Notices. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

10,687 words·~49 min read·/register/2006/09/14/06-7645·

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

BILLING CODE 8010-01-M SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54410; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2006-31] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Amending Rules to Mandate Listed Companies Become Eligible To Participate in a Direct Registration System September 7, 2006. I. Introduction On June 19, 2006, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposed rule change SR-NYSEArca-2006-31 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”). 1 Notice of the proposal was published in the **Federal Register** on July 18, 2006. 2 One comment letter was received. 3 For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is granting approval of the proposed rule change. 4 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54126 (July 11, 2006), 71 FR 40768 (July 18, 2006) [File No.

SR-NYSEArca-2006-31]. 3 Letter from Loren K. Hanson, Director of Investor Relations, to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Commission (August 15, 2006). 4 The Commission has also granted approval to similar rule changes submitted by the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”), American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”), and The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”). Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 54289 (August 8, 2006), 71 FR 47278 (August 16, 2006) [File No. SR-NYSE-2006-29]; 54288 (August 8, 2006), 71 FR 47276 (August 16, 2006) [File No.

SR-NASDAQ-2006-08]; and 54290 (August 8, 2006), 71 FR 47262 (August 16, 2006) [File No. SR-Amex-2006-40]. II. Description The Direct Registration System (“DRS”) allows an investor to establish either through the issuer's transfer agent or through the investor's broker-dealer a book-entry position on the books of the issuer and to electronically transfer her position between the transfer agent and the broker-dealer of her choice through a facility currently administered by The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”). 5 DRS, therefore, enables an investor to have securities registered in her name on the books of the issuer without having a securities certificate issued to her and to electronically transfer her securities to her broker-dealer in order to effect a transaction without the risk and delays associated with the use of securities certificates. 5 Currently, the only registered clearing agency operating a DRS is DTC.

For a detailed description of DRS and the DRS facilities administered by DTC, see Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 37931 (November 7, 1996), 61 FR 58600 (November 15, 1996), [File No. SR-DTC-96-15] (order granting approval to establish DRS) and 41862 (September 10, 1999), 64 FR 51162 (September 21, 1999), [File No. SR-DTC-99-16] (order approving implementation of the Profile Modification System). Investors holding their securities in DRS retain the rights associated with securities certificates, including such rights as control of ownership and voting rights, without having the responsibility of holding and safeguarding securities certificates.

In addition, in corporate actions such as reverse stock splits and mergers, cancellation of old shares and issuance of new shares are handled electronically with no securities certificates to be returned to or received from the transfer agent. In order to reduce the number of transactions in securities for which settlement is effected by the physical delivery of securities certificates and thereby reduce the risks, costs, and delays associated with the physical delivery of securities certificates, NYSE Arca will impose its DRS eligibility requirement pursuant to proposed new Rule 7.62(c). 6 The proposed new rule does not require that securities listed for trading on NYSE Arca be in the DRS operated by DTC.

Rather it requires listed companies' securities be eligible for a direct registration system operated by a clearing agency, as defined in Section 3(a)(23) of the Act, 7 that is registered with the Commission pursuant to Section 17A(b)(2) of the Act. Therefore, while the DRS operated by DTC is currently the only DRS facility meeting the requirements of new NYSE Arca Rule 7.62(c), the new rule will provide issuers with the option of using another qualified DRS if they so desire if one should exist in the future. 6 The exact text of the NYSE Arca proposed new Rule 7.62(c) is set forth in its filing, which can be found at *www.nysearca.com/regulation/filings.* 7 15 U.S.C. 78a.

Currently, in order to make a security DRS-eligible in DRS operated by DTC, DTC rules require that the issuer must have a transfer agent which is a DTC DRS Limited Participant. 8 NYSE Arca understands that the larger transfer agents serving NYSE Arca's listed company community are already eligible to participate in DRS. However, taking into account the diversity of the issuers and transfer agents across all the markets that will be required to make securities eligible for DRS and facilitate DRS eligibility, some transfer agents may need to take steps to become eligible to participate in DRS.

In addition, NYSE Arca has been notified that some issuers may need to amend their corporate governing documents, such as their certificates of incorporation or their by-laws, before they can make their securities DRS eligible. 8 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 37931 (November 7, 1996), 61 FR 58600 (November 15, 1996), [File No. SR-DTC-96-15]. To allow sufficient time for any such necessary actions, NYSE Arca will impose the DRS eligibility requirement in two steps. Companies listing for the first time should have greater flexibility to conform to the eligibility requirements.

Therefore, Rule 7.62(c) will require all securities initially listing on NYSE Arca on or after January 1, 2007, be eligible for DRS at the time of listing. This provision does not extend to securities of companies

(i)which already have securities listed on the NYSE Arca,

(ii)which immediately prior to such listing had securities listed on another registered securities exchange in the U.S., or

(iii)which are specifically permitted under NYSE Arca's rules to be and which are book-entry only. 9 On and after January 1, 2008, all securities listed on the NYSE Arca will be required to be eligible for DRS except those securities which are specifically permitted under NYSE Arca rules to be and which are book-entry only. 9 The securities that NYSE Arca permits to be book-entry only include all debt securities, securities listed or traded pursuant to Rule 5.2(j), securities listed or traded pursuant to Rule 8, and nonconvertible stock. NYSE Arca's Rule 5(j) pertains to, among other things, equity linked notes, investment company units, index-linked exchangeable notes, equity gold shares, index-linked securities. Rule 8 pertains to currency and index warrants. III. Comment Letters The Commission received one comment opposing the proposed rule change. 10 The commenter, speaking on behalf of an issuer that acts as its own transfer agent but works with a large commercial transfer agent that acts as co-transfer agent, expressed concern the proposed rule change would eliminate the issuer's role as transfer agent. The commenter believes that there can be only one transfer per company registered with DTC under the current DRS model, and since the issuer is not a DRS Limited Participant, its co-transfer agent would survive as the issuer's only transfer agent. The commenter believes that implementation of NYSE Arca's proposed rule would be a detriment because shareholders would not receive the quality of service from a commercial transfer agent that they currently receive from the issuer acting as its own transfer agent. Furthermore, this commenter contends that forcing companies to implement DRS is unproductive and costly because issuers will have to amend their bylaws and articles of incorporation to allow for book-entry positions even when the issuer intends to continue to issue stock certificates. 10 *Supra* note 3. But *see* comment letters to similar rule changes submitted by the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”), American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”), and The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”). Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 54289 (August 8, 2006), 71 FR 47278 (August 16, 2006) [File No. SR-NYSE-2006-29]; 54288 (August 8, 2006), 71 FR 47276 (August 16, 2006) [File No. SR-NASDAQ-2006-08]; and 54290 (August 8, 2006), 71 FR 47262 (August 16, 2006) [File No. SR-Amex-20]. IV. Discussion Section 6(b)(5) of the Act requires, among other things, that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 11 For the reasons described below, the Commission finds that NYSE Arca's rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The use of securities certificates has long been identified as an inefficient and risk-laden mechanism by which to hold and transfer ownership. 12 Because securities certificates require manual processing, their use can result in significant delays and expenses in processing securities transactions and present the risk of certificates being lost, stolen, or forged. Many of these costs and risks are ultimately borne by investors. 13 Congress has recognized the problems and dangers that the use of certificates presents to the safe and efficient operation of the U.S. clearance and settlement system and has given the Commission responsibility and authority to address these issues. 14 12 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49405 (March 11, 2004), 69 FR 12922 (March 18, 2004), [File No. S7-13-04] (Securities Transaction Settlement Concept Release). 13 *Id.* 14 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(a)(2)(A). Congress expressly envisioned the Commission's authority to extend to all aspects of the securities handling process involving securities transactions within the United States, including activities by clearing agencies, depositories, corporate issuers, and transfer agents. *See* S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. at 55 (1975). Consistent with its Congressional directives and in its efforts to improve efficiencies and decrease risks associated with processing securities transactions, the Commission has long advocated a reduction in the use of certificates in the trading environment by immobilization or dematerialization of securities and has encouraged the use of alternatives to holding securities in certificated form. Among other things, the Commission has approved the rule filings of self-regulatory organizations that require their members to use the facilities of a securities depository for the book-entry settlement of all transactions in depository-eligible securities 15 and that require any security listed for trading must be depository eligible if possible. 16 More recently the Commission has approved the implementation and expansion of DRS. 17 15 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 32455 (June 11, 1993), 58 FR 33679 (June 18, 1993) (order approving rules requiring members, member organizations, and affiliated members of the New York Stock Exchange, National Association of Securities Dealers, American Stock Exchange, Midwest Stock Exchange, Boston Stock Exchange, Pacific Stock Exchange, and Philadelphia Stock Exchange to use the facilities of a securities depository for the book-entry settlement of all transactions in depository-eligible securities with another financial intermediary). 16 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 35798 (June 1, 1995), 60 FR 30909 (June 12, 1995), [File Nos. SR-Amex-95-17; SR-BSE-95-09; SR-CHX-95-12; SR-NASD-95-24; SR-NYSE-95-19; SR-PSE-95-14; SR-PHLX-95-34] (order approving rules setting forth depository eligibility requirements for issuers seeking to have their shares listed on the exchange). 17 In 1996, the NYSE modified its listing criteria to permit listed companies to issue securities in book entry form provided that the issue is included in DRS. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 37937 (November 8, 1996), 61 FR 58728 (November 18, 1996), [File No. SR-NYSE-96-29]. Similarly, the NASD modified its rule to require that if an issuer establishes a direct registration program, it must participate in an electronic link with a securities depository in order to facilitate the electronic transfer of the issue. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 39369 (November 26, 1997), 62 FR 64034 (December 3, 1997), [File No. SR-97-51]. On July 30, 2002, the Commission approved a rule change proposed by the NYSE to amend NYSE Section 501.01 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual to allow a listed company to issue securities in a dematerialized or completely immobilized form and therefore not send stock certificates to record holders provided the company's stock is issued pursuant to a dividend reinvestment program, stock purchase plan, or is included in DRS. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46282 (July 30, 2002), 67 FR 50972 (August 6, 2002), [File No. SR-NYSE-2001-33]. While the U.S. markets have made great progress in immobilization and dematerialization for institutional and broker-to-broker transactions, many industry representatives believe that the small percentage of securities held in certificated form (mostly by retail customers of broker-dealers) impose unnecessary risk and disproportionately large expense to the industry and to investors. In an attempt to address this issue, NYSE Arca's rule change, along with those of the NYSE, Amex, and Nasdaq, should help expand the use of DRS. As a result, risks, costs, and processing inefficiencies associated with the physical delivery of securities certificates should be reduced, and impediments to the perfection of the national market system should be reduced. Additionally, those investors holding securities in listed securities covered by the rule change that decide to hold their securities in DRS should realize the benefits of more accurate, quicker, and more cost-efficient transfers; faster distribution of sale proceeds; reduced number of lost or stolen certificates and a reduction in the associated certificate replacement costs; and consistency of owning in book-entry across asset classes. The Commission realizes that some issuers and transfer agents may bear expenses related to complying with the rule change. In order to make an issue DRS-eligible, issuers of listed companies must have a transfer agent which is a DRS Limited Participant and may need to amend their corporate governing documents to permit the issuance of book-entry shares. The Commission believes, however, that the long-term benefits of increased efficiencies and reduced costs and risks afforded by DRS outweigh the costs that some issuers and transfer agents may incur. Furthermore, the time frames built into the proposal should allow issuers and their transfer agents sufficient time to make any necessary changes to comply with the rule change. While the proposed rule change should significantly reduce the number of transactions in securities for which settlement is effected by the physical delivery of securities certificates, the proposed rule change will not eliminate the ability of investors to obtain securities certificates provided the issuer has chosen to issue certificates. Such investors can continue to contact the issuer's transfer agent, either directly or through their broker-dealer, to obtain a securities certificate. The commenter's concern that its role as an issuer transfer agent will be eliminated because there can be only one transfer agent per issue registered with DTC under the current DRS model is unfounded. DTC has procedures in place to permit a named transfer agent, which in this case would be the issuer, to file notice with DTC as the primary transfer agent but use a co-transfer agent for its DRS functions. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above the Commission finds that the rule change is consistent with NYSE Arca's obligation under Section 6(b) of the Act to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. V. Conclusion On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NYSEArca-2006-31) be and hereby is approved. For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 18 18 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-15229 Filed 9-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54413; File No. SR-Amex-2006-72] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto To Adopt New Rules To Implement on a Pilot Basis an Initial Version of AEMI, Its Proposed New Hybrid Market Trading Platform for Equity Products and Exchange Traded Funds September 7, 2006. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on August 8, 2006, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. On September 7, 2006, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 3 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 Amendment No. 1 replaces and supersedes the original filing in its entirety. I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Amex proposes to adopt new rules to implement an initial version of AEMI SM , its proposed new hybrid market trading platform for equity products and Exchange Traded Funds (“ETFs”). According to the Exchange, this initial version of AEMI (referred to herein as “AEMI-One”) is expected to become operative prior to the final date set by the Commission for full operation of all automated trading centers that intend to qualify their quotations for trade-through protection under Rule 611 of Regulation NMS (“Trading Phase Date”). 4 The rule change is being proposed on a pilot basis from the first day of operation of AEMI-One through the day prior to the Trading Phase Date. 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53829 (May 18, 2006), 71 FR 30038 (May 24, 2006) (extending compliance dates for Rules 610 and 611 of Regulation NMS). The text of the proposed rule change is available on Amex's Web site ( *http://www.amex.com* ), at Amex's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Amex 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 the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange has previously filed a Form 19b-4 with the Commission (the “AEMI Rule Filing”), 5 in which the Exchange described the implementation of a proposed new hybrid market structure for equity products and ETFs 6 that would provide for a single marketplace that integrates automatic execution and floor-based auction trading. To facilitate the hybrid market, the Exchange is undertaking a major technology upgrade and will implement a new trading platform for equity products and ETFs. This platform, designated as AEMI, is aimed at providing easy and fast access to automated order execution, as well as encompassing auction market capabilities for those situations in which there are order imbalances that require additional liquidity, or price improvement from the auction process is desired. The proposed operation of AEMI is described in detail in the AEMI Rule Filing, which includes in Amendment 5 thereto the text of the proposed new rules that would be applicable (the “AEMI Rules”). The Exchange believes that the operation of AEMI under the AEMI Rules would comply in all respects with the requirements of Regulation NMS, including the trade-through provisions of Rule 611. 5 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54145 (July 14, 2006), 71 FR 41654 (July 21, 2006) (File No. SR-Amex-2005-104). 6 As used herein, the term “equity products” includes equities and securities that trade like equities on the Exchange, such as listed and UTP stocks, closed-end funds, and certain structured products. The term “ETFs” includes Portfolio Depositary Receipts, Index Fund Shares, Trust Issued Receipts, and Partnership Units. The Exchange proposes to adopt, prior to the Trading Phase Date, currently set for February 5, 2007, a slightly modified version of the AEMI Rules (the “AEMI-One Rules”) in connection with the implementation of the AEMI-One version of AEMI as a limited pilot program (the “AEMI-One Pilot”). The Exchange recognizes that, during the period between the start of its rollout of AEMI and the Trading Phase Date, other SROs may also be in the process of deploying new or modified systems intended to achieve full compliance with Rule 611 and other provisions of Regulation NMS by the Trading Phase Date. Consequently, the Exchange has designed the AEMI-One Pilot with the objective in mind of protecting market quality and avoiding market disruptions during this critical period of change, in addition to assuring that investor protections are not compromised. The Exchange intends to deploy AEMI in a controlled manner during the AEMI-One Pilot, commencing with two listed equities and two ETF UTP securities. Following a successful ten-day period of trading, up to four listed ETFs would be added for an additional five days of trading. The Exchange would then accelerate the deployment of all equity products and ETFs on a per-post basis and give notice to members and publish on its Web site the timing for each group of securities being migrated to the AEMI platform. Because the AEMI Rules are based on the assumption that all provisions of Regulation NMS are fully operative, the proposed AEMI-One Rules that appear in Exhibit 5 to the proposed rule change filed with the Commission are slightly modified from their AEMI Rule counterparts to reflect the different regulatory environments in effect before and after the Trading Phase Date. The Exchange expects that the AEMI-One Pilot would be in effect for only a few months up until the Trading Phase Date, at which time the AEMI Rules would become effective and supersede the AEMI-One Rules. The Exchange would then delete the AEMI-One Rules from its rulebook via a filing with the Commission. The operation of AEMI-One would be, in most respects, consistent with the operation of AEMI as described in the AEMI Rule Filing, except for the specific provisions discussed below. To further highlight these differences, the Exchange is providing as Exhibit 4 to the proposed rule change filed with the Commission a marked version of the AEMI-One Rules that illustrates the changes from the corresponding AEMI Rules. The key provisions of the AEMI-One Rules that differ from the AEMI Rules are as follows: • “Protected quotations” for trade-through purposes in AEMI-One would consist of

(1)All quotations, whether manual or automated, at the national best bid or offer (“NBBO”) 7 that are at a better price than the next trade that would occur on AEMI; and

(2)quotations not at the NBBO, but priced better than the next trade that would occur on AEMI, that are the best bid or offer of an automated trading center that is not displaying a manual quote condition. In contrast, a “protected quotation” under the AEMI Rules (proposed to be effective on and after the Trading Phase Date) is defined to be consistent with Rule 611 of Regulation NMS 8 and must be an automated quotation that is the best bid or offer of an automated trading center whether or not at the NBBO. 7 Because of the inclusion of manual quotes at the NBBO in the definition of “protected quotations,” the term “automated NBBO” in the AEMI Rules would not be relevant during the AEMI-One Pilot. 8 *See* 17 CFR 242.600(b)(58) (defining “protected quotation”); *see also* 17 CFR 242.600(b)(57) (defining “protected bid” and “protected offer”). • An “automated trading center” under AEMI-One for order-routing decision purposes would be based on a determination made by the Exchange that would be publicly available. The Exchange would look first at whether the away market is publishing quote conditions that distinguish the away market's quotations as manual or automated for all of the away market's securities. If the away market were publishing such quote conditions, the away market would be identified by AEMI-One as an automated trading center, and order routing to that market for trade-through purposes would be determined according to the quote condition ( *i.e.* , such orders would be routed to quotations displayed by that market that are not at the NBBO, unless those quotations were identified by that market as manual quotes). If the away market were not publishing such quote conditions, the determination of whether it were an automated trading center for purposes of order routing decisions would be based on whether the Exchange deems the away market to be executing all incoming orders immediately and without human intervention. AEMI-One would contain a “routing table,” which also would be published on the Exchange's Web site and updated on an inter-day basis to reflect any changes, listing those markets that are not considered by the Amex to be automated trading centers. In contrast, an automated trading center under the AEMI Rules would be based upon the Regulation NMS definition of that term 9 and would not be determined independently by the Exchange. 9 *See* 17 CFR 242.600(b)(4) (defining “ automated trading center”). • During the period of the AEMI-One Pilot, not all away market centers that trade a particular security and whose quotes are “protected quotes” under the AEMI-One Rules may be capable of receiving intermarket sweep orders (“ISOs”), as such orders are defined in Regulation NMS. 10 In such circumstances, AEMI would not utilize ISOs and instead would generate “away market obligations.” An “away market obligation” is defined in the AEMI-One Rules as an immediate or cancel limit order generated by AEMI in connection with the execution of an order by AEMI and routed to one or more away market centers to execute against all better-priced protected quotations displayed by other market centers up to their displayed size. If an away market that trades a particular security were capable of receiving ISOs prior to the Trading Phase Date, then the Exchange could choose to require AEMI to generate and utilize ISOs as the away market obligations for that market. In contrast, the AEMI Rules effective on and after the Trading Phase Date would provide for the use of ISOs exclusively to comply with the trade-through provisions of Rule 611 for better-priced protected quotations displayed at other market centers. However, during the AEMI-One Pilot, AEMI would accept and trade all ISOs received by the Exchange that involve securities traded on the Exchange that have made the transfer from Amex's legacy systems to the AEMI platform, similar to the way AEMI would operate following the AEMI-One Pilot. 10 *See* 17 CFR 242.600(b)(30) (defining “ intermarket sweep order”). Amendment No. 1 Amendment No. 1 replaced and superseded the original filing in its entirety. Amendment No. 1 made a number of revisions to the text of the proposed rule change. Among other things, Amendment No. 1

(1)Adds a new proposed rule 126B—AEMI7-One that relates to the Exchange's order-routing services for orders routed to other trading centers;

(2)requires that, during the period of the AEMI-One Pilot, a member of the Exchange sending an intermarket sweep order to the AEMI platform must simultaneously send an intermarket sweep order (or a comparable order) for the full displayed size of the top of book of every other market center displaying a better-priced quotation; 11 and

(3)adds requirements that “self-help” be invoked by the Exchange pursuant to objective industry-wide established interpretations and policies and be based on repeated failures to respond within one second to orders attempting to access another trading center's protected automated quotations, where such failures are attributable to that trading center and where the Exchange notifies the non-responding trading center of its determination to invoke self help. 12 The aforementioned proposed Rule 126B—AEMI-One (Order Routing Services) provides, among other things, for

(1)Certain related agreements ( *e.g.* , on “give-ups” and on the licensing of the routing technology);

(2)the equitable allocation of dues, fees, and other charges;

(3)Exchange control of the routing logic; and

(4)the establishment and maintenance of procedures and internal controls designed to protect confidential and proprietary information. Finally, the amendment also makes a number of relatively minor corrections to the proposed rule text, including certain provisions related to Nasdaq securities that conform to recent changes in the Exchange's current rules. 11 *See* proposed Rule 131—AEMI-One, heading *Intermarket sweep order.* 12 *See* proposed Rule 126A—AEMI-One. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 13 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5), 14 in particular, in that it is 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. 13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 14 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange believes the proposed rule change would impose no 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 on this proposal. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period

(i)As the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding, or

(ii)as to which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:

(A)By order approve the proposed rule change or

(QQQQ)September 7, 2006. On July 7, 2006, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to retroactively apply a suspension of transaction charges for specialist orders in connection with the trading of the Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking Stock® (Symbol: QQQQ) from July 1, 2006 through July 12, 2006. On July 27, 2006, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 3 The proposed rule change, as amended, was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on August 8, 2006. 4 The Commission received no comments on the proposal. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 Amendment No. 1 replaced and superseded the original filing in its entirety. 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54262 (August 1, 2006), 71 FR 45083. The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 5 In particular, the Commission believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 6 in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members. 5 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 7 that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-Amex-2006-64), as amended, be, and it hereby is, approved. 7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 8 8 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-15273 Filed 9-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54415; File No. SR-ISE-2004-17] Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Market Maker Orders September 7, 2006. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on May 26, 2004, the International Securities Exchange, Inc. (“ISE” 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 Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change on August 14, 2006. 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 the original filing in its entirety. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rule 717(g) to eliminate the restriction on Electronic Access Members representing ISE market maker orders, provided that such orders are identified as orders for the account of an ISE market maker. Under the proposal, an Electronic Access Member will not be permitted to enter orders solicited from an ISE market maker into the Solicited Order Mechanism and the Price Improvement Mechanism. The text of the proposed rule change, as amended, is set forth below. Proposed new language is in italics; deletions are in [brackets]. Rule 716. Block Trades

(a)through

(e)No change. Supplementary Material to Rule 716 .01 through .04 No change. .05 Under paragraph

(e)above, Members may enter contra orders that are solicited. The Solicited Order Mechanism provides a facility for Members that locate liquidity for their customer orders. Members may not use the Solicited Order Mechanism to circumvent Exchange Rule 717(d) limiting principal transactions. This may include, but is not limited to, Members entering contra orders that are solicited from

(1)affiliated broker-dealers, or

(2)broker-dealers with which the Member has an arrangement that allows the Member to realize similar economic benefits from the solicited transaction as it would achieve by executing the customer order in whole or in part as principal. *Additionally, any solicited contra orders entered by Members to trade against Agency Orders may not be for the account of an ISE market maker that is assigned to the options class.* .06 through .08 No change. Rule 717. Limitations on Orders

(a)through

(f)No change.

(g)Orders for the Account of Another Member. [Absent an exemption from an Exchange official designated by the Board,] Electronic Access Members shall not cause the entry of orders for the account of an ISE market maker that is exempt from the provisions of Regulation T of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System pursuant to Section 7(c)(2) of the Exchange Act *unless such orders are identified as orders for the account of an ISE market maker in the manner prescribed by the Exchange.* Supplemental Material to Rule 717 .01 through .02 No change. Rule 723. Price Improvement Mechanism for Crossing Transactions

(a)through

(d)No change. Supplementary Material to Rule 723 .01 through .06 No change. *.07 Any solicited Counter-Side Orders submitted by an Electronic Access Member to trade against Agency Orders may not be for the account of an ISE market maker assigned to the options class.* 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 Currently, under ISE Rules, Electronic Access Members (“EAMs”) are not permitted to represent orders for the account of an ISE market maker. While it is common practice on other exchanges for brokers to represent orders for the account of a market maker, the ISE initially included this restriction in its rules due to a system limitation. Specifically, allowing ISE market makers to enter orders through another member instead of directly might have created an opportunity for ISE market makers to avoid certain limitations on market maker trading contained in the Exchange's Rules. 4 4 *See, e.g.* , ISE Rule 805 (Market Maker Orders). The Exchange has developed the capability for EAMs to mark orders to show that they are for the account of an ISE market maker. As such, these orders will flow through the Exchange's surveillance system as if they were directly entered by the market makers. Therefore, we propose to eliminate the prohibition against EAMs entering orders for the account of ISE market makers. However, under the proposal, an EAM will be prohibited from entering orders solicited from an ISE market maker assigned to the options class into the Solicited Order Mechanism and the Price Improvement Mechanism, which are designed to expose solicited transactions to the market. 5 5 This limitation on entering orders solicited from market makers assigned to the options class was included in a rule change by the CBOE (the “Automated Improvement Mechanism” or “AIM”) recently approved by the Commission. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53222 (Feb. 3, 2006), 71 FR 7089 (Feb. 10, 2006). The execution of solicited transactions through AIM is similar to the execution of orders through the ISE's Solicited Order Mechanism and Price Improvement Mechanism. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 6 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 7 in particular, in that it is designed to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transaction in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. In particular, the rule change will allow EAMs to represent ISE market maker orders on the ISE, while prohibiting them from entering orders solicited from market makers assigned to the options class through mechanisms designed to expose solicited transactions to the market. 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 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 would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others The Exchange has not solicited comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action 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, 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-ISE-2004-17 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2004-17. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2004-17 and should be submitted on or before October 5, 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. E6-15268 Filed 9-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54416; File No. SR-MSRB-2006-07] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rule G-14 RTRS Procedures Relating to “List Offering Price” and “Takedown” Transactions September 8, 2006. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on August 15, 2006, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB” or “Board”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the MSRB. 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 MSRB is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change to Rule G-14 RTRS Procedures under Rule G-14, Reports of Sales or Purchases, to expand the usage of “list offering price” transactions to include certain inter-dealer “takedown” transactions and to require the reporting of these transactions as “list offering price” transactions on the first day of trading of a new issue. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's Web site ( *http://www.msrb.org* ), at the MSRB's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the MSRB 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 MSRB 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 MSRB Rule G-14 requires brokers, dealers, and municipal securities dealers (collectively “dealers”) to report information about each purchase and sale transaction effected in municipal securities to the Real-Time Transaction Reporting System (“RTRS”) in the manner prescribed by Rule G-14 RTRS Procedures. Rule G-14 requires that transactions effected with a time of trade during the hours of the RTRS business day be reported within fifteen minutes of the time of trade to an RTRS Portal. Under MSRB Rule G-14 RTRS Procedures, paragraph (a)(ii), there are three exceptions to this fifteen minute reporting requirement. The exception addressed by the proposed rule change currently allows syndicate managers, syndicate members and selling group members that effect trades in new issues on the first day of trading at the list offering price to report such trades by the end of the day on which the trades were executed. 3 This exception is known as the “List Offering Price” exception. 3 The other two exceptions to the fifteen minute reporting rule are:

(1)A dealer effecting a trade in a short-term instrument under nine months in effective maturity (including variable rate instruments, auction rate products, and commercial paper) shall report such trades by the end of the business day on which the trades were executed; and

(2)a dealer shall report a trade within three hours of the time of trade if certain conditions apply. *See* MSRB Rule G-14 RTRS Procedures (a)(ii)(B) and (C). The “List Offering Price” is defined as the publicly announced initial offering price at which a new issue of municipal securities is to be offered to the public. 4 The MSRB provided the end-of-day reporting deadline for these customer transactions because of the substantial operational difficulties underwriters would face in reporting large numbers of List Offering Price transactions within a fifteen-minute window after the formal award. The MSRB also concluded that real-time dissemination of large numbers of primary market transactions occurring at the same price would not offer a substantial benefit to RTRS transparency objectives. 4 If the price is not publicly disseminated ( *e.g.* , if the security is a “not reoffered” maturity within a serial issue), the price is not a List Offering Price. *See* “Reminder Notice on List Offering Price and Three-hour Exception for Real-Time Transaction Reporting: Rule G-14,” MSRB Notice 2004-40 (December 10, 2004). For purposes of RTRS transaction reporting, a “Takedown” transaction is a primary market sale transaction executed on the first day of trading of a new issue by a sole underwriter or syndicate manager to a syndicate or selling group member at a discount from the List Offering Price. In a 2004 notice, the MSRB stated that these inter-dealer transactions must be reported within fifteen minutes of the time of execution and that they do not fall within the List Offering Price end-of-day exception. 5 As experience with real-time transaction reporting has increased, however, industry members have pointed out that Takedown transactions share many of the same characteristics as List Offering Price transactions. A high volume of Takedown transactions on the first day of trading in a new issue, for example, often presents operational difficulties for underwriters attempting to report all of their Takedown transactions within a fifteen-minute window. It also has been noted that prices for both Takedown transactions and List Offering Price transactions are set under an offering price agreement for the new issue and therefore do not necessarily reflect market prices at the time the transaction is effected. Thus, the proposed rule change would expand the definition of List Offering Price to include Takedown transactions, require use of an indicator on reports of all List Offering Price and Takedown transactions, and retain the end of the day exception from the normal fifteen minute reporting deadline for the expanded category of “List Offering Price/Takedown” transactions. 6 5 *See id.* 6 These List Offering Price/Takedown transactions would be designated with the same special condition indicator currently in use for List Offering Price transactions. The technical requirements for the current List Offering Price indicator are summarized in the *Specifications for Real-Time Reporting of Municipal Securities Transactions* which is available on-line at *http://www.msrb.org.* The draft revisions to the *Specifications* for the indicator identifying the List Offering Price/Takedown Transactions may be found in “Request for Comment on Draft Procedures for Reporting Special Condition Indicators on Certain New Issue Transactions,” MSRB Notice 2006-10 (April 21, 2006). The proposed List Offering Price/Takedown indicator would be required to be used by dealers when reporting any primary market sale transaction executed on the first day of trading of a new issue: • By a sole underwriter, syndicate manager, syndicate member or selling group member at the published list offering price for the security (“List Offering Price Transaction”); or • By a sole underwriter or syndicate manager to a syndicate or selling group member at a discount from the published list offering price for the security (“RTRS Takedown Transaction”). The indicator would be included on MSRB price transparency reports to designate to transparency report users that the trade report does not represent a normal secondary market transaction. The proposed rule change recognizes the similarities between List Offering Price and Takedown transactions and the dissimilarities between these transactions and secondary market transactions in a new issue. Since the secondary market transactions in a new issue are likely to provide the best gauge of the current market value for a new issue and may be reported to RTRS simultaneously with List Offering Price and Takedown transactions, the MSRB believes that transparency reports on the first day of trading for a new issue would be more useful if List Offering Price and Takedown transactions were identified with a special condition indicator. 2. Statutory Basis The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act, 7 which provides that the MSRB's rules shall: Be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in municipal securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market in municipal securities, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 7 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C). The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act because it will allow the municipal securities industry to produce more accurate trade reporting and transparency and will enhance surveillance data used by enforcement agencies. B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The MSRB does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act since it would apply equally to all dealers. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received from Members, Participants, or Others On April 21, 2006, the MSRB published for comment a notice with respect to reporting procedures for List Offering Price and Takedown transactions. 8 In response, the MSRB received six comment letters from: The Bond Market Association (“TBMA”), Jerry L. Chapman, Private Investor (“Chapman”), Digital Assurance Certification LLC (“DAC”), First Southwest Company (“First Southwest”), Nuveen Investments (“Nuveen”) and Wulff, Hansen & Co. (“Wulff, Hansen”). 9 8 MSRB Notice 2006-10 (April 21, 2006). 9 The comment letter from Wulff, Hansen did not address the issues relating to List Offering Price and Takedown transactions in MSRB Notice 2006-10 (April 21, 2006). Rather, the comment letter discussed other aspects of the Notice that are not relevant to this rule filing. TBMA, Chapman, DAC and Nuveen all indicated support for including Takedown trades in the definition of list price transactions and allowing such transactions to be reported by the end of the day. Chapman stated that he is “happy to see the MSRB is * * * recognizing [that] a takedown trade is a list trade.” First Southwest supported the proposal to include Takedown transactions “within the definition of List Offering Price” and giving such transactions the end-of-day exception from real-time reporting. 10 10 First Southwest, however, opposed the proposal in MSRB Notice 2006-10 (April 21, 2006) that dealers would be required to use a special condition indicator for these transactions. The indicator, however, must be mandatory in order to be useful in distinguishing List Offering Price and Takedown transactions from secondary market transactions. After reviewing these comments, the MSRB approved the draft amendments for filing with the SEC. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing For Commission Action The MSRB proposes an effective date for the proposed rule change of January 8, 2007. 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 Number SR-MSRB-2006-07 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2006-07. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the MSRB's offices. 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-MSRB-2006-07 and should be submitted on or before October 5, 2006. 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. E6-15230 Filed 9-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5545] Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Royal Collections” SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, *et seq.* ), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Royal Collections,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the High Museum of Art, Atlanta, Georgia, from on or about October 14, 2006, until on or about September 2, 2007, at the Denver Art Museum, Denver, Colorado, beginning on or about October 13, 2007, until on or about January 8, 2008, and at possible additional venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Wolodymyr Sulzynsky, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. Dated: September 1, 2006. C. Miller Crouch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-15259 Filed 9-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary [Docket OST-2006-25612] Notice of Extension for Filing Comments; Request by Hawaiian Airlines for Declaratory Order Concerning Hawaiian's American Samoa Service AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation. SUMMARY: The Department is changing the due dates for comments and reply comments on the legal and policy questions presented by a petition submitted by Hawaiian Airlines for a declaratory order regarding an Executive Order issued by the Honorable Togiola T.A. Tulafono, the Governor of American Samoa. The Governor's order proposes to block Hawaiian from continuing to serve American Samoa if another airline replaces Hawaiian's service between Honolulu and Pago Pago. Comments will now be due October 31, and reply comments will be due November 21, 2006. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 31, 2006. Replies must be filed by November 21, 2006. ADDRESSES: Objections and answers to objections must be filed in Docket number OST-2006-25612 by one of the following means:

(1)By mail to the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

(2)By hand delivery to Room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

(3)Electronically through the Web site for the Docket Management System at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Comments must be filed in Docket OST-2006-25612. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Ray, Office of the General Counsel (C-30, Room 4102), U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590,

(202)366-4731, or Nancy Kessler, Office of the General Counsel (C-10, Room 10102), U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590,

(202)366-9301. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 10, 2006, Hawaiian Airlines, the only airline currently providing scheduled passenger service between American Samoa and another U.S. State or territory, filed a petition asking for a declaratory order regarding an Executive Order issued by the Honorable Togiola T.A. Tulafono, the Governor of American Samoa, that proposed to block Hawaiian from continuing to serve American Samoa. Governor Tulafono has been dissatisfied with the quality and price of Hawaiian's service. His executive order, issued July 26, 2006, stated that American Samoa intends to find another airline to replace Hawaiian's service and that he will issue a second executive order barring Hawaiian from continuing to operate to American Samoa when another airline is ready to replace Hawaiian's service between Pago Pago and Honolulu. Hawaiian's petition, filed in Docket OST-2006-25612, contends that the Governor may not lawfully block Hawaiian from serving the Honolulu-Pago Pago market. Hawaiian's petition thus presents the question of whether Federal law will allow the Governor to take the action proposed by his Executive Order, or will prohibit him from doing so. Because we were unwilling to rule on Hawaiian's petition without making sure that American Samoa had a full opportunity to respond to the petition, and because no one submitted comments in response to Hawaiian's petition, we published a notice inviting American Samoa and all other interested persons to submit comments on the petition. Comments were due September 15, and reply comments were due September 22, 2006. 71 FR 52205 (September 1, 2006). On August 30, the Governor of American Samoa sent a letter to Susan McDermott, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs, requesting that at least sixty days, and preferably ninety days, be allowed for submitting comments on Hawaiian's petition. The Governor stated that the issues presented by Hawaiian's petition could not be adequately addressed within a fourteen-day comment period. He suggested that the comment period in this proceeding should reflect the procedures used in rulemaking proceedings, where sixty-day comment periods are common. We have placed a copy of the Governor's letter in the docket for this proceeding and sent a copy to Hawaiian. Hawaiian states that it does not object to a sixty-day comment period. We will establish a comment period of sixty days, as the Governor has requested. Comments therefore will be due sixty days after the September 1 publication of our initial **Federal Register** notice. This will give the parties ample time for preparing their responses to Hawaiian's petition. We will also give parties two additional weeks for filing reply comments. The parties' submissions thus far suggest that we should provide some guidance on the procedural requirements for this proceeding. Because Hawaiian is requesting a declaratory order regarding its individual dispute with the Governor, this proceeding is an adjudication, not a rulemaking. As such, it is subject to our rules for adjudicatory proceedings where no oral evidentiary hearing is held, 14 CFR 302.1 through 302.15. In adjudications, fundamental principles of fairness require that each party must serve the other parties whenever it submits its views to us on substantive or procedural issues. As a result, Hawaiian, the Governor, and the other parties must send all of their future filings directly to the docket for this proceeding and must simultaneously serve the other parties (at this time, the parties consist of Hawaiian and the Governor). While we sent a copy of Hawaiian's petition to the Governor and then forwarded the Governor's request for more time to Hawaiian, in the future each party is responsible for ensuring that it has sent a copy of any written request or pleading to the other parties. Dated: September 8, 2006. Michael W. Reynolds, Acting Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs. [FR Doc. 06-7645 Filed 9-13-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 14

Traces to 14 documents

U.S. Code