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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-11-20 · SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION · Notices

Notices. Notice

30,997 words·~141 min read·/register/2006/11/20/06-9280

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

BILLING CODE 3210-01-M SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submissions for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549. Extensions: Schedule 14D-1F, OMB Control No. 3235-0376, SEC File No. 270-338. Schedule 14D-9F, OMB Control No. 3235-0382, SEC File No. 270-339. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget these requests for extension of the previously approved collections of information discussed below.
Schedule 14D-1F (17 CFR 240.14d-102) may be used by any person making a cash tender or exchange offer for securities of any issuer incorporated or organized under the laws of Canada or any Canadian province or territory that is a foreign private issuer, where less than 40% of the outstanding class of such issuer's securities that is the subject of the offer is held by U.S. holders. Schedule 14D-1F is designed to facilitate cross-border transactions in securities of Canadian issuers.
The information required to be filed with the Commission is intended to permit verification of compliance with the securities law requirements and assures the public availability of such information. The information provided is mandatory and all information is made available to the public upon request. Schedule 14D-1F takes approximately 2 hours per response to prepare and is filed by 5 respondents annually for a total reporting burden of 10 hours. Schedule 14D-9F (17 CFR 240.14d-103) is used by any issuer incorporated or organized under the laws of Canada or any Canadian province or territory that is a foreign private issuer, or by any director or officer of such issuer, where the issuer is the subject of a cash tender or exchange offer for a class of securities filed on Schedule 14D-1F.
The information required to be filed with the Commission is intended to permit verification of compliance with the securities law requirements and assures the public availability of such information. The information provided is mandatory and all information is made available to the public upon request. Schedule 14D-9F takes approximately 2 hours per response to prepare and is filed by 5 respondents annually for a total reporting burden of 10 hours. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
Written comments regarding the above information should be directed to the following persons:
(i)Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or send an e-mail to *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* ; and
(ii)R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley Martinson 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-mail to: *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov* . Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice. Dated: November 13, 2006. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-19520 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54741; File No. SR-Amex-2006-106] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Adoption of a Penny Quoting Pilot Program November 9, 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 November 9, 2006, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” 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 Amex. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange is proposing to adopt a six month pilot program (the “Penny Quoting Pilot Program”) to quote a limited number of options classes in a minimum price variation (“MPV”) of $0.01. The text of the proposed rule change, including Exhibit 2 (a draft Regulatory Circular, which sets forth the list of the options classes that will be subject to the proposed Penny Quoting Pilot Program) to the proposed rule change is available on the Amex's Web site at *http://www.amex.com* , at the Office of the Secretary, the Amex, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Amex included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose On June 7, 2006, Commission Chairman Cox submitted a letter (the “June 7th Letter”) to each options exchange supporting the introduction and implementation of a pilot program for the quoting of a limited number of options classes in pennies ($0.01 MPV). The Exchange, after meaningful discussion with the Commission staff, submits this proposed rule change for the purpose of adopting the Penny Quoting Pilot Program. Options classes are currently quoted in MPVs in nickels ($0.05) and dimes ($0.10). Amex Rule 952 provides that the MPV for an option on a stock or ETF share is as follows:
(i)For option issues quoted under $3 a contract, $0.05 MPV; and
(ii)for option issues quoted at $3 a contract or greater, $0.10 MPV. As set forth in the June 7th Letter, quoting in penny increments ($0.01 MPV) is expected to benefit investors by allowing options quotes to be expressed at better prices and options orders to be executed at the best possible price. Furthermore, the Exchange submits that quoting in pennies would further enhance competition among the option exchanges. Proposed Penny Quoting Pilot Program *Selection of the Options Classes.* The proposed Penny Quoting Pilot Program will initially consist of thirteen
(13)options classes. Exhibit 2 to the proposed rule change is a draft Regulatory Circular which sets forth the list of the options classes that will be subject to the proposed Penny Quoting Pilot Program. *Minimum Price Variations (MPVs).* The quoting requirements in connection with the Penny Quoting Pilot Program will be as follows: • MPVs of $0.01 for options with premiums of up to $3 • MPVs of $0.05 for options with premiums of $3 or greater except for the QQQQ options which will trade at an MPV of $0.01 for all premiums. Because quoting options in pennies will increase quote message traffic, which may overwhelm certain data systems of the options exchanges, market data vendors and securities firms, quoting options in pennies will begin in a limited number of options classes. The Exchange believes that the proposed introduction of a limited number of options classes that may quote in pennies under the Penny Quoting Pilot Program is reasonable given the system capacity constraints and concerns that exist industry-wide. The Amex believes that once experience has been gained from the proposed Penny Quoting Pilot Program, the Commission and the industry will be better able to assess the impact on market quality and systems capacity. The Commission's Office of Economic Analysis (“OEA”) and each participating options exchange will perform individual analysis of the initial pilot program options classes after a three
(3)month interval (the “Pilot Report”). The Pilot Report will be submitted to the Commission within thirty
(30)days of the end of such three
(3)month time period. The Pilot Report will compare quotation and trading activity in the three
(3)months prior to the Penny Quoting Pilot Program to the first three
(3)months of the Penny Quoting Pilot Program as follows:
(1)Quotation spread, quotation size, average daily volume and other relevant factors;
(2)the number of quotations in the Penny Quoting Pilot Program and the effect on Amex system's capacity; and
(3)an assessment of trade-throughs and how they were addressed. The Exchange expects that the Pilot Report will be the subject of further discussions regarding status and next steps for the industry. Quote Mitigation Strategy As a condition to participation in the Penny Quoting Pilot Program, the Commission expects that each options exchange provide a rational quote mitigation strategy because of the concerns regarding system capacity. The Amex has in place several quote mitigation mechanisms and continues to evaluate its need for enhanced system capacity and management. The Exchange believes that its current quote mitigation strategies are effective as set forth below. • *Join Quote.* The Amex, through the ANTE system, 3 provides that registered options traders (“ROTs”) may either stream their own quotes or join the specialist's disseminated quotation in some or all of his assigned classes or series (“join quote”). In order to participate in “join quote,” a ROT must be physically present in the trading crowd. The purpose of allowing ROTs to piggyback on specialists' quotes is partly to reduce market data traffic by allowing ROTs to join the specialist's quote in the less actively traded series (far out months, etc.) while auto-quoting the more actively traded series. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49747 (May 20, 2004), 69 FR 30344 (May 27, 2004) (SR-Amex-2003-89). • *Monitoring.* The Amex actively monitors the quotation activity of its market participants. When the Exchange detects that a market participant is disseminating significantly more quotes than the average market participant, the Exchange contacts the market participant and alerts them to potentially excessive quotation activity. Often such monitoring reveals that the market participant may have internal system issues or has incorrectly set system parameters. Alerting the market participant usually leads to the market participant to take steps to reduce the number of quotes for dissemination. • *Holdback Timers.* The Amex has the systematic ability to limit the dissemination of quotations and other changes to the Amex Best Bid or Offer (“ABBO”) according to prescribed time criteria (“Holdback Timer”). For instance, if there is a change in the price of a security underlying an option, multiple market participants may adjust the price or size of their quotes. Rather than disseminating each individual change, the Holdback Timer permits the Exchange to wait until multiple market participants have adjusted their quotes and then to disseminate a new quotation. This helps to prevent the “flickering” of quotations. The Amex proposes to codify the Holdback Timer in this rule filing. As proposed in Amex Rule 958A—ANTE, the Exchange will utilize a Holdback Timer that delays quotation updates for no longer than one
(1)second. • *Delisting.* The Amex commits to the Commission that it will delist options with an average daily volume (“ADV”) of less than 25 contracts. However, it has been the policy of the Amex to be much more aggressive in delisting relatively inactive options, thereby eliminating the quotation traffic attendant to such listings. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 4 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 5 in particular, in that the proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, 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. B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition 4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 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 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-Amex-2006-106 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Amex-2006-106. 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 at *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, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Amex-2006-106 and should be submitted on or before December 11, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 6 6 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-19512 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54738; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-91] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated To Increase the Class Quoting Limit in the Option Class Research in Motion November 9, 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 November 8, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the CBOE. The Exchange has designated this proposal as one constituting a stated policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning, administration, or enforcement of an existing rule under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act, 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) 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)(i). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change CBOE proposes to increase the class quoting limit in the option class Research in Motion (RIMM). The text of the proposed rule change is available on CBOE's Web site ( *http://www.cboe.com* ), at the CBOE'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 CBOE 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 CBOE 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 CBOE Rule 8.3A, Maximum Number of Market Participants Quoting Electronically per Product, establishes class quoting limits (“CQLs”) for each class traded on the Hybrid Trading System. 5 A CQL is the maximum number of quoters that may quote electronically in a given product and the current levels are established from 25-40, depending on the trading activity of the particular product. 5 *See* CBOE Rule 8.3A.01. CBOE Rule 8.3A, Interpretation .01(c) provides a procedure by which the President of the Exchange may increase the CQL for a particular product. In this regard, the President of the Exchange may increase the CQL in exceptional circumstances, which are defined in the rule to include “ * * * substantial trading volume, whether actual or expected.” 6 The effect of an increase in the CQL is procompetitive in that it increases the number of market participants that may quote electronically in a product. The purpose of this filing is to increase the CQL in the option class Research in Motion
(RIMM)from its current limit of 40 to 42. 6 “Any actions taken by the President of the Exchange pursuant to this paragraph will be submitted to the SEC in a rule filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Exchange Act.” CBOE Rule 8.3A.01(c). RIMM is one of the most active equity option classes traded on the Exchange, and consistently ranks among the top classes in national average daily trading volume. Increasing the CQL in RIMM options will enable the Exchange to enhance the liquidity offered, thereby offering deeper and more liquid markets. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act. 7 Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) 8 requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others The Exchange neither received nor solicited written comments on the proposal. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing proposed rule change will take effect upon filing with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act 9 and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder, 10 because it constitutes a stated policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning, administration, or enforcement of an existing rule. 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i). 10 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-CBOE-2006-91 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. . All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2006-91. 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 CBOE. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2006-91 and should be submitted on or before December 11, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 11 11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-19518 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54742; File No. SR-NASD-2006-122] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify Pricing for NASD Members Using ITS/CAES, Brut, and Inet November 13, 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 November 1, 2006, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”), through its subsidiary, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (“Nasdaq”), 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 Nasdaq. Nasdaq filed the proposed rule change pursuant to 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 Nasdaq proposes to modify the pricing for NASD members using the ITS/CAES System and the Brut and Inet facilities (collectively, the “Nasdaq Facilities”). Nasdaq states that it will implement this rule change on November 1, 2006. As indicated in the rule text, portions of the rule change would be in effect on a pilot basis, beginning November 1, 2006 and continuing through November 30, 2006. The text of the proposed rule change is set forth below. Proposed new language is in *italics* ; proposed deletions are in [brackets]. 5 5 Nasdaq states that changes are marked to the rule text that appears in the electronic NASD Manual found at *http://www.nasd.com* , as further amended on an immediately effective basis by File No. SR-NASD-2006-116. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54695 (November 2, 2006), 71 FR 65862 (November 9, 2006). 7010. System Services (a)-(h) No change.
(i)ITS/CAES System, Brut, and Inet Order Execution and Routing
(1)The following charges shall apply to the use of the order execution and routing services of the ITS/CAES System, Brut, and Inet (the “Nasdaq Facilities”) by members for all Exchange-Traded Funds that are not listed on The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC. The term “Exchange-Traded Funds” shall mean Portfolio Depository Receipts, Index Fund Shares, and Trust Issued Receipts as such terms are defined in Rule 4420(i), (j), and (l), respectively, of The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC. For purposes of determining a member's volume in all securities under Rule 7010(i), the term “Nasdaq Facilities” shall also be deemed to include the member's volume in Nasdaq-listed securities through the facilities of The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC. Order Execution Order that accesses the Quote/Order of a market participant that does not charge an access fee to market participants accessing its Quotes/Orders through the Nasdaq Facilities: Charge to member entering order: Members with an average daily volume through the Nasdaq Facilities in all securities during the month of
(i)more than 30 million shares of liquidity provided, and
(ii)more than 50 million shares of liquidity accessed and/or routed; or members with an average daily volume through the Nasdaq Facilities in all securities during the month of
(i)More than 20 million shares of liquidity provided, and
(ii)more than 60 million shares of liquidity accessed and/or routed $0.0028 per share executed (or, in the case of executions against Quotes/Orders at less than $1.00 per share, 0.1% of the total transaction cost). Other members $0.0030 per share executed (or, in the case of executions against Quotes/Orders at less than $1.00 per share, 0.1% of the total transaction cost). Credit to member providing liquidity: Members with an average daily volume through the Nasdaq Facilities in all securities during the month of more than 30 million shares of liquidity provided $0.0025 per share executed (or $0, in the case of executions against Quotes/Orders at less than $1.00 per share). Other members $0.0020 per share executed (or $0, in the case of executions against Quotes/Orders at less than $1.00 per share). Order that accesses the Quote/Order of a market participant that charges an access fee to market participants accessing its Quotes/Orders through the Nasdaq Facilities: Charge to member entering order: Members with an average daily volume through the Nasdaq Facilities in all securities during the month of more than 500,000 shares of liquidity provided $0.001 per share executed (but no more than $10,000 per month). Other members $0.001 per share executed. Order Routing for Exchange-Traded Funds Not Listed on Nasdaq Order routed to the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) [through its DOT system] See [DOT] *NYSE* fee schedule in Rule 7010(i)(7). [Any other order entered by a member that is routed outside of the Nasdaq Facilities and that does not attempt to execute in the Nasdaq Facilities prior to routing] [$0.004 per share executed]. Order routed to the American Stock Exchange (“Amex”) [after attempting to execute in the Nasdaq Facilities] $0.003 per share executed (plus, in the case of orders charged a fee by the Amex specialist, $0.01 per share executed). [Order routed through the Intermarket Trading System (“ITS”) to NYSE Arca after attempting to execute in the Nasdaq Facilities] [$0.0028 per share executed]. [Any other order routed through the Intermarket Trading System (“ITS”) after attempting to execute in the Nasdaq Facilities] [$0.0007 per share executed]. [Any] *All* other order *s* [routed after attempting to execute in the Nasdaq Facilities] $0.003 per share executed. (2)-(5) No change.
(6)Except as provided in paragraph (7), the following charges shall apply to the use of the order execution and routing services of the Nasdaq Facilities by members for securities subject to the Consolidated Quotations Service and Consolidated Tape Association plans other than Exchange-Traded Funds (“Covered Securities”): Order Execution Order that accesses the Quote/Order of a Nasdaq Facility market participant: Charge to member entering order: [$0.0007 per share executed] *On or after December 1, 2006* *$0.0007 per share executed.* *For a pilot period during the month of November 2006:* *Members with an average daily volume through the Nasdaq Facilities in Covered Securities during the month of
(i)more than 100,000 shares of liquidity provided, and
(ii)more than 100,000 shares of liquidity accessed and/or routed* *$0.0007 per share executed.* *Members with an average daily volume through the Nasdaq Facilities in Covered Securities during the month of
(i)between 50,000 and 100,000 shares of liquidity provided, and
(ii)between 50,000 and 100,000 shares of liquidity accessed and/or routed* *$0.001 per share executed.* *Other members* *$0.0015 per share executed.* Credit to member providing liquidity for a Covered Security listed on NYSE and The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC: *$0.0007 per share executed.* Credit to a member providing liquidity for other Covered Securities: Members with an average daily volume through the Nasdaq Facilities in Covered Securities during the month of more than 5 million shares of liquidity accessed, provided, or routed $0.0005 per share executed. Members with an average daily volume through the Nasdaq Facilities in Covered Securities during the month of 10 million or more shares of liquidity provided $0.0006 per share executed. Other members No credit. Order Routing Order routed to Amex $[0.003] *$0.0028* per share executed (plus, in the case of orders charged a fee by the Amex specialist, $0.01 per share executed). Order routed to NYSE See [DOT] *NYSE* fee schedule in Rule 7010(i)(7). [Order routed to NYSE Arca] *All other orders* $0.0028 per share executed. [Order for NYSE-listed Covered Security routed to venue other than the NYSE, Amex, or NYSE Arca] [$0.001 per share executed] [Order for Covered Security listed on venue other than the NYSE and routed to venue other than Amex, NYSE, or NYSE Arca] [$0.003 per share executed] [Order routed through the ITS to NYSE Arca] [$0.0028 per share executed] [Any other order routed through the ITS] [$0.0007 per share executed]
(7)The following charges shall apply to the use of the Nasdaq Facilities by members for routing to the NYSE [through its DOT system] for all securities, including Exchange-Traded Funds: Order charged a fee by the NYSE specialist $0.01 per share executed. Order that attempts to execute in the Nasdaq Facilities prior to routing and that is not charged a fee by the NYSE specialist *or that is routed to NYSE via ITS* $0.0002 per share executed (but no more than $[60,000] *25,000* per month). Order that does not attempt to execute in the Nasdaq Facilities prior to routing and that is not charged a fee by the NYSE specialist $0.0003 per share executed (but no more than $[100,000] *75,000* per month).
(8)No change. (j)-(v) No change. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq 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. Nasdaq 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 Nasdaq is proposing several changes to its price schedule for routing and execution of orders in non-Nasdaq exchange-listed securities. The changes are in response to fees being imposed by other trading venues on orders routed directly through Nasdaq Execution Services, LLC (Nasdaq's broker-dealer subsidiary) and through the Intermarket Trading System (“ITS”). Several markets, including NYSE Arca, the Boston Stock Exchange, the National Stock Exchange, and the Chicago Stock Exchange, have announced or begun to impose fees of approximately $0.003 per share for orders routed to them. These fee changes have created a pricing structure for trading securities listed on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) that is in a state of flux, characterized by dramatic differences in fees for effectively the same services. For example, the markets listed above charge 28 or 30 cents per 100 shares for accessing liquidity, while the NYSE charges 2.5 cents per 100 shares (less if the firm's total fees reach a $750,000 per month cap), and Nasdaq currently charges 7 cents per 100 shares. Furthermore, while several markets rebate approximately 20 cents per 100 shares for providing liquidity, Nasdaq either provides no rebate, or rebates only 5 or 6 cents per 100 shares; the NYSE, by contrast, charges 2.5 cents per 100 shares. Nasdaq believes that the market will find an equilibrium pricing structure, because the disparities listed above are unstable due to the interconnectivity of the market. In order to transition to a more stable fee structure, Nasdaq is proposing several fee changes. These changes should be viewed in light of the dramatic disparities in pricing listed above. For orders in non-Nasdaq-listed exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”) routed to venues other than the NYSE, Nasdaq is proposing to eliminate current specific fees for orders routed through ITS or that route without checking the books of the Nasdaq Facilities, and is instituting a flat fee of $0.003 per share executed (plus $0.01 per share in the case of orders charged a fee by an American Stock Exchange (“Amex”) specialist). Thus, fees would be reduced for orders that do not attempt to execute prior to routing, would be increased for orders routed through ITS, and would remain unchanged for all other routed ETF orders. For orders in non-Nasdaq-listed securities other than ETFs that are routed to venues other than the NYSE, Nasdaq is proposing to eliminate current specific fees that differentiate among orders based on a security's listing market and/or the order's destination market and instituting a flat fee of $0.0028 per share executed (plus $0.01 per share in the case of orders charged a fee by an Amex specialist). As a result, fees would remain unchanged for orders routed to NYSE Arca, would decrease slightly for orders routed to Amex and for orders in non-NYSE-listed securities routed to regional exchanges or ECNs, and would increase for orders in NYSE-listed securities routed to regional exchanges or ECNs and for orders routed through ITS. For orders in all securities routed to the NYSE for execution, Nasdaq is proposing to institute a decrease (from $0.0007 to $0.0002 per share executed) for orders routed through the ITS, and would apply to these charges the same monthly fee cap that applies to orders routed through NYSE's DOT system after checking the books of the Nasdaq Facilities. Moreover, Nasdaq would reduce this monthly cap from $60,000 to $25,000. Nasdaq is also reducing the monthly fee cap for DOT orders that do not check the Nasdaq Facilities' books, from $100,000 to $75,000. Finally, to encourage firms to utilize Nasdaq in non-Nasdaq-listed securities, Nasdaq is proposing to introduce a higher pricing tier of $0.0015 per share executed for members to access liquidity when those members provide an average of less than 50,000 shares of liquidity per day and access and/or route an average of less than 50,000 shares of liquidity per day in non-Nasdaq securities through the Nasdaq Facilities during the month. In addition, Nasdaq is introducing an intermediate pricing tier of $0.001 per share executed for members to access liquidity when those members provide an average of between 50,000 shares and 100,000 shares of liquidity per day and access and/or route an average of between 50,000 shares and 100,000 shares of liquidity per day. 6 Because this change is made on a pilot basis, Nasdaq states that it will the review affect of the price change and determine whether to submit an additional filing regarding these fees by December 1, 2006. 6 Nasdaq would continue to charge $0.0007 per share executed for all other members to access liquidity ( *i.e.,* when those members provide an average of more than 100,000 shares of liquidity per day and access and/or route an average of more than 100,000 shares of liquidity per day). Telephone conversation among John Yetter, Senior Associate General Counsel, Nasdaq, David Liu, Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation (“Division”), Commission, and Theodore Venuti, Attorney, Division, Commission, on November 8, 2006. Although the Nasdaq Facilities have enjoyed substantial growth in the share of non-Nasdaq-listed stocks that they executed over the past year, many members that use the Nasdaq Facilities still do so only on a minimal basis. In fact, if the new fees had been in place in September 2006, a higher rate would have applied to over 84% of the firms trading non-Nasdaq securities through the Nasdaq Facilities. By setting the thresholds for lower rates at the modest levels of 50,000 and 100,000 shares per day, Nasdaq hopes to encourage all of these firms to rethink their routing and quoting practices, in lieu of reflexively sending their orders to just one market. Nasdaq believes that incentives aimed at encouraging a modest level of use by a broader number of members would further enhance the quality of Nasdaq markets for trading these securities. Nasdaq believes that the fee would result in overall monthly fees and rebates with respect to accessing and providing liquidity through Nasdaq that are significantly lower than fees and rebates on other venues. For example, a market participant providing no liquidity would pay $0.0015 per share accessed and receive no rebate; under pricing recently introduced by NYSE Arca, a market participant providing no liquidity would pay twice as much—$0.003 per share accessed—and receive no rebate. Although the absence of liquidity provider credits on the NYSE itself makes comparison more difficult, it should be noted that recent fee increases by that venue clearly had a disparate impact on Nasdaq Execution Services and other market participants that do not charge customers high commissions—in the case of Nasdaq Execution Services, increasing monthly charges to route orders to the NYSE from an average of $3,620 per month during the six months prior to the fee increase to $750,000 per month, an increase of 20,600 percent. In addition, Nasdaq and others routing orders to the NYSE must often pay unfiled specialist charges of $0.01 per share for many orders that they route to the NYSE. Nevertheless, the NYSE's filed rate for transactions of $0.00025 per share executed, coupled with its new monthly fee cap of $750,000 per month, results in dramatically lower average execution fees for large participants in its market. For example, a firm with an average daily volume of 300 million shares per day during October 2006 would pay an average per share charge of $0.000114, less than half the per share rate paid by firms not reaching the cap. In contrast to the NYSE's steep discount, however, which serves simply to reduce the relative fees of its largest customers, Nasdaq's change is designed specifically to encourage use of the Nasdaq system that enhances market quality and thereby benefits investors choosing to enter orders into Nasdaq. 2. Statutory Basis Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A of the Act, 7 in general, and with Section 15A(b)(5) of the Act, 8 in particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facility or system which the NASD operates or controls. Nasdaq states that the proposed rule change would put lower caps on fees to route orders to the NYSE, thereby reducing charges to members that make substantial use of Nasdaq's routing facilities. Nasdaq states that the proposal also imposes more uniform charges for routing to other venues. Finally, Nasdaq states that the proposed change introduces a higher fee for accessing Nasdaq Facility liquidity in cases where a market participant's use of the Nasdaq Facilities does not meet certain minimal thresholds. Nasdaq believes that this change is consistent with an equitable allocation of fees because lower overall fees are charged to market participant that enhance market quality by providing liquidity. 7 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3. 8 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition Nasdaq 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. In particular, Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed change to fees to access liquidity in non-Nasdaq securities through the Nasdaq Facilities would impose a burden on competition by other markets that route orders to the Nasdaq Facilities for execution. First, as discussed in greater detail above, Nasdaq's fees applicable to members accessing substantially more liquidity than they provide are one-half of NYSE Arca's, while NYSE Arca provides greater rebates to liquidity providers. Thus, to the extent that NYSE Arca, for example, routes only marketable orders to Nasdaq, it would receive more beneficial pricing than it offers under similar circumstances. Second, it should be noted that status as an execution venue does not equate to acting solely as a liquidity accessor with respect to other markets. Through its Nasdaq Execution Services broker-dealer, Nasdaq provides substantial liquidity on the floor of the NYSE, because Nasdaq views this as a valuable service that can be offered to its members. Thus, if the NYSE had a comparable fee structure in place, Nasdaq would easily qualify for a reduced rate when accessing liquidity at that venue. Finally, the change is broad in its application, in that it currently would apply to over 84% of firms trading non-Nasdaq securities through the Nasdaq Facilities, all of which are equally eligible to increase their use of the Nasdaq Facilities in Nasdaq in order to qualify for more favorable pricing. 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 The foregoing rule change is subject to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 9 and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder 10 because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge applicable only to a member imposed by the self-regulatory organization. Accordingly, the proposal is effective upon Commission receipt of the filing. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 10 17 CFR 240.19b-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-NASD-2006-122 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-NASD-2006-122. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the 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 No. SR-NASD-2006-122 and should be submitted on or before December 11, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 11 11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-19516 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54715A; File No. SR-NASD-2006-108] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change and Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Amendment No. 1 to a Proposed Rule Change Relating to an NASD Trade Reporting Facility Established in Conjunction With the National Stock Exchange, Inc.; Corrrection November 14, 2006. In FR Doc. No. E6-19167, beginning on page 66354 for Tuesday, November 14, 2006, the last sentence in part IV on page 66359 contained an error. The sentence refers incorrectly to Section 6(b)(5) of the Act rather than Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act. Accordingly, the sentence should be revised to read as follows: “Accordingly, the Commission finds that it is consistent with Sections 15A(b)(6) and 19(b) of the Act to approve Amendment No. 1 on an accelerated basis.” For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 1 1 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-19537 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54740; File No. SR-NASD-2006-073] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto and Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval To Amendment No. 2 To Amend NASD Interpretive Material 2210-4 To Require Certain Member Firms to Provide a Hyperlink to the NASD's Internet Home Page November 9, 2006. I. Introduction On June 8, 2006, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) a proposed rule change, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 to amend NASD Interpretive Material 2210-4 to require certain member firms to provide a hyperlink to the NASD's internet home page. NASD filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change on June 26, 2006. 3 The proposed rule change, as amended, was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on July 6, 2006. 4 The Commission received three comments on the proposal, as amended. 5 On August 30, 2006, the NASD filed Amendment No. 2 to amend the filing and respond to the comment letters. This order grants accelerated approval of the proposed rule change, as amended by Amendment No. 2 and solicits comments from interested persons on Amendment No. 2. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 Amendment No. 1 replaced and superseded the original rule filing in its entirety. 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54058 (June 28, 2006), 71 FR 38439 (SR-NASD-2006-073)(“Notice”). 5 *See* letters to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Commission, from Dale Brown, CEO, Financial Services Institute, dated July 27, 2006 (“FSI Letter”) and from Aimee Blinder, Vice President, Compliance, National Planning Holdings, Inc., dated July 27, 2006 (“NPH Letter”). *See* letter filed via the Commission's Web Comment Form, from Phyllis Hawkins, Compliance Advisor, Lincoln Investment Planning, Inc., dated July 27, 2006 (“Lincoln Letter”). II. Description of Proposed Rule Change NASD proposes to amend NASD Interpretive Material (“IM”) 2210-4 to require a member firm or a person associated with a member firm that refers, on its Internet Web site, to the firm's membership in NASD to provide a hyperlink to NASD's Web site. According to the NASD, many broker-dealers refer to their membership in NASD on their internet Web sites, often in a description of the firm or in an “about us” section. The proposed rule change would require a firm, when referencing NASD membership on its Web site, to include an accompanying hyperlink to NASD's internet home page. The proposed rule change also would apply to an internet Web site relating to a firm's investment banking or securities business that is maintained by or on behalf of any person associated with the firm. 6 The proposed rule change would not create an independent obligation for a firm (or persons associated with a firm where applicable) to state that the firm is an NASD member on its internet Web site. The proposed rule change would apply only to the extent that a firm or a person associated with a firm chooses to represent on its Web site that the firm is a member of NASD. 7 6 This requirement is intended to capture, among other things, situations where a person associated with an NASD member firm maintains his own internet Web site or “home page” that relates to a member's investment banking or securities business. For example, NASD understands that independent contractors or their firms sometimes maintain a separate home page for each independent contractor for marketing purposes. 7 The proposed rule change is similar to a rule adopted by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (“SIPC”), which requires that its members provide a live hyperlink to SIPC's Web site, *http://www.SIPC.org* , when referring to membership in SIPC. *See* Article 11, Section 4 of SIPC Bylaws. III. Summary of Comments and NASD Response The Commission received three comment letters on the proposed rule change: two were generally in favor of the proposal in its current form; one stated the requirement constitutes “overkill.” 8 Specifically, one commenter stated that the failure to define the term “most prominent” is likely to lead to differing interpretations and confusion. 9 A second commenter requested clarification regarding the extent of the requirement to include a hyperlink to the NASD's Internet home page. 10 They suggested that the language of the SIPC standard be used in the NASD interpretation in order to avoid confusion. 11 The commenter also expressed concern over the effective date for compliance, requesting that the time frame for compliance be increased from 180 days to 360 days due to the tremendous number of active Web sites that will be affected by this requirement. 12 8 *See* Lincoln letter. 9 *See* FSI letter. 10 *See* NPH letter. 11 *Id.* 12 *Id.* In Amendment No. 2, NASD responded to the concerns raised by the commenters and amended the rule text. In response to the FSI Letter regarding the definition of the term “most prominent,” NASD removed the requirement to place the hyperlink at the “most prominent indication of NASD membership.” Instead, members will be allowed to place the hyperlink at any reference that is reasonably designed to draw the public's attention to NASD membership. With this change, NASD clarified that a firm subject to the proposed rule would be able to choose where to place a hyperlink to NASD's Web site, provided that the hyperlink is in close proximity to a reference to NASD membership that is reasonably designed to draw the public's attention to the fact that the firm is a member of NASD. In response to the NPH Letter, NASD explained that “a legend that denotes that a firm is a member of NASD, would impose an obligation to provide a hyperlink.” That stated, the NASD reaffirmed that a firm would only need to provide one hyperlink on its Web site. 13 Additionally, in response to the request in the NPH Letter for more time to implement the proposed rule change, the NASD stated that based on feedback it received from several member committees, the 180 days should provide sufficient time for implementation of the proposed rule change. 13 NASD stated that the hyperlink requirement would not apply to references to NASD membership in disclosure documents or other offering documents linked to the member firm's Web site. Finally, in response to the Lincoln Letter, NASD stated that the commenter appears to have misunderstood the requirements of the proposed rule change as a member would not be required to provide more than one hyperlink to the NASD's Web site. 14 14 *See* footnote 5 in the Notice, *supra* note 4. IV. Discussion and Commission Findings The Commission has reviewed the proposed rule change, comment letters, and NASD's response and finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities association. 15 In particular, the Commission finds the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with Section 15A of the Act. 16 Specifically, the Commission finds the proposal to be consistent with the provisions of Sections 15A(b)(6) of the Act, 17 which requires, among other things, that NASD rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 15 In approving this proposed rule change the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 16 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3. 17 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3(b)(6). The Commission believes that the modifications to the proposed rule change that NASD made in response to issues raised by commenters should provide sufficient guidance to allow members to satisfy the requirements of the rule. Moreover, the Commission believes that facilitating investor access to NASD's Web site should lead to better educated and informed investors. V. Solicitation of Comments Concerning Amendment No. 2 Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning Amendment No. 2, including whether Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-NASD-2006-073 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2006-073. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the 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 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-2006-073 and should be submitted on or before December 11, 2006. VI. Accelerated Approval of Filing as Amended by Amendment No. 2 The Commission finds good cause for approving the filing, as modified by Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change, on an accelerated basis. Amendment No. 2 modifies the proposal in response to issues raised by the commenters. Because Amendment No. 2 raises no novel issues, and provides improvements to the proposed rule change in direct response to issues raised by the commenters, the Commission finds good cause for approving Amendment No. 2 before the 30th day after its publication in the **Federal Register** . VII. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 18 that the proposed rule change (SR-NASD-2006-073), as amended by Amendment No. 2, is approved on an accelerated basis. 18 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 19 19 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-19546 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54737; File No. SR-NSCC-2006-10] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Clarifying and Technical Changes to NSCC's Rules Regarding ACATS Fund/SERV November 9, 2006. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 notice is hereby given that on September 29, 2006, the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change described in Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared primarily by NSCC. NSCC filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act 2 and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder 3 so that the proposal was effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested parties. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i). 3 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The proposed rule change would make clarifying and technical changes to NSCC's Rules principally as they relate to funds which are eligible for processing on Fund/Serv, NSCC's mutual fund processing system. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, NSCC 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. NSCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and
(C)below, of the most significant aspects of these statements. 4 4 The Commission has modified the text of the summaries prepared by NSCC.
(A)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change The purpose of the proposed rule change is to make a technical clarification to NSCC's Rules regarding the appointment of ACATS-Fund/SERV Agents. On May 30, 2005, NSCC filed with the Commission proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2006-06. 5 That rule change, which was effective upon filing, modified NSCC's Rules to enhance the Automated Customer Account Transfer Service (“ACATS”) processing capabilities for NSCC members that outsource some or all of their mutual fund processing services. To accommodate these members, NSCC modified Section 16 of Rule 52, “Mutual Fund Services—ACAT/Transfers,” to permit one NSCC member to appoint another NSCC member (or Mutual Fund/Insurance Services member) as its ACATS-Fund/SERV Agent (“Agent”) with regard to the reregistration of eligible mutual fund assets that are part of a customer account transfer through ACATS. 5 Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 54163 (July 17, 2006), 71 FR 41852 (July 24, 2006) and 54163A (July 28, 2006), 71 FR 44067 (August 3, 2006). In its original filing NSCC cited the processing flow of a standard ACATS transfer involving an Agent using a receiving member as a processing example. However, in a customer account transfer the NSCC member may be either a receiving member or a delivering member. This filing seeks to clarify that when a member appoints an Agent, such processing applies whether the member is receiving accounts/assets or delivering accounts/assets. Section 16 of Rule 52 will be modified to reflect this. As previously stated, an Agent must be either an NSCC member or NSCC Mutual Fund/Insurance Services member. An Agent may act on behalf of multiple NSCC members, but a member may designate only one Agent. A member must notify NSCC of its designation of Agent in such form and within such time frame as is acceptable to NSCC, and the Agent must acknowledge to NSCC its consent to this designation. The member and its Agent will acknowledge to NSCC that the NSCC member shall at all times continue to be responsible for all provisions of NSCC's Rules, specifically with regard to ACATS and ACATS-Fund/SERV transactions, including any and all actions taken by its Agent. NSCC will maintain a relationship table of those members that designate an Agent. In instances where an Agent has been appointed by a member and has been indicated on input received by NSCC, NSCC will replace the member's information ( *i.e.* , clearing number and member name) on registration/transfer instructions transmitted to the relevant mutual fund with those of the Agent. Conversely, on acknowledgements or instructions from the relevant mutual fund, NSCC will replace the Agent's clearing number and member name with those of the member's. As the proposed rule change makes a technical clarification to an existing NSCC rule, it constitutes a stated interpretation with respect to the meaning of an existing rule and is therefore consistent with Section 17A of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.
(B)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any impact or impose any burden on competition.
(C)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet been solicited or received. NSCC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by NSCC. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act 6 and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) 7 thereunder because the proposed rule constitutes a stated policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning, administration, or enforcement of an existing rule. At any time within sixty days of the filing of such rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i). 7 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ) or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-NSCC-2006-10 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-NSCC-2006-10. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of NSCC and on NSCC's Web site at *http://www.nscc.com.* 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-NSCC-2006-10 and should be submitted on or before December 11, 2006. For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 8 8 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-19517 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54743; File No. SR-NYSE-2006-91] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Rule 116 (“Stop” Constitutes Guarantee) November 13, 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 19, 2006, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“Exchange” or “NYSE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated this proposal as non-controversial under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 116.40 to clarify that market-at-the-close procedures include marketable limit-at-the-close orders. 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 self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization 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 affords its customers the ability to execute two order types specific to the close. These orders are the market-at-the-close order (“MOC”) and the limit-at-the-close order (“LOC”). A MOC order is a market order, which is to be executed in its entirety at the closing price on the Exchange of the stock named in the order, and if not so executed, is to be treated as cancelled. A LOC order is a limit order, which may or may not receive execution on the close depending on the closing price and depth of contra-side interest. Rule 116.40 provides the procedures for handling MOC orders. These procedures describe the manner in which MOC orders should be paired off and executed. It also explains how any order imbalance should be handled. The Exchange interprets Rule 116.40 to apply to LOC orders; however, this is not specifically stated in the Rule's text. Through this filing, the Exchange proposes to add the phrase “and marketable limit-at-the-close” to Rule 116.40, to remove any ambiguity. In this context, “marketable” refers to the LOC's limit price within the context of the Exchange closing price. The proposed amendments are contained in Exhibit 5 attached to the Exchange's filing. Rule 116.40 is also the subject of an open filing 5 pending before the Commission. Text being added pursuant to SR-NYSE-2006-65 is denoted by double underscoring in Exhibit 5. 5 SR-NYSE-2006-65 (filed on August 23, 2006). 2. Statutory Basis The basis under the Act 6 for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) 7 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. 6 15 U.S.C. 78a. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will 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 The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 8 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. 9 Because the foregoing proposed rule change
(i)does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii)does not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder. 10 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 9 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 10 The Exchange provided written notice to the Commission of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to filing, as required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File No. SR-NYSE-2006-91 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-2006-91. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commissions Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2006-91 and should be submitted on or before December 11, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 11 11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-19547 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54746; File No. SR-Phlx-2006-71] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating To Clarifying Its Payment for Order Flow Program as It Relates to Order Flow Providers November 14, 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 November 7, 2006, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Phlx has designated this proposal as one changing a fee imposed by the Phlx 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 Phlx proposes to clarify, in connection with the Exchange's payment for order flow program, 5 who may receive payment for order flow funds that are assessed by the Exchange on members and member organizations 6 and are disbursed, as described in detail below, based on the instructions of the specialist units 7 and Directed ROTs. 8 5 The Exchange's payment for order flow program is currently in effect until May 27, 2007. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53841 (May 19, 2006), 71 FR 30461 (May 26, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-33). 6 The Exchange states that, specifically, the payment for order flow fee is assessed on specialists/specialist units and Directed Registered Options Traders (“Directed ROTs”) who participate in the Exchange's payment for order flow program, and Registered Options Traders (“ROTs”). 7 The Exchange states that it uses the terms “specialist” and “specialist unit” interchangeably herein. 8 The Exchange states that Directed ROTs are either Streaming Quote Traders (“SQTs”) or Remote Streaming Quote Traders (“RSQTs”) that receive Directed Orders. An SQT is an Exchange ROT who has received permission from the Exchange to generate and submit option quotations electronically through an electronic interface with AUTOM via an Exchange approved proprietary electronic quoting device in eligible options to which such SQT is assigned. AUTOM is the Exchange's electronic order delivery, routing, execution, and reporting system, which provides for the automatic entry and routing of equity option and index option orders to the Exchange trading floor. *See* Exchange Rules 1014(b)(ii) and 1080). An RSQT is an Exchange ROT that is a member or member organization of the Exchange with no physical trading floor presence who has received permission from the Exchange to generate and submit option quotations electronically through AUTOM in eligible options to which such RSQT has been assigned. An RSQT may only submit such quotations electronically from off the floor of the Exchange. An RSQT may only trade in a market making capacity in classes of options in which he is assigned. *See* Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii)(B). *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 51126 (February 2, 2005), 70 FR 6915 (February 9, 2005) (SR-Phlx-2004-90) and 51428 (March 24, 2005), 70 FR 16325 (March 30, 2005) (SR-Phlx-2005-12). The Exchange states that the term “Directed Order” means any customer order to buy or sell, which has been directed to a particular specialist, RSQT, or “SQT” by an Order Flow Provider (defined below). The provisions of Phlx Rule 1080(l) are in effect for a one-year pilot period to expire on May 27, 2007. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53870 (May 25, 2006), 71 FR 31251 (June 1, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-27). The Exchange states that under its current payment for order flow program, any available payment for order flow funds are disbursed by the Exchange according to the instructions of the specialist units and Directed ROTs. A specialist unit or Directed ROT must certify to the Exchange that payment for order flow funds directed by either of them to be paid to Order Flow Providers reflect payment arrangements entered into by the specialist unit or Directed ROT and the Order Flow Provider. The term “Order Flow Provider” is defined as any member or member organization that submits, as agent, customer orders to the Exchange. 9 9 *See* Exchange Rule 1080(l). The Exchange states that in addition to the Order Flow Providers defined above, there are additional order flow providers who are not members or member organizations of the Exchange who also route orders to the Exchange, but do so through a member or member organization. In these situations, the Exchange proposes to clarify that the specialist unit or Directed ROT may instruct the Exchange to direct payment to these order flow providers, in the same way that is done for Order Flow Providers, if they have entered into payment arrangements with a specialist unit or Directed ROT to send order flow to the Exchange. Thus, specialist units and Directed ROTs may instruct the Exchange to direct payment for order flow funds to order flow providers who are members, non-members, member organizations, or non-member organizations, provided, the requirements relating to certification, as described above, have been met. The Exchange notes that such order flow providers may arrange for the member organizations through which they route orders (referred to as “Order Flow Providers” in this proposal) to receive their payment for order flow payments and forward those funds to such non-member order flow provider. Although order flow providers may do this, many have chosen to receive payments directly, such that this proposal seeks to codify that practice. It is the Exchange's understanding that the arrangement to disburse payment for order flow funds to non-member payment for order flow providers, in the same way that it is done for Order Flow Providers (who are members or member organizations of the Exchange), is not unacceptable to the Order Flow Providers. To codify this practice, the Exchange intends to amend its certification form to require that the specialists and Directed ROTs that request payment for order flow funds certify, if applicable, that payments sent directly to a non-member payment for order flow provider is not unacceptable to the Order Flow Provider through whom the orders are routed. In addition, consistent with current practice, Directed ROTs and specialists who request that payments be made to order floor providers would be required to make, keep current, and preserve all books and records relating to payment for order flow arrangements. 10 10 *See* Exchange Rule 760, Maintenance, Retention and Furnishing of Books, Records, and Other Information. Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed additions are *italicized* . Summary of Equity Option Charges (p. 3/6) Equity Option Payment for Order Flow Fees*
(1)For trades resulting from either Directed or non-Directed Orders that are delivered electronically and executed on the Exchange: Assessed on ROTs, specialists and Directed ROTs on those trades when the specialist unit or Directed ROT elects to participate in the payment for order flow program.* * *
(2)No payment for order flow fees will be assessed on trades that are not delivered electronically. Per contract QQQQ (NASDAQ-100 Index Tracking Stock SM ) $0.75 Remaining Equity Options 0.70 See Appendix A for additional fees. *Assessed on transactions resulting from customer orders *and are available to be disbursed by the Exchange according to the instructions of the specialist units/specialists or Directed ROTs to order flow providers who are members or member organizations, who submit, as agent, customer orders to the Exchange or non-members or non-member organizations who submit, as agent, customer orders to the Exchange through a member or member organization who is acting as agent for those customer orders.* This proposal will be in effect for trades settling on or after October 1, 2005 and will remain in effect as a pilot program that is scheduled to expire on May 27, 2007. * * * Any excess payment for order flow funds billed but not utilized by the specialist or Directed ROT will be carried forward unless the Directed ROT or specialist elects to have those funds rebated to the applicable ROT, Directed ROT or specialist on a pro rata basis, reflected as a credit on the monthly invoices. At the end of each calendar quarter, the Exchange will calculate the amount of excess funds from the previous quarter and subsequently rebate excess funds on a pro-rata basis to the applicable ROT, Directed ROT or specialist who paid into that pool of funds. 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 Phlx 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 Phlx 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 states that the purpose of amending the definition of Order Flow Providers 11 as set forth in the Exchange's payment for order flow program is to clarify that the available payment for order flow funds that are disbursed by the Exchange according to instructions of the specialist units and Directed ROTs to Order Flow Providers, may include order flow providers that are not members or member organizations of the Exchange. Consistent with the Exchange's current payment for order flow program, the Exchange would not be involved in the determination of the terms governing the orders that qualify for payment or the amount of any payment. The Exchange states that it would merely be providing administrative support for the payment for order flow program by making the payment for order flow payments on behalf of, and at the direction of, the specialist units or Directed ROTs. 11 *See* Exchange Rule 1080(l). Currently, the term “Order Flow Provider” is defined in Exchange Rule 1080(l) as any member or member organization that submits, as agent, customer orders to the Exchange. The Exchange represents that it is not seeking to change the definition as set forth in Exchange Rule 1080(l). As described above, the Exchange merely intends to clarify that in addition to the defined term of Order Flow Provider, order flow providers may include non-members or non-member organizations that submit, as agent, customer orders to the Exchange through a member or member organization. The Exchange is not changing any other aspect of its payment for order flow program pursuant to this filing. The Exchange states that the payment for order flow fee would continue to be assessed on Exchange members, specifically specialists and Directed ROTs who participate in the Exchange's payment for order flow program, in addition to ROTs. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 12 in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act 13 in particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among Exchange members or other persons using the Exchange's facilities 14 and is 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, by acknowledging that not all order flow providers are members of Phlx, but nonetheless otherwise qualify to have payment for order flow funds, which are assessed on Exchange members and member organizations, directed to them at the direction of the specialist unit or Directed ROT. 12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4)-(5). 14 As stated above, the Exchange notes that the payment for order flow fee is only assessed on Exchange members or member organizations. However, a specialist unit or Directed ROT may instruct the Exchange to direct the funds collected from this fee to an order flow provider (a non-member/member organization of the Exchange). 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 No written comments were either solicited or received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 15 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) 16 thereunder, because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange. Accordingly, the proposal will take effect upon filing with the Commission. At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 15 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 16 17 CFR 240.19b-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 Number SR-Phlx-2006-71 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-Phlx-2006-71. 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 Phlx. 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-Phlx-2006-71 and should be submitted on or before December 11, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 17 17 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-19548 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Construction of the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture AGENCY: Smithsonian Institution (SI), National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)of 1969, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1509), and in accordance with the Environmental Policies and Procedures implemented by the National Capital Planning Commission, the SI and NCPC announce their intent, as Joint-Lead Agencies, to prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS)to assess the potential effects of constructing and operating the National Museum of African American History and Culture (NMAAHC) within the Smithsonian Institution. The Museum will be located on a 217,800 square foot
(SF)or 5 acre site bounded by Constitution Avenue, Madison Drive, 14th and 15th Streets, NW. on the National Mall in Washington, DC. A public meeting will be conducted to ensure that all significant issues related to construction and operation of the proposed museum are identified. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Law 108-184, the National Museum of African American History and Culture Act enacted by the Congress of the United States on December 16, 2003, (the Act) established a museum within the Smithsonian Institution to be known as the National Museum of African American History and Culture. It recognizes that such a museum “would be dedicated to the collection, preservation, research, and exhibition of African American historical and cultural materials reflecting the breadth and depth of the experience of individuals of African descent living in the United States.” Section 8 of the Act, “Building for the National Museum of African American History and Culture,” directs the Smithsonian Board of Regents to select one site among four in Washington, DC for the construction of the museum. The sites identified are the Arts and Industries Building; the area bounded by Constitution Avenue, Madison Drive, 14th, and 15th Streets, NW., now commonly known as the Monument site; the Liberty Loan site located on 14th Street, SW. at the foot of the 14th Street Bridge; and the Banneker Overlook site, located on 10th Street, SW. at the foot of the L'Enfant Plaza Promenade. After undertaking a site evaluation study that analyzed site-specific characteristics and evaluated minimum and maximum build scenarios at each site, as well as a process of consultation with parties specified in the legislation, the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution voted to select the Monument site. The decision was announced on January 30, 2006. The identity and description of the action to be addressed in this EIS derive primarily from the language of Public Law 180-184, its legislative history, and the studies by the “National Museum of African American History and Culture Plan for Action Presidential Commission” that led to its enactment. With regard to the scope of the action, much information on the potential size, configuration, and siting of a museum facility at the Monument site was presented in the Phase II Site Evaluation Study of November 15, 2005, for the use of the Smithsonian Regents in their selection of the site. Graphics included in this study showed the potential in terms of massing and placement of a museum facility on the candidate sites. Although they were conceptual and only intended for site selection purposes, they are a point of departure for this study and the range of alternatives evaluated in this EIS. The potential range of alternatives that will be evaluated in the EIS includes the no action or no build alternative and a range of build alternatives derived from the site evaluation study that will include a minimum build-out at approximately 350,000 gross square feet (GSF), a middle range build-out at approximately 415,000 GSF, and a maximum build-out that would not exceed approximately 804,000 GSF. Each alternative description will identify the number of levels above and below ground, general massing, and site setbacks. The Presidential Commission identified 350,000 GSF as the preliminary program space requirements for the museum. Thus, it was used as the baseline or “point of departure” for the maximum and minimum build scenarios developed in the site evaluation study. As part of the scoping process, other alternatives may be identified that merit further investigation. Topics for environmental analysis will be further defined during scoping activities with the public and agencies but will include topics such as historic resources, archeology, visual resources, transportation, public utilities, land use, social and economic issues, and physical and biological resources such as air, geology, and groundwater. *Public Scoping Meeting and Comments:* The Smithsonian Institution and the National Capital Planning Commission will solicit public comments for consideration and possible incorporation in the Draft EIS through public scoping, including a scoping meeting, on the proposed museum building at the Monument site. Notice of the public meeting will be publicized in local newspapers and through other sources. To ensure that all issues related to this action are addressed and all significant issues are identified early in the process, comments are invited in writing and orally from all interested and/or potentially affected parties. These comments may be provided at the public meeting or provided in writing to Jill Cavanaugh at the Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2300 N Street, NW., #800, Washington, DC 20037 (until December 15, 2006) and to 2445 M Street, NW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20037-1445 (after December 15, 2006). Comments will also be collected at *http://www.nmaahc-eis.com.* All public comments must be postmarked or received on the Web site by January 5, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Passman, Senior Facilities Planner, Smithsonian Institution, Office of Facilities Engineering and Operations, PO Box 37012, 750 9th Street, NW., Suite 5200 MRC 908, Washington, DC 20013-7012; Phone: 202-275-0234; Fax: 202-275-0889. John E. Huerta, General Counsel, Smithsonian Institution. [FR Doc. E6-19496 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8030-03-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5617] Bureau of Political-Military Affairs; Statutory Debarment Under the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that persons convicted of violating or conspiring to violate Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended, (“AECA”) (22 U.S.C. 2778) are statutorily debarred pursuant to Section 38(g)(4) of the AECA and Section 127.7(c) of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”) (22 CFR parts 120 to 130). DATES: *Effective Date:* Date of conviction as specified for each person. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Trimble, Director, Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Department of State
(202)663-2700. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 38(g)(4) of the AECA, 22 U.S.C. 2778(g)(4), prohibits the Department of State from issuing licenses or other approvals for the export of defense articles or defense services to be issued where the applicant or any party to the export, has been convicted of violating certain statutes, including the AECA. In implementing this provision, Section 127.7 of the ITAR provides for “statutory debarment” of any person who has been convicted of violating or conspiring to violate the AECA. Persons subject to statutory debarment are prohibited from participating directly or indirectly in the export of defense articles, including technical data, or in the furnishing of defense services for which a license or other approval is required. Statutory debarment is based solely upon conviction in a criminal proceeding, conducted by a United States Court, and as such the administrative debarment procedures outlined in Part 128 of the ITAR are not applicable. The period for debarment will be determined by the Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs based on the underlying nature of the violations, but will generally be for three years from the date of conviction. At the end of the debarment period, export privileges may be reinstated only at the request of the debarred person followed by the necessary interagency consultations, after a thorough review of the circumstances surrounding the conviction, and a finding that appropriate steps have been taken to mitigate any law enforcement concerns, as required by Section 38(g)(4) of the AECA. Unless export privileges are reinstated, however, the person remains debarred. Department of State policy permits debarred persons to apply to the Director, Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance, for reinstatement beginning one year after the date of the debarment, in accordance with Section 38(g)(4) of the AECA. Any decision to grant reinstatement can be made only after the statutory requirements under Section 38(g)(4) of the AECA have been satisfied. Exceptions, also known as transaction exceptions, may be made to this debarment determination on a case-by-base basis at the discretion of the Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs, after consulting with the appropriate U.S. agencies. However, such an exception would be granted only after a full review of all circumstances, paying particular attention to the following factors: whether an exception is warranted by overriding U.S. foreign policy or national security interests; whether an exception would further law enforcement concerns that are consistent with the foreign policy or national security interests of the United States; or whether other compelling circumstances exist that are consistent with the foreign policy or national security interests of the United States, and that do not conflict with law enforcement concerns. Even if exceptions are granted, the debarment continues until subsequent reinstatement. Pursuant to Section 38(g)(4) of the AECA and Section 127.7(c) of the ITAR, the following persons are statutorily debarred following the date of their AECA conviction:
(1)Victor Moscoso, July 26, 2002, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida (Miami), Case #: 01-966-CR-SEITZ/001.
(2)Romolo Martinez, February 5, 2004, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida (Miami), Case #: 1:02-20923-001-CR-MOORE.
(3)Stephen Jorgensen, January 15, 2001, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida (Miami), Case #: 1:00CR00998-001.
(4)Gerald Morey, August 11, 2003, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida (Miami), Case #: 1:02-20923-001-CR-MOORE.
(5)Ziad Jamil Gammoh (a.k.a. Al Gammoh; a.k.a. Jamil Gammoh; a.k.a. Ziad Al Gammoh; a.k.a. Ziad Al J Gammoh; a.k.a. Ziad Jamil Salem, Gammoh; a.k.a. Ziad Al J Gammon; a.k.a. Ziad Al Jamil; a.k.a, Al Jamil Ziad), November 7, 2005, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Case #: SA CR04-97 DOC.
(6)Naji Antoine Abi Khalil, February 2, 2006, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Case # 4:05CR00200-01,
(7)Martin Armando Arredondo-Meza, January 25, 2006, U.S. District Court Southern District of Texas, Case #: 7:05CR00754-001.
(8)Tomer Grinberg, April 24, 2006, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Foley Square), Case # 04cr573-02,
(9)Kwan Chun Chan (a.k.a. Jenny Chan), May 4, 2006, U.S. District Court District of New Jersey, Case # 05-660-01.
(10)Xiu Ling Chen (a.k.a. Linda Chen), May 4, 2006, U.S. District Court District of New Jersey, Case # 05-659-01.
(11)Hao Li Chen (a.k.a. Ali Chan), May 4, 2006, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, Case # 05-658-01.
(12)Xu Weibo (a.k.a. Kevin Xu), May 4, 2006, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, Case # 05-657-01.
(13)George Charles Budenz, II, July 17, 2006, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Case # 05CR01863-LAB.
(14)Richard Tobey, June 26, 2006, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Case # 05CR1462-LAB.
(15)Kellen Lamon Johnson, June 1, 2006, U.S. District Court, District of Montana, Case # CR 05-170-GF-SHE-03.
(16)Dwain Rouse, June 12, 2006, U.S. District Court, District of Montana, Case # CR 05-170-GF-SHE-01.
(17)Erika Jardine (a.k.a. Eriklynn Pattie Jardine; a.k.a. Erika Pattie Jardine), February 22, 2006, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case # CR-2005-446.
(18)Kal Nelson Aviation, Inc., August 9, 2006, U.S. District Court, Central, District of California, Case # CR05-1158.
(19)Ko-Suen Moo, July 24, 2006, U.S. District Court, Southern District of, Florida, Case # 06-200006-CR-GRAHAM.
(20)Michael P. Murphy Surplus Materials Inc., May 16, 2006, U.S. District, Court, Southern District of California, Case # 06CR0209-BTM. As noted above, at the end of the three-year period following the date of conviction, the above named persons/entities remain debarred unless export privileges are reinstated. Debarred persons are generally ineligible to participate in activity regulated under the ITAR (see e.g., sections 120.1(c) and (d), 127.1(c) and 127.11(a)). Also, under Section 127.1(c) of the ITAR, any person who has knowledge that an other persons is subject to debarment or is otherwise ineligible may not, without disclosure to and written approve from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, participate, directly or indirectly, in any export in which such ineligible person may benefit therefrom or in which he has a direct or indirect interest. This notice is provided for purposes of making the public aware that the persons listed above are prohibited from participating directly or indirectly in activities regulated by the ITAR, including any brokering activities and in any export from or temporary import into the United States of defense articles, related technical data, or defense services in all situations covered by the ITAR. Specific case information may be obtained from the Office of the Clerk for the U.S. District Courts mentioned above and by citing the court case number where provided. Dated: November 2, 2006. Stephen D. Mull, Acting Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-19609 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-25-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5616] Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs
(ECA)Request for Grant Proposals: Gilman International Scholarship Program *Announcement Type:* New Grant. *Funding Opportunity Number:* ECA/A/S/A-07-10. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number:* 19.425. Key Dates *Application Deadline:* February 2, 2007. *Executive Summary:* The Office of Global Educational Programs of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs announces an open competition to administer the Benjamin A. Gilman International Scholarship Program. Public and private non-profit organizations meeting the provisions described in Internal Revenue Code section 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3) may submit proposals for the purpose of administering a scholarship program for academic study by Americans outside the United States. Funding Opportunity Description Authority Overall grant making authority for this program is contained in the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, as amended, Public Law 87-256, also known as the Fulbright-Hays Act. The purpose of the Act is “to enable the Government of the United States to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries * * *; to strengthen the ties which unite us with other nations by demonstrating the educational and cultural interests, developments, and achievements of the people of the United States and other nations * * * and thus to assist in the development of friendly, sympathetic, and peaceful relations between the United States and the other countries of the world.” The funding authority for the program above is provided through legislation. Purpose This program provides grants to enable U.S. citizen undergraduate students of limited financial means to pursue academic studies abroad. Such foreign study is intended to expand understanding of other countries and cultures among U.S. students, expose citizens of other countries to Americans from diverse backgrounds, and better prepare U.S. students to assume significant roles in an increasingly global economy. History Since the program's inception in 2001, nearly 2,000 Gilman scholars from more than 500 U.S. colleges and universities have studied in 94 countries around the world. Overview It is anticipated that, pending appropriation of funds, this grant will provide an assistance award of approximately $3,918,000 for the purpose of recruiting, selecting, and issuing grants of up to $5,000 to individuals who meet the eligibility requirements listed below toward the cost of up to one academic year of undergraduate study abroad. Supplements for study of critical need languages will also be provided. The intent of the authorizing legislation for the Benjamin A. Gilman International Scholarship Program is to broaden the U.S. student population that participates in study abroad by focusing on those students who might not otherwise study outside the U.S. due to financial constraints. The Bureau also seeks to encourage participating students and their institutions to choose non-traditional study-abroad locations, to study languages, and to help under-represented U.S. institutions offer and promote study-abroad opportunities for their students. These objectives should be addressed in grant proposals. Guidelines Upon receipt of grant notification, the administering organization should be prepared to announce the program, solicit applications, and award scholarships to U.S. students to begin overseas study as soon as possible. Student Eligibility To apply for a scholarship, an applicant must: • Be a citizen of the United States. Permanent residents of the United States are not eligible. • Be an undergraduate student in good standing at an institution of higher education in the United States (including both two-year and four-year institutions). • Be a recipient of Federal Pell Grant funding during the academic term of his/her application. • Be applying to, or accepted for, a study abroad program eligible for credit from the student's home institution. Proof of program acceptance is required for final award disbursement. • Not be proposing to study in a country currently under a Travel Warning issued by the United States Department of State or in Cuba. Travel Warnings are issued when the State Department recommends that Americans avoid a certain country. To find a list of these countries, please see *http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_1764.html* . Recruitment, Application, and Selection 1. The grantee organization shall publicize the scholarship competition to accredited institutions of higher education in the United States. This can be achieved through direct contacts with institutions and through participation in major education conferences and events. Emphasis shall be on reaching out to a diverse range of institutions and programs within those institutions. 2. The selection process shall be carried out through a committee that includes representatives of a diverse mix of accredited institutions of higher education in the United States. 3. In ranking eligible applicants for scholarships, consideration should be given to academic excellence, financial need, diversity of the applicant pool, fields of study, proposed destination, plans for language study, and type and location of home institution. Preference should be given to applicants with no previous study abroad experience. Reporting After fall and spring selection panels, the grantee organization will submit reports on the number of applicants, the number of participants selected, the names of the institutions of higher education in the United States that applicants and awardees were attending at the time of application, the names of institutions sponsoring the study programs abroad, the names and locations of the institutions of higher education outside the United States that participants attend during their study program abroad, and the fields of study of the participants. Because diversity is an important program goal, the grantee should attempt to collect age, ethnic, gender, and disability data from scholarship applicants and recipients, while respecting Federal guidelines on the solicitation of such information. The grantee shall also provide program information and data to be included in the program's annual end-of-year report to Congress. Additionally, the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs may request other periodic and *ad hoc* reports. This may include separate breakdowns for students studying in regions or countries of strategic interest and students studying critical need languages. II. Award Information *Type of Award:* Grant. *Fiscal Year Funds:* 2007. *Approximate Total Funding:* $3,918,000. *Approximate Number of Awards:* 1. *Approximate Average Award:* $3,918,000. *Anticipated Award Date:* Pending availability of funds, April 1, 2007. *Anticipated Project Completion Date:* September 30, 2008. *Additional Information:* Pending successful implementation of this program and the availability of funds in subsequent fiscal years, it is ECA's intent to renew this grant for two additional fiscal years before openly competing it again. III. Eligibility Information III.1. Eligible applicants Applications may be submitted by public and private non-profit organizations meeting the provisions described in Internal Revenue Code section 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3). III.2. Cost Sharing or Matching Funds There is no minimum or maximum percentage required for this competition. However, the Bureau encourages applicants to provide maximum levels of cost sharing and funding in support of its programs. When cost sharing is offered, it is understood and agreed that the applicant must provide the amount of cost sharing as stipulated in its proposal and later included in an approved grant agreement. Cost sharing may be in the form of allowable direct or indirect costs. For accountability, the grantee must maintain written records to support all costs which are claimed as a contribution, as well as costs to be paid by the Federal government. Such records are subject to audit. The basis for determining the value of cash and in-kind contributions must be in accordance with OMB Circular A-110, (Revised), Subpart C.23—Cost Sharing and Matching. In the event the grantee does not provide the minimum amount of cost sharing as stipulated in the approved budget, ECA's contribution will be reduced in like proportion. III.3. Other Eligibility Requirements a. Bureau grant guidelines require that organizations with less than four years experience in conducting international exchanges be limited to $60,000 in Bureau funding. ECA anticipates awarding one grant, in an amount of approximately $3,918,000, to support program and administrative costs required to implement this exchange program. Therefore, organizations with less than four years experience in conducting international exchanges are ineligible to apply under this competition. IV. Application and Submission Information Note: Please read the complete **Federal Register** announcement before sending inquiries or submitting proposals. Once the RFGP deadline has passed, Bureau staff may not discuss this competition with applicants until the proposal review process has been completed. IV.1 Contact Information To Request an Application Package Please contact Coleen Gatehouse, Office of Global Educational Programs, ECA/A/S/A, Room 349, U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547, tel 202-453-8887, fax 202-453-8890, to request a Solicitation Package. Please refer to the Funding Opportunity Number ECA/A/S/A-07-10 located at the top of this announcement when making your request. Alternatively, an electronic application package may be obtained from grants.gov. Please see section IV.3f for further information. The Solicitation Package contains the Proposal Submission Instruction
(PSI)document, which consists of required application forms, and standard guidelines for proposal preparation. It also contains the Project Objectives, Goals and Implementation
(POGI)document, which provides specific information, award criteria and budget instructions tailored to this competition. Please specify Coleen Gatehouse and refer to the Funding Opportunity Number ECA/A/S/A-07-10 located at the top of this announcement on all other inquiries and correspondence. IV.2. To Download a Solicitation Package Via Internet The entire Solicitation Package may be downloaded from the Bureau's Web site at *http://exchanges.state.gov/education/rfgps/menu.htm* , or from the Grants.gov Web site at *http://www.grants.gov.* Please read all information before downloading. IV.3. Content and Form of Submission Applicants must follow all instructions in the Solicitation Package. The original and 7 copies of the application should be sent per the instructions under IV.3f. “Submission Dates and Times section” below. IV.3a. You are required to have a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System
(DUNS)number to apply for a grant or cooperative agreement from the U.S. Government. This number is a nine-digit identification number, which uniquely identifies business entities. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy, and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, access *http://www.dunandbradstreet.com* or call 1-866-705-5711. Please ensure that your DUNS number is included in the appropriate box of the SF-424, which is part of the formal application package. IV.3b. All proposals must contain an executive summary, proposal narrative, and budget. Please refer to the Solicitation Package. It contains the mandatory Proposal Submission Instructions
(PSI)document and the Project Objectives, Goals and Implementation
(POGI)document for additional formatting and technical requirements. IV.3c. You must have nonprofit status with the IRS at the time of application. If your organization is a private nonprofit which has not received a grant or cooperative agreement from ECA in the past three years, or if your organization received nonprofit status from the IRS within the past four years, you must submit the necessary documentation to verify nonprofit status as directed in the PSI document. Failure to do so will cause your proposal to be declared technically ineligible. IV.3d. Please take into consideration the following information when preparing your proposal narrative: IV.3d.1. Adherence to All Regulations Governing the J Visa Please note: The following is being communicated for informational purposes only and does not directly apply to this solicitation or program. The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs is placing renewed emphasis on the secure and proper administration of Exchange Visitor (J visa) Programs and adherence by grantees and sponsors to all regulations governing the J visa. Therefore, proposals should demonstrate the applicant's capacity to meet all requirements governing the administration of the Exchange Visitor Programs as set forth in 22 CFR part 62, including the oversight of Responsible Officers and Alternate Responsible Officers, screening and selection of program participants, provision of pre-arrival information and orientation to participants, monitoring of participants, proper maintenance and security of forms, record-keeping, reporting, and other requirements. A copy of the complete regulations governing the administration of Exchange Visitor
(J)programs is available at *http://exchanges.state.gov* or from: United States Department of State, Office of Exchange Coordination and Designation, ECA/EC/ECD—SA-44, Room 734, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547, Telephone:
(202)203-5029, FAX:
(202)453-8640. IV.3d.2. Diversity, Freedom and Democracy Guidelines Pursuant to the Bureau's authorizing legislation, programs must maintain a non-political character and should be balanced and representative of the diversity of American political, social, and cultural life. “Diversity” should be interpreted in the broadest sense and encompass differences including, but not limited to ethnicity, race, gender, religion, geographic location, socio-economic status, and disabilities. Applicants are strongly encouraged to adhere to the advancement of this principle both in program administration and in program content. Please refer to the review criteria under the ‘Support for Diversity' section for specific suggestions on incorporating diversity into your proposal. Public Law 104-319 provides that “in carrying out programs of educational and cultural exchange in countries whose people do not fully enjoy freedom and democracy,” the Bureau “shall take appropriate steps to provide opportunities for participation in such programs to human rights and democracy leaders of such countries.” Public Law 106-113 requires that the governments of the countries described above do not have inappropriate influence in the selection process. Proposals should reflect advancement of these goals in their program contents, to the full extent deemed feasible. IV.3d.3. Program Monitoring and Evaluation Proposals must include a plan to monitor and evaluate the project's success, both as the activities unfold and at the end of the program. The Bureau recommends that your proposal include a draft survey questionnaire or other technique plus a description of a methodology to use to link outcomes to original project objectives. The Bureau expects that the grantee will track participants or partners and be able to respond to key evaluation questions, including satisfaction with the program, learning as a result of the program, changes in behavior as a result of the program, and effects of the program on institutions (institutions in which participants work or partner institutions). The evaluation plan should include indicators that measure gains in mutual understanding as well as substantive knowledge. Successful monitoring and evaluation depend heavily on setting clear goals and outcomes at the outset of a program. Your evaluation plan should include a description of your project's objectives, your anticipated project outcomes, and how and when you intend to measure these outcomes (performance indicators). The more that outcomes are “smart” (specific, measurable, attainable, results-oriented, and placed in a reasonable time frame), the easier it will be to conduct the evaluation. You should also show how your project objectives link to the goals of the program described in this RFGP. Your monitoring and evaluation plan should clearly distinguish between program *outputs* and *outcomes.* *Outputs* are products and services delivered, often stated as an amount. Output information is important to show the scope or size of project activities, but it cannot substitute for information about progress towards outcomes or the results achieved. Examples of outputs include the number of people trained or the number of seminars conducted. *Outcomes,* in contrast, represent specific results a project is intended to achieve and is usually measured as an extent of change. Findings on outputs and outcomes should both be reported, but the focus should be on outcomes. We encourage you to assess the following four levels of outcomes, as they relate to the program goals set out in the RFGP (listed here in increasing order of importance): 1. *Participant satisfaction* with the program and exchange experience. 2. *Participant learning,* such as increased knowledge, aptitude, skills, and changed understanding and attitude. Learning includes both substantive (subject-specific) learning and mutual understanding. 3. *Participant behavior,* concrete actions to apply knowledge in work or community; greater participation and responsibility in civic organizations; interpretation and explanation of experiences and new knowledge gained; continued contacts between participants, community members, and others. 4. *Institutional changes,* such as increased collaboration and partnerships, policy reforms, new programming, and organizational improvements. Please note: Consideration should be given to the appropriate timing of data collection for each level of outcome. For example, satisfaction is usually captured as a short-term outcome, whereas behavior and institutional changes are normally considered longer-term outcomes. Overall, the quality of your monitoring and evaluation plan will be judged on how well it
(1)Specifies intended outcomes;
(2)gives clear descriptions of how each outcome will be measured;
(3)identifies when particular outcomes will be measured; and
(4)provides a clear description of the data collection strategies for each outcome ( *i.e.* , surveys, interviews, or focus groups). (Please note that evaluation plans that deal only with the first level of outcomes [satisfaction] will be deemed less competitive under the present evaluation criteria.) Grantees will be required to provide reports analyzing their evaluation findings to the Bureau in their regular program reports. All data collected, including survey responses and contact information, must be maintained for a minimum of three years and provided to the Bureau upon request. IV.3e. Please take the following information into consideration when preparing your budget: IV.3e.1. Budget Guidelines Applicants must submit a comprehensive budget for the entire program. There must be a summary budget as well as breakdowns reflecting both administrative and program budgets. Applicants may provide separate sub-budgets for each program component, phase, location, or activity to provide clarification. Applicants should budget the maximum possible amount for scholarships and keep administrative and overhead costs to a minimum. IV.3e.2. Allowable costs for the program include the following: 1. Administrative: Salaries and benefits and other direct administrative expenses such as postage, phone, printing and office supplies. 2. Program: Participant expenses, which may include institutional fees, travel expenses, tuition; expenses related to review panels, including travel and per-diem. Please refer to the Solicitation Package for complete budget guidelines and formatting instructions. IV.3.f. Application Deadline and Methods of Submission: *Application Deadline Date:* February 2, 2007. *Reference Number:* ECA/A/S/A-07-10. *Methods of Submission:* Applications may be submitted in one of two ways: 1. In hard-copy, via a nationally recognized overnight delivery service ( *i.e.* , DHL, Federal Express, UPS, Airborne Express, or U.S. Postal Service Express Overnight Mail, etc.), or 2. Electronically through *http://www.grants.gov.* Along with the Project Title, all applicants must enter the above Reference Number in Box 11 on the SF-424 contained in the mandatory Proposal Submission Instructions
(PSI)of the solicitation document. IV.3f.1 Submitting Printed Applications Applications must be shipped no later than the above deadline. Delivery services used by applicants must have in-place, centralized shipping identification and tracking systems that may be accessed via the Internet and delivery people who are identifiable by commonly recognized uniforms and delivery vehicles. Proposals shipped on or before the above deadline but received at ECA more than seven days after the deadline will be ineligible for further consideration under this competition. Proposals shipped after the established deadlines are ineligible for consideration under this competition. ECA will *not* notify you upon receipt of application. It is each applicant's responsibility to ensure that each package is marked with a legible tracking number and to monitor/confirm delivery to ECA via the Internet. Delivery of proposal packages *may not* be made via local courier service or in person for this competition. Faxed documents will not be accepted at any time. Only proposals submitted as stated above will be considered. Important note: When preparing your submission please make sure to include one extra copy of the completed SF-424 form and place it in an envelope addressed to “ECA/EX/PM”. The original and 7 copies of the application should be sent to: U.S. Department of State, SA-44, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Ref.: ECA/A/S/A-07-10, Program Management, ECA/EX/PM, Room 534, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547. IV.3f.2 Submitting Electronic Applications Applicants have the option of submitting proposals electronically through Grants.gov ( *http://www.grants.gov* ). Complete solicitation packages are available at Grants.gov in the “Find” portion of the system. Please follow the instructions available in the `Get Started' portion of the site ( *http://www.grants.gov/GetStarted* ). Several of the steps in the Grants.gov registration process could take several weeks. Therefore, applicants should check with appropriate staff within their organizations immediately after reviewing this RFGP to confirm or determine their registration status with Grants.gov. Once registered, the amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors including the size of the application and the speed of your internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you not wait until the application deadline to begin the submission process through Grants.gov. Direct all questions regarding Grants.gov registration and submission to: Grants.gov Customer Support, Contact Center Phone: 800-518-4726, Business Hours: Monday—Friday, 7 a.m.-9 p.m. Eastern Time, E-mail: *support@grants.gov.* Applicants have until midnight (12 a.m.), Washington, DC time of the closing date to ensure that their entire application has been uploaded to the Grants.gov site. There are no exceptions to the above deadline. Applications uploaded to the site after midnight of the application deadline date will be automatically rejected by the grants.gov system, and will be technically ineligible. Applicants will receive a confirmation e-mail from grants.gov upon the successful submission of an application. ECA will *not* notify you upon receipt of electronic applications. It is the responsibility of all applicants submitting proposals via the Grants.gov Web portal to ensure that proposals have been received by Grants.gov in their entirety, and ECA bears no responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or conversion processes. IV.3g. Intergovernmental Review of Applications: Executive Order 12372 does not apply to this program. V. Application Review Information V.1. Review Process The Bureau will review all proposals for technical eligibility. Proposals will be deemed ineligible if they do not fully adhere to the guidelines stated herein and in the Solicitation Package. All eligible proposals will be reviewed by the program office, as well as the Public Diplomacy section overseas, where appropriate. Eligible proposals will be subject to compliance with Federal and Bureau regulations and guidelines and forwarded to Bureau grant panels for advisory review. Proposals may also be reviewed by the Office of the Legal Adviser or by other Department elements. Final funding decisions are at the discretion of the Department of State's Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs. Final technical authority for cooperative agreements resides with the Bureau's Grants Officer. Review Criteria Technically eligible applications will be competitively reviewed according to the criteria stated below. These criteria are not rank ordered and all carry equal weight in the proposal evaluation: 1. *Quality of the program idea:* Proposals should exhibit originality, substance, precision, and relevance to the Bureau's mission. 2. *Program planning:* Detailed agenda and relevant work plan should demonstrate substantive undertakings and logistical capacity. Agenda and plan should adhere to the program overview and guidelines described above. 3. *Ability to achieve program objectives:* Objectives should be reasonable, feasible, and flexible. Proposals should clearly demonstrate how the institution will meet the program's objectives and plan. 4. *Multiplier effect/impact:* Proposed programs should strengthen long-term mutual understanding, including maximum sharing of information and establishment of long-term institutional and individual linkages. 5. *Support of Diversity:* Proposals should demonstrate substantive support of the Bureau's policy on diversity. Achievable and relevant features should be cited in both program administration (selection of participants, program venue and program evaluation) and program content (orientation and wrap-up sessions, program meetings, resource materials and follow-up activities). 6. *Institutional Capacity:* Proposed personnel and institutional resources should be adequate and appropriate to achieve the program's goals. 7. *Institution's Record/Ability:* Proposals should demonstrate an institutional record of successful exchange programs, including responsible fiscal management and full compliance with all reporting requirements for past Bureau grants as determined by Bureau Grants Staff. The Bureau will consider the past performance of prior recipients and the demonstrated potential of new applicants. 8. *Follow-on Activities:* Proposals should provide a plan for continued follow-on activity (without Bureau support) ensuring that Bureau supported programs are not isolated events. 9. *Project Evaluation:* Proposals should include a plan to evaluate the activity's success, both as the activities unfold and at the end of the program. A draft survey questionnaire or other technique plus description of a methodology for linking outcomes to original project objectives is recommended. 10. *Cost-effectiveness:* The overhead and administrative components of the proposal, including salaries and honoraria, should be kept as low as possible. All other items should be necessary and appropriate. 11. *Cost-sharing:* Proposals should maximize cost-sharing through other private sector support as well as institutional direct funding contributions. VI. Award Administration Information VI.1a. Award Notices Final awards cannot be made until funds have been appropriated by Congress, allocated, and committed through internal Bureau procedures. Successful applicants will receive an Assistance Award Document
(AAD)from the Bureau's Grants Office. The AAD and the original grant proposal with subsequent modifications (if applicable) shall be the only binding authorizing document between the recipient and the U.S. Government. The AAD will be signed by an authorized Grants Officer, and mailed to the recipient's responsible officer identified in the application. Unsuccessful applicants will receive notification of the results of the application review from the ECA program office coordinating this competition. VI.2 Administrative and National Policy Requirements Terms and Conditions for the Administration of ECA agreements include the following: Office of Management and Budget Circular A-122, “Cost Principles for Nonprofit Organizations.” Office of Management and Budget Circular A-21, “Cost Principles for Educational Institutions.” OMB Circular A-87, “Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Governments.” OMB Circular No. A-110 (Revised), ``Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements With Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations.'' OMB Circular No. A-102, ``Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants-in-Aid to State and Local Governments.'' OMB Circular No. A-133, ``Audits of States, Local Government, and Non-profit Organizations.'' Please reference the following Web sites for additional information: *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants.* *http://exchanges.state.gov/education/grantsdiv/terms.htm#articleI.* VI.3. Reporting Requirements You must provide ECA with a hard copy original plus two copies of the following reports: 1. A final program and financial report no more than 90 days after the expiration of the award; 2. Quarterly program and financial reports which describe activities undertaken during the reporting period and explain costs incurred under each item presented in the Grant Agreement. Grantees will be required to provide reports analyzing their evaluation findings to the Bureau in their regular program reports. (Please refer to IV. Application and Submission Instructions (IV.3.d.3) above for Program Monitoring and Evaluation information. All data collected, including survey responses and contact information, must be maintained for a minimum of three years and provided to the Bureau upon request. All reports must be sent to the ECA Grants Officer and ECA Program Officer listed in the final assistance award document. VII. Agency Contacts For questions about this announcement, contact: Coleen Gatehouse, Educational Information and Resources Branch, ECA/A/S/A, Room 349, ECA/A/S/A-07-10, U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547, tel: 202-453-8887, fax: 202-453-8890, *gatehousecn@state.gov.* All correspondence with the Bureau concerning this RFGP should reference the above title and number ECA/A/S/A-07-10. Please read the complete **Federal Register** announcement before sending inquiries or submitting proposals. Once the RFGP deadline has passed, Bureau staff may not discuss this competition with applicants until the proposal review process has been completed. VIII. Other Information: Notice The terms and conditions published in this RFGP are binding and may not be modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information provided by the Bureau that contradicts published language will not be binding. Issuance of the RFGP does not constitute an award commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in accordance with the needs of the program and the availability of funds. Awards made will be subject to periodic reporting and evaluation requirements per section VI.3 above. Dated: November 13, 2006. C. Miller Crouch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-19595 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5615] No FEAR Act Notice SUMMARY: Pursuant to the requirements of 5 CFR 724.202, (“Notice obligations”), the U.S. Department of State hereby publishes this No FEAR Act Notice. The purpose of the Notice is to inform Department employees, former employees, and applicants for employment of the rights and protections available under Federal antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws. This Notice follows the model language provided by the Office of Personnel Management in the Final Rule, Implementation of Title II of the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002—Notification & Training (71 FR 41095). Any questions regarding this notice should be directed to Janice F. Caramanica, Senior Attorney-Advisor, U.S. Department of State, Office of Civil Rights (S/OCR), 2201 C Street, NW., Room 7428, Washington, DC 20520-7428, phone
(202)647-9295, fax
(202)647-4969, e-mail *caramanicajf@state.gov.* On May 15, 2002, Congress enacted the “Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002,” which is now known as the No FEAR Act. One purpose of the Act is to “require that Federal agencies be accountable for violations of antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws.” Public Law 107-174, Summary. In support of this purpose, Congress found that “agencies cannot be run effectively if those agencies practice or tolerate discrimination.” Public Law 107-174, Title I, General Provisions, section 101(1). The Act also requires this agency to provide this notice to Federal employees, former Federal employees and applicants for Federal employment to inform you of the rights and protections available to you under Federal antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws. Antidiscrimination Laws A Federal agency cannot discriminate against an employee or applicant with respect to the terms, conditions or privileges of employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, marital status or political affiliation. Discrimination on these bases is prohibited by one or more of the following statutes: 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(1), 29 U.S.C. 206(d), 29 U.S.C. 631, 29 U.S.C. 633a, 29 U.S.C. 791 and 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16. If you believe that you have been the victim of unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or disability, you must contact an Equal Employment Opportunity
(EEO)counselor within 45 calendar days of the alleged discriminatory action, or, in the case of a personnel action, within 45 calendar days of the effective date of the action, before you can file a formal complaint of discrimination with your agency. See, e.g., 29 CFR part 1614 and the Office of Civil Rights Web site at *http://www.state.gov/s/ocr.* If you believe that you have been the victim of unlawful discrimination on the basis of age, you must either contact an EEO counselor as noted above or give notice of intent to sue to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC)within 180 calendar days of the alleged discriminatory action. If you are alleging discrimination based on marital status or political affiliation, you may file a written complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel
(OSC)(see contact information below). In the alternative (or in some cases, in addition), you may pursue a discrimination complaint by filing a grievance through your agency's administrative or negotiated grievance procedures, if such procedures apply and are available. Whistleblower Protection Laws A Federal employee with authority to take, direct others to take, recommend or approve any personnel action must not use that authority to take or fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take, a personnel action against an employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that individual that is reasonably believed to evidence violations of law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, unless disclosure of such information is specifically required by Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or the conduct of foreign affairs. Retaliation against an employee or applicant for making a protected disclosure is prohibited by 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8). If you believe that you have been the victim of whistleblower retaliation, you may file a written complaint (Form OSC-11) with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel at 1730 M Street, NW., Suite 218, Washington, DC 20036-4505 or online through the OSC Web site— *http://www.osc.gov.* Retaliation for Engaging in Protected Activity A Federal agency cannot retaliate against an employee or applicant because that individual exercises his or her rights under any of the Federal antidiscrimination or whistleblower protection laws listed above. If you believe that you are the victim of retaliation for engaging in protected activity, you must follow, as appropriate, the procedures described in the Antidiscrimination Laws and Whistleblower Protection Laws sections or, if applicable, the administrative or negotiated grievance procedures in order to pursue any legal remedy. Disciplinary Actions Under the existing laws, each agency retains the right, where appropriate, to discipline a Federal employee for conduct that is inconsistent with Federal Antidiscrimination and Whistleblower Protection Laws up to and including removal. If OSC has initiated an investigation under 5 U.S.C. 1214, however, according to 5 U.S.C. 1214(f), agencies must seek approval from the Special Counsel to discipline employees for, among other activities, engaging in prohibited retaliation. Nothing in the No FEAR Act alters existing laws or permits an agency to take unfounded disciplinary action against a Federal employee or to violate the procedural rights of a Federal employee who has been accused of discrimination. Additional Information For further information regarding the No FEAR Act regulations, refer to 5 CFR part 724, as well as the appropriate offices within your agency ( *e.g.* , EEO/civil rights office, human resources office or legal office). Additional information regarding Federal antidiscrimination whistleblower protection and retaliation laws can be found at the EEOC Web site- *http://www.eeoc.gov* and the OSC Web site— *http://www.osc.gov.* Existing Rights Unchanged Pursuant to section 205 of the No FEAR Act, neither the Act nor this notice creates, expands or reduces any rights otherwise available to any employee, former employee or applicant under the laws of the United States, including the provisions of law specified in 5 U.S.C. 2302(d). Dated: November 11, 2006. Harry K. Thomas, Jr., Executive Secretary, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-19594 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-10-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5614] Eligibility for Participation in Summer Work Travel Programs AGENCY: Department of State. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Pursuant to statutory authority granted the Department of State by Public Law 105-277, foreign post-secondary students participating in a cultural exchange program may be eligible to enter the United States to work and travel during their summer vacations from studies. To be eligible for participation in these programs, foreign students must be selected, screened, placed, and monitored by Department-designated organizations that are authorized to conduct educational and cultural exchange programs. These programs further the public diplomacy efforts of the United States by providing participants with the opportunity to experience the United States and its people. Participation in these programs is dependent upon student status. For the purpose of determining program eligibility, designated program sponsors may select for program participation only those potential participants who are currently enrolled and participating full-time in post-secondary studies at the time of application. This certification will be published in the **Federal Register** . Dated: November 9, 2006. Stanley S. Colvin, Director, Office of Exchange Coordination and Designation, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-19593 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA-2006-26304] Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of Approved Information Collections: OMB Control Numbers 2126-0010 (Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program); 2126-0011 (Commercial Driver Licensing and Test Standards); and 2126-0025 (Transportation of Household Goods; Consumer Protection) AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice; request for comments. SUMMARY: FMCSA invites public comment on its intent to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)to revise three
(3)information collections (ICs), entitled “Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program” (2126-0010), “Commercial Driver Licensing and Test Standards” (2126-0011), and “Transportation of Household Goods; Consumer Protection” (2126-0025). These ICs are necessary to ensure that motor carriers comply with changes made by various provisions of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). We are required to publish this notice in the **Federal Register** by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and implementing regulations at 5 CFR 1320.10. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590; telefax comments to 202/493-2251; or submit them electronically at *http://dms.dot.gov* . All comments should include the docket number in this notice's heading. All comments may be examined and copied at the above address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you desire a receipt you must include a self-addressed stamped envelope or postcard or, if you submit your comments electronically, you may print the acknowledgment. *Privacy Act:* Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Frederic L. Wood, Office of Chief Counsel, Regulatory Affairs Division (MC-CCR), Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Room 8201, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590; telephone
(202)366-0834. Office hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information stated below reflects the proposed changes and the new total annual burden hours for each.
(1)*Title:* Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program. *FMCSA IC:* OMB Control No. 2126-0010. *Form No.:* Forms MCSAP-1, MCSAP-2, and MCSAP-2A. *Type of Review:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* State Grant Applicants. *Number of Respondents:* 52 (per quarter). *Estimated Time Per Response:* 80 hours. *Expiration Date:* November 30, 2007. *Frequency:* Quarterly (reports) and Annually (grant application). *Total Annual Burden:* 12,264 hours.
(2)*Title:* Commercial Driver Licensing and Test Standards. *FMCSA IC:* OMB Control No. 2126-0011. *Form No.:* None. *Type of Review:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Holders of and applicants for commercial driver's licenses. *Number of Respondents:* 12,523,571/year. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 6 minutes. *Expiration Date:* April 30, 2007. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Total Annual Burden:* 1,269,856 hours.
(3)*Title:* Transportation of Household Goods; Consumer Protection. *FMCSA IC:* OMB Control No. 2126-0025. *Form No.:* Form MCSA-2P. *Type of Review:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Motor Carriers and Individual Shippers of Household Goods. *Number of Respondents:* 6,017. *Estimated Time Per Response:* Varies from 5 minutes to display assigned U.S. DOT number in created advertisement to 125 minutes to distribute consumer publication. *Expiration Date:* August 31, 2008. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Total Annual Burden:* 4,648,370 hours. Background Summarized below is background information for all three
(3)information collection requests subject to this notice. First, the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) requires that the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) review reports submitted by the States and conduct inspections to continuously evaluate a State's enforcement plan. Sections 401 through 404 of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-424, Jan. 6, 1983) (STAA), as amended by 49 U.S.C. 31100 *et seq.* , established a program of financial assistance to the States to implement programs to enforce Federal and compatible State rules, regulations, standards, and orders applicable to commercial motor vehicle
(CMV)safety. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, Aug. 10, 2005) (SAFETEA-LU) amended 49 U.S.C. 31102(b)(1) to modify the conditions a State must meet to qualify for grant funds through MCSAP and now requires the following conditions be addressed in the State's Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan:
(1)Deploying technology as part of performance-based activities to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of CMV safety programs;
(2)disseminating as part of the CMV and non-CMV licensing examination information on best practices for driving safely in the vicinity of noncommercial and commercial motor vehicles;
(3)conducting comprehensive and highly visible traffic enforcement and CMV safety inspection programs in high-risk areas;
(4)ensuring that inspections of certain passenger vehicles are conducted at a station or other facility where a motor carrier may make a planned stop; and
(5)allowing the use of funds to conduct documented enforcement of State traffic laws. The overall impact of these provisions increases total burden hours by an estimated 403 burden hours, chiefly as a result of non-CMV traffic enforcement activities. Second, the Commercial Driver Licensing
(CDL)and Test Standards program ensures that licensed drivers are properly qualified to drive the vehicles they operate and that drivers do not have a history of high-risk safety behavior. The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-570, Title XII, 100 Stat. 3207-170, Oct. 27, 1986), as amended by 49 U.S.C. chapter 313, required, among other things, that each driver have only one license, that States be notified of any convictions of traffic law violations, and that employers be notified within one business day of notification of suspension, revocation, or cancellation of a license or loss of the right to operate a CMV. States must comply with CDL program requirements and pass State compliance reviews, or a portion of their Federal-aid highway funds can be withheld. SAFETEA-LU made two amendments to the CDL program. Section 4102(b)(2)-(4) increased the minimum disqualification periods and civil penalties for drivers and the maximum civil penalties for employers convicted of violating an out-of-service order. Section 4124(c) modified the State penalty for noncompliance by adding the phrase “up to” before the existing phrases “5 percent” and “10 percent,” respectively. This potentially reduces the penalty provisions for the first and subsequent years, respectively, for noncompliance with the Federal CDL requirements. Because of an adjustment made to reflect the net effect of an increase in the number of CDL driver records and a decrease in the number of active CDL driver records, the paperwork burden has decreased by an estimated 3,142 burden hours. This change is independent of these SAFETEA-LU provisions. Third, in the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1749, Dec. 9, 1999) (MCSIA), Congress authorized the Agency to regulate household goods carriers engaged in interstate operations for individual shippers. In earlier legislation, Congress abolished the Interstate Commerce Commission and transferred the Commission's jurisdiction over household goods transportation to the U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT)(ICC Termination Act of 1995, Public Law 104-88). Prior to FMCSA's establishment, the Secretary delegated this household goods jurisdiction to the Federal Highway Administration, FMCSA's predecessor organization within DOT. A General Accounting Office report, “Consumer Protection: Federal Actions Are Needed to Improve Oversight of the Household Goods Moving Industry,” No. GAO-01-318, found that DOT needed to increase regulatory oversight of the household goods moving industry and increase consumer education. FMCSA subsequently issued rules that clarified industry requirements and continued a requirement that motor carriers provide individual shippers of household goods with the consumer pamphlet “Your Rights and Responsibilities When You Move” (Appendix A to 49 CFR Part 375) to educate consumers on their legal rights in the moving process (70 FR 39949, July 12, 2005). Sections 4202 through 4216 of SAFETEA-LU amended various provisions of existing law regarding household goods transportation, specifically addressing: definitions (section 4202); payment of rates (section 4203); registration requirements for household goods motor carriers (section 4204); carrier operations (section 4205); enforcement of regulations (section 4206); liability of carriers under receipts and bills of lading (section 4207); arbitration requirements (section 4208); civil penalties for brokers and unauthorized transportation (section 4209); penalties for holding goods hostage (section 4210); consumer handbook (section 4211); release of broker information (section 4212); working group for Federal-State relations (section 4213); consumer complaint information (section 4214); review of liability of carriers (section 4215); and application of State laws (section 4216). These provisions require corresponding changes to the “Your Rights and Responsibilities When You Move” consumer pamphlet. Section 4205 also requires the motor carrier to provide to the shipper a copy of the publication “Ready to Move?” (or its successor publication). These publications provide concise, valuable consumer protection information regarding the legal rights of individual shippers. The household goods transportation provisions of SAFETEA-LU increase total paperwork burden by an estimated 278,333 burden hours. The largest portion of this increase stems from requirements in section 4205 regarding the estimate of the transportation charges and the physical survey of the household goods. *Public Comments Invited:* You are asked to comment on any aspect of the information collections referenced here, including:
(1)Whether the proposed collection is necessary for FMCSA's performance;
(2)the accuracy of the estimated burden;
(3)ways for FMCSA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and
(4)ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. The Agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection. Issued on: November 9, 2006. John H. Hill, Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-19564 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA-2006-26367] Announcement of Establishment of the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee; Request for Nominations AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of establishment of the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee; request for member nominations. SUMMARY: FMCSA announces the establishment of the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee as required by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users. The advisory committee will provide advice and recommendations to the FMCSA Administrator on the needs, objectives, plans, approaches, content, and accomplishments of motor carrier safety programs and motor carrier safety regulations. This notice also solicits nominations for interested persons to serve on the advisory committee. The Administrator will appoint up to 20 members to the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee. The advisory committee will begin work in 2006. DATES: Nominations for the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee must be received on or before January 4, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Scott Poyer, Chief, Strategic Planning and Program Evaluation Division, Office of Policy Plans and Regulation,
(202)366-6408, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Section 4144 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59, August 10, 2005), requires the Secretary to establish the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee. The Committee will provide advice and recommendations to the Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) on the needs, objectives, plans, approaches, content, and accomplishments of motor carrier safety programs and motor carrier safety regulations. The Committee will be comprised of up to 20 members appointed by the Administrator for up to two-year terms. They will be selected from among individuals who are not employees of FMCSA and who are specially qualified to serve on the Committee based on their education, training, or experience. The members will include representatives of the motor carrier industry, safety advocates, and safety enforcement officials. Representatives of a single enumerated interest group may not constitute a majority of the Committee members. The Administrator will designate a chairman of the Committee from among the members. Committee members will not be officers or employees of the Federal Government and will serve without pay. The Administrator may allow a member, when attending meetings of the Committee or a subcommittee, reimbursement of expenses authorized under Section 5703 of Title 5, United States Code and the Federal Travel Regulation, 41 CFR part 301, relating to per diem, travel and transportation. FMCSA anticipates calling Committee meetings at least four times each year (excluding the initial year). Meetings will be open to the general public, except as provided under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App 2). Notice of each meeting will be published in the **Federal Register** at least 15 calendar days prior to the date of the meeting. II. Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee Charter [This Is the Text of the Charter That DOT/FMCSA Has Filed With the General Services Administration.] 1. *Purpose:* This charter establishes the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee and provides for its operation in accordance with provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2); 41 CFR part 102-3; DOT Order 1120.3B; and Section 4144 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, Public Law 109-59. The charter also sets forth the principles governing the Committee's operation. 2. *Scope and Objectives:* The Committee will provide advice and recommendations to the Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) on motor carrier safety programs and motor carrier safety regulations. 3. *Duties:* The members of the Committee shall: a. attend Committee meetings; b. gather information as necessary to discuss issues presented by the Designated Federal Official (DFO); c. deliberate; and d. provide written consensus advice to the Administrator. 4. *Support:* The Administrator shall provide support staff for the Committee. On request of the Committee, the Administrator shall provide information, administrative services, and supplies that the Administrator considers necessary for the Committee to carry out its duties and powers. FMCSA's Strategic Planning and Program Evaluation Division shall furnish support services for the operation of the Committee. 5. *Designated Federal Officer and Sponsor:* The Designated Federal Officer
(DFO)for the Committee and its subcommittees is FMCSA's Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development, or his or her designee. The DFO shall designate an independent facilitator for advisory committee meetings. The Committee sponsor is FMCSA's Director for the Office of Policy Plans and Regulation, or his or her designee. 6. *Cost:* The annual operating costs associated with the Committee's functions are estimated to be $40,000, including all direct and indirect expenses. We estimate that .25 full-time equivalent positions will be required to support the Committee. 7. *Membership:* The Committee shall be comprised of up to 20 members (special government employees and/or representatives) appointed by the Administrator for up to 2-year terms. Members serve at the pleasure of the Administrator, subject to their stated terms. Members may be reappointed to one or more consecutive terms. Members will be selected from among individuals who are not employees of FMCSA and who are specially qualified to serve on the Committee based on their education, training, or experience. The members shall include representatives of the motor carrier industry, safety advocates, and safety enforcement officials. Representatives of a single enumerated interest group may not constitute a majority of the Committee. Members may continue to serve until appointment of their replacements. 8. *Officers:* The Administrator shall designate a chairman among members of the Committee. 9. *Organization:* The chairman may recommend subcommittees subject to approval of the Agency. Subcommittees will be established for limited purposes within the scope and objectives of the full Committee. The chairman of any subcommittee shall be a member of the full Committee and shall be appointed by the full Committee chairman with the approval of the DFO. Members of a subcommittee may be appointed from any source by the full Committee chairman with the approval of the DFO. Members of a subcommittee do not become members of the full Committee and are not eligible for expenses under item 10 of this charter. Subcommittees will submit all recommendations only to the full Committee. Subcommittees may be terminated by the full Committee chairman, subject to approval by the DFO. 10. *Compensation for Members:* Committee members are not officers or employees of the Federal Government and shall serve without pay; except that the Administrator may allow a member, when attending meetings of the Committee or a subcommittee, reimbursement of expenses authorized under Section 5703 of Title 5, United States Code and the Federal Travel Regulation, 41 CFR part 301, relating to per diem, travel, and transportation. All travel by individual members when engaged in official Committee business shall be approved in advance by the DFO, and arranged and funded by the sponsor. 11. *Meetings:* The DFO anticipates calling Committee meetings at least four times each year (excluding the initial year). The agenda for all meetings shall be set by the DFO. Meetings shall be open to the general public, except as provided under FACA. Notice of each meeting shall be published in the **Federal Register** at least 15 calendar days prior to the date of the meeting. Notice shall include the meeting agenda. The DFO or his or her designee shall attend and preside at each meeting. The DFO or his or her designee shall adjourn any meeting when determined to be in the public interest. Detailed minutes of each meeting shall be certified by the DFO or his or her designee and maintained by the sponsor. The minutes, as certified, shall be available for public inspection and copying in the office of the sponsor. 12. *Reports:* All Committee and subcommittee reports and recommendations shall be submitted by the chairman to FMCSA's Administrator through the DFO or his or her designee. The DFO or his or her designee shall direct the Committee to prepare such documents and any other reports. Within 60 days following the last meeting of each calendar year, the DFO or his or her designee shall submit to FMCSA's Administrator an annual report describing the Committee's membership, activities, and accomplishments for the year. Committee and subcommittee reports and other documents, which are made available to or prepared by the Committee, shall be included in FMCSA's public docket and shall be available for public inspection and copying in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). 13. *Date of Termination:* The Committee shall terminate on September 30, 2010. 14. *Charter Filing Date:* The filing date of this charter, which is also the charter's effective date, is September 8, 2006. III. Request for Nominations FMCSA seeks nominations for membership to the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee from representatives of the motor carrier industry, safety advocates, and safety enforcement officials with specialized experience, education, or training in commercial motor vehicle issues. The Agency is committed to appointing members to the Committee with diverse professional backgrounds, as well as a broad array of gender, ethnicity, demographic, and socioeconomic factors. All Committee members must be able to attend three to four meetings each year in Washington, DC or by teleconference, and spend approximately five to six hours each month providing additional consultation. Interested persons should have a commitment to transportation safety, knowledge of transportation issues, experience on panels that deal with transportation safety, and a record of collaboration and professional experience in commercial motor vehicle issues. For further information, please contact Scott Poyer at 202-493-0432, or by e-mail at *Scott.Poyer@dot.gov* . For nomination information, please contact Karen Lynch at 202-366-8997, or by e-mail at *Karen.Lynch@dot.gov* . Nominations must be received on or before January 4, 2007. Issued on: November 13, 2006. John H. Hill, Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-19560 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2005-25751] Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of final disposition. SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt forty-five individuals from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus
(ITDM)from operating commercial motor vehicles
(CMVs)in interstate commerce. The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce. DATES: The exemptions are effective November 20, 2006. The exemptions expire on November 20, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Chief, Physical Qualifications Division,
(202)366-4001, *maggi.gunnels@dot.gov* , FMCSA, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access You may see all the comments online through the Document Management System
(DMS)at: *http://dmses.dot.gov* . *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and/or Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. *Privacy Act:* Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments received into any of DOT's dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, or other entity). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** (65 FR 19477, Apr. 11, 2000). This statement is also available at *http://dms.dot.gov* . Background On October 3, 2006, FMCSA published a Notice of receipt of Federal diabetes exemption applications from forty-five individuals, and requested comments from the public (71 FR 58464). The public comment period closed on Nov 2, 2006. Four comments were received, and fully considered by FMCSA in reaching the final decision to grant the exemptions. FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the forty-five applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3). Diabetes Mellitus and Driving Experience of the Applicants The Agency established the current standard for diabetes in 1970 because several risk studies indicated that diabetic drivers had a higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The diabetes rule provides that “A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control” (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)). FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency's July 2000 study entitled “A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act for the 21st Century.” The report concluded that a safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus
(ITDM)to operate CMVs is feasible. The 2003 Notice in conjunction with the November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777) **Federal Register** Notice provides the current protocol for allowing such drivers to operate CMVs in interstate commerce. These forty-five applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 43 years. These applicants report no hypoglycemic reaction that resulted in loss of consciousness or seizure, that required the assistance of another person, or resulted in impaired cognitive function without warning symptoms in the past 5 years (with one year of stability following any such episode). In each case, an endocrinologist has verified that the driver has demonstrated willingness to properly monitor and manage their diabetes, received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying conditions, including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the October 3, 2006, **Federal Register** Notice (71 FR 58464). Because there were no docket comments on the specific merits or qualifications of any applicant, we have not repeated the individual profiles here. Basis for Exemption Determination Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce. To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and reviewed the treating endocrinologist's medical opinion related to the ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin. Consequently, FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption. Conditions and Requirements The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the applicants in the exemption document and they include the following:
(1)That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation;
(2)that each individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not they are related to an episode of hypoglycemia;
(3)that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and
(4)that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. Discussion of Comments FMCSA received four comments in this proceeding. All four comments were recommendations in favor of granting the Federal diabetes exemption to Mr. Campbell, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Carroll. Conclusion After considering the comments to the docket and based upon its evaluation of the forty-five exemption applications, FMCSA exempts John N. Anderson, Federico G. Barajas, Carl E. Bassinger, Allan C. Boyum, Terry L. Brantley, Steven E. Brechting, Matthew T. Brown, James P. Campbell, Scott A. Carlson, James F. Carroll, Joseph L. Coggins, Edward V. Coppinger, Walter C. Evans, Michael H. Foley, Lawrence S. Forcier, Stephanie D. Fry, Robert W. Gaultney, Jr., Marlin R. Hein, Paul T. Kubish, Carolyn J. Lane, Randall L. Lay, David M. Levy, Shelton R. Lynch, Sterling C. Madsen, Sterlon E. Martin, Bradley Monson, David F. Morin, Jeffrey J. Morinelli, Ronald D. Murphy, Michael S. Mundy, Charles B. Page, John A. ReMaklus, Howard D. Rood, Michael D. Schooler, Arthur L. Stapleton, Jr., Joseph R. Suits, Cory L. Swanson, Jeffrey M. Thew, Mark A. Thompson, Glenn R. Tyrrell, Barney J. Wade, Dennis D. Wade, Donald L. Winslow, Eugene R. Whitaker, Richard A. Zellweger, from the ITDM standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), subject to the conditions listed under “Conditions and Requirements” above. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if:
(1)The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption;
(2)the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or
(3)continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time. Issued on: November 9, 2006. Rose A. McMurray, Associate Administrator, Policy and Program Development. [FR Doc. E6-19563 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA Docket No. NHTSA-2006-xxxx] Meeting Notice; Forum on Human Factors Research Necessary To Support Advanced Vehicle Safety Technologies AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. ACTION: Meeting notice. SUMMARY: NHTSA announces a Forum on Human Factors Research Necessary to Support Advanced Vehicle Safety Technologies to be held in Falls Church, Virginia. This notice announces the date, time and location of the forum, which will be open to the public with advanced registration on a space-available basis. DATES: The forum will be held on January 25, 2007, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and continue on January 26, 2007 from 8:30 a.m. to noon. ADDRESSES: The forum will be held at the Mitretek Systems Corporate Headquarters at 3150 Fairview Park Drive, Falls Church, VA 22042, telephone
(202)551-1112. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Perel, Office of Human Vehicle Performance Research, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW. Telephone number
(202)366-5675; e-mail *Mike.Perel@dot.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Advanced vehicle safety technologies (AVST), such as collision warning systems (CWS), can assist drivers in preventing crashes and minimizing harm. The controls, displays, and operation of AVST are fundamental elements that influence the safety effectiveness of these technologies. The ability of drivers to recognize, understand, and properly respond to the visual, auditory, and other feedback from these technologies is influenced by the degree to which their designs are compatible with drivers' capabilities. Proper designs will allow drivers to achieve the optimum safety benefit, whereas poor designs can limit or extinguish any advantage. The purpose of this forum is to identify human factors research to help guide the development and deployment of AVST that can improve safety and minimize potential adverse effects. A diverse group of human factors and vehicle safety experts are expected to participate. The forum participants will discuss the impact of current and future AVST on safety and driving performance, outline high priority areas for research, and identify organizations to sponsor the research. The primary focus of the forum will include current and emerging AVST systems such as those that provide only safety alerts ( *e.g.* , forward collision warning systems (FCW), road departure warning (RDCW), lane departure warning (LDW), intersection collision warning), systems that provide crash warning(s) and automated control ( *e.g.* , FCW combined with automatic braking), and other driver assistance systems that can impact safety ( *e.g.* , adaptive cruise control (ACC), brake assist, backover safety systems, and automatic lane keeping). This forum will not address driver workload or driver distraction issues associated with information and entertainment systems. Through a combination of presentations by invited speakers and group discussions among attendees, the forum participants will focus on: • Identifying potential human factors safety problems. • Determining safety-relevant metrics to quantify the problem. • Determining research needs and identifying best practices and guidelines for system design and operation. • Identifying stakeholders to sponsor and conduct research. Examples of potential human factors safety concerns that may be discussed at the forum include: *Unintended Consequences:* Drivers may react to the presence of AVST with behaviors that can undermine the potential effectiveness of the technologies. For example, drivers may not respond quickly enough to collision warnings if the system has false alarms or too many warnings. Even if the system is perfect, drivers may over-rely on the technology, increase their risk taking behaviors, and negate any potential safety benefits. Drivers may not understand the system's limitations and trust the system to a point where the system cannot perform to their expectations. For example, some systems only work within specified speed ranges or other limits, but drivers may expect the systems to perform at all speeds and in all conditions. Thus, unintended consequences could result from incorrect driver assumptions and perceptions about system operation. *Design Characteristics:* Another human factors concern is the variability in the design of these technologies within and across different vehicle manufacturers. As drivers change between vehicles with new or unfamiliar AVST characteristics or CWS interfaces, there is a potential for negative transfer of learning. That is, drivers may miss or not comprehend an auditory warning from System A because they are accustomed to the warning sound provided by System B. *Driver-centered Design:* The forum will also address the issue of how variations in driver performance should be accommodated by system design. Driver performance can vary from person to person, from situation to situation, and from time to time. For example, as a group, older drivers have poorer eyesight, slower reaction times, and a decreased ability to perform multiple tasks simultaneously. Drivers may respond differently in heavy traffic versus light traffic. Tired drivers may behave differently than alert drivers. The intended benefits of AVST may not be achieved unless the systems are designed to accommodate a broad range of the variability in the characteristics of the driving population. The safety concern is that some drivers may not detect warnings, respond appropriately, or turn off systems that are perceived as annoying or useless. *Integrating Multiple Systems:* Another forum topic will be the issue of integrated warnings from multiple systems. While integrated systems have the potential to prevent a large portion of crashes, they pose unique design issues ( *e.g.* , with what priority should the alarms be presented). The Department of Transportation
(DOT)is conducting a large-scale field operational test called Integrated Vehicle-Based Safety Systems (IVBSS) to better understand and evaluate some aspects of warning integration ( *http://www.its.dot.gov/ivbss/index.htm* ). However, more discussion is needed to fully address this emerging issue as increasing numbers of AVST are brought into vehicles. The meeting will be open to the public with advanced registration on a space-available basis. Individuals wishing to register must provide their name, affiliation, phone number, and e-mail address to Aretha Howard at Mitretek System at *aretha.howard@mitretek.org* or by phone at
(202)551-1112. The meeting will be held at a site accessible to individuals with disabilities. Individuals who require accommodations such as sign language interpreters should contact Mike Perel by January 15, 2007. A final agenda will be placed in the meeting docket at a later date. Meeting minutes and other information received by NHTSA at the forum also will be available in the meeting docket. Should it be necessary to cancel the meeting due to inclement weather or any other emergencies, a decision to cancel will be made as soon as possible and each registered participant will be notified by e-mail. If you do not have access to e-mail, you may contact Aretha Howard at Mitretek for additional information. Draft Agenda January 25, 2007 8 a.m. Registration Overview/Introduction 8:30 a.m. Opening Remarks—NHTSA Administrator. 8:45 a.m. Meeting Background and Purpose. Status of Advanced Vehicle Safety Technologies and Human Factors Guidelines 9 a.m. Review of current and future advanced vehicle safety technologies. 9:30 a.m. Review of existing global human factors guidelines for AVST. 10 a.m. Human factors research directions and future needs: Industry views. 10:30 a.m. Break. 10:45 a.m. Human factors research directions and future needs: Government views. 11:15 a.m. Human factors research directions and future needs: Researchers views. 11:45 a.m. Lunch. Current NHTSA Initiatives 1 p.m. Crash warning system interfaces: Human factors insights and lessons learned—Battelle. 1:30 p.m. Integrated Vehicle Based Safety Systems (IVBSS): Crash Warning Integration Challenges—UMTRI. 1:45 p.m. Cooperative Intersection Collision Avoidance Systems—Virginia Tech. 2 p.m. Other research. 2:15 p.m. Open Discussion (Entire Group). 3 p.m. Afternoon Break. Future Research 3:15 p.m. Needed research and how do we make it happen? 3:30 p.m. Breakout group discussions: Research needs, methods, metrics, and funding mechanisms. 4:45 p.m. Summary of the Day and Next Steps. 5 p.m. Adjourn. January 26, 2007 8:30 a.m. Complete breakout group discussions. 10 a.m. Review of breakout group recommendations. 11:30 a.m. Plenary group discussion. Issued on: November 13, 2006. Joseph N. Kanianthra, Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety Research. [FR Doc. E6-19562 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comment. SUMMARY: The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OCC is soliciting comment concerning its information collection titled, “Notice Regarding Unauthorized Access to Customer Information.” DATES: You should submit comments by January 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: Communications Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Public Information Room, Mailstop 1-5, Attention: 1557-0227, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to
(202)874-4448, or by electronic mail to *regs.comments@occ.treas.gov* . You can inspect and photocopy the comments at the OCC's Public Information Room, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219. You can make an appointment to inspect the comments by calling
(202)874-5043. Additionally, you should send a copy of your comments to OCC Desk Officer, 1557-0227, by mail to U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., #10235, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to
(202)395-6974. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You can request additional information or a copy of the collection from Mary Gottlieb, OCC Clearance Officer, or Camille Dickerson,
(202)874-5090, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The OCC is proposing to extend, without revision, the approval of the following information collection: *Title:* Notice Regarding Unauthorized Access to Customer Information. *OMB Number:* 1557-0227. *Description:* Section 501(b) of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 6901) requires the OCC to establish standards for national banks relating to administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to:
(1)Insure the security and confidentiality of customer records and information;
(2)protect against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of such records; and
(3)protect against unauthorized access to or use of such records or information that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to any customer. The Interagency Guidelines Establishing Information Security Standards, 12 CFR part 30, Appendix B (Security Guidelines) implementing section 501(b) require each bank to consider and adopt a response program, if appropriate, that specifies actions to be taken when the bank suspects or detects that unauthorized individuals have gained access to customer information. The Interagency Guidance on Response Programs for Unauthorized Customer Information and Customer Notice (Breach Notice Guidance), which interprets the Security Guidelines states that, at a minimum, a bank's response program should contain procedures for the following:
(1)Assessing the nature and scope of an incident, and identifying what customer information systems and types of customer information have been accessed or misused;
(2)Notifying its primary Federal regulator as soon as possible when the bank becomes aware of an incident involving unauthorized access to or use of sensitive customer information;
(3)Consistent with the OCC's Suspicious Activity Report regulations, notifying appropriate law enforcement authorities, in addition to filing a timely SAR in situations involving Federal criminal violations requiring immediate attention, such as when a reportable violation is ongoing;
(4)Taking appropriate steps to contain and control the incident to prevent further unauthorized access to or use of customer information, for example, by monitoring, freezing, or closing affected accounts, while preserving records and other evidence; and
(5)Notifying customers when warranted. This collection of information covers the notice provisions in the Breach Notice Guidance. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Individuals; Businesses or other for-profit. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 2,200. *Estimated Total Annual Responses:* 2,244. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion. *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* 53,844 hours. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b)The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c)Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology;
(e)Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information; and
(f)Whether the estimates need to be adjusted based upon banks' experience regarding the number of actual security breaches that occur. Dated: November 14, 2006. Stuart Feldstein, Assistant Director, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division. [FR Doc. E6-19511 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-33-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS [OMB Control No. 2900—New (VA Form 29-0812)] Proposed Information Collection Activity: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the **Federal Register** concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed new collection, and allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments for information needed to determine a claimant's eligibility for disability insurance benefits. DATES: Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before January 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the collection of information through *http://www.Regulations.gov* ; or to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20M35), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail *irmnkess@.va.gov* . Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900—New (VA Form 29-0812)” in any correspondence. During the comment period, comments may be viewed online through the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS)at *http://www.Regulations.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy J. Kessinger at
(202)273-7079 or FAX
(202)275-5947. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-21), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA. With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on:
(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology. *Title:* Service-Disabled Veterans Insurance—Waiver of Premiums, VA Form 29-0812. *OMB Control Number:* 2900—New (VA Form 29-0812). *Type of Review:* New collection. *Abstract:* VA Form 29-0812 is completed by claimants who are totally disabled to request a waiver of their Service-Disabled Veterans Insurance policy premiums. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 1,167 hours. *Estimated Average Burden Per Respondent:* 20 minutes. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 3,500. Dated: November 7, 2006. By direction of the Secretary. Denise McLamb, Program Analyst, Initiative Coordination Service. [FR Doc. E6-19592 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS [OMB Control No. 2900-0219] Proposed Information Collection Activity: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the **Federal Register** concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of a currently approved collection, and allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments for information needed to determine eligibility of persons applying for healthcare benefits under Civilian Health and Medical Program—VA (CHAMPVA) and to adjudicate claims submitted under CHAMPVA. DATES: Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before January 19, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the collection of information through *http://www.Regulations.gov* ; or to Ann W. Bickoff, Veterans Health Administration (193E1), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420; or e-mail: *ann.bickoff@va.gov* . Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0219” in any correspondence. During the comment period, comments may be viewed online through the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS)at *http://www.Regulations.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann W. Bickoff at
(202)273-8310 or FAX
(202)273-9381. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-21), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA. With respect to the following collection of information, VHA invites comments on:
(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VHA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)the accuracy of VHA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology. *Titles:* a. Application for CHAMPVA Benefits, VA Form 10-10d. b. CHAMPVA Claim Form, VA Form 10-7959a. c. CHAMPVA Other Health Insurance
(OHI)Certification, VA Form 10-7959c. d. CHAMPVA Potential Liability Claim, VA Form 10-7959d. *OMB Control Number:* 2900-0219. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Abstract:* a. VA Form 10-10d is used to determine eligibility of persons applying for healthcare benefits under the CHAMPVA program. b. VA Form 10-7959a is used to accurately adjudicate and process beneficiaries, claims for payment/reimbursement of related healthcare expenses. c. VA Form 10-7959c is used to systematically obtain other health insurance information and to correctly coordinate benefits among all liable parties. d. VA Form 10-7959d is used to gather additional information relative to the injury or illness as well as third party claim information. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households, Business or other for-profit. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 19,668 hours. a. VA Form 10-10d—4,917 hours. b. VA Form 10-7959a—4,717 hours. c. VA Form 10-7959c—9,567 hours. d. VA Form 10-7959d—467 hours. *Estimated Average Burden Per Respondent:* a. VA Form 10-10d—10 minutes. b. VA Form 10-7959a—10 minutes. c. VA Form 10-7959c—10 minutes. d. VA Form 10-7959d—7 minutes. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 119,200. a. VA Form 10-10d—29,500. b. VA Form 10-7959a—28,300. c. VA Form 10-7959c—57,400. d. VA Form 10-7959d—4,000. Dated: November 7, 2006. By direction of the Secretary. Denise McLamb, Program Analyst, Initiative Coordination Service. [FR Doc. E6-19600 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS [OMB Control No. 2900-0636] Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-21), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, has submitted the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument. DATE: Comments must be submitted on or before December 20, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on this collect of information through *http://www.Regulations.gov* ; or VA's OMB Desk Officer, OMB Human Resources and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503,
(202)395-7316. Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0636” in any correspondence. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise McLamb, Initiative Coordination Service (005G1), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420,
(202)565-8374, FAX
(202)565-7870 or e-mail *denise.mclamb@mail.va.gov* . Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0636.” SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Certification Required from Individuals Electing Accelerated Payments and Agreement with Educational Institutions. *OMB Control Number:* 2900-0636. Extension of a currently approved collection. *Abstract:* Claimants electing to receive an accelerated payment for educational assistance allowance must certify they received such payment and how the payment was used. The data collected is used to determine the claimant's entitlement to accelerated payment. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The **Federal Register** Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on June 8, 2006 at pages 33340-33341. *Affected Public:* Individuals or household. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 97 hours. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 743. *Estimated Annual Responses:* 1,167. Dated: November 6, 2006. By direction of the Secretary. Denise McLamb, Program Analyst, Initiative Coordination Service. [FR Doc. E6-19602 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Joint Biomedical Laboratory Research and Development and Clinical Science Research and Development Services Scientific Merit Review Board; Notice of Meeting The Department of Veterans Affairs gives notice under the Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Joint Biomedical Laboratory Research and Development and Clinical Science Research and Development Services Scientific Merit Review Board will conduct a telephone conference call meeting from 12 p.m. to 4 p.m. on December 4, 2006, at VA Central Office, 1722 I Street, NW., Room 915, Washington, DC. The purpose of the Board is to provide advice on the scientific quality, budget, safety and mission relevance of investigator-initiated research proposals submitted for VA merit review consideration. This meeting will focus on the clinical research program and will be open to the public for approximately one hour at the start of the meeting to discuss the general status of the program. The remaining portion of the meeting will be closed to the public for the review, discussion, and evaluation of initial and renewal projects. The closed portion of the meeting involves discussion, examination, reference to staff and consultant critiques of research protocols. During this portion of the meeting, discussion and recommendations will deal with qualifications of personnel conducting the studies, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, as well as research information, the premature disclosure of which could significantly frustrate implementation of proposed agency action regarding such research projects. As provided by subsection 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, as amended, closing a portion of this meeting is in accordance with 5 U.S.C., 552b(c)(6) and (9)(B). Those who plan to attend or would like to obtain a copy of the minutes of this meeting and roster of the members should contact LeRoy G. Frey, Ph.D., Chief, Program Review (121F), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20420 at
(202)254-0288. Dated: November 13, 2006. By Director of the Secretary. E. Philip Riggin, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. 06-9280 Filed 11-12-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 21
Traces to 21 documents
U.S. Code
32 references not yet in our index
  • 17 CFR 240.14
  • 17 CFR 240.19
  • 15 USC 78
  • Pub. L. 108-184
  • Pub. L. 180-184
  • Pub. L. 87-256
  • 22 CFR 62
  • Pub. L. 104-319
  • Pub. L. 106-113
  • 5 CFR 724.202
  • Pub. L. 107-174
  • 29 CFR 1614
  • 5 CFR 724
  • Pub. L. 105-277
  • 5 CFR 1320.10
  • Pub. L. 97-424
  • Pub. L. 109-59
  • 119 Stat. 1144
  • Pub. L. 99-570
  • 100 Stat. 3207
  • Pub. L. 106-159
  • 113 Stat. 1749
  • Pub. L. 104-88
  • 49 CFR 375
  • 41 CFR 301
  • 41 CFR 102
  • 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)
  • 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)
  • 12 CFR 30
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 44 USC 3501-21
  • Pub. L. 92-463
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice
U.S.C.§ 3501
U.S.C.§ 78s
U.S.C.§ 78f
U.S.C.§ 552
C.F.R.§ 200.30-3
U.S.C.§ 78c
U.S.C.§ 78a
U.S.C.§ 2778
U.S.C.§ 501
Cite17 CFR 240.14
Cite17 CFR 240.19
Cite15 USC 78
Cites 53 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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