Notices. Notice of Computer Matching Program—Postal Service and states maintaining public sex offender registries
27,921 words·~127 min read·
/register/2006/10/18/06-8748A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration By Notice dated May 17, 2006, and published in the **Federal Register** on May 25, 2006, (71 FR 30165), Applied Science Labs., Division of Alltech Associates Inc., 2701 Carolean Industrial Drive, State College, Pennsylvania 16801, made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA)to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370), a basic class of controlled substance listed in Schedule I. The company plans to manufacture metabolites of Delta-9-THC to be used as chromatographic standards. These compounds fall under drug code 7370 Tetrahydrocannabinols). No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Applied Science Labs to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Applied Science Labs to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. Dated: October 11, 2006. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration. [FR Doc. E6-17291 Filed 10-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application Pursuant to Section 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on May 22, 2006, Boehringer Ingelheim Chemicals Inc., 2820 N. Normandy Drive, Petersburg, Virginia 23805, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA)to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedules I and II: Drug Schedule Tetrahydrocannabinols
(7370)I Amphetamine
(1100)II Methylphenidate
(1724)II Methadone
(9250)II Methadone Intermediate
(9254)II Dextropropoxyphene, bulk (non-dosage forms)
(9273)II Fentanyl
(9801)II The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for sale to its customers for formulation into finished pharmaceuticals. Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such a substance may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a). Any such written comments or objections being sent via regular mail should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC 20537, *Attention:* DEA Federal Register Representative/ODL; or any being sent via express mail should be sent to DEA Headquarters, *Attention:* DEA Federal Register Representative/ODL, 2401 Jefferson-Davis Highway, Alexandria, Virginia 22301; and must be filed no later than December 18, 2006. Dated: October 6, 2006. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration. [FR Doc. E6-17276 Filed 10-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Importer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 958(i), the Attorney General shall, prior to issuing a registration under this Section to a bulk manufacturer of a controlled substance in schedule I or II and prior to issuing a registration under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2) authorizing the importation of such a substance, provide manufacturers holding registrations for the bulk manufacture of the substance an opportunity for a hearing. Therefore, in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on May 22, 2006, Boehringer Ingelheim Chemical, Inc., 2820 N. Normandy Drive, Petersburg, Virginia 23805, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA)to be registered as an importer of Phenylacetone (8501), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II. The company plans to import the listed controlled substance to bulk manufacture amphetamine. Any manufacturer who is presently, or is applying to be, registered with DEA to manufacture such basic class of controlled substance may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration and may, at the same time, file a written request for a hearing on such application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 and in such form as prescribed by 21 CFR 1316.47. Any such written comments or objections being sent via regular mail should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODL; or any being sent via express mail should be sent to DEA Headquarters, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODL, 2401 Jefferson-Davis Highway, Alexandria, Virginia 22301; and must be filed no later than November 17, 2006. This procedure is to be conducted simultaneously with, and independent of, the procedures described in 21 CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d),
(e)and (f). As noted in a previous notice published in the **Federal Register** on September 23, 1975, (40 FR 43745-46), all applicants for registration to import a basic class of any controlled substance in schedule I or II are and will continue to be required to demonstrate to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, that the requirements for such registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 958(a), 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and 21 CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d),
(e)and
(f)are satisfied. Dated: October 11, 2006. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration. [FR Doc. E6-17293 Filed 10-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Importer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration By Notice dated June 7, 2006, and published in the **Federal Register** on June 13, 2006 (71 FR 34162), Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc., Attn: Regulatory Compliance, 9115 Hague Road, Indianapolis, Indiana 46250, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA)to be registered as an importer of the basic class of controlled substances listed in Schedule I and II: Drug Schedule Lysergic acid diethylamide
(7315)I Tetrahydrocannabinols
(7370)I Cocaine
(9041)II Ecgonine
(9180)II Methadone
(9250)II Morphine
(9300)II Alphamethadol
(9605)II The company plans to import the listed controlled substances for the manufacture of diagnostic products for distribution to its customers. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a) and determined that the registration of Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc. to import the basic class of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971, at this time. DEA has investigated Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and § 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic class of controlled substances listed. Dated: October 11, 2006. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration. [FR Doc. E6-17289 Filed 10-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application Pursuant to Section 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on February 27, 2006, Varian, Inc., Lake Forest, 25200 Commercentre Drive, Lake Forest, California 92630-8810, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA)to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in Schedule II: Drug Schedule Phencyclidine
(7471)II 1-Piperidinocyclohexanecarbo-nitrile
(8603)II Benzoylecgonine
(9180)II The company plans to manufacture small quantities of the listed controlled substances for use in diagnostic products. Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such a substance may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a). Any such written comments or objections being sent via regular mail should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC 20537, *Attention:* DEA Federal Register Representative/ODL; or any being sent via express mail should be sent to DEA Headquarters, *Attention:* DEA Federal Register Representative/ODL, 2401 Jefferson-Davis Highway, Alexandria, Virginia 22301; and must be filed no later than December 18, 2006. Dated: October 11, 2006. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration. [FR Doc. E6-17277 Filed 10-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request October 13, 2006. The Department of Labor
(DOL)has submitted the following public information collection request
(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting Ira Mills at the Department of Labor on 202-693-4122 (this is not a toll-free number) or E-Mail: *Mills.Ira@dol.gov.* This ICR can also be accessed online at *http://www.doleta.gov/OMBCN/OMBControlNumber.cfm.* ICRs are filed according to the date the 60-day Notice for Public Comment was published in the **Federal Register** Notice; therefore, on the left hand side of this site, look under July 25, 2006 to access 1205-0441. Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, 202-395-7316 (this is not a toll free number), within 30 days from the date of this publication in the **Federal Register** . The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate 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; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses. *Agency:* Employment and Training Administration (ETA). *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Title:* Evaluation of the Individual Training Account Experiment. *OMB Number:* 1205-0441. *Frequency:* One time, follow-up, as needed. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Type of Response:* Reporting. *Number of Respondents:* 3,840. *Annual Responses:* 3,840. *Average Response time:* 30 minutes. *Total Annual Burden Hours:* 1,920. *Total Annualized Capital/Startup Costs:* 0. *Total Annual Costs (operating/maintaining systems or purchasing services):* 0. *Description:* This clearance package seeks approval for the extension of the currently approved follow-up survey for the Individual Training Account
(ITA)Experiment. The experiment is designed to test three different approaches to providing ITAs. Data from the follow-up survey of ITA customers will be used by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. to describe experiences inside the workforce system and labor market outcomes for ITA customers. Measures of these experiences and outcomes would be used to further evaluate the three approaches. Based on information from the survey and other data sources, the U.S. Department of Labor can provide information to local workforce boards on how to administer their ITA programs. Ira L. Mills, Departmental Clearance Officer, Team Leader. [FR Doc. E6-17356 Filed 10-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P FEDERAL COUNCIL ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES Arts And Artifacts Indemnity Panel Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463 as amended) notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Panel of the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities will be held at 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506, in Room 716, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., on Monday, November 6, 2006. The purpose of the meeting is to review applications for Certificates of Indemnity submitted to the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities for exhibitions beginning after January 1, 2007. Because the proposed meeting will consider financial and commercial data and because it is important to keep values of objects, methods of transportation and security measures confidential, pursuant to the authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee Meetings, dated July 19, 1993, I have determined that the meeting would fall within exemption
(4)of 5 U.S.C. 552(b) and that it is essential to close the meeting. It is suggested that those desiring more specific information contact Acting Advisory Committee Management Officer, Heather Gottry, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506, or call 202-606-8322. Heather Gottry, Acting Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E6-17362 Filed 10-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7536-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-482] Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation; Notice of Receipt and Availability of Application for Renewal of Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1 Facility Operating License No. NPF-42 for an Additional 20-Year Period The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) has received an application, dated September 27, 2006, from Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, filed pursuant to Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* Part 54 (10 CFR Part 54), to renew the operating license for the Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS), Unit 1. Renewal of the license would authorize the applicant to operate the facility for an additional 20-year period beyond the period specified in the current operating license. The current operating license for WCGS, Unit 1, (NPF-42), expires on March 11, 2025. WCGS, Unit 1, is a pressurized water reactor designed by Westinghouse Electric Corporation that is located near Burlington, KS. The acceptability of the tendered application for docketing, and other matters including an opportunity to request a hearing, will be the subject of subsequent **Federal Register** notices. Copies of the application are available to the public at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852 or through the internet from the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room under Accession Number ML062770300. The ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room is accessible from the NRC Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* In addition, the application is available at *http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications.html.* Persons who do not have access to the internet or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC's PDR reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, extension 4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* A copy of the license renewal application for the WCGS, Unit 1, is also available to local residents near the site at the Burlington Library, 410 Juniatta, Burlington, KS 66839. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of October, 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Pao-Tsin Kuo, Deputy Director, Division of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-17323 Filed 10-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P POSTAL SERVICE Privacy Act of 1974, Computer Matching Program—Postal Service and State Agencies AGENCY: Postal Service. ACTION: Notice of Computer Matching Program—Postal Service and states maintaining public sex offender registries. SUMMARY: The Postal Service plans to conduct an ongoing matching program to identify any current Postal Service employees who are required by state law to register on a state's public registry of sex offenders. State registries contain information about individuals who are statutorily required to register, having committed sexually-violent offenses against adults or children, certain other crimes against victims who are minors, or other comparable offenses. The Postal Service is undertaking this initiative to ascertain the suitability of individuals for certain positions or employment. The Postal Service will compare its payroll database for employees working in participating states against public records contained in the state sex offender registries. DATES: The matching program will become effective no sooner than 30 days after notice of the matching program is sent to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Agreements with individual states will continue for 18 months from the effective date and may be extended for a period of time, up to 12 months, if certain conditions are met. ADDRESSES: Written comments on this proposal should be mailed or delivered to the Records Office, Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Room 5846, Washington, DC 20260-5353. Copies of all written comments will be available at the above address for public inspection and photocopying between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Eyre at 202-268-2608. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Postal Service seeks to provide the public with accurate and efficient mail delivery to the more than 144 million businesses and residences in this country. Given the public nature of the Postal Service, published standards of conduct for Postal Service employees prohibit any employee from engaging in criminal, dishonest, or similar prejudicial conduct. The Postal Service plans to participate as the recipient agency in computer matches of current Postal Service employees who have been required as a matter of law to register on state sexual offender public registries. After extensively verifying the accuracy of the information, the Postal Service will use the information to determine whether the reported offenses may impact on an individual's suitability for certain positions or employment. The Postal Service will analyze each occurrence on a case-by-case basis to determine the appropriate action to take. In this regard, the Postal Service will consider the seriousness of the offense, the date of the offense, and the nature of the employee's position with the Postal Service. The only data to be used in the match is public information, from both the Postal Service and the state agencies. The Postal Service will extract public information, including employees' name and work location, from its payroll database. This information is public information in accordance with Handbook AS-353, *Guide to Privacy and Freedom of Information Act* , section 5-2b(3) (available at *www.usps.com/privacyoffice* ), and the Postal Service considers such data to be subject to disclosure requirements under the Freedom of Information Act. The data will be matched against participating state sexual offender registries, which are posted on various state Web sites for the public. The Postal Service will take extensive efforts to ensure that the data is accurate. Postal inspectors will review the match report in order to verify that the person identified in the state sexual offender public registry is in fact a Postal Service employee. A postal inspector will then determine whether the person is properly included on the public registry by reviewing the relevant facts about the offense from information furnished by relevant law enforcement agencies, such as the arresting agency. The postal inspector will refer instances where the employee failed to provide any required notice of the offense to Postal Service management, or other instances considered employee misconduct, to the Office of Inspector General (OIG). The inspector or OIG special agent will prepare an investigative memorandum or report of investigation, respectively, which will be sent to the individual employee's installation head. The installation head will ensure that a case-by-case analysis is conducted regarding the appropriate action to be taken. The Postal Service will provide at least 30 days advance notice prior to the initiation of any adverse action against a matched individual (unless the Postal Service determines that public health or safety may be affected or threatened pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(p)(3)). The privacy of employees will be safeguarded and protected. The Postal Service will manage all data in strict accordance with the *Privacy Act of 1974* and the terms of the matching agreement. Any verified data that is maintained will be managed within the parameters of the *Privacy Act System of Record USPS 700.000, Inspection Service Investigative File System* (last published April 29, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 82)); and, for cases referred to the OIG, data that is maintained will also be managed within the parameters of *Privacy Act System of Record USPS 700.300, Inspector General Investigative Records* (last published June 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 114)). To the extent that there are any disclosures of Postal Service payroll data (the state agencies will not have access to such data), such disclosures are authorized by the Privacy Act. Disclosures are authorized by a Privacy Act routine use applicable to the payroll system of records (as well as other personnel systems) that pertains to disclosures to federal and state agencies that are needed by the Postal Service or agency to make decisions regarding personnel matters; and under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(2) which authorizes disclosures that would be required under 5 U.S.C. 552 (the Freedom of Information Act). Key privacy features of the matching agreement include the following: • Requiring that the identity of matched individuals be verified and that the relevant facts of the offense be confirmed; • Requiring appropriate security controls for the data match; • Providing protections for employees, who appear as an initial match but who are not subsequently verified as belonging on the state registry of offenders; and • Requiring the Postal Service to complete the verification, and provide at least 30 days advance notice, prior to the initiation of any adverse action against a matched individual (unless the Postal Service determines that public health and safety may be affected or threatened pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(p)(3)). The Postal Service intends to enter into matching agreements with the states using the template matching agreement below. If there is any substantive variation in a matching agreement with a state, the Postal Service will issue notice of that modified matching agreement in the **Federal Register** . Set forth below are the terms of the template-matching agreement, which provide the information required by the *Privacy Act of 1974* , as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a), and the * Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 * (Public Law 100-503). Neva R. Watson, Attorney, Legislative. Memorandum of Agreement Between United States Postal Service and the State of ____ A. Introduction The Postal Service plans to match extracts from its payroll system against the state of ____ registry of sexual offenders. Since the match compares a federal payroll system against a non-federal system, the computer match is subject to the computer match requirements of section
(o)of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended by the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-503). Section
(o)requires a federal agency, in order to use records for a computer matching program, to enter into a written agreement with the non-federal agency that has been approved by the participant federal agency Data Integrity Board. B. Purpose and Legal Authority 1. Purpose of the Matching Program The purpose of this agreement is to set forth the terms under which a computer matching program will be conducted to identify Postal Service employees, who have been required to register with the state's sexual offender public registry. The registry contains information about individuals, who are required by state law to register as a sex offender, having committed sexually-violent offenses against adults or children, certain other crimes against victims who are minors, or other comparable offenses. The Postal Service is undertaking this initiative to determine whether reported offenses may affect an individual's suitability for certain positions or employment. 2. Legal Authority The legal authority for undertaking this matching program is contained in the Postal Reorganization Act, 39 U.S.C. 401(10) and 404(a)(7). Section 401(10) of the Act grants the Postal Service “to have all other powers incidental, necessary, or appropriate to the carrying on of its functions, or the exercise of its specific powers,” and Section 404(a)(7) of the Act authorizes the Postal Service to “investigate postal offenses and civil matters relating to the Postal Service.” C. Justification and Expected Results The expected results of the match are to identify current Postal Service employees, who have been required as a matter of law to register on the state's sexual offender public registry. As described below, the Postal Service will take appropriate steps to verify the information is valid. In instances where a match is verified, the Postal Service will conduct a case-by-case analysis regarding the employee to determine the appropriate action to be taken. In this regard, the Postal Service will evaluate the seriousness of the offense, the date of the offense, and the nature of the postal position of the employee. Although monetary savings may result indirectly from the matching program due to the minimization of the exposure to the community of employees who pose a potential threat of harm to the public, the Postal Service does not estimate any specific cost savings. The purpose and value of the program is safety for the community and other Postal Service employees. The principal alternative to using a computer matching program for identifying such individuals would be to conduct a manual comparison of Postal Service payroll records of employees with the state's sexual offender public registry. Given that the Postal Service employs thousands of employees in the state, this would impose significant administrative burden and financial costs. D. Records Description 1. Systems of Records and Estimation of Number of Records Involved The Postal Service will extract records from its Privacy Act System of Records (USPS 100.400), Personnel Compensation and Payroll Records, containing payroll records for approximately ____ current employees who work in the state of ____. The Postal Service will match the records with the state sex offender registry records for the state, which contain records for approximately ____listed offenders. 2. Data Elements To Be Used in the Match The Postal Service will provide a data extract that will contain a list of employee names associated with a facility name and address. This list will be compared against the state file of registered sexual offenders, establishing “hits” (i.e., individuals common to both files on the basis of matched names and home or work locations). For each hit, the Postal Service will obtain the name and address of each individual. 3. Projected Starting and Completion Dates The matching program is expected to begin in ____ 2006 and to continue in effect for 18 months unless terminated by either party before that time. The Postal Service will provide notice of the program to the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the House of Representatives, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Matches under this program will be conducted no often than quarterly. Matching activity under this program will begin no sooner than 30 days after transmittal of the matching agreements to Congress and OMB. E. Notice Procedures Constructive notice is given in the **Federal Register** notice that describes this matching program. In addition, the Postal Service will provide advance notice to relevant employee unions and management associations prior to the initiation of this matching program. For current and future employees completing a PS Form 2591, *Application for Employment* , a notice of possible computer matches involving their records will be included in the Privacy Act notice on that form. F. Verification Procedures The Postal Service and the state agency agree that the occurrence of a report containing any individual's name common to both files (a “hit”) is not conclusive evidence of a person's conduct, but merely an indication that further examination is warranted. No adverse action will be premised upon the raw results of the computer match. The Postal Service agrees to verify the information obtained in the match in accordance with the procedures described herein. In all cases of matched names, postal inspectors will verify that the person identified in the state sexual offender public registry is a postal employee. If an employee's identity is established, a postal inspector will confirm and verify the relevant facts about the offense from relevant law enforcement sources. Examples of sources that may be reviewed include the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), the National Law Enforcement Telecommunication System (NLETS), and sources provided by state law enforcement agencies such as the arresting agency. Prior to the Postal Service initiating any adverse action against any employee identified through this match, the employee will be given advance notice of, and an opportunity to contest, the action as provided in the applicable union agreements and Postal Service regulations, but not less than 30 days. The Postal Service may take appropriate action without providing such advance notice, however, if it determines that public health and safety may be affected or threatened pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(p)(3). The Postal Service will not maintain any lists of individuals representing non-hits. The match will be structured so as not to produce any records or lists of non-hits. G. Disposition of Matched Items Information about individuals who initially were “hits” but are not subsequently verified as being both a Postal Service employee and on the state sex offender list will be destroyed immediately upon making that verification. Other identifiable records created during the course of the matching program will be destroyed as soon as they have served the matching program's purpose and any legal retention requirements. Destruction will be by shredding, burning, or electronic erasure. H. Security Procedures 1. Administrative The Postal Service will protect the privacy of the subject individuals by strict adherence to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974. The Postal Service will maintain and safeguard data exchanged and any records created during the course of the matching program in accordance with the Privacy Act. Records will be kept in secured areas during working and non-working hours. Hardcopy records will be stored in locked desks or file cabinets and automated records will be stored in secured computer facilities with strict ADP controls. Access will be restricted to those individuals who are authorized to obtain access or need access to accomplish the matching program's purpose. The state agency will not have access to Postal Service payroll records or to any matched records, and will provide access to its system in accordance with state law. 2. Technical The Inspection Service and the state agency will establish agreed upon procedures for the secure and expedited exchange of information between them. The Postal Service payroll data will be kept on the secured Inspection Service network. Access to the state registry will also be done on the secured Inspection Service network. While in the custody of the Inspection Service, the data will be stored in a secure database that meets all law enforcement security standards. I. Records Usage, Duplication and Re-Disclosure Restrictions The Postal Service will not
(1)disclose records obtained for this matching program within or outside its agency except as authorized by law or when disclosure is necessary to conduct the matching program;
(2)use the records in a manner incompatible with the purposes stated in this matching program; or
(3)extract information concerning “non-matching” individuals (individuals not identified as being both a Postal Service employee and a sexual offenders registrant). The state agency will not have access to or retain Postal Service payroll data or any matched data under this program. The Postal Service will not duplicate data exchanged unless needed to conduct the matching program, and all stipulations herein will apply to any duplication. The Postal Service may disclose results of any matches for follow-up and verification, or for civil or criminal law enforcement investigation or prosecution, if the match uncovers activity that warrants such action. J. Records Accuracy Assessments The degree of accuracy of Postal Service data is considered extremely high since the automated system in which it is housed contains numerous edits that prevent invalid information from being entered. Steps to ensure accuracy include certifications and edits that prevent duplicate or multiple actions on the same employee in the same cycle, entry of keying errors, and entry of actions before their effective dates. The probability of encountering erroneous matches or other incorrect information through the use of these data is extremely small. Federal law contains safeguards requiring states that maintain registries to ensure the accuracy of their data. In particular, federal law requires states to obtain the fingerprints of each registrant. Moreover, the states must verify the accuracy of each registrant's address information at least annually and as often as every ninety days for certain offenders. The Postal Service will also use the verification procedure established above to ensure that it is relying upon accurate data. K. Comptroller General Access The Comptroller General may have access to all records necessary to monitor or verify compliance with this Agreement. L. Duration of Matching Agreement This agreement will become effective under the terms set forth in Paragraph D, and remain in effect for 18 months. At the end of this period, the agreement may be renewed for a period of up to one additional year if the Data Integrity Board determines within three months before the expiration date that the program has been conducted appropriately and should continue to be conducted without change. The agreement may be modified at any time if the modification is in writing and approved by both parties in accordance with the Privacy Act and agency guidelines. [FR Doc. E6-17453 Filed 10-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P POSTAL SERVICE Privacy Act of 1974, Computer Matching Program AGENCY: Postal Service. ACTION: Notice of Computer Matching Program. SUMMARY: The Postal Service TM plans to conduct an ongoing matching program to identify any current Postal Service employees, who are required by state law to register on a state's public registry of sex offenders. State registries contain information about individuals who are statutorily required to register, having committed sexually-violent offenses against adults or children, certain other crimes against victims who are minors, or other comparable offenses. The Postal Service is undertaking this initiative to ascertain the suitability of individuals for certain positions or employment. The Postal Service will compare its payroll database for employees working in designated states against public records contained in the state sex offender registries. DATES: The matching program will become effective no sooner than 30 days after notice of the matching program is sent to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). ADDRESSES: Written comments on this proposal should be mailed or delivered to the Records Office, Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Room 5846, Washington, DC 20260-5353. Copies of all written comments will be available at the above address for public inspection and photocopying between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Eyre at 202-268-2608. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Postal Service seeks to provide the public with accurate and efficient mail delivery to the more than 144 million businesses and residences in this country. Given the public nature of the Postal Service, published standards of conduct for Postal Service employees prohibit any employee from engaging in criminal, dishonest, or similar prejudicial conduct. The Postal Service plans to conduct an internal match that compares records from a *Privacy Act of 1974* system of records and a grouping of records that is not subject to the Privacy Act. Under these circumstances, the match does not constitute a matching program subject to the computer matching provisions of the Privacy Act. Nevertheless, the Postal Service is conducting the matching program under these provisions to protect the interests of its employees. This new computer match program will identify Postal Service employees, who have been required as a matter of law to register on state sexual offender public registries. After extensively verifying the accuracy of the information, the Postal Service will use the information to determine whether reported offenses may impact on an individual's suitability for certain positions or employment. The Postal Service will analyze each occurrence on a case-by-case basis to determine the appropriate action to take. In this regard, the Postal Service will consider the seriousness of the offense, the date of the offense, and the nature of the employee's position with the Postal Service. The only data to be used in the match is public information, from both the Postal Service and the state public sex offender registries. The Postal Service will extract public information, including employees' name and work location, from its payroll database. This information is public information in accordance with Handbook AS-353, * Guide to Privacy and Freedom of Information Act,* section 5-2b(3) (available at *www.usps.com/privacyoffice* ), and the Postal Service considers such data to be subject to disclosure requirements under the Freedom of Information Act. The data will be matched against state sexual offender registries, which are posted on various state Web sites for the public. The Postal Service will take extensive efforts to ensure that the data is accurate. Postal Inspectors will conduct the match and will review the match report in order to verify that the person identified in the state sexual offender public registry is in fact a Postal Service employee. A postal inspector will then determine whether the person is properly included on the public registry by reviewing the relevant facts about the offense from information furnished by relevant law enforcement agencies, such as the arresting agency. The postal inspector will refer, to the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), instances where the employee failed to provide Postal Service management with any required notice of the offense; the OIG will also be informed of other instances of employee misconduct. The inspector or OIG special agent will prepare an investigative memorandum or report of investigation, respectively, which will be sent to the individual employee's installation head. The installation head will ensure that a case-by-case analysis is conducted regarding the appropriate action to be taken. The Postal Service will provide at least 30 days advance notice prior to initiation of any adverse action against a matched individual (unless the Postal Service determines that public health or safety may be affected or threatened pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(p)(3)). The privacy of employees will be safeguarded and protected. The Postal Service will manage all data in strict accordance with the Privacy Act and the terms of the matching agreement. Any verified data that is maintained will be managed within the parameters of *Privacy Act System of Record USPS 700.000, Inspection Service Investigative File System* (last published April 29, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 82)); and, for cases referred to the Postal Service OIG, data that is maintained will also be managed within the parameters of *Privacy Act System of Record USPS 700.300, Inspector General Investigative Records* (last published June 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 114)). Disclosures are authorized by a Privacy Act routine use applicable to the payroll system of records (as well as other personnel systems) that pertains to disclosures to Federal and state agencies that are needed by the Postal Service or agency to make decisions regarding personnel matters; and under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(2) which authorizes disclosures that would be required under 5 U.S.C. 552 (the Freedom of Information Act). Key privacy features of the matching agreement include the following: • Requiring that the identity of matched individuals be verified and that the relevant facts of the offense be confirmed; • Requiring appropriate security controls for the data match; • Providing protections for employees who appear as an initial match but who are not subsequently verified as belonging on the state registry of offenders; and • Requiring the Postal Service to complete the verification, and provide at least 30 days advance notice, prior to initiation of any adverse action against a matched individual (unless the Postal Service determines that public health and safety may be affected or threatened pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(p)(3)). Neva R. Watson, Attorney, Legislative. [FR Doc. E6-17391 Filed 10-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad Retirement Board
(RRB)has submitted the following proposal(s) for the collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval. *Summary of Proposal(s):*
(1)*Collection title:* Application for Spouse Annuity Under the Railroad Retirement Act.
(2)*Form(s) submitted:* AA-3, AA-3cert.
(3)*OMB Number:* 3220-0042.
(4)*Expiration date of current OMB clearance:* 12/31/2006.
(5)*Type of request:* Revision of a currently approved collection.
(6)*Respondents:* Individuals or households.
(7)*Estimated annual number of respondents:* 8,500.
(8)*Total annual responses:* 8,500.
(9)*Total annual reporting hours:* 4,297.
(10)*Collection description:* The Railroad Retirement Act provides for the payment of annuities to spouses of railroad retirement annuitants who meet the requirements under the Act. The application obtains information supporting the claim for benefits based on being a spouse of an annuitant. The information is used for determining entitlement to and amount of the annuity applied for. *Additional Information or Comments:* Copies of the forms and supporting documents can be obtained from Charles Mierzwa, the agency clearance officer (312-751-3363) or *Charles.Mierzwa@rrb.gov* . Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60611-2092 or *Ronald.Hodapp@rrb.gov* and to the OMB Desk Officer for the RRB, at the Office of Management and Budget, Room 10230, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. Charles Mierzwa, Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-17281 Filed 10-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7905-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54588; File No. SR-CTA/CQ-2006-02] Consolidated Tape Association; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of the Tenth Substantive Amendment to the Second Restatement of the Consolidated Tape Association Plan and the Seventh Substantive Amendment to the Restated Consolidated Quotation Plan October 11, 2006. Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 and Rule 608 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on September 18, 2006, the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”) Plan and Consolidated Quotation (“CQ”) Plan participants (“Participants”) 3 submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposals to amend the CTA and CQ Plans (collectively, the “Plans”). 4 The proposals represent the tenth substantive amendment made to the Second Restatement of the CTA Plan (“Tenth Amendment to the CTA Plan”) and the seventh substantive amendment to the Restated CQ Plan (“Seventh Amendment to the CQ Plan”), and reflect changes unanimously adopted by the participants. The Tenth Amendment to the CTA Plan and the Seventh Amendment to the CQ Plan (“Amendments”) would modify the procedures for entering into arrangements for pilot test operations. In addition, these amendments would exclude pilot test operations from the requirement that any change in the charges set forth in *Exhibit E* to the respective Plans be effected by a Plan amendment. 1 15 U.S.C. 78k-1. 2 17 CFR 242.608. 3 Each Participant executed the proposed amendments. The current Participants are the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”); Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (“BSE”); Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE”); Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (“CHX”); National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”); National Stock Exchange (“NSX”); New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”); NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”); and Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx”). 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 10787 (May 10, 1974), 39 FR 17799 (order approving CTA Plan); 15009 (July 28, 1978), 43 FR 34851 (August 7, 1978) (order temporarily approving CQ Plan); and 16518 (January 22, 1980), 45 FR 6521 (order permanently approving CQ Plan). The most recent restatement of both Plans was in 1995. The CTA Plan, pursuant to which markets collect and disseminate last sale price information for listed securities, is a “transaction reporting plan” under Rule 601 under the Act, 17 CFR 242.601, and a “national market system plan” under Rule 608 under the Act, 17 CFR 242.608. The CQ Plan, pursuant to which markets collect and disseminate bid/ask quotation information for listed securities, is also a “national market system plan” under Rule 608 under the Act, 17 CFR 242.608. Pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(ii) under the Act, 5 the Participants designated the Amendments as concerned solely with the administration of the Plans. As a result, the Amendments have become effective upon filing with the Commission. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the amendments, the Commission may summarily abrogate the Amendments and require that the Amendments be re-filed in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 608 and reviewed in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of Rule 608, if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a national market system or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments from interested persons. 5 17 CFR 242.608(b)(3)(ii). I. Description and Purpose of the Proposed Amendments A. Application of Pilot Test Procedures The Amendments propose to modify the procedures that apply to the entrance into arrangements for pilot test operations and to explicitly exclude pilot test operations from the relevant Plan provisions which require any change in the charges set forth in the Plans to be effected by an amendment. Currently, the Plans permit a network's administrator to enter into arrangements with vendors and other persons for pilot test operations designed to develop, or to permit the development of, new last sale price information services and uses and new quotation information services and uses, as relevant, without the need for agreements with, and collection of charges from, customers of such vendors or other persons. In order to enter into such arrangements, a network administrator, acting on behalf of the Participants, must promptly report the commencement of each arrangement and, upon an arrangement's conclusion, any market research obtained from the pilot test operations to CTA or the Operating Committee, as relevant. The arrangements are exempt from certain provisions in the Plans regarding the form of, and necessity for, agreements with recipients of last sale price and quotation information, as relevant, and the amount and incidence of charges. The Amendments propose to require that a network's administrator act with the concurrence of a majority of Participants, not merely on behalf of such Participants, in order to enter into arrangements for pilot test operations. Further, a network's administrator will be required to also report the commencement of each arrangement and any market research obtained from the pilot test operations to the SEC. Finally, the Amendments propose to clarify that pilot test operations are exempt from the Plans' provisions regarding the establishment and amendment of charges. The provisions require any additions, deletions, or modifications to any of the charges set forth in *Exhibit E* to the Plans to be effected by an amendment to the Plans. Amendments to *Exhibit E* are subject to voting and other procedural requirements. Pursuant to the Amendments, charges imposed in connection with arrangements for pilot test operations will not constitute an addition, deletion, or modification to the charges set forth in *Exhibit E* and, as a result, do not require a Plan amendment. The text of the proposed Amendments is available on the CTA's Web site ( *http://www.nysedata.com/cta* ), at the principal office of the CTA, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. B. Additional Information Required by Rule 608(a) 1. Governing or Constituent Documents Not applicable. 2. Implementation of Amendments The Participants have manifested their approval of the proposed Amendments by means of their execution of the Amendments. The Amendments have become effective upon filing. 6 6 *See id* . 3. Development and Implementation Phases Not applicable. 4. Analysis of Impact on Competition The Participants believe that the proposed amendments do not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Participants do not believe that the proposed amendments introduce terms that are unreasonably discriminatory for the purposes of Section 11A(c)(1)(D) of the Act. 5. Written Understanding or Agreements Relating to Interpretation of, or Participation in, Plan Not applicable. 6. Approval by Sponsors in Accordance With Plan Each of the Participants has approved the Amendments in accordance with Section IV(b) of the CTA Plan and Section IV(c) of the CQ Plan, as applicable. 7. Description of Operation of Facility Contemplated by the Proposed Amendment Not applicable. 8. Terms and Conditions of Access Not applicable. 9. Method of Determination and Imposition, and Amount of Fees and Charges Not applicable. 10. Method of Frequency of Processor Evaluation Not applicable. 11. Dispute Resolution Not applicable. C. Additional Information Required by Rule 601(a) (Solely With Respect to the Tenth Amendment to the CTA Plan) 1. Reporting Requirements Not applicable. 2. Manner of Collecting, Processing, Sequencing, Making Available and Disseminating Last Sale Information Not applicable. 3. Manner of Consolidation Not applicable. 4. Standards and Methods Ensuring Promptness, Accuracy and Completeness of Transaction Reports Not applicable. 5. Rules and Procedures Addressed to Fraudulent or Manipulative Dissemination Not applicable. 6. Terms of Access to Transaction Reports Not applicable. 7. Identification of Marketplace Execution Not applicable. II. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed Plans amendments are 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-CTA/CQ-2006-02 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CTA/CQ-2006-02. 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 Plan amendment that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed Plan amendment 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 CTA. 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-CTA/CQ-2006-02 and should be submitted on or before November 8, 2006. 7 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(27). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 7 J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-17315 Filed 10-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54589; File No. SR-ISE-2006-60] Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Fee Changes October 11, 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 October 3, 2006, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (“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 ISE. The ISE has filed the proposed rule change as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the ISE under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The ISE is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to remove
(i)the surcharge fee for transactions in options on the Standard & Poor's Depository Receipts® (“SPDRs®”), and
(ii)language relating to an expired fee waiver. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Internet Web site ( *http://www.iseoptions.com* ), at the principal office of the ISE, 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 ISE 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 ISE 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 is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to remove
(i)the surcharge fee previously adopted 5 for transactions in options on SPDRs®, and
(ii)language relating to an expired fee waiver. The Exchange is proposing to remove the surcharge fee from its Schedule of Fees because it no longer pays a license fee to Standard & Poor's, the owner of the index on which SPDRs are based, in connection with transactions in options on SPDRs. Accordingly, there is no longer a need for this surcharge fee. The Exchange will, however, continue to charge an execution fee and a comparison fee for transactions in options on SPDRs. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 51901 (June 22, 2005), 70 FR 37455 (June 29, 2005) (Adopting a $0.10 per contract surcharge for certain transactions in options on SPDRs); and 52237 (August 10, 2005), 70 FR 48454 (August 17, 2005) (Applying the $0.10 per contract surcharge retroactively to January 10, 2005). Additionally, the Exchange previously adopted a waiver on the surcharge for options on the Russell 1000 Index. 6 That waiver expired on September 29, 2006. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to delete the reference to the waiver under the Notes section on its Schedule of Fees. 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53608 (April 6, 2006), 71 FR 19222 (April 13, 2006). 2. Statutory Basis The basis for the proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 7 that an exchange have an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the foregoing proposed rule change establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charged imposed by the Exchange, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 8 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) 9 thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change the Commission may summarily abrogate such proposed rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 9 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2). 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-ISE-2006-60 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-ISE-2006-60. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-ISE-2006-60 and should be submitted on or before November 8, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 10 J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary. 10 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). [FR Doc. E6-17316 Filed 10-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54591; File No. SR-NASD-2006-115] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to a New NASD Trade Reporting Facility Established in Conjunction With the Boston Stock Exchange October 12, 2006. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on September 29, 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. 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 NASD proposes to adopt rules relating to a new Trade Reporting Facility (the “NASD/BSE TRF”) to be established by NASD, in conjunction with the Boston Stock Exchange (“BSE”), that would provide members with another mechanism for reporting trades in exchange-listed securities effected otherwise than on an exchange. The proposed NASD/BSE TRF structure and rules are substantially similar to the Trade Reporting Facility established by NASD and the Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (the “NASD/Nasdaq TRF”) and the rules relating thereto, which the Commission approved. 3 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54084 (June 30, 2006), 71 FR 38935 (July 10, 2006) (order approving File No. SR-NASD-2005-087) (“NASD/Nasdaq TRF Approval Order”). The changes approved in the NASD/Nasdaq TRF Approval Order became effective on August 1, 2006, the date when The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (the “Nasdaq Exchange”) commenced operation as a national securities exchange for Nasdaq-listed securities. On September 5, 2006, NASD filed a proposal that, among other things, expands the scope of the NASD/Nasdaq TRF rules to include reporting in all exchange-listed securities. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54451 (September 15, 2006), 71 FR 55243 (September 21, 2006) (notice of filing of File No. SR-NASD-2006-104) (“September 2006 Proposal”). The text of the proposed rule change is available on NASD's Web site at ( *http://www.nasd.com* ), at the principal office of NASD, at the Commission's Public Reference Room, and on the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov* ). 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 Among other things, the NASD/Nasdaq TRF Approval Order 4 approved:
(1)Amendments to the NASD Delegation Plan, NASD By-Laws and NASD rules to reflect a phased implementation strategy for the operation of the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC as a national securities exchange with respect to Nasdaq-listed securities during a transitional period; and
(2)rules for reporting trades effected otherwise than on an exchange to the NASD/Nasdaq TRF, including the NASD Rule 4000 Series (The Trade Reporting Facility) and the NASD Rule 6100 Series (Clearing and Comparison Rules), which generally apply to trade reporting and clearing and comparison services via the NASD/Nasdaq TRF. 4 *See* note 3, *supra.* NASD/BSE Trade Reporting Facility The NASD proposes to establish a new NASD/BSE TRF on substantially the same terms as the NASD/Nasdaq TRF. 5 The NASD/BSE TRF will provide members with another mechanism, which has been developed by the BSE, for reporting transactions in exchange-listed securities executed otherwise than on an exchange. Members will match and/or execute orders internally or through proprietary systems and submit these trades to the NASD/BSE TRF with the appropriate information and modifiers. The NASD/BSE TRF will report the trades to the appropriate exclusive securities information processor (“SIP”). 6 As with trades reported to the NASD/Nasdaq TRF, NASD/BSE TRF transactions disseminated to the media will include a modifier indicating the source of such transactions that would distinguish them from transactions executed on or through the BSE. In addition, the NASD/BSE TRF will provide NASD with a real-time copy of each trade report for regulatory review purposes. At the option of the participant, the NASD/BSE TRF may also provide the necessary clearing information regarding transactions to the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”). 5 In response to comments submitted to the Commission in connection with its proposal to establish the NASD/Nasdaq TRF, NASD indicated that it was prepared to implement a Trade Reporting Facility with any exchange based on whatever technology the exchange has available to it. *See* letter from Robert Glauber, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, NASD, to the Hon. Christopher Cox, Chairman, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, dated May 2, 2006. As the Commission noted in the NASD/Nasdaq TRF Approval Order, the Act does not prohibit NASD from establishing different facilities for purposes of fulfilling its regulatory obligations. *See* NASD/Nasdaq TRF Approval Order, *supra* note 3. 6 NASD represents that the NASD/BSE TRF will have controls in place to ensure that transactions that are reported to the NASD/BSE TRF, but priced significantly away from the current market, will not be submitted to the SIP. The NASD notes that this is consistent with current practice in that neither NASD's Alternative Display Facility nor the NASD/Nasdaq TRF submits such trades to the SIP. According to the NASD, this practice is designed to preserve the integrity of the tape. Like the NASD/Nasdaq TRF, the NASD/BSE TRF will be a facility of NASD, subject to regulation by NASD and NASD's registration as a national securities association. It will not be a service “for the purpose of effecting or reporting a transaction” on the BSE; rather, it will be a service for the purpose of reporting over-the-counter (“OTC”) transactions in exchange-listed securities to NASD. 7 Thus, members that meet all applicable requirements will have the option of reporting transactions in exchange-listed securities executed otherwise than on an exchange to an NASD Trade Reporting Facility (the NASD/BSE TRF, the NASD/Nasdaq TRF, or the NASD/NSX TRF 8 ), NASD's Alternative Display Facility (“ADF”), 9 or NASD's Intermarket Trading System/Computer Assisted Execution System (“ITS/CAES”) System. 10 7 *See* NASD/Nasdaq TRF Approval Order, *supra* note 3. 8 NASD also has filed a proposed rule change to establish a Trade Reporting Facility in conjunction with the National Stock Exchange (the “NASD/NSX TRF”). *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54479 (September 21, 2006), 71 FR 56573 (September 27, 2006) (notice of filing of File No. SR-NASD-2006-108). If approved by the Commission, the NASD/NSX TRF would provide members with another mechanism for reporting trades in Nasdaq-listed equity securities effected otherwise than on an exchange. NASD intends to submit a filing at a later date to expand reporting to the NASD/NSX TRF to include all exchange-listed securities. 9 NASD has filed a proposed rule change proposing to expand ADF functionality to all exchange-listed securities. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54277 (August 4, 2006), 71 FR 46527 (August 14, 2006) (notice of filing of File No. SR-NASD-2006-091). 10 NASD has filed a proposed rule change to, among other things, provide for the operation of the ITS/CAES System, which includes the reporting of transactions in non-Nasdaq exchange-listed securities. *See* September 2006 Proposal, *supra* note 3. NASD represents that it will have an integrated audit trail of all TRF, ADF, and ITS/CAES System transactions, as applicable in a particular security, and will have integrated surveillance capabilities. NASD expects that comprehensive audit trail and surveillance integration on an automated basis will be completed by the end of the fourth quarter of 2006 for Nasdaq-listed securities and by the end of the first quarter of 2007 for non-Nasdaq exchange-listed securities. Prior to that time, NASD staff will be able to create an integrated audit trail on a manual basis as needed for regulatory purposes. BSE has developed the system that participants will use to access the NASD/BSE TRF. Technical specifications to connect to the NASD/BSE TRF system are available upon request to NASD and will be accessible through the NASD's Web site at a later date. NASD/BSE TRF Limited Liability Company Agreement NASD and BSE propose to enter into a Limited Liability Company Agreement of NASD/BSE Trade Reporting Facility LLC (“the NASD/BSE LLC Agreement”). The terms of the NASD/BSE LLC Agreement are substantially similar to the terms of the LLC agreement that NASD entered with Nasdaq Stock Market Inc. (“Nasdaq”). NASD will have sole regulatory responsibility for the NASD/BSE TRF, while BSE agrees to pay the cost of regulation and will provide systems to enable members to report trades to the NASD/BSE TRF. BSE will be entitled to the profits and losses, if any, derived from the operation of the NASD/BSE TRF. NASD, the “SRO Member” under the NASD/BSE LLC Agreement, will perform SRO Responsibilities including, but not limited to:
(1)Adoption, amendment, and interpretation of policies arising out of and regarding any aspect of the operation of the facility considered material by the SRO Member, or regarding the meaning, administration, or enforcement of an existing rule of the SRO Member, including any generally applicable exemption from such a rule;
(2)Approval of rule filings of the SRO Member prior to filing with the SEC;
(3)Regulation of the NASD/BSE TRF's activities of or relating to SRO Responsibilities, including the right to review and approve, in the SRO Member's sole reasonable discretion, the regulatory budget for the NASD/BSE TRF;
(4)Securities regulation and any other matter implicating SRO Responsibilities; and
(5)Real-time market surveillance. 11 11 The SRO Member will perform real-time market surveillance related to trades reported to the NASD/BSE TRF. However, because the NASD/BSE TRF via the Business Member will submit transaction information directly to the SIP, the NASD/BSE TRF via the Business Member also will establish and implement controls to ensure that transactions that are reported to the NASD/BSE TRF, but are priced significantly away from the current market, will not be submitted to the SIP. *See supra* note 6. BSE, the “Business Member” under the NASD/BSE LLC Agreement, will be primarily responsible for the management of the facility's business affairs to the extent those activities are not inconsistent with the regulatory and oversight functions of NASD. Under Section 9(d) of the NASD/BSE LLC Agreement, each Member agrees to comply with the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder and to cooperate with the Commission pursuant to its regulatory authority. The NASD/BSE TRF will be managed by or under the direction of a Board of Directors to be established by the parties. NASD will have the right to designate at least one Director, the SRO Member Director, who may be a member of NASD's Board of Governors or an officer or employee of NASD designated by the NASD's Board of Governors. The SRO Member Director will have veto power over all major actions of the NASD/BSE LLC Board. Section 10(e) of the NASD/BSE LLC Agreement defines “Major Actions” to include:
(1)Approving pricing decisions that are subject to the SEC filing process;
(2)Approving contracts between the NASD/BSE TRF and the Business Member, any of its affiliates, directors, officers, or employees;
(3)Approving Director compensation;
(4)Selling, licensing, leasing, or otherwise transferring material assets used in the operation of the NASD/BSE TRF's business outside of the ordinary course of business with an aggregate value in excess of $3 million;
(5)Approving or undertaking a merger, consolidation, or reorganization of the NASD/BSE TRF with any other entity;
(6)Entering into any partnership, joint venture, or other similar joint business undertaking;
(7)Making any fundamental change in the market structure of the NASD/BSE TRF from that contemplated by the Members as of the date of the NASD/BSE LLC Agreement;
(8)To the fullest extent permitted by law, taking any action to effect the voluntary, or which would precipitate an involuntary, dissolution or winding up of the Company, other than as contemplated by Section 21 of the NASD/BSE LLC Agreement;
(9)Conversion of the NASD/BSE TRF from a Delaware limited liability company into any other type of entity;
(10)Expansion of or modification to the business which results in the NASD/BSE TRF engaging in material business unrelated to the business of Non-System Trading; 12 12 Pursuant to the NASD/BSE LLC Agreement, “Non-System Trading” means trading otherwise than on an exchange of securities for which the SEC has approved a transaction reporting plan pursuant to Rule 601 of Regulation NMS under the Act.
(11)Changing the number of Directors on or composition of the NASD/BSE LLC Board; and
(12)Adopting or amending policies regarding access and credit matters affecting the NASD/BSE TRF. In addition, each Director agrees to comply with the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder and to cooperate with the Commission and the SRO Member pursuant to their regulatory authority. The principal difference between the NASD/BSE LLC Agreement and the LLC Agreement NASD entered with Nasdaq relates to termination. The initial term of the agreement is three years. During that time, until the NASD/BSE TRF reaches “Substantial Trade Volume” (defined as 250,000 trades or more per day for three consecutive months), BSE may terminate the arrangement for convenience. After the NASD/BSE TRF reaches Substantial Trade Volume, either Member may terminate the NASD/BSE Trade Reporting Facility LLC by providing to the other Member prior written notice of at least one year (as in the case with Nasdaq). Neither Member may deliver such notice before the second anniversary of the effective date of the NASD/BSE LLC Agreement. In addition, at any time, NASD may terminate in the event its status or reputation as a preeminent SRO is called into jeopardy by the actions of BSE or the NASD/BSE TRF. In the event of termination of the NASD/BSE TRF arrangement, NASD will be able to fulfill all of its regulatory obligations with respect to OTC trade reporting through its other facilities, including the NASD/Nasdaq TRF, ADF, and the ITS/CAES System. NASD/BSE Trade Reporting Facility Rules Members will report trades in exchange-listed securities effected otherwise than on an exchange to the NASD/BSE TRF pursuant to NASD rules. As such, NASD is proposing rules relating to the use and operation of the NASD/BSE TRF that are substantially similar to the rules approved by the Commission relating to the NASD/Nasdaq TRF. Specifically, NASD is proposing the new NASD Rule 4000D and NASD Rule 6100D Series, which largely track the NASD Rule 4000 and NASD Rule 6100 Series that the Commission approved in the NASD/Nasdaq TRF Approval Order. 13 13 *See* note 3, *supra.* Similar to the NASD/Nasdaq TRF rules, to become a participant in the NASD/BSE TRF, an NASD member must meet minimum requirements as outlined in NASD Rule 6120D. These include execution of, and continuing compliance with, a Participant Application Agreement; membership in, or maintenance of an effective clearing arrangement with a participant of a clearing agency registered pursuant to the Act; and the acceptance and settlement of each trade that the NASD/BSE TRF identifies as having been effected by the participant. Members that report trades to the NASD/BSE TRF must include the details of the trade, as required by the proposed rules. Participants must also include the unique order identifier assigned for purposes of reporting to the Order Audit Trail System pursuant to the NASD Rule 6950 Series, thus enabling NASD to match the order against the trade that was reported to the tape by the NASD/BSE TRF. As with the NASD/Nasdaq TRF, participants may enter into “give up” arrangements whereby one member reports to the NASD/BSE TRF on behalf of another member. Participants must complete and submit to the NASD/BSE TRF the appropriate documentation reflecting the arrangement. Proposed NASD Rule 4632D(h) provides that the member with the reporting obligation remains responsible for the transaction submitted on its behalf. Further, both the member with the reporting obligation and the member submitting the trade to the NASD/BSE TRF are responsible for ensuring that the information submitted is in compliance with all applicable rules and regulations. 14 14 As noted above, NASD/Nasdaq TRF participants may enter into “give up” arrangements; however, the NASD/Nasdaq TRF rules currently do not speak to such arrangements. NASD has submitted a proposed rule change to amend the NASD/Nasdaq TRF rules to include a provision that is substantially similar to proposed NASD Rule 4632D(h). *See* September 2006 Proposal, *supra* note 3. In addition, participants will be able to submit “riskless principal” transactions 15 to the NASD/BSE TRF. Similar to the NASD/Nasdaq TRF, the non-media portion of a riskless principal transaction will not be reported to the tape, but will be submitted real-time to NASD for regulatory purposes and, at the option of the user, to NSCC. Proposed NASD Rule 4632D(e)(3)(B) 16 would clarify that where the media leg of the riskless principal transaction is reported to the NASD/BSE TRF, the second, non-media leg must also be reported to the NASD/BSE TRF. However, where the media leg of the riskless principal transaction was previously reported by an exchange, the member would be permitted, but not required, to report the second, non-media leg to the NASD/BSE TRF. Members that choose to report such transactions to the NASD/BSE TRF must include all data elements required under the rules. Members should note, however, that transactions reported by an exchange should not be reported to NASD/BSE TRF for media purposes, as that would result in double reporting of the same transaction. 17 15 A riskless principal transaction is a transaction in which a member, after having received a customer order, executes an offsetting transaction, as principal, with another customer or broker-dealer to fill that customer order and both transactions are executed at the same price. 16 Proposed NASD Rule 4632D(e)(3)(B) mirrors recently proposed amendments to NASD Rule 4632(d)(3)(B) of the NASD/Nasdaq TRF rules. *See* September 2006 Proposal, *supra* note 3. 17 Proposed NASD Rule 4632D(f)(6) provides that transactions reported on or through an exchange shall not be reported to the NASD/BSE TRF for purposes of publication. This proposed rule mirrors NASD Rule 4632(e)(6) of the NASD/Nasdaq TRF rules. *See* NASD/Nasdaq TRF Approval Order, *supra* note 3; Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 53977 (June 12, 2006), 71 FR 34976 (June 16, 2006) (order approving File No SR-NASD-2006-055); and 54318 (August 15, 2006), 71 FR 48959 (August 22, 2006) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of File No. SR-NASD-2006-098). Finally, NASD will have the authority to halt trading otherwise than on an exchange reported to the NASD/BSE TRF. The scope of NASD's authority under proposed NASD Rule 4633D is identical to its authority to halt trading reported to the NASD/Nasdaq TRF and the ADF. As described below, the proposed rules differ from the current NASD/Nasdaq TRF rules in certain respects. Proposed NASD Rules 4100D and 4200D(a)(2) define “designated securities” for purposes of reporting trades to the NASD/BSE TRF as “all NMS stocks as defined in Rule 600(b)(47) of Regulation NMS under the Act.” Currently, NASD Rules 4100 and 4200(a)(2) define “designated securities” for purposes of reporting trades to the NASD/Nasdaq TRF as all Nasdaq National Market (now Nasdaq Global Market) and Nasdaq Capital Market securities and convertible bonds listed on Nasdaq. NASD has filed a proposed rule change to expand reporting to the NASD/Nasdaq TRF to include all exchange-listed securities and to include a definition of “designated securities” in NASD Rules 4100 and 4200(a)(2) that is identical to the definition proposed herein. 18 18 *See* September 2006 Proposal, *supra* note 3. Pursuant to proposed NASD Rule 6120D, only members of NASD may use the NASD/BSE TRF. Non-members will not be permitted to submit trade reports to the NASD/BSE TRF. Under very limited circumstances, certain Non-Member Clearing Organizations are granted access to and participation in the NASD/Nasdaq TRF. Pursuant to proposed NASD Rule 6140D, all trades submitted to the NASD/BSE TRF must be locked-in prior to entry into the System. The NASD/BSE TRF will have no trade comparison functionality. Thus, there are no proposed rules relating to trade matching, trade acceptance, or aggregate volume matching. Similarly, there will be no “Browse” function, meaning that participants will not be able to review or query for trades in the NASD/BSE TRF identifying the participant as a party to the transaction. The NASD/BSE TRF will not be able to support trade reporting for certain transactions. Specifically, transactions executed outside of normal market hours cannot be reported to the NASD/BSE TRF on an “as/of” or next day (T+1) basis, pursuant to NASD Rule 4632D(a)(2). In addition, the NASD/BSE TRF will not support the .W or .PRP modifiers and, therefore, proposed NASD Rule 4632D(a)(7) provides that Stop Stock Transactions (as defined in NASD Rule 4200D), transactions at prices based on average-weighting or other special pricing formulae, and transactions that reflect a price different from the current market when the execution price is based on a prior reference point in time cannot be reported to the NASD/BSE TRF. Thus, proposed NASD Rules 4632D(a)(2) and
(7)expressly require members to report such trades to NASD via an alternative electronic mechanism. Similarly, proposed NASD Rule 4632D(a)(3) provides that participants must use an alternative electronic mechanism, and comply with all rules applicable to such alternative mechanism, to report transactions to NASD for which electronic submission to the NASD/BSE TRF is not possible. Where last sale reports of transactions in designated securities cannot be submitted to NASD via an alternative electronic mechanism, such as the ADF or another Trade Reporting Facility (for example, where the ticker symbol for the security is no longer available or a market participant identifier is no longer active), members shall report such transactions as soon as practicable to the NASD Market Regulation Department on Form T. Members are not to use Form T to report transactions that can be reported to NASD electronically, whether on trade date or on a subsequent date on an “as of” basis (T+N). Unlike the NASD/Nasdaq TRF, participants will be able to use three-party reports for reporting trades to the NASD/BSE TRF. A three-party trade report is a single last sale trade report that denotes one Reporting Member ( *i.e.* , the member with the obligation to report the trade under proposed NASD Rule 4632D(b)) and two contra parties. Registered ECNs may submit three-party trade reports. In addition, riskless principal trades may be submitted by Reporting Members as three-party trade reports. Proposed NASD Rule 4632D(c) sets forth the information requirements for two-party reports, while proposed NASD Rule 4632D(d) sets forth the information requirements for three-party reports. Members currently can use three-party reports for purposes of reporting trades to the ADF. Proposed NASD Rules 4632D(c) and
(d)mirror the existing ADF reporting requirements relating to two- and three-party trade reports ( *see* NASD Rules 4632A(c) and (d)). As with the NASD/Nasdaq TRF, the NASD/BSE TRF will only accept non-media or clearing-only trade reports for certain transactions; members cannot submit reports for these transactions for publication. Proposed NASD Rule 4632D(f) sets forth the types of transactions that cannot be reported for purposes of publication to the NASD/BSE TRF. Proposed NASD Rule 4632D(f) mirrors current NASD Rule 4632(e) of the NASD/Nasdaq TRF rules and includes two additional categories of trades:
(1)The acquisition of securities by a member as principal in anticipation of making an immediate exchange distribution or exchange offering on an exchange; and
(2)purchases of securities off the floor of an exchange pursuant to a tender offer. NASD's proposed rule change to expand reporting to the NASD/Nasdaq TRF for all exchange-listed securities proposes to amend NASD Rule 4632(e) to include these two additional categories of transactions. 19 Thus, proposed NASD Rule 4632D(f) of the NASD/BSE TRF will be identical to NASD Rule 4632(e) of the NASD/Nasdaq TRF rules. 19 *See* September 2006 Proposal, *supra* note 3. Cancellation of any trade that has been submitted to the NASD/BSE TRF must be reported in accordance with proposed NASD Rule 4632D(g). Unlike the NASD/Nasdaq TRF, members cannot electronically report trade cancellations to the NASD/BSE TRF. Members must contact NASD/BSE Trade Reporting Facility Operations, within the prescribed time periods, to report the cancellation of any trade previously submitted to the NASD/BSE TRF. Finally, members will not be permitted to aggregate individual executions of orders in a security at the same price into a single transaction report submitted to the NASD/BSE TRF. Thus, the proposed rule change does not contain a counterpart to NASD Rule 4632(f) or NASD Rule 6130(e) permitting “bunched” trades to be reported to the NASD/Nasdaq TRF. NASD notes that the proposed rule change does not include any proposed rules relating to fees, assessments, and credits specifically related to the NASD/BSE TRF. Fees, assessments, and credits, if any, with respect to the NASD/BSE TRF will be the subject of a future rule filing with the Commission. Proposed Implementation In light of the systems changes that are necessary for NASD to implement the NASD/BSE TRF for non-Nasdaq exchange-listed securities, NASD is proposing to implement the proposed rule change in two phases. Specifically, NASD proposes to implement the proposed rule change with respect to Nasdaq-listed equity securities and convertible debt on the first day of operation of the NASD/BSE TRF. NASD proposes to implement the proposed rule change with respect to non-Nasdaq exchange-listed securities at a later date. NASD will announce the implementation date of the first phase of the proposed rule change no later than 30 days following Commission approval and the second phase no later than 90 days following Commission approval. 2. Statutory Basis NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, 20 which requires, among other things, that NASD rules 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 establishment of the NASD/BSE TRF is in the public interest and appropriate for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets because it will provide members another mechanism to report transactions in exchange-listed securities effected otherwise than on an exchange. 20 15 U.S.C. 78o-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. 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 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-NASD-2006-115 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-2006-115. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of NASD. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2006-115 and should be submitted on or before November 8, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 21 21 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-17319 Filed 10-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54592; File No. SR-NYSE-2006-04] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (n/k/a New York Stock Exchange LLC); Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto Relating to NYSE Rule 116 (“Stop” Constitutes Guarantee) and NYSE Rule 123B (Exchange Automated Order Routing Systems) October 12, 2006. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on February 9, 2006, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (n/k/a New York Stock Exchange LLC) (“NYSE” 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 NYSE. 3 The NYSE filed Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 to the proposed rule change on April 5, 2006 4 and September 8, 2006, 5 respectively. 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 The Commission notes that the rule text submitted by the Exchange contained minor, technical errors. Exchange staff has committed to address these errors following publication of this notice. In addition, certain technical corrections and clarifications were made throughout the discussion of the proposed rule change pursuant to a conversation with NYSE staff. Telephone conversation between Gillian Rowe, Principal Rule Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, NYSE Group, Inc., and Jennifer Colihan, Special Counsel, and Kate Robbins, Attorney, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, on October 2, 2006. 4 In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange made technical and clarifying changes to the rule text and purpose section. 5 In Amendment No. 2, which replaced the original filing in its entirety and incorporated Amendment No. 1, the Exchange proposed additional changes to NYSE Rule 116 regarding a specialist's ability to stop stock in the NYSE's Hybrid Market. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change In the proposed rule change, the Exchange seeks to amend NYSE Rule 116 (“Stop” Constitutes Guarantee) and NYSE Rule 123B (Exchange Automated Order Routing Systems) regarding a specialist's ability to “stop” stock and report such a transaction. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the NYSE's Web site ( *www.nyse.com* ), at the NYSE'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 NYSE 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 practice of stopping stock by specialists on the Exchange refers to a guarantee by the specialist that an order he or she receives will be executed at no worse a price than the contra side price in the market at the time the order was stopped, with the understanding that the order may in fact receive a better price. For example, the Exchange market in a stock is quoted at 20.00 bid, offered at 20.10, and the specialist receives a market order to buy. If the specialist “stops” the buy order, the specialist is guaranteeing that the order will receive no worse a price than 20.10, the then-prevailing offer price. The specialist would then make a bid on behalf of the market order to buy at a price above the prevailing bid, for example, at 20.05. If a sell order trades with this bid, the stopped order has received price improvement (as has the sell order trading with it). If, however, another buy order enters the market and executes at the offer price of 20.10, the stopped buy order will be executed at that same price pursuant to the specialist's guarantee as evidenced by the “stop.” The current Hybrid Market SM is the result of a series of initiatives, approved by the Commission, to implement changes to the operation of the Exchange's market to expand access to automated trading while preserving the advantages of the agency auction market. 6 Customers and other market participants will have greater opportunities for speed and certainty of execution through the enhanced electronic trading. Opportunities for price improvement will continue to be available. 6 *See* The Hybrid Market initiative proposed in SR-NYSE-2004-05 and Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 thereto approved on March 22, 2006. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53539 (March 22, 2006), 71 FR 16353 (March 31, 2006) (“Hybrid Market Release”). *See also* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 52362 (August 30, 2005), 70 FR 53701 (September 9, 2005) (SR-NYSE-2005-57); 52954 (December 14, 2005), 70 FR 75519 (December 20, 2005) (SR-NYSE-2005-87); 53014 (December 22, 2005), 70 FR 77228 (December 29, 2005) (SR-NYSE-2005-89); 53359 (February 24, 2006), 71 FR 10736 (March 2, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-09); 53487 (March 15, 2006), 71 FR 14278 (March 21, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-21); 53780 (May 10, 2006), 71 FR 28398 (May 16, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-24); and 53791 (May 11, 2006), 71 FR 28732 (May 17, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-33). NYSE Rule 116 generally provides for the ability of a member to stop stock. Paragraph .30 in the Rule's Supplementary Material provides three circumstances in which a specialist may stop stock, including at the opening or reopening of trading in a stock, when a broker in the trading crowd is representing another order at the stop price or when requested to by another member. In the latter circumstance, the provisions of NYSE Rule 116.30 require that the quotation spread be not less than twice the minimum variation (currently one cent), or, if the quotation spread is the minimum variation, that the quote conditions ( *i.e.* , an imbalance in the amount of shares bid for or offered) suggest the likelihood of price improvement, and that the order be under 2,000 shares. The rule further provides a limitation of a total of 5,000 shares for all stopped orders. A specialist may seek approval of a Floor Official to override these conditions. In addition, a specialist must take specific actions to reduce the spread in the quotation after the stop is granted, may not reduce the size of the market following the stop and must execute orders on the book entitled to priority against the stopped stock. The Exchange generally believes that the practice of specialists stopping stock makes less sense in a hybrid market. This is primarily due to the dynamics of increased speed of trading and more effective functioning of the market through initiatives such as sweeps, 7 the discretionary e-Quotes SM 8 and the ability of Exchange specialists to provide electronic price improvement. 9 Given the availability of these other avenues for price improvement, the Exchange believes that the procedures in NYSE Rule 116.30(3) for granting stops are a less attractive and efficient mechanism to seek price improvement in faster markets due to the time required to perform the procedures. 7 The “sweep” functionality will allow orders to automatically execute against contra side interest in the Display Book® System at and outside the Exchange best bid or offer until the order is filled. 8 *See* Exchange Rule 70.25. 9 *See* Exchange Rules 104(b)(i)(H) and 104(e). These rules were approved as part of the Hybrid Market initiative, *see* Hybrid Market Release, *supra* note 6, and became operative on October 6, 2006. The Exchange further believes that in manually stopping stock there is a substantial risk that a stopped order would “miss the market” given the speed of automatic executions and the “sweep” functionality. As a result, the Exchange seeks to remove the provisions in NYSE Rule 116.30 that permit stopping stock by a specialist in all situations. As explained above, the provisions for stopping stock in situations related to the quote spread and the procedures associated with these are not, in the Exchange's view, useful going forward in our Hybrid Market SM . Additionally, the Exchange no longer systemically supports a specialist's stopping stock in any situation, 10 which requires a specialist to execute stopped stock transactions manually. The Exchange believes these manual transactions are not conducive to efficient trading in our Hybrid Market SM . As such, the Exchange seeks to amend NYSE Rule 116.30 to eliminate a specialist's ability to stop stock. 10 As of December 13, 2005 the Exchange eliminated the systemic support for the reporting of executions of stopped orders. The Exchange continues to require manual reporting. *See* Member Education Bulletin 2005-25 (December 13, 2005) from the NYSE's Division of Market Surveillance. The Exchange further seeks to amend subsection (b)(3) of NYSE Rule 123B (Exchange Automated Order Routing Systems) to remove references to the systemic reporting of executions of stopped orders now that Exchange systems no longer execute that function. 2. Statutory Basis The basis under the Act 11 for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) 12 that an Exchange have rules that are designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 11 15 U.S.C. 78a. 12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the 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 written comments on the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period
(i)as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or
(ii)as to which the NYSE 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-NYSE-2006-04 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-NYSE-2006-04. 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 NYSE. 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-NYSE-2006-04 and should be submitted on or before November 8, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jill M. Peterson, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-17321 Filed 10-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54590; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2006-73] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Create a Penny Pilot Program for Options Trading October 12, 2006. Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on October 10, 2006, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” 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 substantially 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 NYSE Arca proposes to:
(i)Clarify the language in NYSE Arca Rule 6.72;
(ii)add a reference to a six month penny pilot in options classes in certain issues approved by the Commission (“Pilot Program”); and
(iii)provide for an approved quote mitigation exception to NYSE Arca Rule 6.86. The text of the proposed rule is available on NYSE Arca's Web site at *http://www.nysearca.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 NYSE Arca Rule 6.72(a) sets forth the trading increments for option contracts quoted on the Exchange. Currently, the minimum price variation (“MPV”) for option series that are quoted under $3.00 per contract is $0.05 and the MPV for option series that are quoted at $3.00 per contract or greater is $0.10. The Exchange is proposing to:
(i)Clarify the language in NYSE Arca Rule 6.72; and
(ii)add a reference to a six month penny pilot in options traded on a limited number of classes approved by the Commission. The Exchange proposes to clarify existing language in NYSE Arca Rule 6.72 to continue a $0.05 MPV for quoting in all options series trading at less than $3.00, and $0.10 MVP for quoting in all options series trading at $3.00 or more, except those included in the Pilot Program described below. Pilot Program The Exchange proposes to provide for a penny MPV in options contracts in certain classes approved by the Commission. The Exchange believes that migrating to penny pricing in these classes will create tighter markets and thus reduce the overall cost of trading in options for investors. Despite the overall benefits provided to investors in migrating to penny pricing, the Exchange believes it is critical to introduce pennies in a measured approach that will not exacerbate the existing quote capacity limitations that currently exist. The Exchange proposes that options classes in the following issues be approved for inclusion in a Penny Pilot: QQQQ: Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking Stock IWM: iShares Russell 2000 Index Fund SMH: Semiconductor Holdrs Trust GE: General Electric Company AMD: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. MSFT: Microsoft Corporation INTC: Intel Corporation CAT: Caterpillar Inc. WFMI: Whole Foods Market, Inc. TXN: Texas Instruments Incorporated GLG: Glamis Gold Ltd. FLEX: Flextronics International Ltd. SUNW: Sun Microsystems, Inc. Under the proposed Pilot Program, the Exchange will allow trading and quoting in increments of $0.01 for all options on the QQQQ, and will allow trading and quoting in pennies for series in all other Pilot classes approved by the Commission that are trading below $3.00. Pilot classes with series trading at or above $3.00 would have a $0.05 quoting MPV. The Exchange anticipates the Commission will approve options classes in issues with a contrasting range of trading activity so that the Exchange and the industry may better understand the effects of the Pilot Program. The Exchange intends to include any option approved as eligible for the Pilot Program for penny trading and quoting. The Exchange believes the Commission should approve a variety of option classes for inclusion in a pilot broad enough to encompass differing quote and trade activity levels. The Exchange will continue to abide by the existing Options Linkage Plan (“Linkage”) as described in NYSE Arca Rules 6.93 and 6.94 with respect to linkage operation and order protection. If the Exchange receives an order through Linkage in a Pilot Program series from another exchange not quoting and trading in pennies, the Exchange will fill the incoming order at a penny incremented price, as long as the execution price is equal to or better than the reference price of the Linkage order. In the event of a trade through by another Linkage Participant Market of a customer order in a Pilot Program issue that has been denominated and disseminated to the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) in a penny increment, the Exchange will assign a reference price on an outbound Satisfaction order in the penny incremented price of the customer order. The Exchange believes that a Linkage Participant market that receives a Satisfaction order in a penny increment should be permitted to fill the Satisfaction order at its reference price; regardless of the actual MPV permitted at the recipient exchange. If a Participating Market is not capable of processing and reporting a transaction in a penny increment, the Exchange believes that it is consistent with the intent of the Linkage plan that the receiving market should fill the Satisfaction order at the next best MPV allowed in that series on the receiving exchange. The Exchange would accept an execution report at that price, and fill the customer order that had been traded through at the price received on the Satisfaction order. As is widely acknowledged, the options industry is facing significant capacity issues related to excessive quoting rates. Peak quote rates 3 through April 2006 as reported by OPRA, the processor that disseminates quote and trade data for the options industry, have increased to 7 times the 2003 peak quote rates. In the last year, peak rates have more than doubled. In order to limit the capacity impact of migrating to penny trading, the Exchange proposes to limit the pilot to options on QQQQ and other issues approved by the Commission. This will allow the Exchange to carefully study the impact and assess the outcome of penny trading on data traffic. Further, in conjunction with the pilot, the Exchange proposes a strategy to mitigate the volume of data being processed and disseminated by OPRA. 3 Peak quote rates are measured in messages per second over a 1 minute period. Sixty days prior to the expiration of the Pilot Program, the Exchange agrees to submit a report to the Commission that includes:
(i)Data and written analysis on the number of quotations generated for options selected for the Pilot Program;
(ii)an assessment of the quotation spreads for the options selected for the Pilot Program;
(iii)an assessment of the impact of the Pilot Program on the capacity of the NYSE Arca's automated systems;
(iv)any capacity problems or other problems that arose related to the operation of the Pilot Program and how the NYSE Arca addressed them; and
(v)an assessment of trade through complaints that were sent by the NYSE Arca during the operation of the Pilot Program and how they were addressed. The report will study data produced in the first three months of the Pilot Program. Quote Mitigation Strategy NYSE Arca Rule 6.86 describes the obligations of the Exchange to collect, process and make available to quotation vendors the best bid and best offer for each option series that is a reported security. The Exchange proposes an exception to making quotes available to quotation vendors as part of an approved quote mitigation plan. The quote mitigation strategy proposed by the Exchange is intended to reduce the number of quotations generated by NYSE Arca for all option issues traded at NYSE Arca, not just issues included in the Pilot Program. NYSE Arca plans to reduce the number of quote messages it sends to OPRA by only submitting quote messages for “active” options series. Active options series are defined as the following:
(i)The series has traded on any options exchange in the previous 14 calendar days; or,
(ii)the series is solely listed on NYSE Arca; or
(iii)the series has been trading ten days or less; or,
(iv)the Exchange has an order in the series. For any options series that falls into one of the aforementioned categories, NYSE Arca will submit quotes to OPRA as it currently does. For any options series that falls outside of the above categories, NYSE Arca will still accept quotes from OTP Holders in these series; however, such quotes will not be disseminated to OPRA. In addition, there are certain instances when a series would become active intraday. Such instances include:
(i)The series trades at any options exchange;
(ii)NYSE Arca receives an order in the series; or
(iii)NYSE Arca receives a request for quote from a customer in that series. When one of the above circumstances exists, NYSE Arca would immediately begin disseminating quotes to OPRA in that particular series and would continue doing so until that series fell outside of the active series definition. If the series does not trade, and there are no orders in the series the next day, the series would no longer be considered active. Further, because NYSE Arca will continue to collect quotes from OTP Holders in inactive series, upon receiving an order in an inactive series, the Exchange will either execute that order against any marketable quotes in the trading system, or will link that order to the away market displaying the NBBO in that series. Accordingly, OTP Holders' orders will not be disadvantaged and will still have an opportunity to execute at the best price in such inactive series. Based upon studies conducted by the Exchange, it appears less than 25% of the industry's available options series trade each day. In addition, on NYSE Arca on any given day, 75% of the trading volume occurs in options on 200 underlying securities out of a possible 2,000 underlying securities that have listed options contracts listed on NYSE Arca. Accordingly, the Exchange felt it was prudent to analyze the quoting behavior in such inactive series. Based upon the analysis, the Exchange determined that it was possible to reduce quote traffic by 20-30% by limiting quote dissemination to solely active series as described above. As a result, the Exchange believes its proposed data mitigation strategy will have a significant effect on reducing quote traffic and addressing the current capacity problems facing the industry. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act, 4 in general, and furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 5 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principals of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. 4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited nor received. 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 such proposed rule change; or
(B)Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule 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-NYSEArca-2006-73 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-NYSEArca-2006-73. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of NYSE Arca. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2006-73 and should be submitted on or before November 8, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 6 6 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-17317 Filed 10-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5583] 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: DS-5090e, Human Rights Abuses Reporting Site; OMB No. 1405-0175 ACTION: Notice of request for public comments. SUMMARY: The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)approval for the information collection described below. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment in the **Federal Register** preceding submission to OMB. We are conducting this process in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. • *Title of Information Collection:* Human Rights Abuses Reporting Site. • *OMB Control Number:* 1405-0175. • *Type of Request:* Extension of a Currently Approved Collection. • *Originating Office:* Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, Office of Cuban Affairs (WHA/CCA). • *Form Number:* DS-5090e, Human Rights Abuses Reporting Site. • *Respondents:* Victims of human rights abuses in Cuba. • *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 7,300 annually. • *Estimated Number of Responses:* 7,300 annually. • *Average Hours Per Response:* 15 minutes per response. • *Total Estimated Burden:* 1,825 hours. • *Frequency:* On occasion. • *Obligation to Respond:* Voluntary. DATE(S): The Department will accept comments from the public up to 60 days from October 18, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • E-mail: *CubaHRVL@state.gov.* • Mail (paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions): Coordinator of Cuban Affairs; Department of State; 2201 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20520. • Hand Delivery or Courier: Coordinator of Cuban Affairs; Department of State; 2201 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20520. You must include the DS form number (if applicable), information collection title, and OMB control number in any correspondence. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed information collection and supporting documents, to the Coordinator of Cuban Affairs; Department of State; 2201 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20520, who may be reached at 202-647-9272, or by e-mail at *CubaHRVL@state.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to: • Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our functions. • Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used. • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected. • Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of technology. *Abstract of proposed collection:* The President has asked the interagency community to use the temporary transfer of power from Fidel Castro to his brother Raul Castro in August 2006 as an historic moment to work to encourage a democratic transition in Cuba. In keeping with the recommendations of the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba report, the State Department will seek information from the public about human rights abuses committed by Cuban authorities, including the military and members of the security forces. The information is sought in accordance with, *inter alia,* 22 U.S.C. 2656 and 2304(a)(1). The principal purpose for collecting the information is to prepare and maintain a database of human rights abusers in Cuba. The Department may use this information in connection with its responsibilities for the protection and promotion of human rights and for the conduct of foreign affairs, as well as for other appropriate purposes as a routine part of the Department's activities. *Methodology:* Information will be collected through electronic submission. *Additional Information:* None. Dated: September 21, 2006. Caleb McCarry, Cuba Transition Coordinator, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-17339 Filed 10-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-29-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5567] Establishment of the Advisory Committee on Democracy Promotion SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on Democracy Promotion was established in March 2006 to advise the Secretary of State and the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development on the consideration of issues related to democracy promotion in the formulation and implementation of U.S. foreign policy and foreign assistance. The Secretary of State will appoint the members of the committee, which will consist of up to 20 non-government members. The committee will follow the procedures prescribed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Meetings will be open to the public unless a determination is made in accordance with the FACA Section 10(d) and 5 U.S.C. 522b(c)(1) and
(4)that a meeting or a portion of the meeting should be closed to the public. Notice of each meeting will be provided in the **Federal Register** at least 15 days prior to the meeting date. For further information, contact Nicole Bibbins Sedaca, Senior Director of Strategic Planning and External Affairs, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor at
(202)647-3904. Dated: October 11, 2006. Barry Lowenkron, Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-17338 Filed 10-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-18-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration [FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2006-23550] Interstate Oasis Program AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this approved final Interstate Oasis Program policy document. Section 1310 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Public Law 109-59, August 10, 2005) requires the Secretary of Transportation to develop standards for designating certain facilities as Interstate Oases and to design a uniform logo for such designated facilities. After consideration of public comments on a draft program and policy document, the FHWA has finalized the policies for the Interstate Oasis program. DATES: *Effective Date:* October 18, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Hari Kalla,
(202)366-5915, Office of Transportation Operations, HOTO, or Mr. Robert Black, Office of the Chief Counsel, HCC-30,
(202)366-1359. The FHWA office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The offices are located at 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access An electronic copy of this notice may be downloaded Bulletin Board Service from the Office of the Federal Register's home page at *http://www.archives.gov* and the Government Printing Office's Web site at *http://www.access.gpo.gov* . An electronic version of the Interstate Oasis program document may be downloaded at the FHWA Web site: *http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-policy.htm.* Outline • Background on the Interstate Oasis Program. • Actions Taken to Date. • Comments and Responses on the Draft Interstate Oasis Program. ○ General Comments. ○ Eligibility Criteria. ○ Signing. ○ Education and Marketing. Background on the Interstate Oasis Program Prior to the enactment of SAFETEA-LU, the FHWA was in the process of investigating a number of issues relating to rest areas on the Interstate System, in response to a provision in the Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference (House Report 106-355) that accompanied the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 (Pub. L. 106-69, 113 Stat. 986). Of particular concern is the limited availability in some areas of sufficient opportunities for road users to stop and rest that created safety concerns related to increased driver fatigue. Insufficient truck parking has also been found to be a significant problem in some States at rest areas on the Interstate system, on local road systems near interchanges with Interstate highways, and at adjoining businesses. Commercialization of existing Interstate highway public rest areas to allow private firms to provide services such as those found in “service plazas” on many toll roads and turnpikes, in exchange for private responsibility for maintenance and operation of the rest areas, has been advocated by some States and by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to reduce the financial burden of maintaining public rest areas. However, such commercialization is not authorized by current laws and regulations and is strongly opposed by business interests located off the Interstate system. In August 2005, SAFETEA-LU was enacted. Section 1310 of SAFETEA-LU, entitled “Interstate Oasis Program,” requires the FHWA to establish an Interstate Oasis program and, after providing an opportunity for public comment, develop standards for designating as an Interstate Oasis a facility that, at a minimum, offers products and services to the public, 24-hour access to restrooms, and parking for automobiles and heavy trucks. Section 1310 also requires the FHWA to design a logo to be displayed by a designated Interstate Oasis facility. Further, Section 1310 requires that, if a State elects to participate in the Interstate Oasis program, any facility meeting the standards for designation shall be eligible for designation as an Interstate Oasis. The Interstate Oasis program is also expected to help further the goals of the Secretary of Transportation's new National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on America's Transportation Network, announced on May 16, 2006. 1 We anticipate that the Interstate Oasis program will increase the availability of truck parking, thereby reducing the occurrence of truck parking on the shoulders of Interstate highways that could be contributing to congestion. 1 Speaking before the National Retail Federation's annual conference on May 16, 2006, in Washington, DC, former U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta unveiled a new plan to reduce congestion plaguing America's roads, rail, and airports. The National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on America's Transportation Network includes a number of initiatives designed to reduce transportation congestion. The transcript of these remarks is available at the following URL: *http://www.dot.gov/affairs/minetasp051606.htm* Actions Taken to Date On February 27, 2006, the FHWA published a notice in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 9855), providing a draft policy for the Interstate Oasis Program, posing nine specific questions to help refine and finalize the program, and requesting public comments (FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2006-23550). After careful analysis of all comments received, the FHWA has decided to finalize and issue the Interstate Oasis Program and Policy. A variety of relatively minor changes have been made in the program and policy to add clarity and incorporate suggested improvements from insightful comments regarding the draft. Also, the final Interstate Oasis Program and Policy reflects the legislated requirements of Section 1310 of SAFETEA-LU by use of the word “shall” where appropriate. The FHWA intends that the Interstate Oasis Program and Policy in its entirety be considered as the criteria for designating and signing a facility as an Interstate Oasis. Comments and Responses on the Draft Interstate Oasis Program The following discussion is a summary of significant comments received on the draft program document and the specific questions posed in the February 27, 2006, notice and the FHWA's responses on how the concerns and/or issues raised were considered and addressed. We received comments from 39 entities, including eight national associations, 13 State transportation agencies, one State environmental agency, one State social services agency, one local government agency, three private companies, and 12 private individuals. The national associations included the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (AHAS), the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the Motorist Information Services Association (MISA), the National Association of County Engineers (NACE), the National Association of Truck Stop Operators (NATSO), the National Federation of the Blind (NFB), and the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA). Many comments were general in nature and are summarized and addressed collectively under the General Comments heading. Many comments included recommendations related to one or more of the potential eligibility criteria, certain potential signing practices, or recommended educational and marketing efforts, in response to the language of the draft program policy and/or the specific questions posed in the February 27, 2006, notice. These comments are summarized and addressed under the Eligibility Criteria, Signing, and Education and Marketing headings, as appropriate. All comments and recommendations have been read and considered by the FHWA. A number of the comments received focused on the trend for some States to consider closing some of their public rest areas due to economic or other issues and expressed concerns that the designation of Interstate Oasis facilities off the Interstate highway rights-of-way might encourage further closures of public rest areas. Interstate Oases are not intended to replace public rest areas, and these concerns are beyond the scope of this effort and have not been addressed in this document. General Comments Many commenters expressed overall support for the program. They generally recognized and noted the potential benefits of the program, such as increased opportunities for stopping and using restroom facilities without the obligation to purchase anything, increased parking for heavy trucks to enable drivers to rest for up to 10 hours to satisfy legal requirements, 2 and improved safety due to reductions in driver fatigue accruing from the increased stopping opportunities. 2 The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) regulates maximum hours of service by certain motor carriers and drivers. The regulations are contained in 49 CFR 395. Only four comments received can be characterized as in general opposition to this program. The NFB and the Louisiana Department of Social Services opposed the program because of the potential impacts to blind individuals who operate vending machines at public rest areas under the priority provisions of the Randolph-Sheppard Act (20 U.S.C. 107 *et seq.* ) This concern, which is related to potential closures of public rest areas, is beyond the scope of this effort and has not been addressed in this document. The Iowa Department of Transportation (IA DOT) opposed the program, stating a lack of need for it in view of the existing Specific Services Signing program for food, gas, and lodging, and the anticipated pressure on the agency to participate in the program if it is established. One individual opposed the program on the basis of concerns that truck stops are “scary places” for females. The FHWA believes that the eligibility criteria will result in various types of establishments, not just truck stops, being designated as Interstate Oases and that the States will assure that designated facilities provide a reasonable degree of safety and comfort for all users. The AASHTO, AHAS, and Minnesota Department of Transportation (MN DOT) suggested that the policy should put more emphasis on the safety benefits of the program in providing for truck parking and driver rest. In response, the FHWA has added a paragraph to the program and policy to clarify its purpose. The NACE expressed concern about the possible impacts of the program on local road agencies such as county governments, in terms of heavy truck traffic on local roads to access an Oasis, added workload for the local government if it is involved in the review and decisionmaking process for designation of a facility as an Oasis, and possible costs for trailblazing signs along local roads. The FHWA believes that States electing to participate in the Interstate Oasis program will work with their local government agencies as appropriate to ameliorate any of these potential impacts associated with local roads. Comments on Eligibility Criteria *Maximum Distance from Interchange:* There was not a clear consensus among the commenters regarding the proposed normal maximum distance of 3 miles from an interchange. Ten commenters were in favor of that distance while eight stated a preference for 1 mile, three suggested 1/2 mile, two favored some unspecified distance less than 3 miles, and one preferred some unspecified distance greater than 3 miles. Most commenters supported flexibility for States to extend the maximum distance in unusual circumstances, such as in very sparsely developed rural areas where the nearest eligible facility is not within 3 miles from the exit but road users would nevertheless benefit from the opportunity to park, use rest rooms, and rest to reduce fatigue, even if they must travel more than 3 miles off the Interstate highway to reach the Oasis. Many who supported the flexibility to extend the distance beyond 3 miles recommended signs on the ramp indicating the mileage to the Oasis and trailblazing signs along the access highway. The FHWA believes that 3 miles is a reasonable maximum distance under most conditions and retains 3 miles as the normal maximum. The FHWA also believes the public will benefit from allowing extensions of this distance in some cases and therefore has added a provision to allow the States to consider greater distances, in 3-mile increments up to 15 miles, in such unusual rural circumstances. This approach is similar to that allowed for eligibility in the Specific Service Signing program. Distances on ramp signs and trailblazing on the access route are discussed under the Signing heading. *Adequacy of Access Route to Oasis:* The draft policy stated that an Oasis facility must be safely and conveniently accessible, as determined by an engineering study, via highways that are unrestricted as to vehicle weight or type, size, or weight. In response to one of the questions posed in the February 27, 2006, notice, the majority of commenters indicated that more specific criteria should be stated for the States to use in their engineering studies to assess the safety and convenience of the access route. The FHWA agrees and has modified the policy to indicate that the engineering study should take into consideration the Transportation Research Board's 2003 “Access Management Manual” 3 and the applicable criteria of AASHTO's “Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” 4 (Green Book) or, in the case of highways not on the National Highway System, the applicable State design standards. The FHWA believes that these documents contain the proper guidance and discussion of issues to consider for this kind of a study. 3 “Access Management Manual,” 2003, available for purchase from the Transportation Research Board at Keck Center of the National Academies, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001, or online at *http://gulliver.trb.org/bookstore/.* 4 “Policy on Geometric Design of Streets and Highways,” fifth edition, 2004, available for purchase from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 249, Washington, DC 20001, or online at *https://bookstore.transportation.org/.* The AHAS objected to the draft criterion that the access route be unrestricted as to vehicle type, size, or weight, stating that this implies that current Federal and State size and weight restrictions can be disregarded for travel on access routes to Oases. The AHAS further stated that this criterion would undermine or pre-empt State authority to preserve certain lower class roads from damage and safety concerns posed by certain heavy trucks. The FHWA disagrees with that position and believes that the AHAS has misinterpreted the intent of the criterion. The policy intends that, if a State has enacted special restrictions on a particular section of highway or bridge, such as a maximum weight limit or maximum length of vehicle, that is more restrictive than what is legal in the State for unrestricted roads of that class, a facility that is accessible only via that specially restricted section or highway or bridge would not be eligible for designation as an Oasis. Some States may allow certain very heavy trucks to operate only on the Interstate and National Highway systems and not on roads of lesser classification. Such trucks would in many cases still be able to access an Oasis under rules of “reasonable access” to facilities for food, fuel, and rest as provided in the Code of Federal Regulations at 23 CFR 658.19, as long as a special weight limit, such as for a structurally substandard bridge, is not posted on the access route. We have clarified the language of the policy, indicating that the facility shall be accessible via a route that an engineering study determines can safely and conveniently accommodate vehicles of the types, sizes, and weights that would be traveling to the facility, and that the study should take into account the rules for reasonable access as per 23 CFR 658.19. *Adequacy of On-Site Circulation and Ingress/Egress:* The draft policy also stated that an Oasis facility must have physical site geometry, as determined by an engineering study, to safely and efficiently accommodate all vehicles, including heavy trucks of the size and weight anticipated to use the facility. The majority of commenters indicated that more specific criteria should be stated for the States to use in their engineering studies to assess the safety and efficiency of the site geometry, including driveway access points. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MN DOT) recommended that a WB-62 design vehicle 5 be specified for the site assessment. The FHWA agrees with these points and has modified the policy to indicate that the engineering study should take into consideration the Transportation Research Board's 2003 “Access Management Manual,” the AASHTO “Guide for Development of Rest Areas on Major Arterials and Freeways,” 6 and other pertinent geometric design criteria for vehicles at least as large as a WB-62. These documents contain appropriate guidance for assessment of existing sites as well as design of new sites, and the WB-62 is the most commonly used truck size for geometric design. 5 Information about the WB-62 design vehicle and how it is used in geometric design of highways and intersections is contained in “Policy on Geometric Design of Streets and Highways,” fifth edition, 2004, available for purchase from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 249, Washington, DC 20001, or online at *https://bookstore.transportation.org/* . 6 “Guide for Development of Rest Areas on Major Arterials and Freeways,” third edition, 2001, available for purchase from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 249, Washington, DC 20001, or online at *https://bookstore.transportation.org/* . *Number of Parking Spaces:* Seven commenters indicated that States should be given total flexibility to decide on a case-by-case basis how many parking spaces should be required for various vehicle types to qualify as an Oasis. However, 15 commenters stated that the determination of adequacy should be guided by the national criteria. Of those 15, most favored a formula-based approach rather than specific minimum numbers of spaces and some cited the AASHTO “Guide for Development of Rest Areas on Major Arterials and Freeways” as containing a well-researched formula for this specific purpose. The formula accounts for traffic volumes on the Interstate, percentage of trucks, length of stay, and other factors affecting demand. The FHWA agrees with this approach and has modified the policy accordingly. The OOIDA and two States commented that the parking spaces at Oases should be free of charge. Although not specifically stated in the draft policy, that was intended and the FHWA has clarified the policy to specifically state that the parking spaces should be free of charge. *Required Products and Services:* The draft policy stated that, to be eligible, a facility should provide a public telephone, food (vending, snacks, fast food, and/or full service), and fuel, oil, and water for automobiles and trucks. One of the questions in the February 27, 2006, notice asked whether there are other products or services that should be considered essential for designation as an Oasis. Some commenters suggested adding requirements, such as picnic tables, pet walk areas, wireless internet, cell phone service, security patrols, electrical power hookups for vehicle heating and air conditioning, etc. A few commenters suggested that requirements for food, fuel, and water should be deleted in the interest of making the Oases more like a public rest area and/or making it easier for potential facilities to qualify. Two States suggested eliminating the requirement for a public phone because of increasing cell phone use. However, the majority of commenters stated that the products and services outlined in the draft policy are appropriate, no others are essential, and individual operators of designated Oases will likely decide on their own to provide additional services or products as determined by the market. The FHWA has decided to retain the products and services as stated in the draft policy, including public phone, and not add any others. Although cell phone use is increasing rapidly, it is by no means universal and there are many areas where cell phone service is unreliable or unavailable. Further, a public phone remains an essential service for those who do not have a cell phone. *Flexibility to Consider Combined Services of More than One Business:* In response to a question posed in the February 27, 2006, notice, commenters were equally divided between allowing and not allowing States the flexibility to consider the products and services of a combination of two or more businesses at an interchange when all the criteria cannot be met by any one business at that interchange. The AASHTO, MISA, and eight State DOTs were among those opposed to this flexibility, while OOIDA, NATSO, and five State DOTs were among those in favor under at least some circumstances. Many of those in favor of flexibility recommended that the businesses be located immediately adjacent to each other and be easily accessible on foot from each other's parking lots without having to cross a public highway, such that a vehicle could park once and easily walk to obtain all services. The FHWA believes it is in the best interest of the traveling public to allow States this flexibility and has modified the policy accordingly. *Additional State Criteria:* The draft policy stated that States may impose additional minimum eligibility criteria beyond those of the national minimums. Several commenters objected to this, stating that allowing States to require the provision of additional products or services or to impose additional minimum requirements for eligibility would unduly limit participation by businesses and compromise uniformity in terms of meeting road user expectations. The FHWA agrees and has modified the policy to preclude States from imposing additional eligibility criteria. Comments on Signing *Interstate Oasis Name:* In the February 27, 2006, notice, one of the questions asked whether the name “Interstate Oasis” will be readily understood by the public and identified with the types of service offered, or whether some other name for the facilities would better serve the public. Comments received on this question were nearly evenly divided. Eleven commenters, including AASHTO, favored “Interstate Oasis” while ten commenters, including NATSO and OOIDA, favored some other name. Among those favoring something other than “Interstate Oasis,” there was a wide variety of suggested names but no consensus. While some suggested that the Utah or Vermont names of “Rest Stop” or “Rest Exit” should be used, others stated that such names would be confusing because they are very similar to “Rest Area” but the facilities are much different from public rest areas. The California and Pennsylvania DOTs expressed concern that the word “Interstate” in the program name would preclude its application to non-Interstate freeways. The FHWA believes that Interstate Oasis will, after an introductory acclimation period, become familiar to and understood by road users. The FHWA also believes the program should be limited, at least initially, to Interstate highways as directed in the SAFETEA-LU Section 1310 language. Therefore the FHWA retains the “Interstate Oasis” as the program name and signing designation. *Symbol or Logo:* In response to the question about what symbol
(logo)should be used to indicate an Interstate Oasis, 15 commenters, including AASHTO and 4 State DOTs, favored the use of some symbol. Eight of those 15 commenters suggested a palm tree, while others suggested a wide variety of different logos. Four of the 15 commenters recommended that the symbol should not be used alone and that it should be accompanied by words as an educational measure until the symbol becomes widely known. Seven commenters, including the AHAS, MISA, and three State DOTs, pointed out that any new symbol for use on official traffic signs cannot be adopted by FHWA unless the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 7 is revised to include the new symbol, and that MUTCD revisions can only be made via the rulemaking process outlined in the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et al.). Some commenters also recommended that human factors evaluations be conducted before a new symbol is proposed for addition to the MUTCD, in order to assure that a new symbol is optimized for conspicuity and legibility at freeway speeds. 7 The MUTCD, approved by the FHWA, is the national standard for all traffic control devices installed on any street, highway, or bicycle trail open to public travel. The MUTCD is available for viewing and printing online at *http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov* . The FHWA believes that the symbol to represent the Interstate Oasis should be some form of one or more palm trees, as eventually determined by human factors evaluations of various potential designs. However, the FHWA agrees that after such evaluations and refinement, the FHWA would propose to include the symbol in the MUTCD for use on guide signs through the rulemaking process. Therefore, the FHWA has determined that, for initial implementation by States, only the word message “Interstate Oasis” should be used on guide signs to indicate an exit with one or more Oasis facilities. The policy has been modified accordingly. *Signing on the Freeway:* Several commenters expressed concerns about multiple methods of signing to denote the availability of an Oasis at an exit and the potential for the lack of a single uniform signing method to result in road user confusion or safety impacts. Many commenters specifically objected to the proposed signing option to use a “patch” on Specific Service sign business logos to denote designation as an Interstate Oasis. It was noted that the FHWA has already provided Interim Approval for use of a 12-inch circular yellow “patch” with the letters “RV” on business logos on gas, food, lodging, or camping Specific Services signs for businesses that meet “RV-friendly” criteria. 8 The patch is placed partly on the business logo and partly on the blue background of the larger sign panel. Concerns were expressed that extension of this concept to Interstate Oases and possibly for other purposes in the future would unduly clutter the Specific Services signs and compromise sign legibility and understanding by road users. 8 This Interim Approval may be viewed at *http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-mem_rvf.htm.* Also, one of the questions posed in the February 27, 2006, notice asked whether States should have the flexibility to include the name or logo of a business designated as an Oasis on a separate advance sign and, if such sign is provided, should the business be disqualified from having their business logos on any Specific Service signs at the interchange. Most responses to this question indicated that the States should have the flexibility to allow the business name or logo on any separate advance sign indicating availability of an Interstate Oasis at the exit and that the business should not be disqualified from the Specific Services signing program. In consideration of the comments received and its own experience in signing, the FHWA has revised the final policy to eliminate the patch signing concept and simplify the signing elements. The FHWA has decided that States should not include the names or logos of the Oasis businesses on the separate advance sign, because such elements would lead to significant increases in the potential for information overload, particularly at interchanges with multiple designated Oases. The recommended practice, if adequate sign spacing allows, is for a separate blue sign in advance of the exit containing the exit number and only the words “Interstate Oasis.” If there is inadequate sign spacing to enable use of the separate sign, an existing Advance Guide sign or an existing D9-18 series General Services sign for the interchange may have a supplemental blue panel with the words “Interstate Oasis” appended above or below it. If Specific Services signing is provided at the interchange, a business designated as an Interstate Oasis that has its logo on a Specific Services sign may include the word “Oasis” within its logo panel. This use of words within a business logo is similar to existing provisions in the MUTCD that allow messages within logos such as “24 Hours,” “Diesel,” etc., and was a suggestion of many commenters as being preferable to the “patch” concept. The single word “Oasis” is specified rather than the two-word phrase “Interstate Oasis” in the interest of legibility, to maximize the size of the letters used within the business logo. *Ramp Signing and Trailblazing:* The draft program and policy stated that signing should be provided near the exit ramp terminal and along the cross road to guide road users from the interchange to the Interstate Oasis and back to the interchange. As noted previously in the discussion of maximum distance from the interchange under the Eligibility Criteria heading, there were many comments suggesting that road users should be provided with information about the distance they must travel from the ramp terminal to the Interstate Oasis, particularly in cases where the Oasis is located more than 3 miles away. The MUTCD recommends that Specific Service signs on exit ramps should include the distances to the facilities, and the FHWA believes that this practice should be extended to exit ramp signs for Oasis facilities. Accordingly, the FHWA has included language in the final policy to recommend that the distance be included on the ramp signs and on any cross road trailblazing signs that are provided. The FHWA has also made other minor modifications to the language to stipulate the colors and legend size for these signs and clarify that, if the Interstate Oasis is clearly visible from the exit ramp and/or if Specific Services signs containing logos of Oasis businesses are provided on the ramp, ramp signs and trailblazing signs may not be needed. *Private signing:* Comments from the NATSO suggested that the policy should clearly indicate that the Interstate Oasis logo may be displayed by designated businesses on their on-site facility and private signs, as well as their advertising media, including billboards. Although only the words “Interstate Oasis” will be used to designate a facility until such time as a symbol
(logo)is adopted in the MUTCD, the need to limit the use of the official designation to those facilities approved by the State and allowing those facilities to use the designation on their private signs and advertising media is nevertheless still pertinent. The FHWA has added text to the final policy to recommend that States participating in the Interstate Oasis program should enact appropriate legislation or rules to implement these controls. Comments on Education and Marketing In the February 27, 2006, notice, we invited comments regarding educational and marketing efforts that may be necessary to familiarize travelers and businesses with the Interstate Oasis program. Nine of the 11 comments on this question stated the opinion that considerable or extensive marketing efforts will be needed. The suggested methods included brochures, radio and television public service announcements, flyer handouts in rest areas, weigh stations, motor vehicle licensing and permitting offices, and including information in State highway maps and commercial maps and atlases. Many commenters noted that the individual States establishing an Interstate Oasis program in their State would be in the best position to provide the educational and marketing efforts, as a part of their routine public relations programs. Commenters also recommended that the trucking industry and travel industry (including such organizations as the American Automobile Association) be involved in the educational and marketing efforts, in view of their established means of communicating with their members. The FHWA agrees with these comments and has added language to the program and policy recommending that educational and marketing efforts be undertaken by participating States, in cooperation with trucking and travel industry partners as appropriate. Acknowledgement The FHWA recognizes and appreciates the effort of all parties who provided comments for consideration in the development and finalization of the Interstate Oasis program. (Authority: Sec. 1305, Pub. L. 105-59, 119 Stat. 1144; 23 U.S.C. 109(d), 315, and 402; 23 CFR 1.32 and 655.603; and 49 CFR 1.48(b).) Issued on: October 10, 2006. J. Richard Capka, Federal Highway Administrator. The text of the FHWA Interstate Oasis Program and Policy is as follows: U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA)Final Interstate Oasis Program and Policy Purpose The purpose of the Interstate Oasis program is to enhance safety and convenience for Interstate highway users by allowing States, in accordance with this policy, to designate and provide signing to certain facilities off the freeway that will provide increased opportunities for stopping to rest, using restroom facilities, and obtaining basic services. Definition of Interstate Oasis An Interstate Oasis shall be defined as a facility near an Interstate highway but not within the Interstate right-of-way, designated by a State after meeting the eligibility criteria of this policy, that provides products and services to the public, 24-hour access to public restrooms, and parking for automobiles and heavy trucks. Eligibility Criteria Interstate Oasis facilities shall comply with laws concerning: 1. The provisions of public accommodations without regard to race, religion, color, age, sex, national origin, or disability; and 2. The licensing and approval of such service facilities. If a State elects to provide or allow Interstate Oasis signing, there should be a statewide policy, program, procedures, and criteria for the designation and signing of a facility as an Interstate Oasis. To qualify for designation and signing as an Interstate Oasis, a facility: 1. Shall be located no more than 3 miles from an interchange with an Interstate highway, except that: a. A lesser distance may be required when a State's laws specifically restrict truck travel to lesser distances from the Interstate system; and b. Greater distances, in 3-mile increments up to a maximum of 15 miles, may be considered by States for interchanges in very sparsely developed rural areas where eligible facilities are not available within the 3-mile limit; 2. Shall be accessible via a route that an engineering study determines can safely and conveniently accommodate vehicles of the types, sizes, and weights that would be traveling to the facility, entering and leaving the facility, returning to the Interstate highway, and continuing in the original direction of travel. The engineering study should take into consideration the processes and criteria contained in the Transportation Research Board's “Access Management Manual” 1 (2003 or latest edition) and the applicable criteria of the most recent edition of the AASHTO “Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” 2 (Green Book) or, in the case of highways not on the National Highway System, the applicable State highway design standards. The engineering study should also take into account the provisions for reasonable access by heavy vehicles to facilities for food, fuel, and rest as per 23 CFR 658.19; 1 “Access Management Manual,” 2003, available for purchase from the Transportation Research Board at Keck Center of the National Academies, 500 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001, or online at *http://gulliver.trb.org/bookstore/* . 2 “Policy on Geometric Design of Streets and Highways,” fifth edition, 2004, available for purchase from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 444 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 249, Washington, DC 20001, or online at *https://bookstore.transportation.org/* . 3. Shall have physical geometry of site layout, including parking areas and ingress/egress points, that an engineering study determines can safely and efficiently accommodate movements into and out of the site, on-site circulation, and parking by all vehicles, including heavy trucks of the types, sizes, and weights anticipated to use the facility. The engineering study should assume a design vehicle at least as large as a WB-62 truck. 3 The engineering study should also take into consideration the applicable criteria of the Transportation Research Board's “Access Management Manual”, the AASHTO “Guide for Development of Rest Areas on Major Arterials and Freeways” 4 (2001 or latest edition), and other pertinent geometric design criteria; 3 Information about the WB-62 design vehicle and how it is used in geometric design of highways and intersections is contained in “Policy on Geometric Design of Streets and Highways,” fifth edition, 2004, available for purchase from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 444 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 249, Washington, DC 20001, or online at *https://bookstore.transportation.org/* . 4 “Guide for Development of Rest Areas on Major Arterials and Freeways,” third edition, 2001, available for purchase from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 444 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 249, Washington, DC 20001, or online at *https://bookstore.transportation.org/* . 4. Shall have restrooms available to the public at all times (24 hours per day, 365 days per year). Restrooms should be modern and sanitary and should have drinking water. The restrooms and drinking water should be available at no charge or obligation; 5. Shall have parking spaces available to the public for automobiles and heavy trucks. The parking spaces should be well lit and should be available at no charge or obligation for parking durations of up to 10 hours or more, in sufficient numbers for the various vehicle types, including heavy trucks, to meet anticipated demands based on volumes, the percentage of heavy vehicles in the Interstate highway traffic, and other pertinent factors as described in formulas contained in the AASHTO “Guide for Development of Rest Areas on Major Arterials and Freeways” (2001 or latest edition); 6. Shall provide products and services to the public. These products and services should include: a. Public telephone; b. Food (vending, snacks, fast food, and/or full service); and c. Fuel, oil, and water for automobiles, trucks, and other motor vehicles; and 7. Should be staffed by at least one person on duty at all times (24 hours per day, 365 days per year). In cases where no single business near an interchange meets all the eligibility criteria, a State policy may allow the criteria to be satisfied by a combination of two or more businesses located immediately adjacent to each other and easily accessible on foot from each other's parking lots via pedestrian walkways compliant with the Americans for Disabilities Act
(ADA)and that do not require crossing a public highway. If a State elects to provide or allow Interstate Oasis signing, any facility meeting the criteria described above shall be eligible for designation as an Interstate Oasis. Statewide criteria shall not impose additional criteria beyond those listed above to qualify for designation as an Interstate Oasis. However, a business designated as an Interstate Oasis may elect to provide additional products, services, or amenities. Signing States electing to provide or allow Interstate Oasis signing should use the following signing practices on the freeway for any given exit to identify the availability of an Interstate Oasis: 1. If adequate sign spacing allows, a separate sign should be installed in an effective location with a spacing of at least 800 feet from other adjacent guide signs, including any Specific Service signs. This sign should be located in advance of the Advance Guide sign or between the Advance Guide sign and the Exit Direction sign for the exit leading to the Oasis. The sign should have a white legend (minimum 10 inch letters) and border on a blue background and should contain the phrase “Interstate Oasis” and the exit number or, for an unnumbered interchange, an action message such as “Next Exit”. Names or logos of businesses designated as Interstate Oases should not be included on this sign. 2. If the spacing of other guide signs precludes use of a separate sign as described in item 1 above, a supplemental panel with a white legend (“Interstate Oasis” in minimum 10 inch letters) and border on a blue background may be appended above or below an existing Advance Guide sign or D9-18 series General Service sign for the interchange. 3. If Specific Service signing (See MUTCD Chapter 2F) is provided at the interchange, a business designated as an Interstate Oasis and having a business logo on the Food and/or Gas Specific Service signs may use a bottom portion of the business's logos to display the word “Oasis.” 4. If Specific Services signs containing the “Oasis” legend as a part of the business logo(s) are not used on the ramp, a sign with a white legend (minimum 6 inch letters) and border on a blue background should be provided on the exit ramp to indicate the direction and distance to the Interstate Oasis, unless the Interstate Oasis is clearly visible and identifiable from the exit ramp. Additional guide signs may be used, if determined to be necessary, along the cross road to guide road users to an Oasis. A State's policy, program, and procedures should provide for the enactment of appropriate legislation or rules to limit the use of the phrase “Interstate Oasis” on a business” premises, on-site private signing, and advertising media to only those businesses approved by the State as an Interstate Oasis. Education and Marketing If a State elects to provide or allow Interstate Oasis signing, the State should undertake educational and marketing efforts, in cooperation with trucking and travel industry partners as appropriate, to familiarize travelers and businesses with the program before it is implemented and during the initial period of implementation. [FR Doc. E6-17367 Filed 10-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Transit Administration Transfer of Federally Assisted Land or Facility AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice of intent to transfer federally assisted land or facility. SUMMARY: Section 5334(g) of the Federal Transit Laws, as codified, 49 U.S.C. 5301 *et seq.* , permits the Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA)to authorize a recipient of FTA funds to transfer land or a facility to a public body for any public purpose with no further obligation to the Federal Government if, among other things, no Federal agency is interested in acquiring the asset for Federal use. Accordingly, FTA is issuing this notice to advise Federal agencies that New Jersey Transit
(NJT)intends to transfer the Union City Bus Maintenance Facility on New York Avenue in Union City, New Jersey, to the City of Union City. The property comprises one entire block and is bounded by Bergenline Avenue on the west, New York Avenue on the east, 29th Street on the north and 27th Street on the south. NJT no longer has a need for, and has not occupied the property for some time. Union City intends to use the property as a department of public works consolidated maintenance and storage facility for its fleet of vehicles, as well as create structured public parking and other uses. EFFECTIVE DATE: Any Federal agency interested in acquiring the land or facility must notify the FTA Region II Office of its interest by November 17, 2006. ADDRESSES: Interested parties should notify the Regional Office by writing to Letitia A. Thompson, Regional Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, 1 Bowling Green, Room 428, New York, NY 10004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hans Point Du Jour, FTA, Region II,
(212)668-2170. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background 49 U.S.C. 5334(g) provides guidance on the transfer of capital assets. Specifically, if a recipient of FTA assistance decides an asset acquired under this chapter at least in part with that assistance is no longer needed for the purpose for which it was acquired, the Secretary of Transportation may authorize the recipient to transfer the asset to a local government authority to be used for a public purpose with no further obligation to the Government. 49 U.S.C. 5334(g)(1). Determinations The Secretary may authorize a transfer for a public purpose other than mass transportation only if the Secretary decides:
(A)The asset will remain in public use for at least 5 years after the date the asset is transferred;
(B)There is no purpose eligible for assistance under this chapter for which the asset should be used;
(C)The overall benefit of allowing the transfer is greater than the interest of the Government in liquidation and return of the financial interest of the Government in the asset, after considering fair market value and other factors; and
(D)Through an appropriate screening or survey process, that there is no interest in acquiring the asset for Government use if the asset is a facility or land. Federal Interest in Acquiring Land or Facility This document implements the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5334(g)(1)(D) of the Federal Transit Laws. Accordingly, FTA hereby provides notice of the availability of the land or facility further described below. Any Federal agency interested in acquiring the affected land or facility should promptly notify the FTA. If no Federal agency is interested in acquiring the existing land or facility, FTA will make certain that the other requirements specified in 49 U.S.C. 5334(g)(1)(A) through
(C)are met before permitting the asset to be transferred. Additional Description of Land or Facility The subject building is located at 2701 New York Avenue, Union City, New Jersey, on approximately 3 acres of land. The property comprises one entire block and is bounded by Bergenline Avenue on the west, New York Avenue on the east, 29th Street on the north and 27th Street on the south. The building was built in stages between 1896 and 1928 as a trolley maintenance facility. It has approximately 135,000 square feet of building area overall, with 7 bus bays available for storage and service and is in a deteriorating condition. The structure currently houses the City of Union City Department of Public Works operations, in addition to smaller City offices. Prior to its use by NJT, the site was formerly occupied by Public Service Gas and Electric Company. Issued on: October 12, 2006. Anthony G. Carr, Deputy Regional Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-17264 Filed 10-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-57-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Office of Hazardous Materials Safety; Notice of Applications for Modification of Special Permit AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, DOT. ACTION: List of applications for modification of special permit. SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR part 107, subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. This notice is abbreviated to expedite docketing and public notice. Because the sections affected, modes of transportation, and the nature of application have been shown in earlier **Federal Register** publications, they are not repeated here. Request of modifications of special permits (e.g. to provide for additional hazardous materials, packaging design changes, additional mode of transportation, etc.) are described in footnotes to the application number. Application numbers with the suffix “M” denote a modification request. These applications have been separated from the new applications for special permits to facilitate processing. DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 2, 2006. ADDRESS COMMENTS TO: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590. Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, Nassif Building, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC or at *http://dms.dot.gov.* This notice of receipt of applications for modification of special permits is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)). Issued in Washington, DC, on October 12, 2006. Delmer E. Billings, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials, Special Permits & Approvals. Modification Special Permits Application No. Docket No. Applicant Regulation(s) affected Nature of special permit thereof 11650-M Autoliv ASP, Inc. Ogden, UT 49 CFR 173.301; 173.302; 178.65-9 To modify the special permit to allow a failure to occur at a gage pressure less than 2.0 times the test pressure as provided by 49 CFR 178.65(f)(2)(i) or the pressure required to demonstrate a 1.5 times Safety Factor per the USCAR specifications. 12030-M RSPA-1998-3389 East Penn Manufacturing Company, Inc., Lyon Station, PA 49 CFR 173.159(h) To modify the special permit to authorize cargo vessel and cargo air as approved modes of transportation. 12046-M RSPA-1998-3614 University of Colorado at Denver Health Sciences Center Aurora, CO 49 CFR 171 to 178 To modify the special permit to authorize additional academic/health institutions which are affiliated with UCDHSC and located within a forty mile radius of the Aurora Campus. 12084-M RSPA-1998-3941 Honeywell International, Inc., Morristown, NJ 49 CFR 180.209 To modify the special permit to authorize the transportation in commerce of additional Division 2.2 gases in DOT 4B, 4BA and 4BW cylinders. 12207-M RSPA-1999-5047 EMD Chemicals, Inc., Cincinnati, OH 49 CFR 171.1(a)(1); 172.200(a); 172.302(c) To modify the special permit to increase the size of the containers from 250 gallons to 331 gallons and to increase the quantity allowed on a pallet from 24 to 35. 12283-M RSPA-1999-5767 Interstate Battery of Alaska, Anchorage, AK 49 CFR 173.159(c)(1); 173.159(c) To modify the special permit to authorize medium density polyethylene boxes as authorized packaging. 12412-M RSPA-2000-6827 ChemStation International, Lima, OH 49 CFR 177.834(h); 172.203(a); 172.302(c) To modify the special permit to allow the attendance requirements in 49 CFR 177.837(d) for Class 8 materials described as “Compounds, cleaning liquid.” 14250-M PHMSA-2006-25473 Daniels Sharpsmart, Inc., Dandenong, Australia 49 CFR 172.301(a)(1); 172.301(c) To reissue the special permit originally issued on an emergency basis for the transportation in commerce of a Division 6.2 material in packagings marked within an unauthorized proper shipping name. 14333-M PHMSA-2006-24382 The Columbiana Boiler Co., Columbiana, OH 49 CFR 179.300-13(b) To modify the special permit to authorize the transportation in commerce of additional Division 6.1, Class 8 and other hazardous materials authorized in DOT Specification 4BW cylinder in DOT Specification 110A500W tank care tanks. 14355-M PHMSA-2006-25012 Honeywell International Inc., Morristown, NJ 49 CFR 173.31(b)(3); 173.31(b)(4) To reissue the special permit originally issued on an emergency basis for the transportation in commerce of nine DOT Specification 112 tank cars without head and thermal protection for use in transporting certain Division 2.2 material by extending the date for retrofitting beyond July 1, 2006. [FR Doc. 06-8748 Filed 10-17-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 27
Traces to 27 documents
U.S. Code
- Registration requirements§ 823
- Registration requirements§ 958
- Importation of controlled substances§ 952
- Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings§ 552
- Records maintained on individuals§ 552a
- General powers of the Postal Service§ 401
- National market system for securities; securities information processors§ 78k–1
- Registration, responsibilities, and oversight of self-regulatory organizations§ 78s
- National securities exchanges§ 78f
- Registered securities associations§ 78o–3
- Short title§ 78a
- Management of foreign affairs§ 2656
- Operation of vending facilities§ 107
- Definitions§ 551
- Standards§ 109
- Policies and purposes§ 5301
- Administrative provisions§ 5334
- Special permits and exclusions§ 5117
CFR
- Application for bulk manufacture of Schedule I and II substances.§ 1301.33
- Application for importation of Schedule I and II substances.§ 1301.34
- Request for hearing or appearance; waiver; default.§ 1301.43
- Request for hearing; answer.§ 1316.47
- Filing and amendment of national market system plans.§ 242.608
- Dissemination of transaction reports and last sale data with respect to transactions in NMS stocks.§ 242.601
- Delegation of authority to Director of Division of Trading and Markets.§ 200.30-3
- Reasonable access.§ 658.19
- Issuance of directives.§ 1.32
28 references not yet in our index
- Pub. L. 104-13
- Pub. L. 92-463
- 10 CFR 54
- Pub. L. 100-503
- 17 CFR 240.19
- 17 CFR 19
- 5 USC 522b(c)(1)
- Pub. L. 109-59
- Pub. L. 106-69
- 113 Stat. 986
- 49 CFR 395
- Pub. L. 105-59
- 119 Stat. 1144
- 49 CFR 1.48(b)
- 49 CFR 107
- 49 CFR 1.53(b)
- 49 CFR 173.301
- 49 CFR 178.65(f)(2)(i)
- 49 CFR 173.159(h)
- 49 CFR 171
- 49 CFR 180.209
- 49 CFR 171.1(a)(1)
- 49 CFR 173.159(c)(1)
- 49 CFR 177.834(h)
- 49 CFR 177.837(d)
- 49 CFR 172.301(a)(1)
- 49 CFR 179.300-13(b)
- 49 CFR 173.31(b)(3)
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of Computer Matching Program—Postal Service and states maintaining public sex offender registries
Pub. L.Pub. L. 104-13
Pub. L.Pub. L. 92-463
Cite10 CFR 54
Cites 55 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources