			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on August 21, 2003

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 2003-15974

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  ANTONOV DESIGN BUREAU
                          Date Filed:  August 15, 2003

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 U.S.C. section 40109(g) to permit
the applicant to operate one, one-way, cargo charter flight from
Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas, to Miami, Florida, during the period August
16-18, 2003, using its AN-124 aircraft to transport one Rolls Royce
engine, on behalf of Rolls Royce and American Airlines.  The applicant
stated that American Airlines needed urgent delivery of the engine as
soon as possible for repairing an American Airlines B-777 aircraft at
Miami, to minimize disruptions to certain of American’s scheduled
passenger services; that the cargo is too large for transportation on
U.S.-carrier aircraft; and that surface transportation is not feasible
because of the large size of the cargo and of the long time period that
such mode of transportation would take.

Applicant representative:  Robert E. Cohn,<PHONE_NUMBER>              DOT
analyst:  Allen F. Brown,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  Antonov Design Bureau served its application on
those U.S. carriers operating large, all-cargo aircraft.  Each carrier
indicated that it did not have aircraft available to conduct the
proposed operation and that it had no comment or did not oppose grant of
the requested authority.

Statutory Standards:  Under 49 U.S.C. section 40109(g), we may authorize
a foreign air carrier to carry commercial traffic between U.S. points
(i.e., cabotage traffic) under limited circumstances.  Specifically, we
must find that the authority is required in the public interest; that
because of an emergency created by unusual circumstances not arising in
the normal course of business the traffic cannot be accommodated by U.S.
carriers holding certificates under 49 U.S.C. section 41102; that all
possible efforts have been made to place the traffic on U.S. carriers;
and that the transportation is necessary to avoid unreasonable hardship
to the traffic involved (an additional required finding, concerning
emergency transportation during labor disputes, was not relevant here).

        DISPOSITION

Action: Approved
                                               Action date:  August 15,
2003

Effective dates of authority granted:  August 15, 2003, through August
20, 2003

Basis for approval:  On the evening of August 15, 2003, we granted
Antonov Design Bureau’s request to operate its proposed flight from
Dallas/Ft. Worth to Miami, and confirm that action here.  In taking our
action of grant, we found that Antonov Design Bureau’s request met all
the relevant criteria of 49 U.S.C. section 40109(g) for the grant of an
exemption of this type and that the grant was required in the public
interest.  Specifically, we were persuaded that the need to move the
engine promptly in order to meet urgent American Airlines’ repair
schedules, the fact that the cargo could not be transported by surface
transportation because of the long time period such movement would have
entailed, the potential negative impact of delivery delay; and the
unique, outsized nature of the cargo, constituted an emergency not
arising in the normal course of business.  Moreover, based on the
representations of the U.S. carriers, we concluded that no U.S. carrier
had aircraft available that could be used to conduct the operation at
issue here.  We also found that, under the circumstances, grant of this
authority would prevent unreasonable hardship to Rolls Royce and
American Airlines.  Finally, we found that the applicant was qualified
to perform its proposed operation (see, e.g., Notice of Action Taken
issued May 15, 2003, in Docket OST 2003-14889).

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to our
standard exemption conditions and to the condition that the applicant
comply with an FAA-approved flight routing for the authorized flight.

Action taken by:      Michael W. Reynolds

                                  Acting Assistant Secretary for

                                     Aviation and International Affairs

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp


[Federal Register: April 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 78)]
[Notices]
[Page 21063-21064]
[DOCID:fr24ap06-108]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53663; File No. SR-NSX-2006-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Prohibit Tape Shredding

April 17, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is
hereby given that on April 4, 2006, National Stock Exchange
SM (``NSX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is proposing to add an interpretation to Rule 3.1,
which identifies the splitting of any order into multiple smaller
orders (``tape shredding'') for any purpose other than best execution
as contrary to the high standards of commercial honor and just and
equitable principles of trade. The text of the proposed rule change is
below. Proposed new language is in italic.
RULES OF NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE
* * * * *

CHAPTER III.
Rules of Fair Practice
Rule 3.1. Business Conduct of Members
    A member, in the conduct of his business, shall observe high
standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of
trade
    Interpretations and Policies:
    01. A member may not split any order into multiple smaller orders
for any purpose other than seeking the best execution for the entire
order.
* * * * *

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 NSX 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 Commission has expressed concern that participants in the
United States securities markets may be engaging in the practice of
``tape shredding,'' the practice of unbundling customer orders into
multiple smaller orders for the primary purpose of maximizing payments
to the participant or participant firms. Accordingly, the Commission
has requested self-regulatory organizations to adopt rules to prohibit
the practice.
    The Exchange strongly believes that the practice of tape shredding
is inappropriate and should be prohibited. Further, it believes that
tape shredding constitutes conduct that is inconsistent with the high
standard of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of
trade. Accordingly, the Exchange is adding an interpretation and policy
to its Rule 3.1 to explicitly prohibit NSX members from splitting large
orders into multiple smaller orders for any purpose other than best
execution.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\3\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act,\4\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \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 inappropriate burden on competition.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NSX-2006-05 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-NSX-2006-05. 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 offices of NSX. 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-NSX-2006-05 and should be submitted on or before May 15, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-6067 Filed 4-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request US EPA/ Office of Environmental Information 2. OMB control number b. X None a__ __ __ __  __ __ __ __ 2025 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. X New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. G Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. G Regular b. X Emergency  Approval requested by: 05/ 14/ 03 c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. G Three years from approval date b. X Other Specify: 11/ 30/ 2003 7. Title: Laboratory Analytical Capability and Capacity 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA ICR No. 2110.01 9. Keywords: Department of Homeland Security, bio terrorism, chemical, biological, radiological agents, laboratory 10. Abstract: This request will enable responders to terrorist incidents involving chemical, biological or radiological agents to identify laboratories capable of handling and analyzing environmental samples. Information collected through a survey instrument will be organized to allow inquiries based on geographic location, analytical capabilities, instrumentation, and special handling abilities. This tool will become a valuable resource to emergency responders at the federal, state and local levels.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. Business or other for profit e. P Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. X State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. X Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. G Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 100 b. Total annual responses 100 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 400 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 400 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 400 2. Adjustment 0 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) $ 6 c. Total annualized cost requested $ 6 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference $ 6 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change $ 6 2. Adjustment 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. _ X_ Program planning or management b. Program evaluation f. _ P_ Research c __ General purpose statistics g. Regulatory or compliance d. Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a.___ Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. X Other ( describe) one time 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Don Flattery Phone: 202 564 4677 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Ramona Trovato, Deputy Assistant Administrator Office of Environmental Information Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( I) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( I) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number."

OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95