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 · 2006-12-28 · NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment

41,137 words·~187 min read·/register/2006/12/28/06-9894

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

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [EA-06-230] In the Matter of Louisiana Energy Services, L.P. (National Enrichment Facility);Order Modifying License For Additional Security Measures (Effective Immediately) I Louisiana Energy Services (LES or the Licensee) is the holder of Special Nuclear Material License No. SNM-2010 for the National Enrichment Facility
(NEF)issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Part 70. The Licensee is authorized by its license to construct and operate a uranium enrichment facility in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70. The LES license was issued on June 23, 2006, and is due to expire on June 23, 2036. II On September 11, 2001, terrorists simultaneously attacked targets in New York, N.Y., and Washington, D.C., utilizing large commercial aircraft as weapons. In response to the attacks and intelligence information subsequently obtained, the Commission issued a number of Safeguards and Threat Advisories to its licensees in order to strengthen licensees' capabilities and readiness to respond to a potential attack on a nuclear facility. The Commission has also communicated with other Federal, State and local government agencies and industry representatives to discuss and evaluate the current threat environment in order to assess the adequacy of security measures at licensed facilities. In addition, the Commission has been conducting a comprehensive review of its safeguards and security programs and requirements. As a result of its consideration of current safeguards and security plan requirements, as well as a review of information provided by the intelligence community, the Commission has determined that certain additional measures are required to be implemented by the Licensee as prudent measures to address the current threat environment. Therefore, the Commission is imposing requirements, set forth in the Attachments 1 and 2 1 of this Order, which supplement existing regulatory requirements, to provide the Commission with reasonable assurance that the public health and safety and common defense and security continue to be adequately protected in the current threat environment. These requirements will remain in effect until the Commission determines otherwise. 1 Attachments 1 and 2 contain safeguards information and will not be released to the public. The Commission recognizes that some of the requirements set forth in Attachments 1 and 2 2 to this Order may already have been initiated by the Licensee on its own. It is also recognized that some measures may need to be tailored to specifically accommodate the specific circumstances and characteristics existing at the licensee's facility to achieve the intended objectives and avoid any unforeseen effect on safe operation. 2 To the extent that specific measures identified in the Attachments to this Order require actions pertaining to the Licensee's possession and use of chemicals, such actions are being directed on the basis of the potential impact of such chemicals on radioactive materials and activities subject to NRC regulation. In light of the current threat environment, the Commission concludes that the Additional Security Measures must be embodied in an Order, consistent with the established regulatory framework. In order to provide assurance that the Licensee is implementing prudent measures to achieve an adequate level of protection to address the current threat environment, Materials License SNM-2010 shall be modified to include the requirements identified in Attachments 1 and 2 to this Order. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202 and 70.81, I find that, in light of the circumstances described above, the public health, safety, and interest, and the common defense and security require that this Order be immediately effective. III Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 53, 62, 63, 81, 147, 149, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70, *it is hereby ordered,* effective immediately, that Material License SNM-2010 is modified as follows: A. The Licensee shall, notwithstanding the provisions of any Commission regulation to the contrary, comply with the requirements described in Attachments 1 and 2 to this Order. The Licensee shall immediately start implementation of the requirements in Attachments 1 and 2 to the Order and shall complete implementation, unless otherwise specified in Attachments 1 and 2 to this order, no later than 6 months prior to facility operation. B. 1. The Licensee shall, within twenty
(20)days of the date of this Order, notify the Commission,
(1)if it is unable to comply with any of the requirements described in the Attachment,
(2)if compliance with any of the requirements is unnecessary in its specific circumstances, or
(3)if implementation of any of the requirements would cause the Licensee to be in violation of the provisions of any Commission regulation or its license. The notification shall provide the Licensee's justification for seeking relief from or variation of any specific requirement. 2. If the Licensee considers that implementation of any of the requirements described in Attachment 1 and 2 to this Order would adversely affect safe operation of its facility, the Licensee must notify the Commission, within twenty
(20)days of this Order, of the adverse safety impact, the basis for its determination that the requirement has an adverse safety impact, and either a proposal for achieving the same objectives specified in Attachments 1 and 2 in question, or a schedule for modifying the facilities to address the adverse safety condition. If neither approach is appropriate, the Licensee must supplement its response to Condition B1 of this Order to identify the condition as a requirement with which it cannot comply, with attendant justifications as required in Condition B1. C. 1. The Licensee shall, within twenty
(20)days of the date of this Order, submit to the Commission, a schedule for achieving compliance with each requirement described in the Attachment. 2. The Licensee shall report to the Commission when it has achieved full compliance with the requirements described in the Attachment. D. Notwithstanding any provision of the Commission's regulations to the contrary, all measures implemented or actions taken in response to this Order shall be maintained until the Commission determines otherwise. The Licensee's response to Conditions B.1, B.2, C.1, and C.2, above shall be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 70.5. In addition, the Licensee's submittals that contain Safeguards Information shall be properly marked and handled in accordance with the Order issued on August 28, 2006, requiring a program for protecting Safeguards Information. The Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by the Licensee of good cause. IV In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, the Licensee must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within twenty
(20)days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to submit an answer or request a hearing must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law on which the Licensee or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, and the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement, at the same address, to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region II, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Suite 23T85, Atlanta, GA 30303-8931, and to the Licensee if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than the Licensee. Because of possible disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail to *hearingdocket@nrc.gov* and also to the Office of the General Counsel either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to *OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. * If a person other than the Licensee requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. If a hearing is requested by the Licensee or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), the Licensee may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section III above shall be final twenty
(20)days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. An Answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this Order. Dated this 20th day of December, 2006. For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Jack R. Strosnider, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E6-22243 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 03034625] Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment to Byproduct Materials License No. 09-25420-01, for Termination of the License and Unrestricted Release of the U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey—BRD Facility In Gainesville, Florida AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Lawyer, Health Physicist, Commercial and R&D Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region 1, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania; telephone 610-337-5366; fax number 610-337-5393; or by e-mail: *drl1@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is considering the issuance of a license amendment to Byproduct Materials License No. 09-25420-01. This license is held by U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey—BRD (the Licensee), for its Florida Integrated Science Center (the Facility), located at 7920 NW 71st Street in Gainesville, Florida. Issuance of the amendment would authorize release of the Facility for unrestricted use and termination of the NRC license. The Licensee requested this action in a letter dated August 11, 2006. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment
(EA)in support of this proposed action in accordance with the requirements of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51). Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate with respect to the proposed action. The amendment will be issued to the Licensee following the publication of this FONSI and EA in the **Federal Register** . II. Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Action The proposed action would approve the Licensee's August 11, 2006, license amendment request, resulting in release of the Facility for unrestricted use and the termination of its NRC materials license. License No. 09-25420-01 was issued on January 29, 1998, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 30, and has been amended periodically since that time. This license authorized the Licensee to use unsealed byproduct material for purposes of conducting research and development activities on laboratory bench tops. The Facility is situated on a 28 acre parcel of land located within a 600 acre property owned by the University of Florida. The property is used by the University's Fisheries Department and is surrounded by residential areas. Within the Facility, use of licensed materials was confined to Room 15, a 450 square feet room within the 28,000 square feet building, and a 64 square feet storage shed. By April 2006, the Licensee had ceased licensed activities and initiated a survey and decontamination of the Facility. Based on the Licensee's historical knowledge of the site and the conditions of the Facility, the Licensee determined that only routine decontamination activities, in accordance with their NRC-approved, operating radiation safety procedures, were required. The Licensee was not required to submit a decommissioning plan to the NRC because worker cleanup activities and procedures are consistent with those approved for routine operations. The Licensee conducted surveys of the Facility and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that it meets the criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted release and for license termination. Need for the Proposed Action The Licensee has ceased conducting licensed activities at the Facility, and seeks the unrestricted use of its Facility and the termination of its NRC materials license. Termination of its license would end the Licensee's obligation to pay annual license fees to the NRC. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The historical review of licensed activities conducted at the Facility shows that such activities involved use of the following radionuclides with half-lives greater than 120 days: hydrogen-3 and carbon-14. Prior to performing the final status survey, the Licensee conducted decontamination activities, as necessary, in the areas of the Facility affected by these radionuclides. The Licensee conducted a final status survey of the Facility on September 22 and October 24, 2006. The final status survey report was submitted to NRC with the Licensee's letters dated October 25 and November 6, 2006. The Licensee elected to demonstrate compliance with the radiological criteria for unrestricted release as specified in 10 CFR 20.1402 by using the screening approach described in NUREG-1757, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,” Volume 2. The Licensee used the radionuclide-specific derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs), developed there by the NRC, which comply with the dose criterion in 10 CFR 20.1402. These DCGLs define the maximum amount of residual radioactivity on building surfaces, equipment, and materials, and in soils, that will satisfy the NRC requirements in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted release. The Licensee's final status survey results were below these DCGLs and are in compliance with the As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) requirement of 10 CFR 20.1402. The NRC thus finds that the Licensee's final status survey results are acceptable. Based on its review, the staff has determined that the affected environment and any environmental impacts associated with the proposed action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by the “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities” (NUREG-1496) Volumes 1-3 (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). The staff finds there were no significant environmental impacts from the use of radioactive material at the Facility. The NRC staff reviewed the docket file records and the final status survey report to identify any non-radiological hazards that may have impacted the environment surrounding the Facility. No such hazards or impacts to the environment were identified. The NRC has identified no other radiological or non-radiological activities in the area that could result in cumulative environmental impacts. The NRC staff finds that the proposed release of the Facility for unrestricted use and the termination of the NRC materials license is in compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402. Based on its review, the staff considered the impact of the residual radioactivity at the Facility and concluded that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action Due to the largely administrative nature of the proposed action, its environmental impacts are small. Therefore, the only alternative the staff considered is the no-action alternative, under which the staff would leave things as they are by simply denying the amendment request. This no-action alternative is not feasible because it conflicts with 10 CFR 30.36(d), requiring that decommissioning of byproduct material facilities be completed and approved by the NRC after licensed activities cease. The NRC's analysis of the Licensee's final status survey data confirmed that the Facility meets the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1402 for unrestricted release and for license termination. Additionally, denying the amendment request would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the no-action alternative are therefore similar, and the no-action alternative is accordingly not further considered. Conclusion The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is consistent with the NRC's unrestricted release criteria specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. Because the proposed action will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred alternative. Agencies and Persons Consulted NRC provided a draft of this Environmental Assessment to the Florida Bureau of Radiation Control for review on November 20, 2006. On November 20, 2006, the Florida Bureau of Radiation Control responded by e-mail. The State agreed with the conclusions of the EA, and otherwise had no comments. The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a procedural nature, and will not affect listed species or critical habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed action. On the basis of this EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for license amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The documents related to this action are listed below, along with their ADAMS accession numbers. 1. NUREG-1757, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance;” 2. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E, “Radiological Criteria for License Termination;” 3. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions;” 4. NUREG-1496, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities” 5. Department of Interior, Termination Request Letter, dated August 11, 2006 [ML062280486] 6. Department of Interior, Deficiency Response letter, dated September 19, 2006 [ML062640363] 7. Department of Interior, Deficiency Response letter, dated October 25, 2006 [ML063050464] 8. Department of Interior, Deficiency Response letter, dated November 6, 2006 [ML063170366] If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room
(PDR)Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at Region 1, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia this 19th day of December 2006. For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. James P. Dwyer, Chief, Commercial and R&D Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region 1. [FR Doc. E6-22240 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 030-36974] Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for Proposed Pa'ina Hawaii, LLC Irradiator in Honolulu, Hawaii AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability of opportunity to provide comments. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is issuing a draft Environmental Assessment
(EA)for the Pa'ina Hawaii, LLC (Pa'ina or the applicant) license application, dated June 27, 2005. The draft EA is being issued as part of the NRC's decision-making process on whether to issue a license to Pa'ina, pursuant to Title 10 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 36, “Licenses and Radiation Safety Requirements for Irradiators.” The license would authorize the use of sealed radioactive sources in an underwater irradiator for the production and research irradiation of food, cosmetic, and pharmaceutical products. The proposed irradiator would be located immediately adjacent to Honolulu International Airport on Palekona Street near Lagoon Drive. The irradiator would primarily be used for phytosanitary treatment of fresh fruit and vegetables bound for the mainland from the Hawaiian Islands and similar products being imported to the Hawaiian Islands as well as irradiation of cosmetics and pharmaceutical products. The irradiator would also be used by the applicant to conduct research and development projects, and irradiate a wide range of other materials as specifically approved by the NRC on a case-by-case basis. The NRC staff will also hold a public meeting to present an overview of the draft EA and to accept oral and written public comments. The meeting date, time and location are listed below: *Meeting Date:* Thursday, February 1, 2007. *Meeting Location:* Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson Drive, Honolulu, Hawaii 96814, Hotel Telephone number 808-955-4811. *Informal Open House:* 6 p.m.—7 p.m. *NRC Overview Presentation:* 7 p.m.—7:30 p.m. *Question and Answer:* 7:30 p.m.—8 p.m. *Comment Session:* 8 p.m.—9 p.m. Prior to the public meeting, the NRC staff will be available to informally discuss the proposed Pa'ina project and answer questions in an “open house” format. This “open house”' format provides for one-on-one discussions with the NRC staff involved with the preparation of the draft EA. The draft EA meeting officially begins at 7:00 PM and will include:
(1)A presentation summarizing the contents of the draft EA and
(2)an opportunity for interested government agencies, organizations, and individuals to provide comments on the draft EA. This portion of the meeting will be transcribed by a court reporter. Persons wishing to provide oral comments will be asked to register at the meeting entrance. Individual oral comments may have to be limited by the time available, depending upon the number of persons who register. Additionally, the NRC will set up a toll-free telephone number that interested members of the public may use to participate. Details of the toll free telephone number will be provided in a public notice prior to the meeting. Please note that comments do not have to provided at the public meeting and may be submitted at any time throughout the comment period as described in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections of this notice. DATES: The public comment period on the draft EA begins with publication of this notice and continues until February 8, 2007. Written comments should be submitted as described in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. Comments submitted by mail should be postmarked by that date to ensure consideration. Comments received or postmarked after that date will be considered to the extent practical. A public meeting to discuss the draft EA will be held as described in the SUMMARY section of this notice. ADDRESSES: Members of the public are invited and encouraged to submit comments to the Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch, Mail Stop T6-D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Please note Docket No. 030-36974 when submitting comments. Comments will also be accepted by e-mail at *NRCREP@nrc.gov* or by facsimile to
(301)415-5397, Attention: Matthew Blevins. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Blevins, Environmental Project Manager, Environmental and Performance Assessment Branch, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Mail Stop T7-J8, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555-0001. Telephone:
(301)415-7684; e-mail: *mxb6@nrc.gov* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction On June 27, 2005, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)received a license application from Pa'ina Hawaii, LLC, that, if approved, would authorize the use of sealed radioactive sources in an underwater irradiator for the production and research irradiation of food, cosmetic, and pharmaceutical products. The proposed irradiator would be located immediately adjacent to Honolulu International Airport on Palekona Street near Lagoon Drive. The irradiator would primarily be used for phytosanitary treatment of fresh fruit and vegetables bound for the mainland from the Hawaiian Islands and similar products being imported to the Hawaiian Islands as well as irradiation of cosmetics and pharmaceutical products. The irradiator would also be used by the applicant to conduct research and development projects, and irradiate a wide range of other materials as specifically approved by the NRC on a case-by-case basis. The NRC has completed its initial evaluation of the proposed irradiator against the requirements found in the NRC's regulations at Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 36, “Licenses and Radiation Safety Requirements for Irradiators,” ( *i.e.* , 10 CFR Part 36). Typically, the licensing of irradiators is categorically excluded from detailed environmental review as described in the NRC regulations at 10 CFR 51.22(c)(14)(vii). However, the NRC staff entered into a settlement agreement with Concerned Citizens of Honolulu, the interveners in the adjudicatory hearing to be held on the license application. The settlement agreement included a provision for the NRC staff to prepare this draft EA and hold a public comment meeting in Honolulu, Hawaii prior to making a final decision. The complete draft EA is available on the NRC's Web site: *http://www.nrc.gov/materials.html* and by selecting “Pa'ina Irradiator” in the Quick Links box. Copies are also available by contacting Matthew Blevins as noted above. II. EA Summary The purpose of the license request ( *i.e.* , the proposed action) is to authorize Pa'ina Hawaii to use sealed radioactive sources in a pool irradiator to be located adjacent to the Honolulu International Airport, Honolulu, Hawaii. Pa'ina's license request was previously noticed in the **Federal Register** on August 2, 2005 (70 FR 44396) with a notice of an opportunity to request a hearing. The staff has prepared the draft EA in support of its review of the license application. The staff considered impacts to such areas as public and occupational health, transportation of the sources, socioeconomics, ecology, water quality, and the effects of aviation accidents and natural phenomena. During routine operations the dose rate at the surface of the irradiator pool is expected to be well below 1 millirem/hour. Considering the location of personnel and operational practices of the irradiator, it is unlikely that an employee could receive more than the occupational dose limit which is 5,000 millirem/year. The expected dose rates outside the building are expected to be indistinguishable from naturally occurring background radiation, therefore it is unlikely that a member of the public could receive more than public dose limit which is 100 millirem/year. For the shipment of the radioactive sources, the maximum dose is also expected to be very small: 0.04 mrem/year. The staff also considered alternative treatments such as fumigation with methyl bromide and heat treatments. The staff completed consultations under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. In addition the staff is providing interested members of the public, the applicant, and State officials with an opportunity to comment on the draft EA. The complete draft EA is available on the NRC's Web site: *http://www.nrc.gov/materials.html* and by selecting “Pa'ina Irradiator” in the Quick Links box. Copies are also available by contacting Matthew Blevins as noted above. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action will comply with the licensing requirements found in 10 CFR Part 20, “Standards for Protection Against Radiation” and 10 CFR Part 36, “Licenses and Radiation Safety Requirements for Irradiators.” Occupational and public exposure to radiation will be significantly less than the limits in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC staff has prepared this draft EA in support of the proposed action to issue a license to Pa'ina Hawaii for the possession and use of sealed radioactive sources in an underwater irradiator for the production and research irradiation of food, cosmetic, and pharmaceutical products. On the basis of this EA, NRC has concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts and the license application does not warrant the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. Accordingly, it has been determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related to this notice are: Pa'ina License Application; ML052060372; NRC Draft Environmental Assessment, ML063470231. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's Public Document Room
(PDR)Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 21st day of December, 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Gregory Suber, Acting Section Chief, Environmental Review Branch, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. [FR Doc. E6-22241 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Decommissioning of the Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation, New Field, New Jersey AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of Intent (NOI). SUMMARY: Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation
(SMC)submitted a decommissioning plan
(DP)(ML053190212) on October 21, 2005, that proposes radiological remedial actions that would allow the material license to be amended to a long term control license for the SMC facility located in New Field, New Jersey. By a letter dated January 26, 2006, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)notified SMC that the DP was being rejected due to technical deficiencies. On June 30, 2006, SMC submitted a supplement (ML061980092) to its DP. In a letter dated October 18, 2006, the NRC accepted the DP for review. The NRC, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)and its regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, announces its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS will examine the potential environmental impacts of the proposed decommissioning plan for the SMC facility. DATES: The public scoping process required by NEPA begins with publication of this NOI and continues until January 31, 2007. Written comments submitted by mail should be postmarked by that date to ensure consideration. Comments mailed after that date will be considered to the extent practical. ADDRESSES: Members of the public are invited and encouraged to submit comments to the Chief, Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch, Mail Stop: T6-D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Please note Docket No. 40-7102 when submitting comments. Commentors are also encouraged to send comments electronically to *ShieldalloyEIS@nrc.gov* , or by facsimile to
(301)415-5397, ATTN.: Gregory Suber. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general or technical information associated with the license review of the SMC decommissioning plan, please contact: Ken Kalman at
(301)415-6664. For general information on the NRC NEPA process, or the environmental review process related to the SMC decommissioning plan, please contact Gregory Suber at
(301)415-1124. Information and documents associated with the SMC project, including the SMC decommissioning plan and supplement (submitted on October 21, 2005 and June 30, 2006 respectively), are available for public review through our electronic reading room: *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* Documents may also be obtained from NRC's Public Document Room at U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Headquarters, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1.0 Background SMC submitted a decommissioning plan and an environmental report for its Newfield, New Jersey facility to the NRC on October 21, 2005. The NRC will evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with SMC facility in parallel with the review of the decommissioning plan. This environmental evaluation will be documented in draft and final Environmental Impact Statements in accordance with NEPA and NRC's implementing regulations at 10 CFR Part 51. 2.0 SMC Newfield Facility The SMC operated a ferrocolumbium manufacturing process at its facility in New Field, NJ. Raw materials included ores which contained licensable quantities of 10 CFR Part 40 source material (natural uranium and thorium.) In 2001, SMC notified the NRC of its intent to decommission the plant because principal activities authorized by the license (SMB-743) had ceased. SMC proposes decommissioning part of the site for unrestricted release and maintaining a portion of the site under a long term control license. 3.0 Alternatives to be Evaluated *No-Action* —For the no-action alternative, the NRC would not approve the decommissioning plan. The site would remain subject to the present source material license. This alternative serves as a baseline for comparison. *Proposed action* —The proposed action involves approving the decommissioning plan and amending the license to allow long-term storage of source material at SMC's site located in New Field, NJ. Under SMC's proposal, part of the site would be released for unrestricted use while part would be maintained under a long term control license. Other alternatives not listed here may be identified through the scoping process. 4.0 Environmental Impact Areas To Be Analyzed The following areas have been tentatively identified for analysis in the EIS: — *Land Use:* Plans, policies and controls; — *Transportation:* Transportation modes, routes, quantities, and risk estimates; — *Geology and Soils:* Physical geography, topography, geology and soil characteristics; *Water Resources:* Surface and groundwater hydrology, water use and quality, and the potential for degradation; *Ecology:* Wetlands, aquatic, terrestrial, economically and recreationally important species, and threatened and endangered species; *Air Quality:* meteorological conditions, ambient background, pollutant sources, and the potential for degradation; — *Noise:* ambient, sources, and sensitive receptors; *Historical and Cultural Resources:* historical, archaeological, and traditional cultural resources; *Visual and Scenic Resources:* landscape characteristics, manmade features and viewshed; *Socioeconomics:* demography, economic base, labor pool, housing, transportation, utilities, public services/facilities, education, recreation, and cultural resources; *Environmental Justice:* potential disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations; *Public and Occupational Health:* potential public and occupational consequences from construction, routine operation, transportation, and credible accident scenarios (including natural events); *Waste Management:* types of wastes expected to be generated, handled, and stored; and *Cumulative Effects:* impacts from past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions at, and near the site(s). This list is not intended to be all inclusive, nor is it a predetermination of potential environmental impacts. The list is presented to facilitate comments on the scope of the EIS. Additions to, or deletions from this list may occur as a result of the public scoping process. 5.0 Scoping Meeting One purpose of this NOI is to encourage public involvement in the EIS process, and to solicit public comments on the proposed scope and content of the EIS. The NRC held a public scoping meeting in Newfield, New Jersey, to solicit both oral and written comments from interested parties. Approximately 150 people attended the meeting. Scoping is an early and open process designed to determine the range of actions, alternatives, and potential impacts to be considered in the EIS, and to identify the significant issues related to the proposed action. It is intended to solicit input from the public and other agencies so that the analysis can be more clearly focused on issues of genuine concern. The principal goals of the scoping process are to: —Ensure that concerns are identified early and are properly studied; —Identify alternatives that will be examined; —Identify significant issues that need to be analyzed; —Eliminate unimportant issues; and —Identify public concerns. The scoping meeting began with NRC staff providing a description of the NRC's role and mission. NRC staff gave a brief overview of the licensing process followed by a brief description of the environmental review process. The bulk of the meeting was reserved for attendees to make oral comments. 6.0 Scoping Comments Written comments should be mailed to the address listed above in the ADDRESSES Section. The NRC staff will make the scoping summary and project-related materials available for public review through our electronic reading room: *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . The scoping meeting summaries and project-related materials will also be available on the NRC's SMC Web page: *http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/smcfacility.html* (case sensitive). 7.0 The NEPA Process The EIS for the SMC facility will be prepared according to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the NRC's NEPA Regulations at 10 CFR Part 51. After the scoping process is complete, the NRC and its contractor will prepare a draft EIS. A 45-day comment period on the draft EIS is planned, and public meetings to receive comments will be held approximately three weeks after distribution of the draft EIS. Availability of the draft EIS, the dates of the public comment period, and information about the public meetings will be announced in the **Federal Register** , on NRC's SMC Web page, and in the local news media when the draft EIS is distributed. The final EIS will incorporate public comments received on the draft EIS. Signed in Rockville, MD. this 20th day of December 2006. For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Gregory F. Suber, Acting Branch Chief, Environmental and Performance Assessment Branch, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. [FR Doc. E6-22239 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee On Reactor Safeguards
(ACRS)Subcommittee Meeting On Power Uprates; Revised A portion of the ACRS Subcommittee meeting on Power Uprates (Browns Ferry Unit 1) scheduled to be held on Tuesday and Wednesday, January 16-17, 2007 at 11545 Rockville Pike, Room T-2B3, Rockville, Maryland will be closed to discuss information that is proprietary to General Electric, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and their contractors pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b (c)(4). All other items pertaining to the meeting remain the same as published previously in the **Federal Register** on Thursday, December 21, 2006, 71 FR 76707. Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official, Mr. Ralph Caruso (Telephone: 301-415-8065) between 7:15 a.m. and 5 p.m. (ET). Dated: December 21, 2006. Michael R. Snodderly, Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW. [FR Doc. E6-22244 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance; Notice of Availability AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is announcing the availability of two volumes of NUREG-1757, “Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance.” The first volume is “Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance: Decommissioning Process for Materials Licensees” (NUREG-1757, Vol. 1, Rev. 2), which provides guidance for planning and implementing the termination of materials licenses. The second volume, “Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance: Characterization, Survey, and Determination of Radiological Criteria” (NUREG-1757, Vol. 2, Rev. 1), provides guidance for compliance with the radiological criteria for termination of licenses. The guidance is intended for use by NRC staff and licensees. It is also available to Agreement States and the public. ADDRESSES: NUREG-1757 is available for inspection and copying for a fee at the Commission's Public Document Room, NRC's Headquarters Building, 11555 Rockville Pike (First Floor), Rockville, Maryland. The Public Document Room is open from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays. NUREG-1757 is also available electronically on the NRC Web site at: *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1757/* , and from the ADAMS Electronic Reading Room on the NRC Web site at: *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Duane W. Schmidt, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Telephone:
(301)415-6919; e-mail: *dws2@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In September 2003, NRC staff consolidated and updated the policies and guidance of its decommissioning program in a three-volume NUREG series, NUREG-1757, “Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance.” This NUREG series provides guidance on: planning and implementing license termination under NRC's License Termination Rule (LTR), in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 20, Subpart E; complying with the radiological criteria of the LTR for license termination; and complying with the requirements for financial assurance and recordkeeping for decommissioning and timeliness in decommissioning of materials facilities. The staff periodically updates NUREG-1757, so that it reflects current NRC decommissioning policy. In September 2005, the staff issued, for public comment, Draft Supplement 1 to NUREG-1757, which contained proposed updates to the three volumes of NUREG-1757 (70 FR 56940; September 29, 2005). Draft Supplement 1 included new and revised decommissioning guidance that addresses some issues with implementation of the LTR. These issues include restricted use and institutional controls, onsite disposal of radioactive materials, selection and justification of exposure scenarios based on reasonably foreseeable future land use, intentional mixing of contaminated soil, and removal of material after license termination. The staff also developed new and revised guidance on other issues, including engineered barriers. The staff received stakeholder comments on Draft Supplement 1 and prepared responses to these comments. The stakeholder comments and the NRC staff responses are located on NRC's decommissioning Web site, at * http:// www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/regulatory/decommissioning/reg-guides-comm.html * . Supplement 1 has not been finalized as a separate document; instead, updated sections from Supplement 1 have been placed into the appropriate locations in revisions of Volumes 1 and 2 of NUREG-1757. Volume 1 of NUREG-1757, entitled “Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance: Decommissioning Process for Materials Licensees,” takes a risk-informed, performance-based approach to the information needed and the process to be followed to support an application for license termination for a materials licensee. Volume 1 is intended to be applicable only to the decommissioning of materials facilities licensed under 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 70, and 72 and to the ancillary surface facilities that support radioactive waste disposal activities licensed under 10 CFR Parts 60, 61, and 63. However, parts of Volume 1 are applicable to reactor licensees, as described in the Foreword to the volume. Volume 2 of the NUREG series, entitled, “Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance: Characterization, Survey, and Determination of Radiological Criteria,” provides technical guidance on compliance with the radiological criteria for license termination of the LTR. Volume 2 is applicable to all licensees subject to the LTR. The staff plans to revise Volume 3 of this NUREG series at a later date, and that revision will incorporate the Supplement 1 guidance that is related to Volume 3. NUREG-1757 is intended for use by NRC staff and licensees. It is also available to Agreement States and the public. This NUREG is not a substitute for NRC regulations, and compliance with it is not required. The NUREG describes approaches that are acceptable to NRC staff. However, methods and solutions different than those in this NUREG will be acceptable, if they provide a basis for concluding that the decommissioning actions are in compliance with NRC regulations. Congressional Review Act
(CRA)In accordance with the Congressional Review Act
(CRA)of 1996, the NRC has determined that this action is not a major rule and has verified this determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget. Dated at Rockville, MD, this 19th day of December, 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Keith I. McConnell, Deputy Director, Decommissioning & Uranium Recovery Licensing Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. [FR Doc. E6-22248 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Collection: Scholarship for Service Program Internet Webpage AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM)submitted a request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OPM requested OMB to approve a collection associated with the Scholarship For Service
(SFS)Program Internet webpage. Approval of the webpage is necessary to facilitate the timely registration, selection, and placement of program-enrolled students in Federal agencies. The SFS Program was established by the National Science Foundation in accordance with the Federal Cyber Service Training and Education Initiative as described in the President's *National Plan for Information Systems Protection.* This program seeks to increase the number of qualified students entering the fields of information assurance and computer security in an effort to respond to the threat to the Federal Government's information technology infrastructure. The program provides capacity building grants to selected 4-year colleges and universities to develop or improve their capacity to train information assurance professionals. It also provides selected 4-year colleges and universities scholarship grants to attract students to the information assurance field. Participating students who receive scholarships from this program are required to serve a 10-week internship during their studies and complete a post-graduation employment commitment equivalent to the length of the scholarship or one year, whichever is longer. OPM projects that 450 students will graduate from participating institutions over the next three years. These students will need placement in addition to the 180 students needing placement this year. We estimate the collection of information for registering and creating an online resume to be 45 minutes to 1 hour. We estimate the total number of hours to be 630. Comments: We received no comments in response to our 60-day notice. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Tricia Hollis, Chief of Staff/Director of Internal Affairs. [FR Doc. E6-22299 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-38-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. IC-27608; 812-13208] Barclays Global Fund Advisors, et al.; Notice of Application December 21, 2006. AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”). ACTION: Notice of application to amend certain prior orders under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1)and 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, and under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the Act. Summary of Application: Applicants request an order to amend a prior order that permits:
(a)An open-end management investment company, whose series are based on certain fixed income securities indices, to issue shares of limited redeemability;
(b)secondary market transactions in the shares of the series to occur at negotiated prices; and
(c)affiliated persons of the series to deposit securities into, and receive securities from, the series in connection with the purchase and redemption of aggregations of the series' shares (the “Prior Fixed Income Order”). 1 Applicants seek to amend the Prior Fixed Income Order in order to offer an additional series based on a specified high-yield bond index (the “New Fund”). In addition, the order would delete a condition related to future relief in the Prior Fixed Income Order and in certain prior orders relating to other exchange-traded funds offered by iShares Trust (the “Trust”) and iShares, Inc. (the “Corporation,” together with the Trust, the “Companies”) (the “Prior Equity Orders”, together with the Prior Fixed Income Order, the “Prior Orders”). 2 1 Barclays Global Fund Advisors, *et al.* , Investment Company Act Release No. 25622 (June 25, 2002), as subsequently amended by iShares Trust, *et al.* , Investment Company Act Release No. 26006 (Apr. 15, 2003), Barclays Global Fund Advisors, *et al.* , Investment Company Act Release No. 26175 (Sept. 8, 2003), and Barclays Global Fund Advisors, *et al.* , Investment Company Act Release No. 27417 (June 23, 2006). 2 Barclays Global Fund Advisors, *et al.* , Investment Company Act Rel. No. 24452 (May 12, 2000), iShares Trust, *et al.* , Investment Company Act Rel. No. 25111 (Aug. 15, 2001) and iShares, Inc., *et al.* , Investment Company Act Rel. No. 25215 (Oct. 18, 2001), each as amended by iShares, Inc., *et al.* , Investment Company Act Rel. No. 25623 (June 25, 2002), iShares Trust, *et al.* , Investment Company Act Rel. No. 26006 (April 15, 2003) and Barclays Global Fund Advisors, Investment Company Act Rel. No. 26626 (Oct. 5, 2004). Barclays Global Fund Advisors, *et al.* , Investment Company Act Rel. No. 24451 (May 12, 2000), as amended by iShares, Inc., *et al.* , Investment Company Act Rel. No. 25623 (June 25, 2002) and iShares Trust, *et al.* , Investment Company Act Rel. No. 26006 (April 15, 2003). Applicants: Barclays Global Fund Advisors (the “Adviser”), the Corporation, the Trust, and SEI Investments Distribution Co. (the “Distributor”). Filing Dates: The application was filed on June 30, 2005 and amended on April 20, 2006 and November 22, 2006. Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on January 16, 2007, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary. ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: Ira Shapiro, Barclays Global Fund Advisors, c/o Barclays Global Investors, N.A., 45 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; Peter Kronberg, iShares, Inc. and iShares Trust, c/o Investors Bank & Trust Company, 200 Clarendon Street, Boston, MA 02116; John Munch, SEI Investments Distribution Co., One Freedom Valley Drive, Oaks, PA 19456; and W. John McGuire, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaea F. Hahn, Senior Counsel, at
(202)551-6870, or Michael W. Mundt, Senior Special Counsel, at
(202)551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549-0102 (tel. 202-551-5850). Applicants' Representations 1. The Trust is an open-end management investment company registered under the Act and organized as a Delaware business trust. The Corporation is an open-end management investment company registered under the Act and organized as a Maryland corporation. The Trust and Corporation are organized as series funds with multiple series. The Adviser, an investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, will serve as investment adviser to the New Fund. The Distributor, a broker-dealer unaffiliated with the Adviser and registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), will serve as the principal underwriter of the New Fund's shares. 2. The Trust is currently permitted to offer several series based on fixed income securities indices in reliance on the Prior Fixed Income Order. Applicants seek to amend the Prior Fixed Income Order to permit the Trust to offer the New Fund that, except as described in the application, would operate in a manner identical to the existing series of the Trust that are subject to the Prior Fixed Income Order. 3 3 If the amended order is granted, the New Fund would also be able to rely on an exemptive order granting certain relief from section 24(d) of the Act to the existing series of the Trust that are subject to the Prior Orders. See iShares, Inc., *et al.* , Investment Company Act Release No. 25595 25623 (June 25, 2002) as amended by iShares Trust, et al, Investment Company Act Release No. 26006 (Apr. 15, 2003) (“Prospectus Delivery Order”). 3. The New Fund will invest in a portfolio of securities generally consisting of the component securities of the iBoxx $ Liquid High Yield Index (formerly the GS $ HYTop TM Index and the GS $ InvesTop High-Yield Bond Index) (the “Underlying Index”). The Underlying Index is a rules-based index designed to reflect the 50 most liquid and tradable U.S. dollar-denominated high-yield corporate bonds registered for sale in the U.S. or exempt from registration. No entity that creates, compiles, sponsors, or maintains the Underlying Index is or will be an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, or an affiliated person of an affiliated person, of the Trust, the Adviser, the Distributor, or a promoter of the New Fund. 4. The investment objective of the New Fund will be to provide investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance of the Underlying Index. The New Fund will utilize as an investment approach a representative sampling strategy where the New Fund will seek to hold a representative sample of the component securities of the Underlying Index. The New Fund generally will invest at least 90% of its assets in the component securities of the Underlying Index, but at times may invest up to 20% of its assets in certain futures, options, and swap contracts, cash and cash equivalents, and in bonds not included in its Underlying Index which the Adviser believes will help the New Fund track the Underlying Index. Applicants state that such high-yield corporate bonds will have pricing and liquidity characteristics similar to the component securities of the Underlying Index. Applicants expect that the New Fund will have a tracking error relative to the performance of its respective Underlying Index of no more than 5 percent. 5. Applicants state that the New Fund will comply with the federal securities laws in accepting a deposit of a portfolio of securities designed by the Adviser to correspond generally to the price and yield of the New Fund's Underlying Index (“Deposit Securities”) and satisfying redemptions with portfolio securities of the New Fund (“Fund Securities”), including that the Deposit Securities and Fund Securities are sold in transactions that would be exempt from registration under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”). 4 4 In accepting Deposit Securities and satisfying redemptions with Fund Securities that are restricted securities eligible for resale pursuant to rule 144A under the Securities Act, the New Fund will comply with the conditions of rule 144A, including in satisfying redemptions with such rule 144A eligible restricted Fund Securities. The prospectus for the New Fund will also state that an authorized participant that is not a “Qualified Institutional Buyer” as defined in rule 144A(a)(1) will not be able to receive Fund Securities for redemption that are restricted securities eligible for resale under rule 144A. 6. Applicants state that all discussions contained in the application for the Prior Fixed Income Order are equally applicable to the New Fund, except as specifically noted by applicants (and summarized in this notice). Applicants believe that the requested relief continues to meet the necessary exemptive standards. Future Relief 7. Applicants also seek to amend the Prior Orders to modify the terms under which the Companies may offer additional series in the future based on other securities indices (“Future Funds”). The Prior Fixed Income Order is currently subject to a condition that does not permit applicants to register any Future Fund by means of filing a post-effective amendment to a Fund's registration statement or by any other means, unless applicants have requested and received with respect to such Future Fund, either exemptive relief from the Commission or a no-action letter from the Division of Investment Management of the Commission. The Prior Equity Orders are currently subject to a similar condition related to future relief, although the condition to the Prior Equity Orders permits Future Funds to register with the Commission by means of filing a post-effective amendment to the Trust's or Corporation's registration statement if the Future Fund could be listed on a national securities exchange (“Exchange”) without the need for a filing pursuant to rule 19b-4 under the Exchange Act. 8. The order would amend the Prior Orders to delete these conditions. Any Future Funds will
(a)be advised by the Adviser or an entity controlled by or under common control with the Adviser;
(b)track Underlying Indices that are created, compiled, sponsored or maintained by an entity that is not an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, or an affiliated person of an affiliated person, of the Adviser, the Distributor, the Trust or any subadviser or promoter of a Future Fund, and
(c)comply with the respective terms and conditions of the Prior Orders, as amended by the present application. 9. Applicants believe that the modification of the future relief available under the Prior Orders would be consistent with sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act and that granting the requested relief will facilitate the timely creation of Future Funds and the commencement of secondary market trading of such Future Funds by removing the need to seek additional exemptive relief. Applicants submit that the terms and conditions of the Prior Orders have been appropriate for the exchange-traded funds advised by the Adviser (“Funds”) and would remain appropriate for Future Funds. Applicants also submit that tying exemptive relief under the Act to the ability of a Future Fund to be listed on an Exchange without the need for a rule 19b-4 filing under the Exchange Act is not necessary to meet the standards under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act. Applicants' Conditions Applicants agree that the Prior Orders will be subject to the following conditions: 1. Each Fund's prospectus (“Prospectus”) and product description (“Product Description”) will clearly disclose that, for purposes of the Act, the shares of each Fund (“iShares”) are issued by the Fund, which is an investment company, and that the acquisition of iShares by investment companies is subject to the restrictions of section 12(d)(1) of the Act, except as permitted by an exemptive order that permits investment companies to invest in a Fund beyond the limits in section 12(d)(1), subject to certain terms and conditions, including that the investment company enter into an agreement with the Fund regarding the terms of the investment. 2. As long as a Fund operates in reliance on the requested order, the iShares will be listed on an Exchange. 3. Neither the Trust, the Corporation, nor any Fund will be advertised or marketed as an open-end fund or a mutual fund. Each Fund's Prospectus will prominently disclose that iShares are not individually redeemable shares and will disclose that the owners of iShares may acquire those iShares from the Fund and tender those iShares for redemption to the Fund in Creation Unit Aggregations 5 only. Any advertising material that describes the purchase or sale of Creation Unit Aggregations or refers to redeemability will prominently disclose that iShares are not individually redeemable and that owners of iShares may acquire those iShares from the Fund and tender those iShares for redemption to the Fund in Creation Unit Aggregations only. 5 A “Creation Unit Aggregation” is a group of 50,000 or more iShares. 4. The Web site(s) for the Trust and the Corporation, which will be publicly accessible at no charge, will contain the following information, on a per iShare basis, for each Fund:
(a)The prior business day's net asset value (“NAV”) and the midpoint of the bid-ask spread at the time of calculation of such NAV (“Bid/Ask Price”), and a calculation of the premium or discount of such Bid/Ask Price against such NAV; and
(b)data in chart format displaying the frequency distribution of discounts and premiums of the daily Bid/Ask Price against the NAV, within appropriate ranges, for each of the four previous calendar quarters. In addition, the Product Description for each Fund will state that the Web site for the Trust or the Corporation, as applicable, has information about the premiums and discounts at which that Fund's iShares have traded. 5. The Prospectus and annual report for each Fund will also include:
(a)The information listed in condition 4(b),
(i)in the case of the Prospectus, for the most recently completed year (and the most recently completed quarter or quarters, as applicable) and
(ii)in the case of the annual report, for the immediately preceding five years, as applicable; and
(b)the following data, calculated on a per iShare basis for one, five and ten year periods (or life of the Fund),
(i)the cumulative total return and the average annual total return based on NAV and Bid/Ask Price, and
(ii)the cumulative total return of the relevant Underlying Index. 6. Before a Fund may rely on the Prospectus Delivery Order, the Commission will have approved, pursuant to rule 19b-4 under the Exchange Act, an Exchange rule requiring Exchange members and member organizations effecting transactions in iShares of such Fund to deliver a Product Description to purchasers of iShares. For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority. Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-22262 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Investment Company Act Release No. 27605; 812-13265] Forum Funds, et al.; Notice of Application December 20, 2006. AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”). ACTION: Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act, as well as from certain disclosure requirements. SUMMARY OF THE APPLICATION: Applicants request an order that would permit them to enter into and materially amend subadvisory agreements without shareholder approval and would grant relief from certain disclosure requirements. *Applicants:* Forum Funds (“Trust”) and Absolute Investment Advisers LLC (“Advisor”). *Filing Dates:* The application was filed on March 8, 2006, and amended on August 23, 2006. Applicants have agreed to file an amendment during the notice period, the substance of which is reflected in this notice. *Hearing or Notification of Hearing:* An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on January 16, 2007 and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary. ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. *Applicants:* Anthony C.J. Nuland, Esq., Seward & Kissel LLP, 1200 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emerson S. Davis, Sr., Senior Counsel, at
(202)551-6868, or Nadya B. Roytblat, Assistant Director, at
(202)551-6821 (Office of Investment Company Regulation, Division of Investment Management). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-0104 (telephone
(202)551-8090). Applicants' Representations 1. The Trust, a Delaware statutory trust, is registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company. The Trust is comprised of multiple series, each with separate investment objective, policies, and restrictions. 1 The Advisor is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) and serves as investment adviser to the one existing Fund pursuant to an investment advisory agreement (“Advisory Agreement”). The Advisory Agreement has been approved by the Trust's board of trustees (the “Board”), including a majority of the trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act, of the Trust or the Advisor (“Independent Trustees”), as well as by the shareholders of the Fund. 1 Applicants request relief with respect to existing and future series of the Trust and any other existing or future registered open-end management investment company or series thereof that:
(a)is advised by the Advisor or an entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Advisor;
(b)uses the multi-manager structure, as described in the application; and
(c)complies with the terms and conditions of the application (“Funds”). The Trust is the only existing registered open-end management investment company that currently intends to rely on the requested order. If the name of any Fund contains the name of a Sub-Advisor (as defined below), the name of the Advisor will precede the name of the Sub-Advisor. 2. The Advisor, in its capacity as investment adviser to the Fund, oversees the portfolio management of the Fund by its subadvisers (each, a “Sub-Advisor”). The Advisor will provide overall investment management services to each Fund, including Sub-advisor monitoring and evaluation and would be responsible for recommending the hiring, termination and replacement of Sub-Advisors to the Board. All subadvisory agreements (“Sub-Advisory Agreements”) will be approved by the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees. Under each Sub-Advisory Agreement, the Sub-Advisor would determine which securities will be purchased and sold for a Fund' investment portfolio or for a portion of the portfolio. Each Sub-Advisor will be registered under the Advisers Act and paid by the Advisor out of the fee it receives from the Fund under its Advisory Agreement. Applicants request an order to permit the Advisor, subject to Board approval, to enter into and materially amend Sub-Advisory Agreements without obtaining shareholder approval. The requested relief will not extend to any Sub-Advisor that is an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, of a Fund or of the Advisor, other than by reason of serving as a Sub-Advisor to one or more of the Funds (“Affiliated Sub-Advisor”). 3. Applicants also request an exemption from the various disclosure provisions described below that may require a Fund to disclose fees paid by the Advisor to each Sub-Advisor. An exemption is requested to permit each Fund to disclose (both as a dollar amount and as a percentage of the Fund's net assets):
(a)The aggregate fees paid to the Advisor and Affiliated Sub-Advisors; and
(b)the aggregate fees paid to Sub-Advisors other than Affiliated Sub-Advisors (“Aggregate Fee Disclosure”). For any Fund that employs an Affiliated Sub-Advisor, the Fund will provide separate disclosure of any fees paid to such Affiliated Sub-Advisor. Applicants' Legal Analysis 1. Section 15(a) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that it is unlawful for any person to act as an investment adviser to a registered investment company except under a written contract that has been approved by the vote of a majority of the company's outstanding voting securities. Rule 18f-2 under the Act provides that each series or class of stock in a series company affected by a matter must approve such matter if the Act requires shareholder approval. 2. Form N-1A is the registration statement used by open-end investment companies. Item 14(a)(3) of Form N-1A requires disclosure of the method and amount of the investment adviser's compensation. 3. Rule 20a-1 under the Act requires proxies solicited with respect to an investment company to comply with Schedule 14A under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“1934 Act”). Items 22(c)(1)(ii), 22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of Schedule 14A, taken together, require a proxy statement for a shareholder meeting at which the advisory contract will be voted upon to include the “rate of compensation of the investment adviser,” the “aggregate amount of the investment adviser's fees,” a description of the “terms of the contract to be acted upon,” and, if a change in the advisory fee is proposed, the existing and proposed fees and the difference between the two fees. 4. Form N-SAR is the semi-annual report filed with the Commission by registered investment companies. Item 48 of Form N-SAR requires investment companies to disclose the rate schedule for fees paid to their investment advisers, including the Sub-Advisers. 5. Regulation S-X sets forth the requirements for financial statements required to be included as part of investment company registration statements and shareholder reports filed with the Commission. Sections 6-07(2)(a), (b), and
(c)of Regulation S-X require that investment companies include in their financial statements information about investment advisory fees. 6. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions from any provisions of the Act, or from any rule thereunder, if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants state that their requested relief meets this standard for the reasons discussed below. 7. Applicants assert that by investing in a Fund, shareholders are in effect hiring the Advisor to manage the Fund' assets through monitoring and evaluation of Sub-Advisors rather than by hiring the Advisor's own employees to directly manage assets, and that shareholders will expect that the Advisor, under the overall authority of the Board, will oversee the Sub-Advisors and recommend to the Board whether to hire, terminate or replace Sub-Advisors. Applicants believe that permitting Sub-Advisors to be hired without incurring the delay and expense of obtaining shareholder approval of each Sub-Advisory Agreement is appropriate in the interest of the Fund's shareholders and will allow each Fund to potentially operate more efficiently. Applicants note that the Advisory Agreements will continue to be subject to section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act. 8. Applicants further assert that many Sub-Advisors use a “posted” rate schedule to set their fees. Applicants state that while investment advisers are willing to negotiate fees that are lower than those posted on the schedule, they are reluctant to do so where the fees are disclosed to other prospective and existing customers. Applicants submit that the requested relief will encourage potential Sub-Advisors to negotiate lower subadvisory fees with the Advisor, the benefits of which may be passed on to Fund shareholders. Applicants' Conditions Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions: 1. The Advisor will provide general investment management services to each Fund, including overall supervisory responsibility for the general management and investment of the Fund's assets and, subject to review and approval of the Board, will:
(i)Set the Fund's overall investment strategies;
(ii)evaluate, select and recommend Sub-Advisors to manage all or a portion of a Fund's assets;
(iii)allocate and, when appropriate, reallocate a Fund's assets among multiple Sub-Advisors;
(iv)monitor and evaluate Sub-Advisor performance; and
(v)implement procedures reasonably designed to ensure that Sub-Advisors comply with the relevant Fund's investment objective, policies and restrictions. 2. Before a Fund may rely on the order requested herein, the operation of the Fund in the manner described in this application will be approved by a majority of the Fund's outstanding voting securities as defined in the Act, or, in the case of a Fund whose public shareholders purchase shares on the basis of a prospectus containing the disclosure contemplated by condition 3 below, by the initial shareholder before such Fund's shares are offered to the public. 3. The prospectus for each Fund will disclose the existence, substance and effect of any order granted pursuant to this application. In addition, each Fund will hold itself out to the public as employing the manager of managers structure described in this application. The prospectus will prominently disclose that the Advisor has ultimate responsibility, subject to oversight by the Board, to oversee the Sub-Advisors and recommend their hiring, termination, and replacement. 4. Within 90 days of the hiring of any new Sub-Advisor, shareholders of the relevant Fund will be furnished all information about the new Sub-Advisor that would be included in a proxy statement, except as modified to permit Aggregate Fee Disclosure. This information will include Aggregate Fee Disclosure and any change in such disclosure caused by the addition of a new Sub-Advisor. To meet this obligation, the Advisor will provide shareholders of the applicable Fund, within 90 days of the hiring of a new Sub-Advisor, with an information statement meeting the requirements of Regulation 14C, Schedule 14C and Item 22 of Schedule 14A under the 1934 Act, except as modified by the order to permit Aggregate Fee Disclosure. 5. No trustee/director or officer of a Fund or director or officer of the Advisor will own directly or indirectly (other than through a pooled investment vehicle that is not controlled by such person) any interest in a Sub-Advisor, except for:
(i)Ownership of interests in the Advisor or any entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the Advisor; or
(ii)ownership of less than 1% of the outstanding securities of any class of equity or debt of a publicly traded company that is either a Sub-Advisor or an entity that controls, is controlled by or is under common control with a Sub-Advisor. 6. At all times, at least a majority of the Board will be Independent Trustees, and the nomination of new or additional Independent Trustees will be placed within the discretion of the then-existing Independent Trustees. 7. Whenever a Sub-Advisor change is proposed for a Fund with an Affiliated Sub-Advisor, the Fund's Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, will make a separate finding, reflected in the applicable Board minutes, that such change is in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders and does not involve a conflict of interest from which the Advisor or the Affiliated Sub-Advisor derives an inappropriate advantage. 8. Each Fund in its registration statement will disclose the Aggregate Fee Disclosure. 9. Independent legal counsel, as defined in rule 0-1(a)(6) under the Act, will be engaged to represent the Independent Trustees. The selection of such counsel will be within the discretion of the then-existing Independent Trustees. 10. The Advisor will provide the Board, no less frequently than quarterly, with information about the Advisor's profitability on a per Fund basis. This information will reflect the impact on profitability of the hiring or termination of any Sub-Advisor during the applicable quarter. 11. Whenever a Sub-Advisor is hired or terminated, the Advisor will provide the Board with information showing the expected impact on the Advisor's profitability. 12. The Advisor will not enter into a Sub-Advisory Agreement with any Affiliated Sub-Advisor, without such agreement, including the compensation to be paid thereunder, being approved by the shareholders of the applicable Fund. 13. The requested order will expire on the effective date of rule 15a-5 under the Act, if adopted. For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-22200 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54988; File No. S7-24-89] Joint Industry Plan; Solicitation of Comments and Order Granting Temporary Summary Effectiveness to Request to Extend the Operation of the Reporting Plan for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privilege Basis, Submitted by the American Stock Exchange LLC, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc., the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, the International Securities Exchange, Inc., the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., the National Stock Exchange, Inc., the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc., and to Request Permanent Approval of the Plan December 20, 2006. I. Introduction and Description On December 12, 2006, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSEArca”), on behalf of itself and the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”), the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (“BSE”), the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (“CHX”), the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE”), the International Securities Exchange, Inc. (“ISE”), the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”), the National Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NSX”), the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”), and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx”) (hereinafter referred to collectively as “Participants”), 1 as members of the operating committee (“Operating Committee” or “Committee”) of the Plan submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a request to extend the operation of the Plan, along with a request for permanent approval of the Plan. 2 1 NYSEArca is the chair of the operating committee (“Operating Committee” or “Committee”) for the Joint Self-Regulatory Organization Plan Governing the Collection, Consolidation and Dissemination of Quotation and Transaction Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privilege Basis (“Nasdaq UTP Plan” or “Plan”) by the Participants. 2 *See* letter from Bridget M. Farrell, Chairman, OTC/UTP Operating Committee, to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Commission, dated December 12, 2006. The Nasdaq UTP Plan governs the collection, processing, and dissemination on a consolidated basis of quotation and last sale information for Nasdaq-listed securities for each of its Participants. This consolidated information informs investors of the current quotation and recent trade prices of Nasdaq securities. It enables investors to ascertain from one data source the current prices in all the markets trading Nasdaq securities. The Plan serves as the required transaction reporting plan for its Participants, which is a prerequisite for their trading Nasdaq securities. 3 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52886 (December 5, 2005), 70 FR 74059 (December 14, 2005). This order grants summary effectiveness, pursuant to Rule 608(b)(4) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 4 to the request to extend operation of the Plan, as modified by all changes previously approved (“Date Extension”). Pursuant to Rule 608(b)(4) under the Act, 5 the Date Extension will be effective upon publication in the **Federal Register** on temporary basis for 120 days from the date of publication. 6 4 17 CFR 242.608(b)(4). 5 17 CFR 242.608(b)(4). 6 The Participants requested that the Commission extend the previously issued exemption from compliance with Section VI.C.1 of the Plan. However, this exemption is no longer necessary as Nasdaq is now a registered national securities exchange with respect to Nasdaq-listed securities. II. Discussion The Commission finds that extending the operation of the Plan is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, and, in particular, Section 12(f) 7 and Section 11A(a)(1) 8 of the Act and Rules 601 and 608 thereunder. 9 Section 11A of the Act directs the Commission to facilitate the development of a national market system for securities, “having due regard for the public interest, the protection of investors, and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets,” and cites as an objective of that system the “fair competition . . . between exchange markets and markets other than exchange markets.” 10 When the Commission first approved the Plan on a pilot basis, it found that the Plan “should enhance market efficiency and fair competition, avoid investor confusion, and facilitate surveillance of concurrent exchange and OTC trading.” 11 The Plan has been in existence since 1990 and Participants have been trading Nasdaq securities under the Plan since 1993. 7 15 U.S.C. 78 *l* (f). Nasdaq became an exchange on January 13, 2006. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53128 (January 13, 2006), 71 FR 3550 (January 23, 2006). Therefore, unlisted trading privileges for Nasdaq securities are governed by Section 12(f)(1)(A)(i). 8 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1). 9 17 CFR 242.601 and 17 CFR 242.608. 10 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a). 11 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 28146 (June 26, 1990), 55 FR 27917 (July 6, 1990). The Commission finds that extending the operation of the Plan through summary effectiveness furthers the goals described above by preventing the lapse of the sole effective transaction reporting plan for Nasdaq securities traded by exchanges pursuant to unlisted trading privileges. The Commission believes that the Plan is currently a critical component of the national market system and that the Plan's expiration would have a serious, detrimental impact on the further development of the national market system. III. Solicitation of Comments The Commission seeks general comments on the extension of the operation of the Plan, as well as the request for permanent approval of the Plan. Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal 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 S7-24-89 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number S7-24-89. 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 written statements with respect to the Plan extension and the request for permanent approval of the Plan that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the Plan extension and the request for permanent approval of the Plan 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 Office of the Secretary of the Committee, currently located at the NYSEArca, 100 South Wacker Drive, Suite 1800, Chicago, IL 60606. 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 S7-24-89 and should be submitted on or before January 18, 2007. IV. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Sections 12(f) and 11A of the Act 12 and paragraph (b)(4) of Rule 608 thereunder, 13 that the operation of the Plan, as modified by all changes previously approved, be, and hereby is, extended, for a period of 120 days from the date of publication of this Date Extension in the **Federal Register** . 12 15 U.S.C. 78l(f) and 15 U.S.C. 78k-1. 13 17 CFR 242.608(b)(4). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 14 14 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(27). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-22198 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54971; File No. SR-ISE-2006-65] Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC ; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Fee Changes December 20, 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 21, 2006, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (“Exchange” or “ISE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission the proposed rule change, as described in Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared by the Exchange. The ISE has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the CBOE under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act, 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The ISE is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to establish fees for transactions in options on 3 Premium Products. 5 The text of the proposed rule change is available on the ISE's Web site ( *http://www.iseoptions.com* ), at the principal office of the ISE, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. 5 Premium Products is defined in the Schedule of Fees as the products enumerated therein. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the ISE included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The ISE has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to establish fees for transactions in options on the following 3 Premium Products: streetTRACKS KBW Bank ETF (“KBE”), streetTRACKS KBW Capital Markets ETF (“KCE”), and streetTRACKS KBW Insurance ETF (“KIE”). 6 Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to adopt an execution fee and a comparison fee for all transactions in options on KBE, KCE and KIE. 7 The amount of the execution fee and comparison fee for products covered by this filing would be $0.15 and $0.03 per contract, respectively, for all Public Customer Orders 8 and Firm Proprietary orders. The amount of the execution fee and comparison fee for all ISE Market Maker transactions would be equal to the execution fee and comparison fee currently charged by the Exchange for ISE Market Maker transactions in equity options. 9 Finally, the amount of the execution fee and comparison fee for all non-ISE Market Maker transactions would be $0.16 and $0.03 per contract, respectively. All of the applicable fees covered by this filing are identical to fees charged by the Exchange for all other Premium Products. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will further the Exchange's goal of introducing new products to the marketplace that are competitively priced. 6 The “KBW Bank Index sm ”, the “KBW Capital Markets Indexsm,” the “KBW Insurance Indexsm,” “KBW” and “Keefe, Bruyette & Woodssm” are service marks of Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc.sm, and have been licensed for use by State Street bank and Trust in connection with the listing and trading of KBE, KCE, and KIE on the American Stock Exchange. KBE, KCE and KIE are not sponsored, sold or endorsed by Keefe, Bruyette &Woods, Inc. and Keefe, Bruyette &Woods, Inc. makes no representation regarding the advisability of investing in KBE, KCE and KIE. Keefe, Bruyette &Woods, Inc. has not licensed or authorized ISE to
(i)engage in the creation, listing, provision of a market for trading, marketing, and promotion of options on KBE, KCE and KIE or
(ii)to use and refer to any of their trademarks or service marks in connection with the listing, provision of a market for trading, marketing, and promotion of options on KBE, KCE and KIE or with making disclosures concerning options on KBE, KCE and KIE under any applicable federal or state laws, rules or regulations. Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc. does not sponsor, endorse, or promote such activity by ISE and is not affiliated in any manner with ISE. KBE, KCE, and KIE constitute “Fund Shares,” as defined by ISE Rule 502(h). 7 These fees will be charged only to Exchange members. Under a pilot program that is set to expire on July 31, 2007, these fees will also be charged to Linkage Orders (as defined in ISE Rule 1900). 8 Public Customer Order is defined in Exchange Rule 100(a)(33) as an order for the account of a Public Customer. Public Customer is defined in Exchange Rule 100(a)(32) as a person that is not a broker or dealer in securities. 9 The execution fee is currently between $.21 and $.12 per contract side, depending on the Exchange Average Daily Volume, and the comparison fee is currently $.03 per contract side. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirement of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 10 that an exchange have an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities. 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The ISE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any inappropriate burden on competition. 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 rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 11 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) 12 thereunder. 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. 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 12 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-ISE-2006-65 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-ISE-2006-65. 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 ISE. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2006-65 and should be submitted on or before January 18, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-22193 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54952; File No. SR-NASD-2006-039] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; Order Granting Approval to Proposed Rule Change and Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto To Amend NASD Rules To Modify and Expand NASD's Authority To Initiate Trading and Quotation Halts in OTC Equity Securities December 18, 2006. I. Introduction On March 22, 2006, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to:
(1)Amend NASD rules to modify and expand NASD's authority to direct its members to halt trading and quotation in certain over-the-counter (“OTC”) equity securities (“OTC Equity Securities”); 3 and
(2)adopt factors that NASD may consider in determining, in its discretion, whether to impose a trading and quotation halt in OTC Equity Securities. On May 23, 2006, NASD filed with the Commission Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 4 The proposed rule change, as amended, was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on June 7, 2006. 5 The Commission received one comment letter in response to the proposal. 6 On November 8, 2006, NASD filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change. 7 The text of Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change is available on NASD's Web site at *http://www.nasd.com* , at NASD's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. This order approves the proposed rule change, as amended. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* NASD Rule 6610(d). 4 Amendment No. 1 replaced and superseded the original rule filing in its entirety. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53920 (June 1, 2006), 71 FR 33026 (“Notice”). 6 *See* Letter from R. Cromwell Coulson, Chief Executive Office, Pink Sheets LLC (“Pink Sheets”), to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Commission, dated July 10, 2006. 7 In Amendment No. 2, which supplemented the proposed rule change as filed, NASD made typographical, non-substantive changes to the rule text contained in the proposed rule change. Two of the technical changes that are the subject of Amendment No. 2 were incorporated into the rule text that was published in the Notice. *See* Notice, *supra* note 5, at note 5 and accompanying text (citing to a conversation between Kosha Dalal, Associate General Counsel, NASD, and Tim Fox, Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, on June 1, 2006). In addition, in Amendment No. 2, NASD responded to the comments raised in the Pink Sheets Letter. In light of the purely technical nature of Amendment No. 2, the Commission is not publishing Amendment No. 2 for public comment. II. Description of the Proposal NASD proposes to expand the scope of its authority with respect to trading and quotation halts in OTC Equity Securities. Currently, NASD Rule 6545 provides NASD with limited trading and quotation halt authority solely for securities quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board (“OTCBB”). Specifically, under NASD Rule 6545, NASD can direct NASD members to halt trading and quotations in OTCBB securities only where:
(1)The OTCBB security (or security underlying an OTCBB American Depository Receipt (“ADR”)) is listed on or registered with a foreign securities exchange or market and the foreign securities exchange or market or regulatory authority halts trading in the security;
(2)the OTCBB security (or the security underlying the OTCBB ADR) is a derivative or component of a security listed on or registered with The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC or a national securities exchange or foreign securities exchange or market and that exchange or market halts trading in the underlying security; or
(3)the issuer of the OTCBB security (or security underlying the OTCBB ADR) fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 10b-17 under the Act. 8 NASD Rule 6545 provides NASD with authority to halt trading and quotations of OTCBB securities in the foregoing circumstances for up to five business days. 8 17 CFR 240.10b-17. Rule 10b-17 generally requires the issuer of a class of publicly-traded securities to provide NASD with notice no later than 10 days prior to the record date of a dividend or distribution. NASD proposes to expand the scope of its authority to direct NASD members to halt trading and quotations to cover all OTC Equity Securities, 9 which includes ADRs that trade in the OTC market as well as securities quoted in quotation mediums other than the OTCBB ( *e.g.* , the Pink Sheets). 10 Further, NASD proposes to modify and expand the scope of its trading and quotation halt authority beyond halts related to non-compliance with Rule 10b-17 under the Act, 11 while limiting such authority only to those extraordinary events that have a material effect on the market for the OTC Equity Security or that have the potential to cause major disruption to the marketplace and/or cause significant uncertainty in the settlement and clearance process. In addition, NASD proposes to increase from five business days to ten business days the maximum length a trading and quotation halt can be imposed under NASD Rule 6660. Finally, NASD proposes to adopt IM-6660-1 that sets forth certain factors that it will consider in determining, in its discretion, whether to direct NASD members to halt quoting and trading in an OTC Equity Security. 12 According to NASD, NASD staff would weigh the relevant information and make a determination whether halting trading in the security is appropriate and may consult with NASD's Uniform Practice Code (“UPC”) Committee (or any successor thereto) as it deems necessary or appropriate. 13 In its proposal to expand its existing trading and quotation halt authority to all OTC Equity Securities, NASD stated its belief that its trading and quotation halt authority should apply uniformly to all OTC Equity Securities, and affirmed its belief that eliminating this disparity will further investor protections in this area of the securities market and enhance the quality of the OTC market. 9 *See* NASD Rule 6610(d) (defining OTC Equity Security). The term “OTC Equity Security” also includes certain exchange-listed securities that do not otherwise qualify for real-time trade reporting because they are not “eligible securities” as defined in NASD Rule 6410(d). The term “OTC Equity Security” does not include “restricted securities,” as defined by Rule 144(a)(3) under the Securities Act of 1933, nor any securities designated in the PORTAL Market under the NASD Rule 5300 Series. 10 Because the current NASD Rule 6500 Series relates solely to OTCBB securities, NASD is proposing to renumber NASD Rule 6545 as NASD Rule 6660, which would become part of the NASD rules relating to OTC Equity Securities. 11 17 CFR 240.10b-17. 12 The proposed factors in IM-6660-1 that NASD may consider in determining whether to impose a trading and quotation halt under NASD Rule 6660(a)(3) include, but are not limited to:
(1)the material nature of the event;
(2)the material facts surrounding the event are undisputed and not in conflict;
(3)the event has caused widespread confusion in the trading of the security;
(4)there has been a material negative effect on the market for the subject security;
(5)the potential exists for a major disruption to the marketplace;
(6)there is significant uncertainty in the settlement and clearance process for the security; and/or
(7)such other factors as NASD deems relevant in making its determination. 13 The UPC Committee is a standing committee of NASD, currently consisting of six professionals in the securities industry. The UPC Committee has the authority to advise NASD on issues of interest and concern to the securities industry, including interpretations with respect to the UPC. According to NASD, NASD staff may present matters relating to possible trading and quotation halts to the UPC Committee from time to time. However, the role of the UPC Committee in this regard is advisory only. NASD stated that NASD staff would retain full power and authority to make all determinations under proposed NASD Rule 6660 and IM-6660-1. NASD noted that, under the proposal, it would exercise significant discretion in determining whether a particular event affecting a security warranted a trading and quotation halt, and it would impose a halt only when it determines that halting trading and quotations in the security is the appropriate mechanism to protect investors and ensure a fair and orderly marketplace. According to NASD, its expanded trading and quotation halt authority would not be used to correct informational imbalances resulting from corporate news about an issuer because NASD does not have a listing or other agreement with the issuer and thus cannot compel the issuer to disclose material information. NASD intends to announce the effective date of the proposed rule change in a Notice to Members to be published no later than 60 days following Commission approval of the proposal. The effective date will be 30 days following publication of the Notice to Members announcing Commission approval of the proposal. III. Summary of Comments and NASD's Response The Pink Sheets generally supported NASD's proposed rule change, but recommended several modifications. First, the Pink Sheets objected (except in the case of foreign regulatory halts) to NASD's proposal to impose a trading and quotation halt for more than four business days 14 because of the loss of “piggyback” eligibility under Rule 15c2-11 under the Act. 15 According to the Pink Sheets, if a NASD member cannot rely on the piggyback provision, the member would have to comply with the provisions of Rule 15c2-11, including submitting a new NASD Form 211 to NASD, before initiating or resuming quotations in the security. The Pink Sheets also suggested that, because NASD's proposed rule change does not provide a forum to facilitate the exercise of due process, NASD trading and quotation halts should be limited to four business days. In addition, the Pink Sheets noted that trading and quotation halts are an effective anti-fraud weapon and should be used accordingly. Finally, the Pink Sheets indicated that its proposed four business day limit on NASD trading and quotation halts should not apply in the case of foreign regulatory halts. 14 The Commission notes that under existing NASD Rule 6545, NASD can direct NASD members to halt trading and quotations in OTCBB securities for up to five business days. 15 17 CFR 240.15c2-11. Under the “piggyback” provision of Rule 15c2-11, broker-dealers can publish quotations for securities subject to the Rule as long as the security has been quoted on each of at least twelve days within the previous thirty calendar days with no more than four successive business days without a quotation. NASD, in Amendment No. 2, responded to the Pink Sheets' comments. 16 NASD reaffirmed its view that its proposed rule change is appropriate and furthers investor protection. In response to the Pink Sheets' concern about the potential loss of piggyback eligibility under Rule 15c2-11, NASD noted that it is critical to require market makers to review current information regarding the issuer, as set forth in Rule 15c2-11 under the Act. NASD indicated that such a “restart” of the Rule 15c2-11 process is appropriate and consistent with the operation of Rule 15c2-11 following a Commission-imposed trading suspension under Section 12(k) of the Act. 17 NASD also responded to the Pink Sheets' assertion that its proposed trading and quotation halt authority should be used more than just sparingly by explaining that its proposal clearly delineates the situations under which it would exercise its authority under the proposed rule. NASD noted that it intends to exercise the proposed trading and quotation halt authority in very limited circumstances to protect the market and investors, and does not believe this authority should be used liberally whenever there is a “problem” with a security. 16 *See* Amendment No. 2, supra note 7. 17 15 U.S.C. 78 *l* (k). In addressing the Pink Sheets” concern that NASD trading and quotation halts in OTC Equity Securities would not be subject to due process, NASD stated that the proposed authority is consistent with its statutory obligations as a self-regulatory organization, including, among others, its responsibility under Section 15A(b)(11) of the Act 18 to “ensure fair and informative quotations, to prevent fictitious or misleading quotations, and to promote orderly procedures for collecting, distributing, and publishing quotations.” Further, NASD noted that not all determinations made by NASD staff are explicitly subject to a hearing process, and that decisions like trading and quotation halts require certainty and finality so that the marketplace can operate fairly and efficiently. NASD noted that a hearing process, even if adopted as part of its proposed rule, would not stay the trading and quotation halt or the Rule 15c2-11 process. 18 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3(b)(11). Finally, NASD explained that the term “foreign regulatory halt” in proposed NASD Rule 6660(a)(1) would include the Canadian provincial exchanges or markets. NASD noted, however, that, as proposed, it would not impose its own trading and quotation halt if a foreign regulatory halt covering a given security was imposed for material news, a regulatory filing deficiency, or operational reasons. IV. Discussion and Commission Findings The Commission has reviewed carefully the proposed rule change, the comment letter, and NASD's response to the comment letter, and finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities association, including the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, 19 which requires, among other things, that NASD rules be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing transactions in securities, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, and Section 15A(b)(11) of the Act, 20 which requires, among other things, that NASD rules relating to quotations be designed to produce fair and informative quotations, to prevent fictitious or misleading quotations, and to promote orderly procedures for collecting, distributing, and publishing quotations. 21 19 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3(b)(6). 20 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3(b)(11). 21 In approving this proposed rule change, as amended, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). The Commission believes that NASD's proposal to permit trading and quotation halts in OTC Equity Securities can benefit the marketplace and investors when an extraordinary event occurs that has had a material effect on the market for the OTC Equity Security or has caused or has the potential to cause major disruption to the marketplace or significant uncertainty in the settlement and clearance process. NASD Rule 6660 is designed to provide the marketplace with the opportunity to widely digest and disseminate the information that precipitated the market condition and provide NASD with the opportunity to consider whether further regulatory action is warranted in a particular circumstance. 22 The Commission believes that NASD's proposed trading and quotation halt rule for OTC Equity Securities, when appropriately applied under the circumstances specified in the proposed rule, is designed to foster the integrity of quotations for these securities and to promote the protection of investors and the public interest. 22 The Commission notes that quotations in an OTC Equity Security may not automatically resume when a trading and quotation halt expires. In particular, if a trading and quotation halt was in effect for more than four consecutive business days, the “piggyback” exception in Rule 15c2-11(f)(3) under the Act would not be available and, in that case, broker-dealers would be required to comply with the requirements of Rule 15c2-11 and NASD Rule 6740 before initiating or resuming quotations for the subject security. In particular, the Commission believes that NASD's proposal to expand its trading and quotation halt authority to situations involving extraordinary events with respect to OTC Equity Securities should enable NASD to impose trading and quotation halts in OTC Equity Securities under a broader set of circumstances than it may impose today for OTCBB securities. The Commission believes that the proposal is intended to strike a reasonable balance between NASD's interest in imposing trading and quotation halts for OTC Equity Securities under circumstances warranting a halt, while establishing a clear standard that limits the imposition of trading and quotation halts for these securities to exigent circumstances. In the Commission's view, the proposed factors set forth in proposed IM-6660-1, to be considered by NASD when determining whether a trading and quotation halt would be the appropriate mechanism to protect investors and ensure a fair and orderly marketplace, would help provide transparency to NASD's trading and quotation halt process. The Commission believes that NASD's proposed factors are tailored to assist NASD's determination of whether an extraordinary event has occurred that warrants the imposition of a trading and quotation halt. The Commission further believes that NASD's ability to consult with the UPC Committee (or any successor thereto), in an advisory capacity only, as it deems necessary, is an appropriate mechanism for NASD staff to benefit from the insight of market professionals, while NASD retains ultimate authority to determine whether to impose a trading and quotation halt. The Commission believes that it is appropriate for NASD to expand its authority to halt trading and quotation to all OTC Equity Securities. This proposal would enable NASD to impose trading and quotation halts in OTC Equity Securities that are quoted in trading venues other than, or in addition to, the OTCBB, and would thereby assist NASD in carrying out its self-regulatory responsibilities for the over-the-counter marketplace. The Commission further believes that extending from five to ten the maximum number of business days for which NASD may impose a trading and quotation halt is reasonably designed to protect investors and the public interest and to foster the integrity of quotations for OTC Equity Securities. This change would provide NASD with the ability to impose a trading and quotation halt of up to ten business days in the event that NASD believes that, under the circumstances, a halt of this length is necessary to protect investors and ensure a fair and orderly marketplace. Finally, the Commission notes that the proposal permits NASD to halt trading and quoting of an OTC Equity Security when NASD determines that an extraordinary event has occurred that, under NASD Rule 6660, justifies the imposition of such a halt. In such case, imposition of a trading and quotation halt would provide a measure of certainty and finality to the marketplace and investors. The Commission notes that NASD's administration of its proposed rule is subject to continuing Commission oversight, and that NASD, as a registered national securities association, remains bound by its obligations as a self-regulatory organization under the Act and all relevant rules and regulations thereunder. For the reasons described above, the Commission believes that NASD's proposed rule change promotes the protection of investors and the public interest by expanding NASD's authority to direct NASD members to halt quotation and trading in an OTC Equity Security under appropriate circumstances. V. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 23 that the proposed rule change (SR-NASD-2006-039), as amended, be, and it hereby is, approved. 23 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 24 24 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-22197 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54984; File No. SR-NASD-2006-135] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposal Relating to Implementation of Certain Approved Rule Changes Reflecting the Complete Separation of Nasdaq from NASD December 20, 2006. Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on December 20, 2006, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by NASD. NASD has filed this proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change NASD has filed a proposed rule change relating to a phased implementation of SR-NASD-2006-104, which was approved by the Commission on November 21, 2006. 5 Specifically, NASD is proposing to implement on December 20, 2006, amendments to the Plan of Allocation and Delegation of Functions by NASD to Subsidiaries (“Delegation Plan”) and the By-Laws of NASD, NASD Regulation and NASD Dispute Resolution, and the deletion of The Nasdaq Stock Market Inc. (“Nasdaq”) By-Laws, which were previously approved in SR-NASD-2006-104, to reflect Nasdaq's complete separation from NASD, and, on that same date, dissolve NASD's controlling share in Nasdaq. 5 > *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54798, 71 FR 69156 (November 29, 2006) (order approving SR-NASD-2006-104). II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, NASD included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. NASD has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose Background On June 30, 2006, the Commission approved proposed rule change SR-NASD-2005-087, which, among other things, amended NASD's Delegation Plan, By-Laws and NASD rules to reflect the operation of The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (the “Nasdaq Exchange”) as a national securities exchange for Nasdaq-listed securities. 6 For a transitional period that commenced on August 1, 2006, the Nasdaq Exchange has been operating as an exchange for Nasdaq-listed securities only. Nasdaq, as a subsidiary of NASD, continues to perform its obligations under the Delegation Plan with respect to over-the-counter (“OTC”) quoting, trading and execution of non-Nasdaq exchange-listed securities, including the operation of, among other things, its SuperIntermarket (“SiM”) trading platform. Nasdaq no longer performs any functions under the Delegation Plan relating to Nasdaq-listed securities. 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54084 (June 30, 2006), 71 FR 38935 (July 10, 2006) (order approving SR-NASD-2005-087). On November 21, 2006, the Commission approved SR-NASD-2006-104. 7 Pursuant to SR-NASD-2006-104, NASD proposed to delete the Nasdaq By-Laws and amend the Delegation Plan, the By-Laws of NASD, NASD Regulation and NASD Dispute Resolution, and NASD rules to reflect the separation of Nasdaq from NASD upon the operation of the Nasdaq Exchange as a national securities exchange for non-Nasdaq exchange-listed securities. In addition, NASD proposed to amend NASD rules for OTC quoting and trading in non-Nasdaq exchange-listed securities to reflect the manner in which NASD will be satisfying its regulatory obligations under the Exchange Act and the rules thereunder on a temporary basis until NASD's Alternative Display Facility (“ADF”) is able to satisfy those obligations (“Modified SiM Rules”). 8 Finally, NASD proposed to expand the scope of the NASD/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility rules to include trade reporting in non-Nasdaq exchange-listed securities and make other clarifying and conforming changes. As approved, SR-NASD-2006-104 will be effective on the date on which the Nasdaq Exchange operates as a national securities exchange with respect to non-Nasdaq exchange-listed securities. When SR-NASD-2006-104 was originally filed, that date was anticipated to be October 2006; however, it is now anticipated to be in the first quarter of 2007. 7 *See* note 5 supra. 8 This is one of the conditions required by the Commission before the Nasdaq Exchange can operate as an exchange for non-Nasdaq exchange-listed securities. The Commission approved the Nasdaq Exchange application on January 13, 2006. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53128, 71 FR 3550 (January 23, 2006) (File No. 10-131). *See also* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54085 (June 30, 2006), 71 FR 38910 (July 10, 2006), which modified the conditions set forth in the Nasdaq Exchange approval order to allow the Nasdaq Exchange to operate as a national securities exchange solely with respect to Nasdaq-listed securities. Separation of Nasdaq from NASD and Proposed Phased Implementation of SR-NASD-2006-104 As noted above, Nasdaq continues to exercise regulatory authority under the Delegation Plan. Therefore, NASD retains control of Nasdaq through a single share of Series D Preferred Stock (the “Series D Share”) that allows NASD to cast a majority of the votes in any matter submitted to Nasdaq's stockholders, including the election of Nasdaq directors. Once the delegation to Nasdaq is no longer necessary, the Series D Share will automatically lose its voting rights and will be redeemed by Nasdaq for $1.00. In light of the delay in implementation of portions of SR-NASD-2006-104, NASD is proposing to eliminate its delegation and effectuate complete separation with Nasdaq, including dissolution of the Series D Share, prior to commencement of operation of the Nasdaq Exchange as an exchange for non-Nasdaq exchange-listed securities. However, for a transitional period, Nasdaq will continue to perform the same services it does today, including operation of the SiM trading platform, on NASD's behalf via the Transitional System and Regulatory Services Agreement. NASD anticipates that this transitional period will be brief, commencing on December 20, 2006 and concluding once SR-NASD-2006-104 is fully implemented in the first quarter of 2007. To effectuate this phased implementation, NASD is proposing to implement on December 20, 2006 certain portions of SR-NASD-2006-104 to reflect the separation of Nasdaq from NASD and that Nasdaq will no longer be operating under the Delegation Plan. Specifically, NASD is proposing to:
(1)Remove references in the Delegation Plan to Nasdaq as a subsidiary and remove the delegation of authority to Nasdaq (Section III) and the delegation of authority relating to Stockwatch (Section IV);
(2)revise the NASD By-Laws, NASD Regulation By-Laws and NASD Dispute Resolution By-Laws to remove references to Nasdaq as a subsidiary of NASD; and
(3)delete the Nasdaq By-Laws. During this transitional period, references to “Nasdaq” in NASD's rules shall be deemed to mean “Nasdaq operating on behalf of NASD via the Transitional System and Regulatory Services Agreement.” Additionally, NASD notes that during this transitional period, the Market Operations Review Committee, which was validly constituted pursuant to a delegation by the NASD Board, will continue to exist in its current form and perform the functions set forth in NASD Rules 5265 and 11890. All remaining changes approved in SR-NASD-2006-104 will become effective on the date upon which the Nasdaq Exchange operates as an exchange for non-Nasdaq exchange-listed securities. 9 As such, during this transitional period, there will be no changes from the perspective of users or participants of NASD facilities operated by Nasdaq. 9 As permitted by the terms of the Transitional System and Regulatory Services Agreement, NASD may, in its sole discretion, determine to continue to use Nasdaq as a vendor to operate SiM, even upon the Nasdaq Exchange's operation as an exchange for non-Nasdaq exchange-listed securities. In that event, the current rules relating to SiM will remain in place and the approved rule changes in SR-NASD-2006-104 relating to Modified SiM Rules will not be implemented. All other rule changes that are part of SR-NASD-2006-104 ( *e.g.* , amendments to the NASD/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility Rules) will become operative upon the operation of NASD's ADF for non-Nasdaq exchange-listed securities as approved by the Commission on September 28, 2006. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54537 (September 28, 2006), 71 FR 59173 (October 6, 2006) (order approving SR-NASD-2006-91). NASD will submit a filing to the Commission to effectuate this. NASD has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness. NASD is proposing that the operative date of the proposed rule change be December 20, 2006, the date on which NASD proposes to effectuate the complete separation of Nasdaq from NASD. 2. Statutory Basis NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, 10 which requires, among other things, that NASD rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. NASD believes that the proposed rule change will provide an effective mechanism and regulatory framework for effectuating Nasdaq's complete separation from NASD. 10 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition NASD does not believe that the proposed rule change would result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received from Members, Participants, or Others Written comments were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the proposal does not:
(i)Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii)impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii)become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, 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 11 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 12 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) of the Act, NASD provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description of the text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of the filing of the proposed rule change. NASD has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), 13 and designate the proposed rule change effective immediately. The Commission believes that it is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest to waive the 30-day operative delay, 14 as such waiver is necessary so that the complete separation of Nasdaq from NASD can be effectuated on December 20, 2006. 15 13 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). 14 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay of this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 15 Furthermore, the amendments proposed herein were subject to notice and comment and approved by the Commission on November 21, 2006. See note 5 supra. 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. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic comments: • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include File Number SR-NASD-2006-135 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2006-135. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of NASD. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2006-135 and should be submitted on or before January 18, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 16 16 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-22199 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54970; File No. SR-NYSE-2006-114] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Amend Exchange Rule 123A.30 to Eliminate the Two Tick Rule to Allow for the Execution of CAP-DI Orders at Consecutive Destabilizing Prices Without Floor Official Approval December 19, 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 December 14, 2006, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposed rule change as a “non-controversial” rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 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 is proposing to amend Exchange Rule 123A.30 to allow a CAP-DI order to be executed at consecutive destabilizing prices without Floor Official approval. The text of the proposed rule change is available at NYSE, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and www.nyse.com. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change 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 Exchange Rules 13 and 123A.30 describe a type of percentage order 5 called a “convert and parity, destabilizing, immediate-or-cancel” (CAP-DI) order and the manner in which such orders are elected or converted and executed. 5 Percentage orders are limited price orders to buy or sell a certain volume of the specified security after a trade occurs at or within the order's limit. As such, all percentage orders, including CAP-DI orders, are referred to as “go along orders” because they generally want to trade at prices established by other market participants and do not want to initiate a significant price change or lag behind the market. CAP-DI orders are “elected” into limit orders when a trade on the Exchange occurs at or within a CAP-DI order's limit price. The size and price of such limit order is the same as the electing trade. The election and execution of CAP-DI orders is automatic. CAP-DI orders may also be “converted” into limit orders to trade with the NYSE bid and offer or to establish a new NYSE best bid or offer as prescribed by Rule 123A.30. When first adopted, CAP-DI orders were converted by specialists in accordance with the instructions of the Floor broker who entered the order. Today, CAP-DI orders are automatically converted and trade in certain situations—when the specialist trades for its dealer account in an automatic execution. 6 In that situation, CAP-DI orders that have been entered and are capable of trading at that price are automatically converted and trade along with the specialist. 7 This process benefits customers by ensuring that CAP-DI orders are executed in accordance with their expectations— *i.e.* that they participate in NYSE trades at or within their limit and thereby do not lag behind the market. 6 This occurs either because the specialist has algorithmically generated a trading message or is part of a quote that is automatically executed. 7 By its terms (convert and parity), specialists and CAP-DI orders trade on parity. The “D” designation on CAP-DI orders stands for “destabilizing” and allows the order to be converted to participate in stabilizing or destabilizing transactions 8 or to bid (offer) in a destabilizing manner. 9 8 A “destabilizing” trade is a trade that follows the direction of the market as, for example, a purchase on a plus tick or a sale on a minus tick. A stabilizing trade is one that counters the direction of the market as, for example, a purchase on a minus tick or a sale on a plus tick. 9 Rule 123A.30 sets forth certain size and maximum price restrictions on CAP-DI conversions. The Exchange is not proposing to amend these requirements. The “I” designation of the CAP-DI order stands for “immediate execution or cancel” and allows for the cancellation of any converted portion of the order that is not executed immediately at the price of the electing transaction or better. Any portion that is not immediately executed reverts to its status as a CAP-DI order, eligible for subsequent election or conversion and execution. CAP-DI orders are subject to certain restrictions on conversions to trade and quote that were intended to minimize the specialist's ability to move the price direction of a security through the conversion of the CAP-DI orders. 10 Thus, Exchange Rule 123A.30 provides that CAP-DI orders may not be converted “at consecutively higher or lower prices such that consecutive up or down ticks (as the case may be), follow one another in rapid succession, unless [the specialist] obtains the prior approval of a Floor Governor, Senior Floor Official, or Executive Floor Official” (hereinafter, “two tick rule”). 10 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 24505 (May 22, 1987), 52 FR 20484 (June 1, 1987) (SR-NYSE-85-1) (approving amendment to Rule 123A.30 permitting conversion of percentage orders on destabilizing ticks under certain restrictions). However, as a result of the automatic conversion and execution process described above, it is possible for CAP-DI orders to trade at prices inconsistent with the two tick rule, given the inability to pause the automatic execution of these orders to allow for compliance with a slow, manual Floor Official approval process. In addition, the two tick rule was adopted at a time when the Exchange traded in “eighths” or increments of twelve and a half cents. 11 As a result, a two tick movement equaled a price change of twenty-five cents. Today, after the move to decimal pricing, stocks trade in one cent increments; a two-tick movement, therefore, is only two cents. 11 While other sections of the rule were amended to reflect decimal pricing, this portion was not. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43230 (August 30, 2000), 65 FR 54589 (September 8, 2000) (SR-NYSE-00-22). Accordingly, the Exchange seeks to remove the two tick rule and the related requirement for Floor Official approval. The automatic conversion and execution of CAP-DI orders when the specialist trades provides an experience for the customer that is consistent with his or her trading expectations. It also limits the risk to the CAP-DI order of missing the market that is inherent with a manual conversion and execution process in an automatic execution environment. Further, it eliminates the possibility that specialists' permissible trading occurs at prices better than that received by a customer order, when such order was marketable at the price the specialist received. Further, while the two tick rule made sense when minimum price variations were wide and each tick change covered multiple cents, it is overly restrictive in today's decimalized market. Similarly, the conversion limitation was consistent with specialist stabilization rules that precluded certain proprietary trading without Floor Official approval. Changes in these rules support this proposal. 12 Lastly, Rule 123A.30 will continue to limit the price at which converted shares can participate in a destabilizing transaction. 13 12 *See* Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 54860 (December 1, 2006) 71 FR 71221 (December 8, 2006) (NYSE-2006-76). 13 Rule 123A.30 allows conversions to effect destabilizing trades where the transaction for which the CAP-DI order is being converted is for:
(1)less than 10,000 shares or an amount of stock having a market value less than $500,000, and the price at which the converted order is to be executed is no more than $0.10 away from the last sale price, or
(2)10,000 shares or more or valued at $500,000 or more, and the price at which the trade is to take place is no more than $0.25 from the last sale. Telephone Conversation between Deanna Logan, Director, Office of the General Counsel, NYSE, and Cyndi N. Rodriguez, Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, on December 19, 2006. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act in general, 14 and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in particular, 15 in that it 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. The proposed rule change also is designed to support the principles of Section 11A(a)(1) of the Act in that it seeks to assure economically efficient execution of securities transactions. 16 14 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 15 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 16 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1). 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 Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
(i)Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii)impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii)become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 17 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 18 17 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 18 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. 19 However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 20 permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay to allow the Exchange to immediately implement the proposed rule change. The Exchange believes that waiver of the 30-day delay is appropriate because the proposed rule change seeks to assure the economically efficient execution of securities transactions through the automatic conversion and execution of CAP-DI orders when the specialist trades. 19 Pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act, the Exchange is also required to give the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file this proposed rule change at least five days prior to the date of filing. 20 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it would allow the Exchange to immediately eliminate the two tick rule so that CAP-DI orders can be converted to trade along with the specialist. For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposal to be effective and operative upon filing with the Commission. 21 21 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such proposed rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 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-NYSE-2006-114 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-2006-114. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the NYSE. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2006-114 and should be submitted on or before January 18, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 22 22 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-22196 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54977; File No. SR-NYSE-2006-116] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Amendment of Annual Report Timely Filing Requirements December 20, 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 December 14, 2006, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend Section 802.01E of its Listed Company Manual (“Manual”) to end as of December 31, 2007 the Exchange's discretion to continue the listing of certain companies that are twelve months late in filing their annual reports with the Commission. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site, *http://www.nyse.com* , at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the NYSE included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange proposes to amend Section 802.01E of the Manual to end as of December 31, 2007 the Exchange's discretion to continue the listing of certain companies that are twelve months late in filing their annual reports with the Commission. Section 802.01E of the Manual provides that if a company fails to timely file a periodic annual report with the Commission, the Exchange will monitor the company and the status of the filing. If the company fails to file the annual report within six months from the filing due date, the Exchange may, in its sole discretion, allow the company's securities to be traded for up to an additional six-month trading period depending on the company's specific circumstances; but in any event if the company does not file its periodic annual report by the end of the one year period (“Initial Twelve-Month Period”), the Exchange will begin suspension and delisting procedures in accordance with the procedures in Section 804.00 of the Manual. Section 802.01E states that, in certain unique circumstances, a listed company that is delayed in filing its annual report beyond the Initial Twelve-Month Period may have a position in the market (relating to both the nature of its business and its very large publicly-held market capitalization) such that its delisting from the Exchange would be significantly contrary to the national interest and the interests of public investors. In such a case, where the Exchange believes that the company remains suitable for listing given, among other factors, 3 its relative financial health and compliance with the NYSE's quantitative and qualitative listing standards, and where there is a reasonable expectation that the company will be able to resume timely filings in the future, the Exchange may forebear, at its sole discretion, from commencing suspension and delisting, notwithstanding the company's failure to file within the time periods specified in Section 802.01E of the Manual. 3 *See* Section 802.01E of the Manual for a complete list of the factors which the Exchange must consider when determining whether to continue listing a company beyond the Initial Twelve-Month Period. After discussions with the Commission staff, the Exchange has determined that it is unnecessary for the Exchange to retain the discretion to allow companies to continue listing beyond the Initial Twelve-Month Period after December 31, 2007. Therefore, under this proposed amendment, the Exchange's discretion to allow a company to continue listing beyond the Initial Twelve-Month Period set forth in Section 802.01E of the Manual shall expire on December 31, 2007. If, prior to December 31, 2007, the Exchange had determined to continue listing a company beyond the Initial Twelve-Month Period under the circumstances specified in Section 802.01E of the Manual as described above, and the company fails to file its periodic annual report by December 31, 2007, suspension and delisting procedures will commence in accordance with the procedures set out in Section 804.00 of the Manual. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) 4 of the Act, in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, 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. 4 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 did not solicit or receive any written comments with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period
(i)as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or
(ii)as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will: A. By order approve the proposed rule change, or B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-NYSE-2006-116 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2006-116. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2006-116 and should be submitted on or before January 18, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 5 17 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-22201 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54986; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2006-58] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Its Regulatory Oversight Committee December 21, 2006. On September 21, 2006, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to amend NYSE Arca Rule 3.3 to provide that the Exchange's Regulatory Oversight Committee (the “ROC”) shall be comprised of at least three Public Directors, rather than all the Public Directors. On October 20, 2006, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change, as amended, was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on October 27, 2006. 3 The Commission received no comments regarding the proposal. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54638 (October 23, 2006), 71 FR 63059. The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange 4 and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. 5 Section 6(b)(5) requires, among other things, that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Commission notes that the proposed rule change, by establishing a minimum committee size for the ROC, would allow the Exchange to reduce the ROC to three members. The Commission notes that the proposed rule change would retain the requirement that all members of the ROC be Public Directors. 6 Accordingly, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. 4 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 6 NYSE Arca's By-Laws define a “Public Director” as a person from the public who will not be, or be affiliated with, a broker-dealer in securities or employed by, or involved in any material business relationship with, the Exchange or its affiliates. See Section 3.02 of the NYSE Arca By-Laws. *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 7 that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2006-58), as amended, is approved. 7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 8 Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. 8 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12); 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(44) [FR Doc. E6-22261 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54981; File No. SR-Phlx-2006-86] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Imposing a License Fee in Connection with the Firm-Related Equity Option and Index Option Fee Cap December 20, 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 December 12, 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 Phlx. Phlx has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge, 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 Phlx proposes to amend its schedule of fees to adopt a license fee of $0.10 for the Hapoalim American Israeli Index TM (traded under the symbol HAI (“HAI”)) 5 to be assessed per contract side for index option “firm” transactions (comprised of index option firm (proprietary and customer executions) comparison transactions, index option firm/proprietary transactions and index option firm/proprietary facilitation transactions). This license fee will be imposed only after the Exchange's $60,000 “firm-related” equity option and index option comparison and transaction charge cap, described more fully below, is reached. 5 “Hapoalim American Israeli Index” is a trademark of Hapoalim Securities USA, Inc. and has been licensed for use by the Exchange. The text of the proposed rule change is available on Phlx's Web site at *http://www.phlx.com* , at the Office of the Secretary at Phlx, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposal. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose Currently, the Exchange imposes a cap of $60,000 per member organization 6 on all “firm-related” equity option and index option comparison and transaction charges combined. 7 Specifically, “firm-related” charges include equity option firm/proprietary comparison charges, equity option firm/proprietary transaction charges, equity option firm/proprietary facilitation transaction charges, index option firm (proprietary and customer executions) comparison charges, index option firm/proprietary transaction charges, and index option firm/proprietary facilitation transaction charges (collectively the “firm-related charges”). Thus, such firm-related charges in the aggregate for one billing month may not exceed $60,000 per month per member organization. 6 The firm/proprietary comparison or transaction charge applies to member organizations for orders for the proprietary account of any member or non-member broker-dealer that derives more than 35% of its annual, gross revenues from commissions and principal transactions with customers. Member organizations will be required to verify this amount to the Exchange by certifying that they have reached this threshold by submitting a copy of their annual report, which was prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”). In the event that a member organization has not been in business for one year, the most recent quarterly reports, prepared in accordance with GAAP, will be accepted. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43558 (November 14, 2000), 65 FR 69984 (November 21, 2000) (SR-Phlx-00-85). 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51024 (January 11, 2005), 70 FR 3088 (January 19, 2005) (SR-Phlx-2004-94). The Exchange also imposes a license fee of $0.10 per contract side for equity option and index option “firm” transactions on certain licensed products (collectively “licensed products”) after the $60,000 cap, as described above, is reached. 8 Therefore, when a member organization exceeds the $60,000 cap (comprised of combined firm-related charges), the member organization is charged $60,000, plus license fees of $0.10 per contract side for any contracts in licensed products (if any) over those that were included in reaching the $60,000 cap. In other words, if the cap is reached, the $0.10 license fee is imposed on all subsequent equity option and index option firm transactions; these license fees are charged in addition to the $60,000 cap. 8 For a complete list of the licensed products that are assessed a $0.10 license fee per contract side after the $60,000 cap is reached, see $60,000 “Firm Related” Equity Option and Index Option Cap on the Exchange's fee schedule. The Exchange proposes to adopt a $0.10 license fee per contract side for HAI for index option firm transactions, which will be imposed after the $60,000 cap is reached in the same way as the current licensed product fees are assessed. Thus, when a member organization exceeds the $60,000 cap, the member organization will be charged $60,000 plus any applicable license fees for trades of licensed products, including HAI, over those trades that were counted in reaching the $60,000 cap. 9 9 Consistent with current practice, when calculating the $60,000 cap, the Exchange first calculates all equity option and index option transaction and comparison charges for products without license fees and then equity option and index option transaction and comparison charges for products with license fees ( *i.e.* , IWF license fees) that are assessed by the Exchange after the $60,000 cap is reached. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50836 (December 10, 2004), 69 FR 75584 (December 17, 2004) (SR-Phlx-2004-70). This proposal is scheduled to become effective for transactions settling on or after December 14, 2006. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its schedule of fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 10 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 11 in particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges among Exchange members. 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received from Members, Participants, or Others No written comments were either solicited or received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 12 and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder 13 because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge. 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. 12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 13 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-2006-86 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-2006-86. 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 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-2006-86 and should be submitted on or before January 18, 2007. 14 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 14 Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-22192 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54973; File No. SR-Phlx-2006-82] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Addition of the Hapoalim Israeli American Index to Rule 1101A December 20, 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 December 13, 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 and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Phlx. The Phlx filed the proposed rule change as a “non-controversial” rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 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 Phlx proposes to add the Hapoalim American Israeli Index (“Hapoalim Index” or “Index”) to Phlx Rule 1101A, which would enable the Exchange to list and trade options on the Hapoalim Index at $2.50 or greater strike price intervals if the strike price is less than $200. 5 5 The Exchange has recently entered into a license with Hapoalim Securities USA, Inc. that would, among other things, allow it to list and trade options on the Index. The text of the proposed Exchange rule is set forth immediately below, with deletions [bracketed] and additions in italics. Rule 1101A. Terms of Option Contracts
(a)The Exchange shall determine fixed point intervals of exercise prices for index options (options on indexes). Generally, the exercise (strike) price intervals will be no less than $5; provided, that the Exchange may determine to list strike prices at no less than $2.50 intervals for options on the following indexes (which may also be known as sector indexes): (i)—(xxviii)—No Change.
(xxix)Wellspring Bioclinical Trials Index TM , if the strike price is less than $200[.], *(xxx) Hapoalim American Israeli Index or Hapoalim Index, if the strike price is less than $200.* Remainder of (a)—No Change. (b)—(c)—No Change. Commentary—No Change. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the 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 purpose of the proposed amendment is to add the Hapoalim Index to Rule 1101A, which would allow the Exchange to list options on the Index at $2.50 strike price intervals if the strike price is less than $200. Exchange Rule 1101A currently indicates that the Exchange shall determine fixed point strike price intervals for index options at no less than $5.00, provided that for indexes that are listed in Rule 1101A the Exchange may determine to list strike prices at no less than $2.50 intervals if the strike price is less than $200. The proposed rule change adds the Hapoalim Index to the list of indexes in Rule 1101A upon which the Exchange may list options at $2.50 strike price intervals. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 6 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 7 in particular, in that it is designed to 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 allowing options on the Hapoalim Index to be listed at $2.50 strike price intervals similarly to options on other indexes listed on the Exchange. 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change 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 Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
(i)Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii)impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii)become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 8 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 9 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 9 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). When filing a proposed rule change pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act, an Exchange is required to give the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange provided notice to the Commission four business days prior to filing the proposed rule change, and the Commission has determined to waive the five business day requirement. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. 10 However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 11 permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Phlx has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it will allow the Exchange to offer additional strike prices for options on the Hapoalim Index to investors without delay. For this reason, the Commission designates the proposal to be effective and operative upon filing with the Commission. 12 10 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). 11 *Id.* 12 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 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-2006-82 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-2006-82. 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-2006-82 and should be submitted on or before January 18, 2007. 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-22194 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54978; File No. SR-Phlx-2006-63] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendments No. 1 and 2 Thereto Relating to a Philadelphia Board of Trade Enterprise License Fee For Dissemination of Certain Market Data December 20, 2006. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on September 28, 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 substantially prepared by the Phlx. The Phlx filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change on November 1, 2006. 3 The Phlx filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change on December 20, 2006. 4 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 Amendment No. 1 replaces and supersedes the original filing in its entirety. 4 Amendment No. 2 replaces and supersedes the original filing in its entirety. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Phlx proposes to add an Enterprise License Fee of $10,000 per year or $850 per month that would be assessed by the Exchange's wholly owned subsidiary, the Philadelphia Board of Trade (“PBOT”), on eligible market data vendors or subvendors (collectively “Vendors”) for certain index values received over PBOT's Market Data Distribution Network (“MDDN”). 5 The text of the proposed rule change is available at Phlx, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.phlx.com.* 5 The MDDN is an Internet protocol multicast network developed by PBOT and SAVVIS Communications for the purpose of transmitting index values. 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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to add an Enterprise License Fee for eligible Vendors of market data disseminated over PBOT's MDDN. Phlx has licensed market data in the form of current and closing index values underlying most of Phlx's proprietary indexes to PBOT for the purpose of selling, reproducing, and distributing the index values over the MDDN (“Market Data”). The Exchange or its third party designee objectively calculates and makes available to PBOT real-time index values every 15 seconds and closing index values at the end of each trading day. Pursuant to agreements with PBOT, Market Data Vendors will make the real-time Market Data widely available to subscribers. 6 6 PBOT has contracted with one or more major Market Data Vendors to receive real-time and closing index values over the MDDN and promptly redistribute such values. On May 11, 2006, the Commission approved the Exchange's proposal to allow PBOT to charge subscriber fees to Vendors of Market Data for all the values of Phlx's proprietary indexes disseminated by PBOT's MDDN. 7 The subscriber fees are set out in agreements that PBOT executes with various Market Data Vendors for the right to receive, store, and retransmit the current and closing index values transmitted over the MDDN. The fees approved by the Commission in its May 11, 2006 approval order include: a monthly fee of:
(a)$ 1.00 per “Device,” as defined in the Market Data agreements, 8 that is used by Vendors and their subscribers to receive and re-transmit Market Data on a real-time basis (“device fee”), and
(b)$.00025 per request for snapshot data, which is essentially Market Data that is refreshed no more frequently than once every 60 seconds, 9 or $1,500 per month for unlimited snapshot data requests (“snapshot fee”). 10 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53790 (May 11, 2006), 71 FR 28738 (May 17, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-04). 8 The definition of “Device” in the agreements is complex and incorporates a number of other defined terms. The agreements provide that “Device” shall mean, in case of each Subscriber and in such Subscriber's discretion, either any Terminal or any End User. A Subscriber's Device may be exclusively Terminals, exclusively End Users or a combination of Terminals or End Users and shall be reported in a manner that is consistent with the way the Vendor identifies such Subscriber's access to Vendor's data. By way of further explanation, an “End User” is an individual authorized or allowed by a Vendor to access and display real-time market data that is distributed by PBOT over the MDDN; and a “Terminal” is any type of equipment (fixed or portable) that accesses and displays such market data. 9 The Exchange has filed SR-Phlx-2006-59 proposing to increase the snapshot data fee to $.0025 per request. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54890 (December 7, 2006), 71 FR 74975 (December 13, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-59). 10 The index values may also be made available by Vendors on a delayed basis ( *i.e.* , no sooner than twenty minutes following receipt of the data by vendors) at no charge. The Exchange now proposes to add an Enterprise License Fee that would be available to eligible Vendors as an alternative to the device fee or snapshot fee. 11 Specifically, where a Vendor is a firm acting as a retail broker-dealer conducting a material portion of its business via one or more proprietary Internet Web sites by which such firm distributes Market Data to predominately non-professional Market Data users with whom such firm has a brokerage relationship (“Eligible Firm”), 12 that Eligible Firm may pay an Enterprise License Fee of $10,000 per year or $850 per month for its receipt and re-transmittal of Market Data. An Eligible Firm may also distribute Market Data to professional users with whom such firm has a brokerage relationship, provided such Market Data distribution is predominantly to non-professional users. 13 Market Data distribution will be considered to be “predominantly to non-professional users” so long as the Eligible Firm's Market Data distribution to professional users when compared to Market Data distribution to all (professional and non-professional) users does not exceed 10%. 14 11 A firm that qualifies for the Enterprise License Fee may instead choose to pay the device fee and/or the snapshot fee as appropriate. 12 To be eligible for the Enterprise License Fee, the Exchange would view a retail broker dealer as conducting a material portion of its business via one or more Internet websites if at least twenty percent (20%) of the broker dealer's business were conducted via the Internet. 13 A non-professional user is defined in the fee schedule as any natural person who is not:
(a)registered or qualified in any capacity with the Commission, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, any state securities agency, any securities exchange or association, or any commodities or futures contract market or association;
(b)engaged as an “investment advisor” as that term is defined in Section 202(11) of the Investment Advisors Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. 80b-2(11), (whether or not registered or qualified under that Act); nor,
(c)employed by a bank or other organization exempt from registration under federal or state securities laws to perform functions that would require registration or qualification if such functions were performed for an organization not so exempt. 14 As an example, if data recipient ABC Corp. has 100 customers that receive PBOT Market Data of which 10 are professional users and 90 are retail (non-professional) users the Enterprise License Fee would be available to the firm because 10 professional users / 100 total users = 10%. To be eligible for the Enterprise License Fee, an Eligible Firm shall have to certify to PBOT that it qualifies for the Enterprise License Fee, including in regard to distribution to professional and non-professional users, and shall need to immediately notify PBOT if it can no longer certify its qualification. 15 15 A firm that has entered into an agreement with PBOT to receive Market Data over the MDDN but is not qualified for the Enterprise License Fee may pay the device fee and/or the snapshot fee as appropriate. In developing the Enterprise License Fee, PBOT considered inquiries from actual and potential broker dealer data recipients regarding the availability of an Enterprise License for data transmitted over the MDDN and considered that certain industry organizations have offered fee structures that are available to some but not all data recipients, similarly to the Enterprise License Fee. 16 The Exchange believes that the proposed fee of $10,000 per year or $850 per month is fair and reasonable and consistent with industry practice. 16 For example, the Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (“Nasdaq”), a self regulatory organization, has fee schedules that are as much as twenty times higher for professional or corporate subscribers than for non-professional subscribers for UTP Level 1 fees, TotalView fees and Nasdaq MAX fees; and offers a TotalView Non-Professional Enterprise Fee License to qualified firms that distribute TotalView to their non-professional users with whom they have a professional relationship. The Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”), a national market system, offers an Enterprise Professional Subscriber Fee to certain professional options data subscribers (these professional subscribers do not qualify for the reduced fees charged to nonprofessional subscribers) that is based on the number of professional users that the subscribers have instead of the number of devices. In addition, the Exchange believes that some industry data vendors offer different fee structures to qualified data recipients. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 17 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 18 in particular, in that it 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 providing an alternate fee structure to market data recipients and thereby encouraging re-distribution of such data. The Exchange believes that its proposal, which is designed to encourage dissemination of market data, is likewise consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 19 in that the proposed rule change provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among the Exchange's members and issuers and other persons using its facilities as described herein. 17 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 18 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 19 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received from Members, Participants or Others No written comments were either solicited or 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-Phlx-2006-63 on the subject line. Paper comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2006-63. 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-2006-63 and should be submitted on or before January 18, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 20 20 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-22252 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5655] Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition; Determinations: “Dead Sea Scrolls” SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, * et seq. * ), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Dead Sea Scrolls”, imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the San Diego Natural History Museum, San Diego, California, from on or about June 29, 2007, until on or about January 15, 2008, and at possible additional venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Wolodymyr Sulzynsky, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone:
(202)453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. Dated: December 20, 2006. C. Miller Crouch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-22319 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5656] Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs
(ECA)Request for Grant Proposals: Near East Asia—South Asia Undergraduate Exchange Program *Announcement Type:* New Cooperative Agreement. *Funding Opportunity Number:* ECA/A/E/NEA-SCA-07-01. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number:* 00.000. *Key Dates:* *Application Deadline:* February 15, 2007. *Executive Summary:* The Office of Academic Exchange Programs of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs announces an open competition to administer the FY2007 Near East and South Asia Undergraduate Exchange Program. Consortia of accredited, post-secondary educational institutions and public and private non-profit organizations meeting the provisions described in Internal Revenue Code section 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3) in the United States may submit proposals to organize and carry out academic exchange activities for students from underrepresented sectors in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia (eligible countries and locales are listed below in the Purpose section). The grantee organization will be responsible for the following aspects of the program: placement of no less than 150 foreign students at accredited U.S. institutions for a semester or academic year, student travel to the U.S., orientation, enrichment programming, advising, monitoring and support, pre-return activities, evaluation, and follow-up with program alumni. It is anticipated that the total amount of funding for FY2007 administrative and program costs will be $3,000,000. I. Funding Opportunity Description Authority Overall grant making authority for this program is contained in the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, Public Law 87-256, as amended, 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:* The principal objective of the Near East and South Asia Undergraduate Exchange Program (herein referred to as the “Undergraduate Program”) is to provide a substantive exchange experience at a U.S. college or university to a diverse group of emerging student leaders from underrepresented sectors in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia. In this context, the cooperating organization should ensure that participants are able to enroll full-time in courses at U.S. institutions alongside American peers, and provide the participants with opportunities to understand America and Americans inside and outside the classroom. Participants will return to their home countries at the conclusion of the exchange program to re-enter colleges and universities there, and re-integrate with their home societies. It is also an objective of the program to provide participants with tailored instruction in the academic skills and study habits required to be successful at the undergraduate level. The Undergraduate Program will provide no less than 150 scholarships: Approximately 40 scholarships for one academic year and 110 for one semester, at U.S. institutions of higher education to outstanding students from non-elite sectors from the Near East (countries/locales may include Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, West Bank/Gaza) and South Asia (India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh). Scholarships will be granted primarily to students who are currently enrolled in an undergraduate degree program in their home country. Participants may range from those about to enter university in their home country to those who have just completed their undergraduate degree, and those between these two stages. The cooperating organization will place one-semester program participants and academic-year participants in non-degree programs at both U.S. four-year colleges and universities, and community colleges. The cooperating organization should develop enrichment activities to enhance the participants' academic education, including having students make local presentations about their countries, community service, and internships. All participants are required to return to their home countries immediately upon the conclusion of the program. Transfers of academic program or visa sponsorship of participants to another U.S. institution will not be considered. ECA will award one cooperative agreement for this program. Programs and projects must conform with Bureau requirements and guidelines outlined in the Solicitation Package. ECA programs are subject to the availability of funds. Programs must comply with J-1 Visa regulations. Please refer to the Solicitation Package for further information. In a cooperative agreement, the Near East, South and Central Asia Branch of the Office of Academic Exchange Programs in the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA/A/E/NEA-SCA) is substantially involved in program activities above and beyond routine grant monitoring. ECA/A/E/NEA-SCA activities and responsibilities for this program are, but not limited to, the following: 1. Participating in the design and direction of program activities; 2. Approval of key personnel; 3. Final selection of program participants; 4. Approval and input for all program agendas and timelines; 5. Final approval of all student placements; 6. Guidance in execution of all project components; 7. Arrangement for State Department speakers during workshops; 8. Assistance with participant emergencies; 9. Providing background information related to participants' home countries and cultures; and 10. Liaison with Public Affairs Sections of the U.S. Embassies and country desk officers at the State Department. Note: All materials, publicity, and correspondence related to the program must acknowledge this as a program of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, U.S. Department of State. The Bureau will retain copyright use of and distribute materials related to this program is it sees fit. II. Award Information *Type of Award:* Cooperative Agreement. ECA's level of involvement in this program is listed under number I above. *Fiscal Year Funds:* FY2007. *Approximate Total Funding:* $3,000,000. *Approximate Number of Awards:* 1. *Anticipated Award Date:* Pending availability of funds, the anticipated program start date will be April 2, 2007. *Anticipated Project Completion Date:* December 31, 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 accredited, post-secondary educational institutions and 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, you must maintain written records to support all costs which are claimed as your 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 you do 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 of experience in conducting international exchange programs will be limited to $60,000 in Bureau funding. ECA anticipates awarding one grant, in the amount of $3,000,000 to support the program and administrative costs required to implement the program. Therefore, applicant organizations with less then four years experience in conducting international exchange programs are ineligible. IV. Application and Submission Information Note: Please read the complete 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 the Near East, South and Central Asia Branch, Office of Academic Exchange Programs, ECA/A/E/NEA-SCA, Room 252, U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547, 202-453-8096, Fax: 202-453-8095 or *AlamiLT@state.gov* to request a Solicitation Package. Please refer to the Funding Opportunity Number ECA/A/E/NEA-SCA-07-01 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 Program Officer, Laura Alami and refer to the Funding Opportunity Number ECA/A/E/NEA-SCA-07-01 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 application should be submitted per the instructions under *IV.3f.* “Application Deadline and Methods of Submission” 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:* 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. The Grantee will be responsible for issuing DS-2019 forms to participants in this program. 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. Please refer to Solicitation Package for further information. *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 physical challenges. 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.3d.4.* Describe your plans for: i.e., sustainability, overall program management, staffing, coordination with ECA and PAS or any other requirements, etc. *IV.3e.* Please take the following information into consideration when preparing your budget: *IV.3e.1.* 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. *IV.3e.2.* Allowable costs for the program include the following: 1. Participant expenses. 2. Administrative costs. Please refer to the Solicitation Package for complete budget guidelines and formatting instructions. *IV.3f. Application Deadline and Methods of Submission:* *Application Deadline Date:* Thursday, February 15, 2007. *Reference Number:* ECA/A/E/NEA-SCA-07-01. *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 eight
(8)copies of the application should be sent to: U.S. Department of State, SA-44, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Ref.: ECA/A/E/NEA-SCA-07-01, Program Management, ECA/EX/PM, Room 534, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547. Applicants submitting hard-copy applications must also submit the “Executive Summary” and “Proposal Narrative” sections of the proposal in text (.txt) format on a PC-formatted disk. The Bureau will provide these files electronically to the appropriate Public Affairs Section(s) at the U.S. embassies for their review. *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. Ability to achieve program objectives: 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. Objectives should be reasonable, feasible, and flexible. Proposals should clearly demonstrate how the institution will meet the program's objectives and plan. 3. 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. 4. 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). 5. Institution's Record/Capacity: 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. Proposals should demonstrate capacity to place students at geographically diverse, accredited small colleges and universities that can provide students personalized attention. The Bureau will consider the past performance of prior recipients and the demonstrated potential of new applicants. Proposed personnel and institutional resources should be adequate and appropriate to achieve the program or project's goals. 6. Project Evaluation and Follow-on: 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 to use to link outcomes to original project objectives is recommended. Proposals should also provide a plan for continued follow-on activity (with minimal Bureau support) ensuring that Bureau supported programs are not isolated events. 7. Cost-effectiveness/Cost-sharing: 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. 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 one copy 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 that should include record program activities from that period. 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. *Optional Program Data Requirements:* Organizations awarded grants will be required to maintain specific data on program participants and activities in an electronically accessible database format that can be shared with the Bureau as required. As a minimum, the data must include the following:
(1)Name, address, contact information and biographic sketch of all persons who travel internationally on funds provided by the grant or who benefit from the grant funding but do not travel.
(2)Itineraries of international and domestic travel, providing dates of travel and cities in which any exchange experiences take place. Final schedules for in-country and U.S. activities must be received by the ECA Program Officer at least three work days prior to the official opening of the activity. VII. Agency Contacts For questions about this announcement, contact: Laura Alami, Near East, South and Central Asia Branch, Office of Academic Exchange Programs, ECA/A/E/NEA-SCA, Room 252, ECA/A/E/NEA-SCA-07-01, U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547, 202-453-8096 and Fax: 202-453-8095, *http://www.exchanges.state.gov* . All correspondence with the Bureau concerning this RFGP should reference the above title and number ECA/A/E/NEA-SCA-07-01. Please read the complete 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: December 21, 2006. Dina Habib Powell, Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-22321 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5657] Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs
(ECA)Request for Grant Proposals: Study of the United States Institutes for Student Leaders Announcement Type: New Cooperative Agreement. *Funding Opportunity Number:* ECA/A/E/USS-07-SL. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number:* 00.000. *Key Dates:* Summer 2007. *Application Deadline:* February 16, 2007. *Executive Summary:* The Branch for the Study of the United States, Office of Academic Exchange Programs, invites proposal submissions for the design and implementation of nine Study of the United States Institutes for Student Leaders, to take place over the course of five weeks. While the majority of Institutes should take place during Summer 2007, scheduling of each Institute should take into consideration the academic calendar of the participants' home country(ies). The Institutes should be similar in structure and content, take place at U.S. academic institutions, and provide groups of highly motivated undergraduate students from the countries and regions noted below with an integrated academic and educational travel program that will give them a deeper understanding of U.S. society and culture, while at the same time enhancing their leadership skills. Each Institute will host up to 20 participants, for a total of approximately 180 students. ECA plans to award a single grant for the administration of nine Study of the U.S. Institutes. The awarding of the grant for this program is contingent upon the availability of FY-2007 funds. I. Funding Opportunity Description Authority Overall grant making authority for this program is contained in the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, Public Law 87-256, as amended, 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 Study of the U.S. Institutes for Student Leaders are intensive academic programs whose purpose is to provide groups of undergraduate student leaders with a deeper understanding of the United States, while simultaneously enhancing their leadership skills. The principal objective of the Institutes is to heighten the participants' awareness of the history and evolution of U.S. society, culture, values and institutions, broadly defined. In this context, the Institutes should incorporate a focus on contemporary American life, as it is shaped by historical and/or current political, social, and economic issues and debates. The role and influence of principles and values such as democracy, the rule of law, individual rights, freedom of expression, equality, diversity and tolerance should be addressed. In addition to promoting a better understanding of the United States, an important objective of the Institutes is to develop the participants' leadership and collective problem-solving skills. In this context, the academic program should include group discussions, training and exercises that focus on such topics as the essential attributes of leadership, teambuilding, collective problem-solving skills, effective communication, and management skills for diverse organizational settings. There should also be a community service component, in which the students experience firsthand how not-for-profit organizations and volunteerism play a key role in American civil society. Local site visits and educational travel should provide opportunities to observe varied aspects of American life and to discuss lessons learned in the academic program. The program should also include opportunities for participants to meet American citizens from a variety of backgrounds, to interact with their American peers, and to speak to appropriate student and civic groups about their experiences and life in their home countries. Administering Organization The Bureau is seeking detailed proposals for the Institutes from public and private non-profit organizations, or consortia of such organizations with expertise in administering academic exchange programs, which will administer the Institute directly or in collaboration with partner institutions. Consortia must designate a lead institution to receive the grant award. Organizations that opt to work in sub-grant arrangements should clearly outline all duties and responsibilities of the partner organization, ideally in the form of sub-grant agreements and accompanying budgets. Each institute should take place on a U.S. college or university campus. Host institutions must be selected from among accredited four-year liberal arts colleges, community colleges, universities, other not-for-profit academic organizations or a consortia of these institutions that have an established reputation in one or more of the following fields: political science, international relations, law, history, sociology, American studies, and/or other disciplines or sub-disciplines related to the study of the United States. Organizations or consortia applying for this grant must demonstrate their (or their partners') capacity for conducting projects of this nature. ECA strongly prefers that each institution host only one institute. Program Design Each Study of the U.S. Institute for Student Leaders should provide a group of up to 20 students with a uniquely designed program that focuses on U.S. society and culture. Each Institute will consist of a challenging academic program, as well as educational travel to illustrate the various topics explored in class. Each program should be five weeks in length; participants will spend four weeks at the host institution for the academic program, and approximately one week on the related educational study tour, including two to three days in Washington, DC, at the conclusion of the Institute. The educational travel component should directly complement the academic program, and should include visits to cities and other sites of interest in the region around the host institution. Each Institute should be designed as an intensive academic program with an educational travel component that is organized through a carefully integrated series of panel presentations, seminar discussions, debates, individual and group activities, lectures and reading assignments, as well as local site visits, regional educational travel, and participation in community service activities. The Institute must not simply replicate existing or previous lectures, workshops, or group activities designed for American students. Rather, it should be a specially designed and well-integrated seminar that creatively combines lectures, discussions, readings, debates, local site visits and educational travel into a coherent whole. The grantee institution should take into account that the participants may have little or no prior knowledge of the United States and varying degrees of experience in expressing their opinions in a classroom setting; it should tailor the curriculum and classroom activities accordingly. Every effort should be made to encourage active student participation in all aspects of the Institute. The program should provide ample time and opportunity for discussion and interaction among students, lecturers and guest speakers, not simply standard lectures or broad survey reading assignments. Reading and writing assignments should be adjusted to the participants' familiarity with English. Applicants are encouraged to select accredited four-year liberal arts colleges, community colleges, universities, academic organizations or a consortia of these institutions to design thematically coherent programs in ways that draw upon the particular strengths, faculty and resources of their institutions, as well as upon the nationally recognized expertise of scholars and other experts throughout the United States. Program Administration The grantee organization should designate a project director to oversee all of the Institutes, coordinate logistical and administrative arrangements, ensure an appropriate level of continuity between the various host institution programs, and serve as the principal liaison between ECA and all the host institutions and thus, ECA's primary point of contact. The grantee organization should also designate an academic director at each host institution who will be present throughout the program to ensure the continuity, coherence and integration of all aspects of the academic program, including the related educational study tour. In addition to the academic director, an administrative coordinator should be assigned at each host institution to oversee all student support services, including supervision of the program participants and budgetary, logistical, and other administrative arrangements. For purposes of this program, it is important that the grantee organization also retain qualified mentors or escorts at each host institution who exhibit cultural sensitivity, an understanding of the program's objectives, and a willingness to accompany the students throughout the program. Participants Participants will be identified and nominated by the U.S. Embassies, Consulates and/or Fulbright Commissions in the participating countries, with final selection made by ECA. Each Institute will host up to 20 participants, for a total of approximately 180 students. Participation in the nine Institutes will be organized by country, or region, as follows:
(1)Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa.
(2)Argentina, Chile, Uruguay.
(3)Peru, Ecuador, Venezuela.
(4)Brazil.
(5)China.
(6)Turkey.
(7)Bangladesh.
(8)Pakistan.
(9)Pakistan (second institute). Participants in the Study of the U.S. Institutes for Student Leaders will be highly motivated undergraduate students from colleges, universities and other institutions of higher education in selected countries overseas who demonstrate leadership through academic work, community involvement, and extracurricular activities. Their major fields of study will be varied, and will include the sciences, social sciences, humanities, education and business. All participants will have a good knowledge of English. Every effort will be made to select a balanced mix of male and female participants, and to recruit participants who are from non-elite or underprivileged backgrounds, from both rural and urban areas, and have had little or no prior experience in the United States or elsewhere outside of their home country. *Program Dates:* The Institutes should be five weeks in length. While the majority of Institutes should take place during Summer 2007, scheduling of each Institute should take into consideration the academic calendar of the participants' home country(ies). Those institutes beginning in Summer 2007 should begin on or around the same date. *Program Guidelines:* It is essential that proposals provide a detailed and comprehensive narrative describing how the partner organizations and/or host institutions will achieve the objectives of the Institutes; the title, scope and content of each session; planned site visits, including educational travel; and how each session relates to the overall institute theme. The proposal must list the institutions that will host the various programs, and for which group of students. A sample template should be provided that lays out the academic program, including lectures, panel discussions, group presentations or other activities. A description of plans for public and media outreach in connection with the Institutes should also be included. Overall, proposals will be reviewed on the basis of their responsiveness to RFGP criteria, coherence, clarity, and attention to detail. Please note: In a cooperative agreement, the Bureau is substantially involved in program activities above and beyond routine grant monitoring. The Bureau will assume the following responsibilities for the Institutes: participate in the selection of participants; review and confirm syllabi and proposed speakers for each of the Institutes; oversee the Institutes through one or more site visits; debrief participants in Washington, DC at the conclusion of the Institute; work with the cooperating agency to publicize the program through various media outlets; provide Bureau-approved evaluation surveys for completion by participants; and engage in follow-on communication with the participants after they return to their home countries. The Bureau may request that the grantee institution make modifications to the academic residency and/or educational travel components of the program. The recipient will be required to obtain approval of any significant program changes in advance of their implementation. Note: All materials, publicity, and correspondence related to the program must acknowledge this as a program of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, U.S. Department of State. The Bureau will retain copyright use of and distribute materials related to this program is it sees fit. II. Award Information *Type of Award:* Cooperative Agreement. ECA's level of involvement in this program is detailed in the previous paragraph. *Fiscal Year Funds:* FY-2007 (pending availability of funds). *Approximate Total Funding:* $2,250,000. *Approximate Number of Awards:* 1. *Approximate Average Award:* $2,250,000. *Floor of Award Range:* $2,000,000. *Ceiling of Award Range:* $2,250,000. *Anticipated Award Date:* Pending availability of funds, April 1, 2007. *Anticipated Project Completion Date:* May 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 strongly 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, you must maintain written records to support all costs that are claimed as your 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 you do 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)Grants awarded to eligible organizations with less than four years of experience in conducting international exchange programs will be limited to $60,000. ECA anticipates awarding one grant in an amount up to $2,250,000 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 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 the Branch for the Study of the United States, ECA/A/E/USS, Room 314, U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547; tel.
(202)453-8540; fax
(202)453-8533 to request a Solicitation Package. Please refer to the Funding Opportunity Number ECA/A/E/USS-07-SL 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 Bureau Program Officer Jennifer Phillips and refer to the Funding Opportunity Number ECA/A/E/USS-07-SL 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 application should be submitted per the instructions under IV.3f, “Application Deadline and Methods of Submission” 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 PSI and POGI documents 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.* 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. The Grantee may be responsible for issuing DS-2019 forms to participants in this program, as an alternate responsible officer under the Bureau's J Designation. 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. Please refer to Solicitation Package for further information. *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 (V.2.) 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. Monitoring:* 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 monitoring 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. You should also show how your project objectives link to the goals of the program described in this RFGP. Overall, the quality of your monitoring plan will be judged on how well it specifies successes and challenges. 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. *Evaluation:* The Bureau's Office of Policy and Evaluation will conduct evaluations of the Study of the U.S. Institutes through E-GOALS, its online system for surveying program participants and collecting data about program performance. These evaluations assist ECA and its program grantees in meeting the requirements of the Government Performance Results Act
(GPRA)of 1993. This Act requires Federal agencies to measure the results of their programs in meeting pre-determined performance goals and objectives. All program participants will take three online surveys: 1. Standardized pre-program surveys, at the beginning of the program; 2. Standardized post-program surveys, at the end of the program and before their return home; and 3. Standardized follow-up surveys, approximately six months to a year after the conclusion of the program. These surveys help ECA assess: Satisfaction with the program; student attitudes and views; the extent of learning and skill development (including leadership); reliance on new learning and skills in their studies, at work, and in their communities; and their efforts to share new ideas, knowledge, and insights with citizens in their home countries. Since organizations play a critical role in facilitating E-GOALS evaluations of program participants, it is imperative that applicants include a plan to ensure that participants complete the post-program surveys while they are still on program and prior to their departure from the United States; this includes monitoring the response rate through collection of a certificate issued by the system to each student upon completion of the survey. The grantee will be working directly with an E-GOALS evaluator in the Office of Policy and Evaluation. Please see specific responsibilities in the accompanying Project Objectives, Goals and Implementation
(POGI)document. *IV.3d.4.* Describe your plans for overall program management, staffing, and coordination with the Bureau. The Bureau considers these to be essential elements of your program; please be sure to give sufficient attention to them in your proposal. *IV.3e.* Please take the following information into consideration when preparing your budget: *IV.3e.1.* Applicants must submit a comprehensive budget for the entire program. Awards may not exceed $2,250,000. While there is no rigid ratio of administrative to program costs, the Bureau urges applicant organizations to keep administrative costs as low and reasonable as possible. 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 also provide copies of any sub-grant agreements that would be implemented under terms of this award. *IV.3e.2.* Allowable costs for the program and additional budget guidance are outlined in detail in the POGI document. Please refer to the Solicitation Package for complete budget guidelines and formatting instructions. *IV.3f.* Application Deadline and Methods of Submission. *Application Deadline Date:* February 16, 2007. *Reference Number:* ECA/A/E/USS-07-SL. *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 eight
(8)copies of the application should be sent to: U.S. Department of State, SA-44, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Reference Number: ECA/A/E/USS-07-SL, Program Management, ECA/EX/PM, Room 534, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547. Applicants submitting hard-copy applications must also submit the “Executive Summary” and “Proposal Narrative” sections of the proposal in text (.txt) format on a PC-formatted disk. The Bureau will provide these files electronically to regional bureaus and Public Affairs Sections at U.S. embassies and for their review, as appropriate. *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. V.2. 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 Program Idea/Plan: Proposals should exhibit originality, substance, precision, and relevance to the Bureau's mission. Detailed agenda and relevant work plan should demonstrate substantive undertakings and logistical capacity. 2. Ability to Achieve Overall Program Objectives: Objectives should be reasonable, feasible, and flexible. Proposals should clearly demonstrate how the institution will meet the program's objectives and plan. 3. Support for Diversity: Proposals should demonstrate substantive support of the Bureau's policy on diversity. Achievable and relevant features should be cited in both program administration (program venue, study tour venue, and program evaluation) and program content (orientation and wrap-up sessions, site visits, program meetings and resource materials). 4. Evaluation and Follow-On: Proposals should include a plan to evaluate the Institute'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 to use to link outcomes to original institute objectives is strongly recommended. Proposals should provide a plan for continued follow-on activity (without Bureau support) ensuring that Bureau supported programs are not isolated events. 5. Cost-effectiveness/Cost-sharing: 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. Proposals should maximize cost-sharing through other private sector support as well as institutional direct funding contributions. 6. Institutional Track 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. Proposed personnel and institutional resources should be fully qualified to achieve the Institute's goals. VI. Award Administration Information VI.1. 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 one
(1)copy of the final program and financial report no more than 90 days after the expiration of the award. Grantees will be required to provide reports analyzing their evaluation findings to the Bureau in their regular program reports. Please refer to Application and Submission Instructions (IV.3d.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:* Jennifer Phillips, Branch for the Study of the United States, ECA/A/E/USS, Room 314, U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547; tel.
(202)453-8537; fax
(202)453-8533; e-mail, *PhillipsJA@state.gov.* All correspondence with the Bureau concerning this RFGP should reference the title “Study of the U.S. Institutes for Student Leaders” and number ECA/A/E/USS-07-SL. Please read the complete 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: December 18, 2006. Dina Habib Powell, Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-22320 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-07-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5627] Shipping Coordinating Committee; Notice of Meeting The Shipping Coordinating Committee
(SHC)through the Subcommittee on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping will conduct an open meeting at 9:30 a.m. on January 10, 2007. The meeting will be held in Room 1420 of Jemal's Riverside Building, 1900 Half Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593. The purpose of the meeting is to prepare for the 38th session of the International Maritime Organization
(IMO)Sub-Committee on Standards of Training and Watchkeeping (STW 38) to be held on January 22-26, 2007, at the Royal Horticultural Halls and Conference Centre in London, England. The primary matters to be considered include: —Comprehensive review of the STCW Convention and the STCW Code; —Measures to enhance maritime security; —Unlawful practices associated with certificates of competency; —Large passenger ship safety; —Review of the principles for establishing the safe manning levels of ships; —Education and training requirements for fatigue prevention, mitigation, and management; —Training requirements for the control and management of ship's ballast water and sediments; and —Development of competences for ratings. Please note that hard copies of documents associated with STW 38 will not be available at this meeting, the documents will be available at the meeting in portable document format (.pdf) on CD-ROM. To request documents before the meeting please write to the address provided below, and include your name, address, phone number, and electronic mail address. Copies of the papers will be sent via electronic mail to the address provided. Members of the public may attend the meeting up to the seating capacity of the room. Interested persons may seek information by writing: Luke Harden, U.S. Coast Guard (G-PSO-1), Room 1210, 2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001 or by calling;
(202)372-1408. Dated: December 18, 2006. Michael Tousley, Executive Secretary, Shipping Coordinating Committee, Department of State. [FR Doc. 06-9894 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 24
Traces to 24 documents
16 references not yet in our index
  • 10 CFR 70
  • 10 CFR 51
  • 10 CFR 30
  • 10 CFR 20
  • 10 CFR 36
  • 10 CFR 40
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 15 USC 78
  • 17 CFR 240.19
  • 17 CFR 240.10
  • 17 CFR 240.15
  • 79 Stat. 985
  • Pub. L. 87-256
  • 22 CFR 62
  • Pub. L. 104-319
  • Pub. L. 106-113
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment
C.F.R.§ 2.202
C.F.R.§ 70.5
C.F.R.§ 2.309
C.F.R.§ 20.1402
C.F.R.§ 30.36
C.F.R.§ 51.22
U.S.C.§ 552b
C.F.R.§ 242.608
U.S.C.§ 78k–1
Cite10 CFR 70
Cite10 CFR 51
Cite10 CFR 30
Cites 40 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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