connection with performing duties under this Agreement. Any negligence or alleged negligence by the Department or persons acting on its behalf shall not preclude a claim for indemnification. Article 10—Agreement, Scope, and Period of Performance
(1)*Scope:*
(a)This agreement is not intended to have any effect on any activities of Colorado that are not related to its functions as an accrediting entity for adoption service providers providing adoption services in intercountry adoptions under the Hague Convention.
(b)Nothing in this agreement shall be deemed to be a commitment or obligation to provide any Federal funds. The Department, consistent with the IAA, may not provide any funds to the accrediting entity for the performance of accreditation and approval functions.
(c)All accrediting entity functions and responsibilities authorized by this agreement are to occur only during the duration of this agreement.
(d)Nothing in this agreement shall release Colorado from any legal requirements or responsibilities imposed on the accrediting entity by the IAA, 22 CFR Part 96, or any other applicable laws or regulations.
(2)*Duration:* Colorado's designation as an accrediting entity and this agreement shall remain in effect for five years from signature, unless terminated earlier by the Department in conjunction with the suspension or cancellation of the designation of Colorado. The Parties may mutually agree in writing to extend the designation of the accrediting entity and the duration of this agreement. If either Party does not wish to renew the agreement, it must provide written notice no less than one year prior to the termination date, and the Parties will consult to establish a mutually agreed schedule to transfer adoption service providers to another accrediting entity, including by transferring a reasonable allocation of collected fees for the remainder of the accreditation or approval period of such adoption service providers.
(3)*Severability:* To the extent that the Department determines, within its reasonable discretion, that any provision of this agreement is inconsistent with the Convention, the IAA, the regulations implementing the IAA or any other provision of law, that provision of the agreement shall be considered null and void and the remainder of the agreement shall continue in full force and effect as if the offending portion had not been a part of it.
(4)*Entirety of Agreement:* This agreement is the entire agreement of the Parties and may be modified only upon written agreement of the Parties. Attachment 1—Colorado Revised Statutes: Title 26 Human Services Code: Article 6 Child Care Centers: Part 1 Child Care Licensing 26-6-104. Licenses—Out-of-State Notices and Consent (6.5) On and after July 1, 2005, and subject to designation as a qualified accrediting entity as required by the “Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000”, 42 U.S.C. 14901 *et seq.* , the state department may license and accredit a child placement agency for purposes of providing adoption services for convention adoptions pursuant to the “Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000”, 42 U.S.C. 14901 *et seq.* The state board of human services may adopt rules consistent with federal law governing the procedures for adverse actions regarding accreditation, which procedures may vary from the procedures set forth in the “State Administrative Procedure Act”, article 4 of title 24, C.R.S. Dated: June 29, 2006. Maura Harty, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-10573 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-06-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5454] Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy; Notice of Open Meeting The Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy (ACIEP) will meet from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Monday, July 24, 2006, in Room 1107, U.S. Department of State, 2201 C Street, NW., Washington, DC. The meeting will be hosted by Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs Daniel S. Sullivan and Committee Chairman R. Michael Gadbaw. The ACIEP serves the U.S. Government in a solely advisory capacity concerning issues and problems in international economic policy. Items on the agenda for this meeting include:
(1)International Energy Issues and
(2)Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement. This meeting is open to the public as seating capacity allows. Entry to the building is controlled; to obtain pre-clearance for entry, members of the public planning to attend should provide, by July 20, 2006, their name, professional affiliation, valid government-issued ID number ( *i.e.* , U.S. government ID (agency), U.S. military ID (branch), passport (country), or drivers license (state)), date of birth, and citizenship to La Keisha Barner by fax
(202)647-5936, e-mail ( *BarnerLR@state.gov* ), or telephone
(202)647-0847. One of the following forms of valid photo identification will be required for admission to the State Department building: U.S. driver's license, passport, or U.S. Government identification card. Enter the Department of State from the C Street lobby. In view of escorting requirements, non-Government attendees should plan to arrive not less than 15 minutes before the meeting begins. For additional information, contact David Freudenwald, Office of Economic Policy and Public Diplomacy, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, at
(202)647-2231 or *FreudenwaldDJ@state.gov.* Dated: June 29, 2006. Laura Faux-Gable, Office Director, Office of Economic Policy Analysis and Public Diplomacy, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-10553 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-07-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Transit Administration Federal Highway Administration [Docket Number FHWA-2005-22986] Notice of Public Meetings on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM)for Statewide and Metropolitan Planning Requirements AGENCIES: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces the dates, times, and locations of six public meetings and a national Webcast to be held in July and August 2006 concerning a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM)on Statewide and Metropolitan Planning Requirements. Presentations delivered at these meetings will describe the provisions of the NPRM jointly issued by the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA)and Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA)on June 9, 2006 to provide guidance on implementing the planning provisions of Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), the Federal surface transportation law. DATES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for meeting dates. ADDRESSES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for meeting locations. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For FTA, Effie S. Stallsmith, Office of Planning and Environment, at *Effie.Stallsmith@dot.gov* or 202-366-5653, or Christopher Van Wyk, Office of Chief Counsel, 202-366-1733. For FHWA, Robert Ritter, Office of Planning, 202-493-2139. Both agencies are located at 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours for FTA are from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Office hours for FHWA are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meetings listed below will provide a forum for FTA and FHWA staffs to make oral presentations on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM)for Statewide and Metropolitan Planning. Additionally, the sessions are intended to encourage interested parties and stakeholders to submit their comments directly to the official docket by the close of the public comment period on September 7, 2006, per the instructions found in the NPRM at 71 FR 33510 (June 9, 2006). I. Meetings The following are the 2006 Statewide and Metropolitan Planning NPRM public outreach session meeting dates and addresses: 1. Wednesday, July 19, 2006, 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. eastern standard time, Atlanta, GA—Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center (auditorium), 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, GA 30303. 2. Friday, July 21, 2006, 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. eastern standard time, New York, NY—Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House (auditorium), One Bowling Green, New York City, NY 10004. 3. Monday, July 24, 2006, 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. central standard time, Kansas City, MO—Radisson Hotel and Suites Kansas City-City Center, 1301 Wyandotte, Kansas City, MO 64105. 4. Tuesday, August 1, 2006, 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. Pacific standard time, San Francisco, CA—Metropolitan Transportation Commission Building (auditorium), MetroCenter, 101 Eighth Street, Oakland, CA 94607. 5. Monday, August 7, 2006, 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. central standard time, Chicago, IL—Harold Washington Library Center (Multipurpose Room-B), 400 South State Street, Chicago, Illinois 60605. 6. Wednesday, August 9, 2006, 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. eastern standard time, Cambridge, MA—John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (auditorium), 55 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02142. II. Presentations and Comment Format Generally, there will be at least two speakers delivering a presentation of approximately 1.5 hours. Meeting participants should arrive early since each meeting is anticipated to begin promptly at the appointed time. A. Questions and Comments Meeting attendees will have an opportunity to pose questions to the speakers and to the group as a whole. It is the responsibility of individuals who wish for their comments to become part of the official public record to submit their comments directly to the U.S. Docket via postal mail, fax, or through the online Docket Management System
(DMS)by September 7, 2006. For instructions on how to submit comments to the docket (Docket Number FHWA-2005-22986), please refer to the NPRM located at 71 FR 33510 (June 9, 2006). B. Registration Registration is not required for public meetings. However, in order to ensure adequate space and materials, participants are encouraged to register for one or more events online at ­ *http://www.environment.fta.dot.gov/nprm/register.asp* . III. Security, Building, and Parking Guidelines Some meetings are held in Federal government buildings; therefore, Federal security measures are applicable. In planning your arrival time, we recommend allowing additional time to clear security. In order to gain access to the building and grounds, participants must display government-issued photo identification. Persons without proper identification may be denied access. Proper identification is required to access to following four meetings: 1. Atlanta—Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center (auditorium), 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, GA 30303. 2. New York—Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House (auditorium), One Bowling Green, New York City, NY 10004. 3. San Francisco—Metropolitan Transportation Commission Building (auditorium), MetroCenter, 101 Eighth Street, Oakland, CA 94607. 4. Cambridge—John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (auditorium), 55 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02142. Security measures may also include inspection of vehicles, inside and out, at the entrance to the grounds. In addition, persons entering Federal buildings must pass through a metal detector. All items are subject to inspection. IV. Special Accommodations All locations are ADA-accessible and sign language interpreters will be present at each meeting. Individuals attending a meeting who are hearing or visually impaired and have special requirements, or a condition that requires special assistance or accommodations, may indicate this on the online registration form or by calling Paul Christner at 617-494-3142. V. Online Event In addition to the NPRM outreach sessions, FHWA and FTA will conduct a national Webcast on July 13, 2006 from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. eastern standard time. The Webcast will include a presentation on the NPRM, and participants will have an opportunity to submit questions electronically. Interested parties may learn more and register for the event, which is hosted by the Center for Transportation and the Environment, at *http://itre.ncsu.edu/cte/TechTransfer/Teleconferences/2006schedule.asp* . Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5303-5304; 49 CFR 1.51. Issued on the 30th of June 2006. Sandra K. Bushue, Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit Administration. J. Richard Capka, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration. [FR Doc. 06-6023 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 26
Traces to 26 documents
CFR
14 references not yet in our index
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 10 CFR 40
  • 10 CFR 50
  • 44 USC 3501-3520
  • 17 CFR 270.20
  • 17 CFR 240.14
  • 17 CFR 240.19
  • 15 USC 78
  • 22 CFR 96
  • Pub. L. 106-279
  • 22 CFR 96.96
  • 22 CFR 96.104
  • 49 USC 5303-5304
  • 49 CFR 1.51
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment
C.F.R.§ 40.25
C.F.R.§ 2.206
C.F.R.§ 50.60
C.F.R.§ 50.55
C.F.R.§ 50.12
C.F.R.§ 51.32
U.S.C.§ 80a–1
U.S.C.§ 78n
C.F.R.§ 242.608
Pub. L.Pub. L. 104-13
Cite10 CFR 40
Cite10 CFR 50
Cites 40 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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