Notices. Notice

19,855 words·~90 min read·/register/2006/09/07/06-7488

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

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Draft Regulatory Guide: Issuance, Availability The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)has issued for public comment a draft of a new guide in the agency's Regulatory Guide Series. This series has been developed to describe and make available to the public such information as methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses. The draft regulatory guide, entitled “Combined License Applications for Nuclear Power Plants (LWR Edition),” is temporarily identified by its task number, DG-1145, which should be mentioned in all related correspondence. This proposed regulatory guide contains guidance for use in submitting combined license

(COL)applications in compliance with the Commission's regulations in Title 10 Part 52 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 52), “Early Site Permits; Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.” Specifically, 10 CFR Part 52 governs the issuance of early site permits, standard design certifications, and combined licenses for nuclear power plants. In February 1972, the NRC initially published Regulatory Guide 1.70, “Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants (LWR Edition),” which the nuclear industry has since used in preparing applications for construction permits and operating licenses for new nuclear power plants. The NRC most recently revised Regulatory Guide 1.70 in November 1978 and, since that time, the Commission has established a new process for licensing new reactors. That process, described in detail in 10 CFR Part 52, allows an applicant to reference an early site permit (ESP), a design certification (DC), both, or neither, in a COL application. The NRC has developed Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1145 to provide guidance to applicants who plan to use this new process. The NRC initially issued 10 CFR Part 52 in April 1989 to offer alternative licensing (ESP, standard DC, COL, and manufacturing license) processes for new nuclear power plants. More recently, the agency proposed a revision of the rule on March 13, 2006, (71 FR 12782), to clarify the applicability of various requirements to each of the licensing processes. This Draft Regulatory Guide, DG-1145, is based on the proposed revised rule. The specific requirements pertaining to technical requirements for content of applications are contained in proposed 10 CFR 52.79, “Contents of applications, general requirements” and proposed 10 CFR 52.80, “Contents of applications, additional technical information.” The final Regulatory Guide will be conformed to the final rule that is adopted by the Commission, and will be issued when that final rule is available. At this time, the NRC staff is soliciting comments on Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1145. Comments may be accompanied by relevant information or supporting data, and should mention DG-1145 in the subject line. Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available to the public in their entirety through the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). Personal information will not be removed from your comments. You may submit comments by any of the following methods. *Mail comments to:* Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. *E-mail comments to:* *NRCREP@nrc.gov.* You may also submit comments via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at *http://ruleforum.llnl.gov/cgi-bin/rulemake?source=rg&st=draftrg.* Address questions about our rulemaking Web site to Carol A. Gallagher at

(301)415-5905 or by e-mail to *CAG@nrc.gov.* *Hand-deliver comments to:* Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. *Fax comments to:* Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at

(301)415-5144. Requests for technical information about Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1145 may be directed to the NRC Project Manager, Eric Oesterle, at

(301)415-1365 or *ERO1@nrc.gov.* Comments would be most helpful if received by October 21, 2006. Comments received after that date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. Although a time limit is given, comments and suggestions in connection with items for inclusion in guides currently being developed or improvements in all published guides are encouraged at any time. Electronic copies of Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1145 are available through the NRC's public Web site under Draft Regulatory Guides in the Regulatory Guides document collection of the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/.* Electronic copies are also available in ADAMS ( *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* ), under Package Accession #ML061800499. In addition, Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1145 and other related publicly available documents, including public comments received, can be viewed electronically on computers in the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), which is located at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will make copies of documents for a fee. The PDR's mailing address is USNRC PDR, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The PDR can also be reached by telephone at

(301)415-4737 or

(800)397-4205, by fax at

(301)415-3548, and by e-mail to *PDR@nrc.gov.* Please note that the NRC does not intend to distribute printed copies of Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1145, unless specifically requested on an individual basis. Such requests for single copies of draft or final guides (which may be reproduced) or for placement on an automatic distribution list for single copies of future draft guides in specific divisions should be made in writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Reproduction and Distribution Services Section; by e-mail to *DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov;* or by fax to

(301)415-2289. Telephone requests cannot be accommodated. Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and Commission approval is not required to reproduce them. (5 U.S.C. 552(a)) Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of September, 2006. For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Charles E. Ader, Acting Director, Division of Risk Assessment and Special Projects, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. [FR Doc. E6-14865 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54394; File No. 4-523] Program for Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Pursuant to Rule 17d-2; Order Approving and Declaring Effective a Plan for Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Between NYSE Arca, Inc. and the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. August 31, 2006. Notice is hereby given that the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has issued an Order, pursuant to Sections 17(d) 1 and 11A(a)(3)(B) 2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), granting approval and declaring effective a revised amended and restated plan for the allocation of regulatory responsibilities (“Plan”) 3 that was filed pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act 4 by NYSE Arca, Inc. 5 (“NYSE Arca”) and the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) (together with the NYSE Arca, the “Parties”). 1 15 U.S.C. 78q(d). 2 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(3)(B). 3 On January 20, 2006, the Parties submitted an amended and restated 17d-2 plan for review and approval by the Commission. On July 25, 2006, the Parties submitted a revised amended and restated plan (“Plan”), which was noticed for public comment. *See infra* note 13. 4 17 CFR 240.17d-2. 5 NYSE Arca, Inc. was formerly called the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (“PCX”). On March 6, 2006, PCX filed with the Commission a proposed rule change, which was effective upon filing, to change the name of the PCX, as well as several other related entities, to reflect Archipelago Holdings, Inc.'s (“Archipelago”) recent acquisition of PCX and the merger of the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. with Archipelago. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53615 (April 7, 2006), 71 FR 19226 (April 13, 2006). Accordingly, NASD shall assume, in addition to the regulatory responsibility it has under the Act, the regulatory responsibilities allocated to it under the Plan. At the same time, NYSE Arca is relieved of those regulatory responsibilities allocated to NASD under the Plan. I. Introduction Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, 6 among other things, requires every self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) registered as either a national securities exchange or registered securities association to examine for, and enforce compliance by, its members and persons associated with its members with the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the SRO's own rules, unless the SRO is relieved of this responsibility pursuant to Section 17(d) 7 or 19(g)(2) 8 of the Act. Section 17(d)(1) of the Act 9 was intended, in part, to eliminate unnecessary multiple examinations and regulatory duplication for those broker-dealers that maintain memberships in more than one SRO (“common members”). 10 With respect to a common member, Section 17(d)(1) authorizes the Commission, by rule or order, to relieve an SRO of the responsibility to receive regulatory reports, to examine for and enforce compliance with applicable statutes, rules, and regulations, or to perform other specified regulatory functions. 6 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(1). 7 15 U.S.C. 78q(d). 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(2). 9 15 U.S.C. 78q(d)(1). 10 *See* Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs to Accompany S. 249, S. Rep. No. 94-75, 94th Cong., 1st Session 32 (1975). To implement Section 17(d)(1), the Commission adopted two rules: Rule 17d-1 11 and Rule 17d-2 under the Act. 12 Rule 17d-2 permits SROs to propose joint plans for the allocation of regulatory responsibilities, other than financial responsibility rules, with respect to their common members. Under paragraph

(c)of Rule 17d-2, the Commission may declare such a plan effective if, after providing for notice and comment, it determines that the plan is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors, to foster cooperation and coordination among the SROs, to remove impediments to, and foster the development of, a national market system and a national clearance and settlement system, and is in conformity with the factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the Act. Upon effectiveness of a plan filed pursuant to Rule 17d-2, an SRO is relieved of those regulatory responsibilities for common members that are allocated by the plan to another SRO. 11 17 CFR 240.17d-1. Rule 17d-1 authorizes the Commission to name a single SRO as the designated examining authority (“DEA”) to examine common members for compliance with the financial responsibility requirements imposed by the Act, or by Commission or SRO rules. 12 17 CFR 240.17d-2. On August 2, 2006, the Commission published notice of the Plan filed by NYSE Arca and NASD. 13 The Commission received no comments on the Plan. The Plan is intended to replace and supersede the current 17d-2 plan between NASD and NYSE Arca and all prior amendments thereto in their entirety, 14 and is intended to reduce regulatory duplication for firms that are common members of NYSE Arca and NASD. The text of the Plan allocates regulatory responsibilities among the Parties with respect to common members. Included in the Plan is an attachment (“NYSE Arca Rules Certification for 17d-2 Agreement with NASD,” referred to herein as the “Certification”) that lists every NYSE Arca rule and Federal securities law and rule and regulation thereunder for which, under the Plan, NASD would bear responsibility for examining, and enforcing compliance by, common members. 13 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54224 (July 27, 2006), 71 FR 43823. 14 The Parties currently operate pursuant to a 17d-2 plan in which the NASD assumed certain inspection, examination, and enforcement responsibility for common members with respect to certain applicable laws, rules, and regulations (the “current NASD-NYSE Arca 17d-2 plan”). *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 14095 (October 25, 1977), 42 FR 57198 (November 1, 1977) (File No. 4-267) (notice of 1977 Agreement); 15191 (September 26, 1978), 43 FR 46093 (October 5, 1978) (File No. 4-267) (order granting temporary approval); 15722 (April 12, 1979), 44 FR 23616 (April 20, 1979) (File No. 4-267) (extension of time to file amendments); 15941 (June 21, 1979) (File No. 4-267), SEC Docket, Vol. 17, no. 14, page 995 (July 3, 1979) (further extension of time to file required amendments); 16462 (January 2, 1980), 45 FR 2121 (January 10, 1980) (File No. 4-267) (order granting temporary approval); 16591 (February 20, 1980), 45 FR 12573 (February 26, 1980) (File No. 4-267) (notice of 1980 Amendment); 16719 (April 2, 1980), 45 FR 23841 (April 8, 1980) (File No. 4-267) (order granting temporary approval); and 16858 (May 30, 1980), 45 FR 37927 (June 5, 1980) (File No. 4-267) (approval order). II. Discussion The Commission finds that the proposed Plan is consistent with the factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the Act 15 and Rule 17d-2(c) thereunder 16 in that the proposed Plan is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors, fosters cooperation and coordination among SROs, and removes impediments to and fosters the development of the national market system. In particular, the Commission believes that the proposed Plan could reduce unnecessary regulatory duplication by allocating to NASD certain responsibilities for common members that would otherwise be performed by both NYSE Arca and NASD. Accordingly, the proposed Plan promotes efficiency by reducing costs to common members. Furthermore, because NYSE Arca and NASD will coordinate their regulatory functions in accordance with the Plan, the Plan should promote investor protection. 15 15 U.S.C. 78q(d). 16 15 U.S.C. 78q(d) and 17 CFR 240.17d-2(c). The Commission notes that, under the Plan, NYSE Arca and NASD have allocated regulatory responsibility for all NYSE Arca rules that are substantially similar to NASD rules in that NYSE Arca's rule would not require NASD to develop one or more new examination standards, modules, procedures, or criteria in order to analyze the application of the rule, or a dual member's activity, conduct, or output in relation to such rule (“Common Rules”). These Common Rules are specifically listed in the Certification. 17 In addition, the NASD would assume regulatory responsibility for any provisions of the Federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder that are set forth in the Certification. 18 17 NYSE Arca has represented that there are no NYSE Arca rules that are substantially similar to NASD rules that are not included in the Certification. *See* Telephone call between Janet Angstadt, Acting General Counsel, NYSE Arca, and Richard Holley III, Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, on August 24, 2006. Further, the Certification notes that, with respect to several of the NYSE Arca rules, NYSE Arca will be responsible for any significant difference between its rule and the comparable NASD rule, until such time that amendments to such rule(s) may be filed with and approved by the Commission. NYSE Arca has represented that it shortly intends to file the proposed rule changes necessary to conform the entirety of these rules to the corresponding NASD rules. *See id.* 18 As proposed currently, there is only one Federal securities law rule listed on the Certification—Rule 200 of Regulation SHO, 17 CFR 242.200. The Plan further provides that NASD shall not assume regulatory responsibility, and NYSE Arca will retain full responsibility, for:

(1)Surveillance and enforcement with respect to trading activities or practices involving NYSE Arca's own marketplace;

(2)registration pursuant to NYSE Arca's applicable rules of associated persons ( *i.e.* , registration rules that are not Common Rules);

(3)NYSE Arca's duties as a DEA under Rule 17d-1 of the Act; 19 and

(4)any rules of NYSE Arca that do not qualify as Common Rules, except that NASD shall be responsible for such rules with respect to any broker-dealer subsidiary of Archipelago. With respect to broker-dealer subsidiaries of Archipelago, apparent violations of any NYSE Arca rules by any broker-dealer subsidiary of Archipelago will be processed by NASD, and NASD will conduct any enforcement proceedings. The effect of these provisions is that regulatory oversight and enforcement responsibilities for Archipelago Securities, L.L.C., which acts as the outbound router for the NYSE Arca Marketplace, will be vested with NASD. These provisions should help avoid any potential conflicts of interest that could arise if NYSE Arca was primarily responsible for regulating its affiliated outbound router. 20 19 17 CFR 240.17d-1. 20 This provision was a condition in the Commission's approval of a proposed rule change submitted by the PCX (the predecessor to NYSE Arca) relating to the acquisition of PCX Holdings, Inc. by Archipelago. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52497 (September 22, 2005), 70 FR 56949 (September 29, 2005) (SR-PCX-2005-90). In that filing, PCX committed to amend the current NASD-NYSE Arca 17d-2 plan within 90 days of the Commission's approval of that filing. The 90-day requirement was subsequently extended three times. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 52995 (December 21, 2005), 70 FR 77232 (December 29, 2005); 53545 (March 23, 2006), 71 FR 16183 (March 30, 2006); and 54046 (June 26, 2006), 71 FR 37965 (July 3, 2006). According to the Plan, NYSE Arca will perform a review of the Certification, at least annually, or more frequently if required by changes in either the rules of NYSE Arca or NASD, to add NYSE Arca rules not included on the then-current list of Common Rules that are substantially similar to NASD rules ( *i.e.* , new rules that qualify as Common Rules or existing rules that have been amended so that they now qualify as Common Rules); delete NYSE Arca rules included in the then-current list of Common Rules that are no longer substantially similar to NASD rules ( *i.e.* , amended rules that cease to be Common Rules); and confirm that the remaining rules on the list of Common Rules continue to be NYSE Arca rules that are substantially similar to NASD rules. NASD will then confirm in writing whether the rules listed in any updated list are Common Rules as defined in the Plan. The Commission is hereby declaring effective and approving a plan that, among other things, allocates regulatory responsibility to NASD for the oversight and enforcement of all NYSE Arca rules that are substantially similar to the rules of the NASD for common members of NYSE Arca and NASD. Therefore, modifications to the Certification need not be filed with the Commission as an amendment to the Plan, provided that the Parties are only adding to, deleting from, or confirming changes to NYSE Arca rules in the Certification in conformance with the definition of Common Rules provided in the Plan. However, should NYSE Arca or NASD decide to add a NYSE Arca rule to the Certification that is not substantially similar to an NASD rule; delete a NYSE Arca rule from the Certification that is substantially similar to an NASD rule; or leave on the Certification a NYSE Arca rule that is no longer substantially similar to an NASD rule, then such a change would constitute an amendment to the Plan, which must be filed with the Commission pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act and noticed for public comment. As noted above, NYSE Arca and NASD have also set forth in the Certification the Federal securities laws, and the rules and regulations thereunder, for which NASD will bear responsibility under the Plan for examining, and enforcing compliance by, common members. The Commission notes that any changes to this list of Federal securities laws, and the rules and regulations thereunder, would constitute an amendment to the Plan, which must be filed with the Commission pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act and noticed for public comment. The Plan also permits NYSE Arca and NASD to terminate the Plan, subject to notice, for various reasons. The Commission notes, however, that while the Plan permits the Parties to terminate the Plan, the Parties cannot by themselves reallocate the regulatory responsibilities set forth in the Plan, since Rule 17d-2 under the Act requires that any allocation or re-allocation of regulatory responsibilities be filed with the Commission. 21 21 The Commission notes that paragraphs 3 and 13 of the Plan reflect the fact that NASD's responsibilities under the Plan will continue in effect until the Commission approves the termination of the Plan. III. Conclusion This Order gives effect to the Plan filed with the Commission in File No. 4-523. The Parties shall notify all members affected by the Plan of their rights and obligations under the Plan. *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Sections 17(d) and 11A(a)(3)(B) of the Act, that the Plan in File No. 4-523, between NYSE Arca and NASD, filed pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act, is approved and declared effective. *It is therefore ordered* that NYSE Arca is relieved of those responsibilities allocated to the NASD under the Plan in File No. 4-523. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 22 22 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(34). Jill M. Peterson, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-14784 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54389] Order Granting an Exemption for Qualified Contingent Trades From Rule 611(a) of Regulation NMS Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 August 31, 2006. I. Introduction Pursuant to Rule 611(d) 1 of Regulation NMS 2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), by order, may exempt from the provisions of Rule 611 of Regulation NMS (“Rule 611” or “Rule”), either unconditionally or on specified terms and conditions, any person, security, transaction, quotation, or order, or any class or classes of persons, securities, quotations, or orders, if the Commission determines that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, and is consistent with the protection of investors. 3 As discussed below, the Commission is exempting each NMS stock component of certain qualified contingent trades (as defined below) from Rule 611(a) of Regulation NMS. 1 17 CFR 242.611(d). 2 17 CFR 242.600 *et seq.* 3 *See also* 15 U.S.C. 78mm(a)(1) (providing general authority for Commission to grant exemptions from provisions of Exchange Act and rules thereunder). II. Background The Commission adopted Regulation NMS in June 2005. 4 Rule 611 addresses intermarket trade-throughs of quotations in NMS stocks. 5 The Rule applies only to quotations that are immediately accessible through automatic execution. 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005) (“Regulation NMS Adopting Release”). 5 An “NMS stock” means any security or class of securities, other than an option, for which transaction reports are collected, processed, and made available pursuant to an effective transaction reporting plan. *See* 17 CFR 242.600(b)(46) and (47). The Securities Industry Association (“SIA”) has requested that the Commission exempt certain qualified contingent trades from Rule 611(a) of Regulation NMS. 6 According to the SIA Exemption Request, a contingent trade “is a multi-component trade involving orders for a security and a related derivative, or, in the alternative, orders for related securities, that are executed at or near the same time.” 7 The SIA notes that the economics of a contingent trade are based on the relationship between the prices of the security and the related derivative or security, and that the execution of one order is contingent upon the execution of the other order. The SIA states that the sought-after spread or ratio between the relevant instruments is known and specified at the time of the order, and this spread or ratio stands regardless of the prevailing price at the time of execution. Therefore, the parties to these transactions are focused on the spread or ratio between the transaction prices for each of the component instruments, rather than on the absolute price of any single component instrument. Because the focus of such trades is on the relative prices of the component instruments, the price of a component of a particular trade may or may not correspond to the prevailing market price of the security. For contingent trades, the parties to the trade will not execute one side of the trade without the other component or components being executed in full (or in ratio) and at the specified spread or ratio. 8 6 Letter to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Commission, from Andrew Madoff, SIA Trading Committee, SIA, dated June 21, 2006 (“SIA Exemption Request”). 7 SIA Exemption Request at 2. 8 *See* SIA Exemption Request at 2. The SIA states that contingent trades play an important role in the investment and trading strategies of investors. They are the mechanism through which large institutional and broker-dealer proprietary traders enter and exit the market for many securities, including those that are involved in a merger, those representing different classes of shares of the same issuer, those with convertible securities that are related to the common stock, and those with actively traded equity derivatives such as options. 9 The SIA believes that, as a general rule, the market view on what constitutes an appropriate spread or ratio between related securities is less volatile than the quoted prices for the stocks that are part of these contingent trades and, consequently, contingent trades act as a stabilizing factor in the markets. 10 9 *See* SIA Exemption Request at 2. In an appendix to its letter, the SIA provided detailed discussions of three types of contingent trades, namely, a risk or merger arbitrage transaction, a convertible security transaction, and a stock option transaction, and how these trades would be affected by Rule 611. *See* SIA Exemption Request at 8-12. 10 *See* SIA Exemption Request at 2-3. To effectively execute a contingent trade, its component orders must be executed in full or in ratio 11 at its predetermined spread or ratio. According to the SIA, parties seeking to effect contingent trades involving NMS stocks in many instances would be able to comply with the Rule, but in other instances—such as trades involving two or more NMS stocks or circumstances in which there was insufficient flexibility to adjust the execution price of the non-NMS stock component of a contingent trade—compliance with Rule 611 would not be possible. In such instances, if the designated price of an NMS stock that was a component order of a proposed contingent trade was inferior to a protected bid or offer, as relevant, the Rule would require the better protected bids or offers to be satisfied prior to the execution of the NMS stock component of the contingent trade, thus preventing the trade from being executed in accordance with the original terms. The SIA believes that, by breaking up one or more components of the contingent trade and requiring that such component(s) be separately executed from the entire trade package and at prices inappropriate for the desired trading strategy, Rule 611 would effectively undermine the contingent aspect of the trade and leave one or more parties to the trade “out of hedge.” 12 11 “In ratio” clarifies that component orders of a contingent trade do not necessarily have to be executed in full, but any partial executions must be in a predetermined ratio. 12 *See* SIA Exemption Request at 3. Without an exemption from Rule 611, the SIA believes that customers might be unable to complete contingent trades. In particular, dealers might be unable to commit capital to those customers who requested it, which could reduce or eliminate this type of trading activity and remove liquidity from the market. The SIA believes that such a result would disadvantage the market as a whole. 13 13 *See* SIA Exemption Request at 4. In its exemption request, the SIA states that the requested relief is narrowly drawn, noting that the number of qualified contingent trades is small in comparison to the overall number of trades executed in NMS stocks. It therefore believes that the number of possible exempted trade-throughs would similarly be small. The SIA also noted that the requirement that the NMS stock component of a contingent trade be of block size further reduces the risk that the exemption will used inappropriately for transactions of retail size. 14 14 *See* SIA Exemption Request at 6. III. Discussion After careful consideration and for the reasons discussed below, the Commission hereby grants an exemption from Rule 611(a) for any trade-throughs caused by the execution of an order involving one or more NMS stocks (each an “Exempted NMS Stock Transaction”) that are components of a qualified contingent trade. A “qualified contingent trade” is a transaction consisting of two or more component orders, executed as agent or principal, where:

(1)At least one component order is in an NMS stock;

(2)All components are effected with a product or price contingency that either has been agreed to by the respective counterparties or arranged for by a broker-dealer as principal or agent;

(3)The execution of one component is contingent upon the execution of all other components at or near the same time;

(4)The specific relationship between the component orders ( *e.g.,* the spread between the prices of the component orders) is determined at the time the contingent order is placed;

(5)The component orders bear a derivative relationship to one another, represent different classes of shares of the same issuer, or involve the securities of participants in mergers or with intentions to merge that have been announced or since cancelled; 15 15 Transactions involving securities of participants in mergers or with intentions to merge that have been announced would meet this aspect of the requested exemption. Transactions involving cancelled mergers, however, would constitute qualified contingent trades only to the extent they involve the unwinding of a pre-existing position in the merger participants' shares. Statistical arbitrage transactions, absent some other derivative or merger arbitrage relationship between component orders, would not satisfy this element of the definition of a qualified contingent trade.

(6)The Exempted NMS Stock Transaction is fully hedged (without regard to any prior existing position) as a result of the other components of the contingent trade; 16 and 16 A trading center may demonstrate that an Exempted NMS Stock Transaction is fully hedged under the circumstances based on the use of reasonable risk-valuation methodologies.

(7)The Exempted NMS Stock Transaction that is part of a contingent trade involves at least 10,000 shares or has a market value of at least $200,000. 17 17 *See* 17 CFR 242.600(b)(9) (defining “block size” with respect to an order as at least 10,000 shares or $200,000 in market value). The Commission notes that a trading center must meet all of the foregoing elements of a qualified contingent trade to qualify for the exemption. The exemption is not restricted to dealers or the over-the-counter market. It can be used by any trading center that meets the terms of the exemption. Rule 611 requires trading centers to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to prevent trade-throughs, or, if relying on one of the Rule's exceptions, that are reasonably designed to assure compliance with the exception. 18 In addition, a trading center is required to regularly surveil to ascertain the effectiveness of its policies and procedures and to take prompt action to remedy deficiencies. 19 The Rule also includes a number of exceptions, such as intermarket sweep orders 20 and orders executed at “benchmark” prices that were not reasonably determinable at the time the commitment to execute the order was made. 21 Without an exemption, however, qualified contingent trades generally would be subject to the Rule. 18 *See* 17 CFR 242.611(a)(1). 19 *See* 17 CFR 242.611(a)(2). 20 *See* 17 CFR 242.611(b)(5) and (6). 21 *See* 17 CFR 242.611(b)(7). As discussed in the Regulation NMS Adopting Release, the Commission previously considered comments favoring a general exception from the Rule for broad categories of transactions, variously described as “contingency” transactions, “arbitrage” transactions, “spread” transactions, and transactions priced with reference to derivatives. 22 It noted, however, that any exception for such a broad category of transactions potentially could unduly detract from the objectives of Rule 611. Therefore, when adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission stated that the most appropriate process to handle suggestions that specific types of transactions should be excluded from the coverage of the Rule would be through the exemptive procedure set forth in paragraph

(d)of the Rule. 22 Regulation NMS Adopting Release, 70 FR at 37528. The Commission recognizes that contingent trades can be useful trading tools for investors and other market participants, particularly those who trade the securities of issuers involved in mergers, different classes of shares of the same issuer, convertible securities, and equity derivatives such as options. Those who engage in contingent trades can benefit the market as a whole by studying the relationships between the prices of such securities and executing contingent trades when they believe such relationships are out of line with what they believe to be fair value. Contingent trades therefore are one example of a wide variety of trades that contribute to the efficient functioning of the securities markets and the price discovery process. The Commission believes that qualified contingent trades potentially could become too risky and costly to be employed successfully if they were required to meet the trade-through provisions of Rule 611. Absent an exemption, participants in contingent trades often would need to use the Rule's intermarket sweep order exception and route orders to execute against protected quotations with better prices than an NMS stock component of the contingent trade. Any executions of these routed orders could throw the participants “out of hedge” and necessitate additional transactions in an attempt to correct the imbalance. As a practical matter, the difficulty of maintaining a hedge, and the risk of falling out of hedge, could dissuade participants from engaging in contingent trades, or at least raise the cost of such trades. The elimination or reduction of this trading strategy potentially could remove liquidity from the market. The Commission therefore has determined to exempt qualified exempted trades from Rule 611. To minimize the effect of an exemption on the objectives of Rule 611, the exemption is narrowly drawn to encompass only those trades most in need of relief to remain part of a viable trading strategy and where execution of the NMS stock component at a trade-through price is reasonably necessary to effect the contingent trade. In particular, elements

(1)through

(6)of the exemption, as set forth above, require a close connection between any Exempted NMS Stock Transaction and the other components of a qualified contingent trade. This close connection should both significantly limit the number of Exempted NMS Stock Transactions and help assure that the exemption applies only to those trades most in need of flexibility to be executed efficiently. For example, the execution of one component of the transaction must be contingent upon the execution of all other components at or near the same time, and the Exempted NMS Stock Transaction must be fully hedged (without regard to any prior existing position) as a result of the other components of the contingent trade. 23 In addition, there must be a specified relationship between the instruments involved in the component orders. The component orders must bear a derivative relationship to one another, represent different classes of shares of the same issuer, or involve the securities of participants in mergers or with intentions to merge that have been announced or since cancelled. 24 The exemption does not apply to contingent trades, such as statistical arbitrage transactions, if their components do not involve instruments with a specified relationship. Finally, the Exempted NMS Stock Transaction must be of block-size, involving at least 10,000 shares or having a market value of at least $200,000. This element further limits the exemption to those transactions where an exemption is likely to be most needed to facilitate the trading strategies of informed customers. 23 The requirement that an Exempted NMS Stock Transaction be fully hedged should significantly limit the scope of the exemption. For example, a contingent trade would not qualify for the exemption if an NMS stock transaction was the purchase or sale of 50,000 shares, and the only other component was the purchase or sale of a small quantity of options on the NMS stock. A trading center may demonstrate that an Exempted NMS Stock Transaction is fully hedged under the circumstances based on the use of reasonable risk-valuation methodologies. 24 Transactions involving cancelled mergers would be qualified contingent trades only to the extent that they involve the unwinding of a pre-existing position in the merger participants' shares. Accordingly, the exemption should provide appropriate relief in those circumstances where compliance with Rule 611 could be most difficult as a practical matter, but also is limited to a small number of transactions that should not unduly undermine the objectives of Rule 611. 25 In this regard, the Commission notes that the exception is premised on an expectation that qualified contingent trades will continue to be used for essentially the same valid trading purposes as they are currently and as described in the SIA Exemption Request. A material change in the nature or frequency of such trades could cause the Commission to reconsider the terms of the exemption. 25 *See* SIA Exemption Request at 5-6 (representing that the number of qualified contingent trades is small in comparison to the overall number of trades executed in NMS stocks and, therefore, the overall number of possible exempted trade-throughs is similarly small). For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that granting an exemption from Rule 611 for qualified contingent trades, as defined above, is necessary and appropriate in the public interest, and is consistent with the protection of investors. IV. Conclusion *It is hereby ordered* , pursuant to Rule 611(d) of Regulation NMS, that each NMS stock component of qualified contingent trades, as defined above, shall be exempt from Rule 611(a) of Regulation NMS. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 26 26 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(82). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-14806 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54386; File No. SR-Amex-2006-75] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Extension of a Pilot Program That Increases Position and Exercise Limits for Equity Options and Options on the Nasdaq-100 Tracking Stock August 30, 2006. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on August 15, 2006, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” 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 Amex. The Exchange has filed the proposal 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 it 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 seeks a six-month extension of its pilot program increasing the standard position and exercise limits for options on the QQQQ and equity option classes traded on the Exchange (“Pilot Program”). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Amex's Web site ( * http:// www.amex.com * ), at the Amex's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Amex included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange is requesting to extend its current Pilot Program increasing the standard position and exercise limits for options on the QQQQ and equity option classes traded on the Exchange for a time period of six months from September 1, 2006, through and including March 1, 2007. In March 2005, the Exchange established the Pilot Program for a six-month period. 5 Under the Pilot Program, position and exercise limits for options on the QQQQ and equity options classes traded on the Exchange were increased to the following levels: 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51316 (March 3, 2005), 70 FR 12251 (March 11, 2005) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of File No. SR-Amex-2005-029). The Pilot Program was extended twice and is due to expire on September 1, 2006. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 53349 (February 22, 2006), 71 FR 10571 (March 1, 2006) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of File No. SR-Amex-2006-07); and 52260 (August 15, 2005), 70 FR 48991 (August 22, 2005) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of File No. SR-Amex-2005-082). Telephone conversation between Nyieri Nazarian, Assistant General Counsel, Amex, and Theodore S. Venuti, Attorney, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, on August 16, 2006. Current equity option contract limit 6 Pilot program equity option contract limit 13,500 25,000 22,500 50,000 231,500 75,000 60,000 200,000 75,000 250,000 Current QQQQ option contract limit Pilot program QQQQ option contract limit 300,000 900,000 6 Except when the Pilot Program is in effect. The standard position limits were last increased on December 31, 1998. 7 Since that time there has been a steady increase in the number of accounts that:

(a)Approach the position limit;

(b)exceed the position limit; and

(c)are granted an exemption to the standard limit. Several member firms have petitioned the options exchanges to either eliminate position limits, or in lieu of total elimination, increase the current levels and expand the available hedge exemptions. A review of available data indicates that the majority of accounts that maintain sizable positions are in those option classes subject to the 60,000 and 75,000 tier limits. There also has been an increase in the number of accounts that maintain sizable positions in the lower three tiers. In addition, overall volume in the options market has continually increased over the past five years. The Exchange believes that the increase in options volume and lack of evidence of market manipulation occurrences over the past twenty years justifies the proposed increases in the position and exercise limits. 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40875 (December 31, 1998), 64 FR 1842 (January 12, 1999) (File No. SR-Amex-98-22) (approval of increase in position limits and exercise limits). The Exchange has not encountered any problems or difficulties relating to the Pilot Program since its inception. The instant proposed rule change makes no substantive change to the Pilot Program other than to extend it for six months through and including March 1, 2007. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 8 in general and furthers the objective of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 9 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would impose no burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others No written comments were solicited or received by the Exchange on this proposal. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the foregoing rule change does not:

(1)Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;

(2)impose any significant burden on competition; and

(1)Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;

(2)impose any significant burden on competition; and

(3)become operative for 30 days from the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 10 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 11 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 11 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. 12 However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 13 permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file this proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing the proposed rule change. In addition, the Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day pre-operative delay. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day pre-operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and in the public interest because it will allow the Pilot Program to continue uninterrupted. 14 12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). 13 *Id.* 14 For purposes only of waiving the pre-operative delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 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 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 Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File No. SR-BSE-2006-32 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BSE-2006-32. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the BSE. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BSE-2006-32 and should be submitted on or before September 28, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 15 15 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-14792 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54383; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-75] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Extension of Its Dividend, Merger, and Short Stock Interest Strategies Fee Cap Pilot Program August 30, 2006. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on August 29, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (“CBOE” 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 CBOE. CBOE 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 CBOE proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to extend until March 1, 2007, the dividend, merger and short stock interest strategies fee cap program. The text of the proposed rule change is available on CBOE's Web site at *http://www.cboe.com* , at the Office of the Secretary at CBOE, 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 The Exchange currently caps market-maker, firm, and broker-dealer transaction fees associated with dividend, merger and short stock interest strategies, as described in Footnote 13 of the CBOE Fees Schedule (“Strategy Fee Cap”). The Strategy Fee Cap is in effect as a pilot program that is due to expire on September 1, 2006. The Exchange proposes to extend the Strategy Fee Cap program until March 1, 2007. No other changes are proposed. The Exchange believes that extension of the Strategy Fee Cap program should attract additional liquidity and permit the Exchange to remain competitive for these types of strategies. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its schedule of fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 5 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 6 in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among CBOE members and other persons using its facilities. 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others No written comments were solicited or received on the proposed rule change. 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 7 and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder 8 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. 7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 8 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-CBOE-2006-75 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2006-75. 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 CBOE. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2006-75 and should be submitted on or before September 28, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 9 9 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-14805 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54391; File No. SR-NSX-2006-08] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto and Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 Thereto to Amend Its Trading Rules to Provide for a Price-Time Priority Market and Other Related Changes August 31, 2006. I. Introduction On June 6, 2006, the National Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NSX” 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 its rules in order to incorporate a price-time priority automatic execution trading system (“System”) to replace the Exchange's current system, the National Securities Trading System (“NSTS”). On June 22, 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 July 6, 2006. 3 The Commission received one comment letter on the proposal. 4 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54044 (June 26, 2006), 71 FR 38452 (“Trading Rules Notice”). 4 *See* letter from Michael A. Barth, Senior Vice President, Exchanges and Market Centers, Order Execution Services Holdings, Inc. (“OES”), to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Commission, dated July 19, 2006 (“OES Letter”). On August 11, 2006, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change. 5 On August 18, 2006, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change. 6 This order approves the proposed rule change, as amended by Amendment No. 1. Simultaneously, the Commission is providing notice of filing of Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 and granting accelerated approval of Amendment Nos. 2 and 3. 5 The text of Amendment No. 2 is available on NSX's Web site ( *http://www.nsx.com* ), at the principal office of NSX, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. *See* Section II, *infra* , for a discussion of Amendment No. 2. 6 The text of Amendment No. 3 is available on NSX's Web site ( *http://www.nsx.com* ), at the principal office of NSX, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. *See* Section II, *infra* , for a discussion of Amendment No. 3. II. Description The Exchange proposes to amend its rules in order to implement a new trading System to replace the Exchange's current NSTS. Specifically, the proposed System would provide a new trading platform and structure for the Exchange with price-time priority execution without any priority of execution distinction made for principal or agency orders. 7 The Exchange proposes to substantially revise Chapter XI (Trading Rules) of its rules in order to incorporate new priority rules and other features within the System. These rules relate to: hours of trading; units of trading; price variations; securities eligible for trading; registration of market makers; obligations of market maker authorized traders; registration of market makers in a security; obligations of market makers; access; authorized traders; orders and modifiers; cross messages; proprietary and agency orders, and modes of order interaction; priority of orders; order execution; trade execution and reporting; clearance and settlement; limitation of liability; clearly erroneous executions; trading halts due to extraordinary market volatility; short sales; locking or crossing quotations in NMS stocks; and riskless principal transactions. 8 7 *See* proposed NSX Rules 11.13 and 11.14. 8 *See* proposed NSX Rules 11.1-11.23. Under proposed NSX Rule 11.11, the System would include a number of new order types, including different types of sweep orders ( *e.g.* , Protected Sweep Orders, Full Sweep Orders, Destination Sweep Orders) 9 that direct the Exchange to route an order, or a relevant portion thereof, to away trading centers. In addition, once the relevant compliance date for Regulation NMS under the Act (“Regulation NMS”) 10 has been reached, the System would permit orders to be marked as intermarket sweep orders (“ISOs”) pursuant to Regulation NMS and also permit incoming ISOs from other trading centers. 11 Proposed NSX Rule 11.12 sets forth restrictions for cross messages (“Crosses”) generally, as well as additional requirements for Midpoint Crosses, 12 Clean Crosses, 13 and Cross/Sweeps. 14 9 *See* proposed NSX Rule 11.11(c)(7). 10 17 CFR 242.600 *et seq.* *See* 17 CFR 242.610 and 17 CFR 242.611. 11 *See* proposed NSX Rule 11.11(c)(7)(iv) and (c)(8). 12 *See* proposed NSX Rule 11.12(c). 13 *See* proposed NSX Rule 11.12(d). 14 *See* proposed NSX Rule 11.12(f). Proposed NSX Rule 11.13 would permit participation in the System via automatic execution or order delivery. To be eligible for the order delivery functionality, a participant would have to demonstrate to the Exchange that it could automatically process an inbound order and respond immediately. Proposed Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 11.13 would define “immediately” as having system response times “that generally meet or exceed industry standards,” which NSX believes currently to be 100 milliseconds. 15 15 *See* Amendment No. 2, *supra* , note 5. In its proposed revisions to Chapter XI of its rules, the Exchange also incorporated a number of provisions relating to Regulation NMS—in addition to ISOs—including proposed NSX Rule 11.22 relating to locking or crossing quotations in NMS stocks. Also, proposed NSX Rule 11.15(d) provides that the System would be operated as an “automated market center” (as defined by Regulation NMS) and would display “automated quotations” (as defined by Regulation NMS) at all times except in the event that a systems malfunction renders the System incapable of displaying automated quotations. In such a case, the Exchange would communicate to ETP Holders its procedures concerning a change from automated to manual quotations. In addition to substantially revising Chapter XI, the Exchange also made revisions and proposed new rules in other chapters of its rules. Proposed NSX Rule 1.4 details the effective time for certain rules while proposed NSX Rule 1.5 includes new definitions for a number of terms including, among others, “Authorized Trader,” “Protected NBBO,” “protected quotation,” “Sponsored Participants,” and “Sponsoring ETP Holder.” The Trading Rules Notice also included a request by the Exchange for the Commission to approve its wholly-owned subsidiary, NSX Securities, LLC (“NSX Securities”), as a facility of the Exchange. NSX Securities’ only function would be to route orders to other securities exchanges, facilities of securities exchanges, automated trading systems, electronic communications networks (“ECNs”), or other brokers or dealers (collectively, “Trading Centers”) from the Exchange (such function referred to as the “Outbound Router”). Proposed NSX Rule 2.11 contains the undertakings of NSX Securities including, among other things, that: NSX would regulate the Outbound Router as a facility of the Exchange that is subject to Section 6 of the Act, and would be responsible for filing with the Commission rules and fees relating to the Outbound Router; the NASD would be responsible for regulatory oversight and enforcement as the Outbound Router's Designated Examining Authority (“DEA”) pursuant to Rule 17d-1 of the Act; use of NSX Securities by ETP Holders would be optional; and NSX Securities would not engage in any business other than its Outbound Router function, unless approved by the Commission. On August 11, 2006, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change, which made certain revisions to the original proposal, as amended by Amendment No. 1. NSX revised proposed NSX Rule 11.13's requirements for order delivery functionality eligibility. Under subsection (b)(2), a User ( *i.e.* , an ETP Holder or Sponsored Participant) must demonstrate to the Exchange that the User's system can automatically process inbound orders and respond immediately; new Interpretation and Policy .01 to proposed NSX Rule 11.13 would define “immediately” as having system response times “that generally meet or exceed industry standards,” which NSX believes currently to be 100 milliseconds. NSX also amended its rules to make certain revisions relating to cross messages. The Exchange revised proposed NSX Rule 11.12(d) to delete the requirement that a Clean Cross be executed only if neither side of the Cross is for the account of the User entering the Cross, and amended proposed NSX Rule 11.3(b) to permit Cross executions in subpenny increments so long as they improve the Exchange's top of book (“Top of Book”) by at least a penny per share, as well as Clean Cross executions in subpenny increments. In addition, the Exchange clarified that its customer priority rules found in NSX Rule 12.6 applied to Cross/Sweep messages. In Amendment No. 2, NSX also stated that it would review its current regulatory allocation plan with NASD (as permitted by Rule 17d-2 under the Act 16 ) to ensure that the NASD, and not the Exchange, has responsibility for such regulatory functions for NSX Securities. NSX also added new proposed NSX Rule 2.11(b) which states that the books, records, premises, officers, agents, directors and employees of NSX Securities as a facility of the Exchange would be deemed to be the books, records, premises, officers, agents, directors and employees of the Exchange for purposes of, and subject to oversight pursuant to, the Act, and that the books and records of NSX Securities as a facility of the Exchange would be subject at all times to inspection and copying by the Exchange and the Commission. 16 17 CFR 240.17d-2. In addition, in Amendment No. 2, NSX revised its rules to reflect the extension of certain compliance dates relating to Regulation NMS. NSX proposed to modify certain rules such that their effectiveness would coincide with the Regulation NMS compliance dates announced by the Commission. The Exchange also modified other rules to include different rule provisions applicable prior to and following the relevant Regulation NMS compliance dates. 17 NSX also proposed a new NSX Rule 11.16(b) which requires the Exchange to, following the compliance date for Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, “identify all trades executed pursuant to an exception or exemption from Rule 611 of Regulation NMS in accordance with specifications approved by the operating committee of the relevant national market system plan for an NMS stock.” In addition, the Exchange revised proposed NSX Rule 11.15 to indicate that it intends to take advantage of the self-help provisions of Regulation NMS. 17 For example, NSX revised the proposed definition of “protected quotation” to mean, prior to the compliance date for Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, a bid or offer in a stock that is the best bid or best offer of a national securities exchange or association; provided, however, that the term “protected quotation” would not include a bid or offer in a stock that is subject to the ITS Plan if trading through such bid or offer would be permitted under NSX Rule 14.9(b) or by an exemption available under the securities laws or otherwise granted by the Commission or its staff. Following the compliance date for Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, the definition of “protected quotation” would mean a bid or offer in a stock that

(i)is displayed by an automated trading center;

(ii)is disseminated pursuant to a national market system plan approved by the Commission; and

(iii)is an automated quotation that is the best bid or best offer of a national securities exchange or association. In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange also described its proposed phase-in plan for the new System. According to the Exchange, the System is currently undergoing testing and is scheduled to become operational on or about September 5, 2006. NSX stated that it plans to phase-in the System as follows: first, beginning the week of September 5, 2006, a small group of Nasdaq-listed stocks would be transitioned to the System from NSTS. Several additional groups of Nasdaq-listed stocks would be transitioned to the System over the following five weeks, so that all Nasdaq-listed stocks would have been transitioned to the System by approximately mid-October, 2006. Following the transition of Nasdaq-listed stocks, NSX plans to transition all non-Nasdaq-listed securities to the System. NSX stated that it plans to monitor implementation and adjust the schedule as needed to maintain an orderly transition. Amendment No. 2 also contained a number of non-substantive changes and technical corrections to clarify the original proposal, as amended by Amendment No. 1. Finally, Amendment No. 2 contained a response to the comment letter received on the original proposal, as amended by Amendment No. 1. 18 18 *See* Section III.B., *infra.* On August 18, 2006, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change. Amendment No. 3 revised proposed NSX Rule 11.16(b) to clarify that trades executed pursuant to both the intermarket sweep order exception of Rule 611(b)(5) or

(6)of Regulation NMS and the self-help exception of Rule 611(b)(1) of Regulation NMS would be identified as executed pursuant to the intermarket sweep order exception. III. Discussion and Commission Findings After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange 19 and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6 of the Act 20 and the rules and regulations thereunder. The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 21 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. 19 The Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 20 15 U.S.C. 78f. 21 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). As previously stated, NSX proposes to replace its current trading system, NSTS, with a new trading System that would provide for price-time priority execution. The Exchange proposes to revise its rules, including Chapter XI (relating to trading rules), in connection with this new market structure. A. Order Types Pursuant to proposed NSX Rule 11.11, Users would be able to enter market orders and limit orders into the System with various time-in-force terms and other modifiers. Specific order types permitted by the System include: ITS Orders, Reserve Orders, Odd Lot Orders, Mixed Lot Orders, Post Only Orders, NSX Only Orders, Sweep Orders (including Protected Sweep Orders, Full Sweep Orders, and Destination Sweep Orders), Destination Specific Orders, and, following the compliance date for Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, Incoming Intermarket Sweep Orders. The Exchange's proposed Sweep Orders would allow a User to “sweep” the market by matching the order for execution in the NSX Book, and simultaneously converting the order into one or more limit orders and routing such orders to away trading centers for execution against quotations in accordance with the terms of the Sweep Order. Specifically, a Protected Sweep Order would only execute against orders in the NSX Book and protected quotations at away trading centers. A Full Sweep Order would execute against the best available quotations in the NSX Book and at away trading centers (automated and manual quotations). A Destination Sweep Order would first be matched for execution against the NSX Book and then routed to a User-specified trading center for execution. The Commission believes that the proposed order types are consistent with the Act. The Commission notes that a number of the proposed order types will have different definitions prior to and following the relevant Regulation NMS compliance dates, which should enable Users to make use of the trading and routing strategies of such order types prior to when full compliance with Rules 610 and 611 of Regulation NMS is required. Pursuant to proposed NSX Rule 11.12, Users may post a Cross on the System if the price of such trade is better than the best bid and offer on NSX, and (following the compliance date for Rule 611 of Regulation NMS) if it is equal to or better than the Protected NBBO. Crosses must improve each side of the Top of Book by at least one penny a share, except in the cases of Midpoint Crosses and Clean Crosses. A Midpoint Cross may improve the Top of Book by as little as one-half the minimum increment provided in NSX Rule 11.3(a), if it is priced at the midpoint of the Protected NBBO (or, prior to the compliance date for Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, if it is priced at the midpoint of the best bid and offer on the Exchange). 22 A Clean Cross may be executed on the System at a price equal to or better than the Top of Book if

(i)it is for at least 5,000 shares and has an aggregate value of at least $100,000,

(ii)the size of the Cross is greater than the size of the total interest on NSX at the Cross price, and

(iii)following the compliance date for Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, it is at a price equal to or better than the Protected NBBO. 23 22 *See* proposed NSX Rule 11.12(c). 23 *See* proposed NSX Rule 11.12(d). Proposed NSX Rule 11.12(e) requires that all Users entering a Proprietary Cross comply with the Exchange's Customer Priority rule ( *i.e.* , the price of the Cross must be better than any customer order the User is holding by at least $0.01). A User may also post a “Cross/Sweep” message that enters a Sweep Order for the account of the User sweeping all protected quotations that are superior to the Cross price, and simultaneously executes the Cross. In connection with any Cross/Sweep, the User must fully disclose the material facts relating to the Sweep Order to any customer for whose account either side of the Cross is being executed. 24 In addition, proposed NSX Rule 11.12(f) makes clear that NSX Rule 12.6, which restricts trading ahead of customer orders, applies to the entire Cross/Sweep transaction. The Commission notes that the User must provide the customer with the benefit of any superior price received by executing such Sweep Order against NSX quotations for the corresponding portion of the Cross. 24 *See* proposed NSX Rule 11.12(f). The Commission finds that the proposed rules relating to cross messages are consistent with the Act and should provide Users flexibility in executing transactions which meet the specified requirements of each type of Cross, while still ensuring that customer priority principles are upheld. The Commission notes that it has approved rules substantially similar to those proposed by the Exchange relating to Clean Crosses. 25 25 *See* , *e.g.* , Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46568 (September 27, 2002), 67 FR 62276 (October 4, 2002) (approving File No. SR-Amex-2002-23). B. Order Interaction and Order Delivery Pursuant to proposed NSX Rule 11.13, the System offers two modes of order interaction:

(1)Automatic execution and

(2)order delivery and automated response. Every User would be eligible to use the automatic execution mode to participate in the System, in which the System would match and execute like-priced orders. However, to be eligible for the order delivery functionality, a User would have to demonstrate to the Exchange that it could automatically process an inbound order and respond immediately. In new Interpretation and Policy .01 to proposed NSX Rule 11.13, NSX defines “immediately” as having system response times “that generally meet or exceed industry standards,” which NSX believes currently to be 100 milliseconds. In addition, if the Exchange does not receive a response to an inbound order within 500 milliseconds, the User's displayed order will be cancelled. The industry standard for such response times will undoubtedly change over time and become shorter and, therefore, the Commission notes that NSX must periodically review inbound order response time to determine what constitutes the current industry standard and update its parameters accordingly. The Commission believes that the Exchange's order delivery functionality, as proposed, is consistent with the Act. C. Priority of Orders and Order Execution Proposed NSX Rules 11.14 and 11.15 set forth the priority and execution parameters of the System. Pursuant to NSX Rule 11.14, orders are prioritized on a price-time basis, first by price and then by time. 26 Incoming orders (other than Sweep Orders) are first matched for execution against orders in the NSX Book. 27 Proposed NSX Rule 11.15 reflects the requirements of Rule 611 of Regulation NMS 28 by requiring that, for any execution on NSX to occur during Regular Trading Hours ( *i.e.* , between 8:30 a.m. and 3 p.m. Central Time), the price must be equal to or better than the Protected NBBO unless the order is marked as an intermarket sweep order or unless another exception to Rule 611(b) of Regulation NMS is available. Orders that cannot be executed within these parameters are eligible for routing to away trading centers for execution at the Protected NBBO. 26 *See* proposed NSX Rule 11.14(a). 27 *See* proposed NSX Rule 11.15(a)(i). 28 17 CFR 242.611. Unless the terms of the order direct otherwise, any order other than a Sweep Order that cannot be executed on the Exchange would be converted into one or more limit orders, as necessary, to match the price of each protected quotation at the Protected NBBO available at away markets, and these limit orders would be routed to the applicable market for execution against the applicable protected quotation at the Protected NBBO. 29 Unless the terms of the order direct otherwise, any order not executed in full on the Exchange which by its terms is not eligible for routing away, or which is not executed in full when routed away, would be ranked in the NSX Book in accordance with order priority rules of proposed NSX Rule 11.14. 30 29 *See* proposed NSX Rule 11.15(a)(ii). 30 *See* proposed NSX Rule 11.15(a)(iii). Sweep Orders would be matched for execution in the NSX Book, and simultaneously converted into one or more limit orders and routed to away markets to be matched for execution against quotations in accordance with the terms of the Sweep Order. 31 In addition, pursuant to proposed NSX Rule 11.15(d), NSX intends to operate the System as an “automated market center” within the meaning of Regulation NMS, such that the System would display automated quotations at all times except in the event that a systems malfunction renders it incapable of displaying automated quotations. The Exchange would communicate to its ETP Holders its procedures relating to any change from automated to manual quotations in the event of such a systems malfunction. 31 *See* proposed NSX Rule 11.15(b). The Commission believes that the proposed rules relating to order priority and order execution are consistent with the Act. The Commission believes that the System's price-time priority and automatic execution functionality may encourage Users to participate in the new System, which should promote competition and efficiencies on the new System and in the national market system in general. D. Outbound Router In the Trading Rules Notice, NSX requested that the Commission approve its wholly-owned subsidiary, NSX Securities, as a facility of the Exchange. NSX Securities would be subject to several conditions and undertakings which are reflected in proposed NSX Rule 2.11. First, the Exchange would regulate the Outbound Router function of NSX Securities as a facility, subject to Section 6 of the Act. In particular, and without limitation, under the Act, the Exchange would be responsible for filing with the Commission rule changes and fees relating to the Outbound Router function of NSX Securities and NSX Securities would be subject to exchange non-discrimination requirements. Second, NASD, a self-regulatory organization unaffiliated with the Exchange or any of its affiliates, would carry out oversight responsibilities as the Designated Examining Authority designated by the Commission pursuant to Rule 17d-1 of the Act with the responsibility for examining NSX Securities for compliance with the applicable financial responsibility rules. 32 In addition, NSX has stated that it would review its current regulatory allocation agreement with NASD to ensure that the NASD, and not the Exchange, has responsibility for regulatory functions for NSX Securities under such regulatory allocation agreement, including the responsibility to receive regulatory reports from NSX Securities, to examine NSX Securities for compliance, and to enforce compliance by NSX Securities with, specified provisions of the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange and the NASD, and to carry out other specified regulatory functions with respect to NSX Securities. Third, an ETP Holder's use of NSX Securities to route orders to another Trading Center would be optional. Any ETP Holder that does not wish to use NSX Securities would be able to utilize other routers to route orders to other trading centers. 33 Fourth, NSX Securities would not engage in any business other than

(1)its Outbound Router function and

(2)any other activities it may engage in as approved by the Commission. Finally, the books, records, premises, officers, agents, directors and employees of NSX Securities as a facility of the Exchange would be deemed to be the books, records, premises, officers, agents, directors and employees of the Exchange for purposes of, and subject to oversight pursuant to, the Act, and the books and records of NSX Securities as a facility of the Exchange would be subject at all times to inspection and copying by the Exchange and the Commission. 32 NSX has stated that NSX Securities is in the process of registering as a broker-dealer, has applied for membership in the NASD, and is applying to become an ETP Holder. *See* Trading Rules Notice at 38479. The Commission expects NSX to complete this process prior to beginning operation of its new System. 33 For example, an ETP Holder may choose to enter an Immediate-or-Cancel Order, which provides that, if the order is not executable on the System, the order would be cancelled and returned to the ETP Holder, at which time the ETP Holder could choose to route the order to another market. *See* proposed NSX Rule 11.11(b)(1). The Commission received one comment letter regarding the proposed rule change, as amended. 34 In its comment letter, OES questioned whether NSX Securities' routing functionality should be part of the Exchange. 35 In addition, OES believed that the Exchange, through its direct affiliation with NSX Securities, would be in direct competition with other broker-dealer participants of NSX that provide similar routing services and would “potentially be positioned to hold unfair competitive advantages through its regulatory and operational positions as a [self-regulatory organization] and an exchange.” 36 34 34 OES Letter, *supra* note 4. 35 *Id.* at 1. 36 *Id.* In Amendment No. 2, NSX responded to the OES Letter. NSX stated that the undertakings set forth in proposed NSX Rule 2.11 are specifically designed to mitigate potential conflicts of interest the Exchange might have with regard to NSX Securities. NSX noted that, under its proposed rules, an ETP Holder's use of NSX Securities to route orders to another trading center would be optional, and the only function of NSX Securities would be to act as an outbound router unless the Commission approves otherwise. In addition, NSX noted that the Commission has previously approved a similar arrangement between an exchange and an affiliated broker-dealer for outbound routing with substantially similar undertakings. 37 37 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52497 (September 22, 2005), 70 FR 56949 (September 29, 2005) (relating to the use of Archipelago Securities, LLC as an outbound router for NYSE Arca, Inc. (f/k/a the Pacific Exchange, Inc.)). The Commission notes that, because NSX Securities is a facility of the Exchange, the operation of the router is a function of the Exchange. Although the Commission is concerned about potential unfair competition and conflicts of interest between an exchange's self-regulatory obligations and its commercial interests when the exchange is affiliated with one of its members, the Commission believes that it is appropriate and consistent with the Act to permit NSX to own NSX Securities in its capacity as a facility of NSX that routes orders from NSX to other trading centers, in light of the protections afforded by the conditions described above. Accordingly, the Commission approves the proposed rules regarding NSX Securities. E. Transition to New System NSX proposes to phase the new System into its market structure as follows: First, beginning the week of September 5, 2006, a small group of Nasdaq-listed stocks would be transitioned to the System from NSTS. Several additional groups of Nasdaq-listed stocks would be transitioned to the System over the following five weeks, so that all Nasdaq-listed stocks would have been transitioned to the System by mid-October 2006. Following the transition of Nasdaq-listed stocks, NSX would transition all non-Nasdaq-listed securities ( *i.e.* , securities listed on the New York Stock Exchange, American Stock Exchange, and other exchanges) to the System. NSX has stated that it plans to monitor this implementation and adjust the schedule as needed to maintain an orderly transition. The Commission believes that the Exchange's phased approach to transitioning from NSTS to the new System should provide it with time to test its System in a real trading environment while only trading a limited number of securities. The Commission believes that this approach is appropriate and should help maintain an orderly transition to the System. F. Regulation NMS The Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Regulation NMS. 38 In proposed NSX Rule 11.22, NSX proposes to adopt a rule with regard to locked and crossed markets, as required by Rule 610(d) of Regulation NMS. 39 The Exchange has also designed its proposed rules relating to orders, modifiers, and order execution 40 rules to comply with the requirements of Regulation NMS. These proposed rules include marking certain orders meeting the requirements of Rule 600(b)(30) of Regulation NMS 41 as intermarket sweep orders and accepting orders marked as intermarket sweep orders, which would allow orders so designated to be automatically matched and executed without reference to protected quotations at other trading centers. In addition, as mentioned above in Section III.B., NSX has designed its trading rules so that the Exchange would display only automated quotations and qualify as an automated trading center under Rule 600(b)(3) of Regulation NMS. 42 The Commission believes that NSX's proposed immediate-or-cancel functionality 43 is consistent with Rule 600(b)(3) of Regulation NMS. The Commission also notes that proposed NSX Rule 11.15(d) addresses situations where NSX has reason to believe it is not capable of displaying automated quotations, including communicating to ETP Holders its procedures concerning a change from automated to manual quotations. 38 *See supra* note 10. 39 17 CFR 242.610(d). 40 *See* proposed NSX Rules 11.11 and 11.15. 41 17 CFR 242.600(b)(30). 42 17 CFR 242.600(b)(3). 43 *See* proposed NSX Rule 11.11(b)(1). G. Other Rules In addition to the rules described in detail above, the proposed rule change would amend a number of other Exchange rules that address, among other things, the effective time of certain rules, hours of trading, units of trading, price variations, securities eligible for trading, market makers, authorized traders, access, trade execution and reporting, clearance and settlement, limitation of liability, clearly erroneous executions trading halts, short sales, and riskless principal transactions. The Commission believes that these rules are appropriate and consistent with the Act. IV. Accelerated Approval of Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 As set forth below, the Commission finds good cause to approve Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after Amendment No. 2 is published for comment in the **Federal Register** pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act. 44 Many of the revisions in Amendment No. 2 are modeled on existing rules of other exchanges or are intended to clarify the proposal. The Commission believes that accelerating approval of these rules is appropriate because the revisions do not raise new regulatory issues. 44 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). In Amendment No. 2, NSX modifies the proposed rule language to reflect the Commission's extension of certain compliance dates relating to Regulation NMS. Specifically, NSX is modifying proposed rules to reflect that such rules would not become effective until the compliance date for the applicable sections of Regulation NMS. The Commission notes that February 5, 2007 represents the beginning of the “Trading Phase” and the final date for full operation of Regulation NMS-compliant trading systems of all automated trading centers, including SRO trading facilities, that intend to qualify their quotations for trade-through protection under Rule 611 of Regulation NMS during the Pilots Stock Phase and All Stocks Phase. 45 Such rules include proposed NSX Rule 1.4(c) (pertaining to the effective time of certain NSX rules, including order execution, locking and crossing quotations in NMS stocks, and display of automated quotations), and proposed NSX Rule 1.5(P)(3) (pertaining to protected quotations). The Commission finds good cause to accelerate approval of these changes prior to the thirtieth day after publication in the **Federal Register** . The Commission believes this is a reasonable approach in light of the extension of Regulation NMS compliance dates and should help to ensure that the appropriate NSX rules are in place at the time that Regulation NMS compliance is required. 45 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53829 (May 18, 2006), 71 FR 30038 (May 24, 2006). In Amendment No. 2, NSX modifies the proposed rule language regarding the requirements for order delivery functionality eligibility. Specifically, NSX is modifying proposed NSX Rule 11.13 to require Users to demonstrate to the Exchange that the User's system can automatically process inbound orders and respond immediately; new Interpretation and Policy .01 to proposed NSX Rule 11.13 would define “immediately” as having system response times “that generally meet or exceed industry standards,” which NSX believes currently to be 100 milliseconds. The Commission finds good cause to accelerate approval of this change prior to the thirtieth day after publication in the **Federal Register** . The Commission notes that NSX had originally proposed a response time of 500 milliseconds for Users using the Exchange's order delivery functionality. In Amendment No. 2, NSX modifies its proposal to require immediate responses. In Amendment No. 2, NSX modifies certain proposed rule language relating to cross messages. Specifically, NSX deletes the requirement from proposed NSX Rule 11.12(d) that a Clean Cross be executed only if neither side of the Cross is for the account of the User entering the Cross, and amends proposed NSX Rule 11.3(b) to permit Cross executions in subpenny increments so long as they improve the Top of Book by at least a penny per share, as well as Clean Cross executions in subpenny increments. In Amendment No. 2, NSX also clarifies that its customer priority rules found in NSX Rule 12.6 applies to Cross/Sweep messages. The Commission finds good cause to accelerate approval of these changes prior to the thirtieth day after publication in the **Federal Register** because they clarify the application of NSX Rule 12.6 to Cross, Clean Cross, and Cross/Sweep messages, all of which were published for comment in the Trading Rules Notice. In Amendment No. 2, NSX states that it would review its current regulatory allocation plan with NASD (as permitted by Rule 17d-2 under the Act 46 ) to ensure that NASD, and not the Exchange, would be responsible for such regulatory functions with respect to NSX Securities. In addition, NSX adds new subsection

(b)to proposed NSX Rule 2.11 regarding the Exchange's relationship with NSX Securities for purposes of the Act. The Commission finds good cause to accelerate approval of these changes prior to the thirtieth day after publication in the **Federal Register** because allocation of NSX's regulatory functions with regard to NSX Securities to NASD would be an extension of this current plan permitted under Rule 17d-2 of the Act. In addition, NSX modified its proposed rule language to provide that the books, records, premises, officers, agents, directors and employees of NSX Securities as a facility of the Exchange would be deemed to be the books, records, premises, officers, agents, directors and employees of the Exchange for purposes of, and subject to oversight pursuant to, the Act, and that the books and records of NSX Securities as a facility of the Exchange would be subject at all times to inspection and copying by the Exchange and the Commission. The Commission finds good cause to accelerate approval of these changes prior to the thirtieth day after publication in the **Federal Register** because they are substantially similar to rules relating to the administration of facilities of other national securities exchanges. 46 17 CFR 240.17d-2. In Amendment No. 2, NSX describes a phase-in plan for the new System. The Exchange states that the System is currently undergoing testing and is scheduled to become operational on or about September 5, 2006. NSX would initially transition a small group of Nasdaq-listed stocks to the System, followed by several additional groups of Nasdaq-listed stocks over the next five weeks, leading to the inclusion of all Nasdaq-listed stocks by mid-October. Following the transition of Nasdaq-listed stocks, NSX would transition all non-Nasdaq-listed securities ( *i.e.* , New York Stock Exchange, American Stock Exchange, and regional exchange-listed stocks) to the System. The Commission finds good cause to accelerate approval of this change prior to the thirtieth day after publication in the **Federal Register** because the phase-in period should help to ensure that there is an orderly transition to the new System. In Amendment No. 2, NSX also makes technical corrections to the proposed rule change, for example, fixing incorrect rule citations. These changes are non-substantive and technical in nature and are necessary to clarify the proposal. The Commission finds good cause to accelerate approval of these changes prior to the thirtieth day after publication in the **Federal Register** because they better clarify NSX's proposal. The Commission also finds good cause to approve Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after Amendment No. 3 is published for comment in the **Federal Register** pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act. 47 Amendment No. 3 revises proposed NSX Rule 11.16(b) to clarify that trades executed pursuant to both the intermarket sweep order exception of Rule 611(b)(5) or

(6)of Regulation NMS and the self-help exception of Rule 611(b)(1) of Regulation NMS would be identified as executed pursuant to the intermarket sweep order exception. The Commission finds good cause to accelerate approval of this change prior to the thirtieth day after publication in the **Federal Register** because it clarifies the identification of trades which are executed pursuant to both the intermarket sweep order and self-help exceptions of Rule 611(b) of Regulation NMS. 47 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). V. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning Amendment Nos. 2 and 3, including whether Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 are consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-NSX-2006-08 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-NSX-2006-08. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of 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-2006-08 and should be submitted on or before September 28, 2006. VI. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 48 that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NSX-2006-08), as amended by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved, and that Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 to the proposed rule change be, and hereby are, 49 approved on an accelerated basis. 48 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 49 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-14808 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54387; File No. SR-Phlx-2006-48] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Extension of a Pilot Program Concerning Option Position Limits August 30, 2006. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on August 16, 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 Exchange has filed the proposal 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 it 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 extend, for a period of six months, through March 1, 2007, a pilot program applicable to Exchange Rule 1001, Position Limits, which increases the standard position and exercise limits for equity option contracts and options on the Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking Stock 5 (“QQQQ”) (“Pilot Program”). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Phlx's Web site ( *http://www.phlx.com* ), at the Phlx's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the 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 Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend the Pilot Program, which is scheduled to expire September 1, 2006, 6 for an additional six-month period, through March 1, 2007. 5 The Nasdaq-100®, Nasdaq-100 Index®, Nasdaq®, The Nasdaq Stock Market®, Nasdaq-100 Shares SM , Nasdaq-100 Trust SM , Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking Stock SM , and QQQ SM are trademarks or service marks of The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) and have been licensed for use for certain purposes by the Phlx pursuant to a License Agreement (“License”) with Nasdaq. The Nasdaq-100 Index® (“Index”) is determined, composed, and calculated by Nasdaq without regard to the Licensee, the Nasdaq-100 Trust SM , or the beneficial owners of Nasdaq-100 Shares SM . Nasdaq has complete control and sole discretion in determining, comprising, or calculating the Index or in modifying in any way its method for determining, comprising, or calculating the Index in the future. 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 51322 (March 4, 2005), 70 FR 12260 (March 11, 2005) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of File No. SR-Phlx-2005-17); 52261 (August 15, 2005), 70 FR 49004 (August 22, 2005) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of File No. SR-Phlx-2005-51, which extended the Pilot Program); and 53388 (February 28, 2006), 71 FR 11458 (March 7, 2006) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of File No. SR-Phlx-2006-13, which extended the Pilot Program). Position limits impose a ceiling on the number of option contracts in each class on the same side of the market relating to the same underlying security that can be held or written by an investor or group of investors acting in concert. Exchange Rule 1002 (not proposed to be amended herein) establishes corresponding exercise limits. Exercise limits prohibit an investor or group of investors acting in concert from exercising more than a specified number of puts or calls in a particular class within five consecutive business days. Exchange Rule 1001 subjects equity options to one of five different position limits depending on the trading volume and outstanding shares of the underlying security. Exchange Rule 1002 establishes exercise limits for the corresponding options at the same levels as the corresponding security's position limits. 7 7 Exchange Rule 1002 states, in relevant part, “* * * no member or member organization shall exercise, for any account in which such member or member organization has an interest or for the account of any partner, officer, director or employee thereof or for the account of any customer, a long position in any option contract of a class of options dealt in on the Exchange (or, respecting an option not dealt in on the Exchange, another exchange if the member or member organization is not a member of that exchange) if as a result thereof such member or member organization, or partner, officer, director or employee thereof or customer, acting alone or in concert with others, directly or indirectly, has or will have exercised within any five

(5)consecutive business days aggregate long positions in that class (put or call) as set forth as the position limit in Rule 1001, in the case of options on a stock or on an Exchange-Traded Fund Share * * *” 8 Except when the Pilot Program is in effect. Standard Position and Exercise Limit The Pilot Program increases the standard position and exercise limits for equity options traded on the Exchange and for options overlying QQQQ to the following levels: Standard equity option contract limit 8 Pilot program equity option contract limit 13,500 25,000 22,500 50,000 31,500 75,000 60,000 200,000 75,000 250,000 Standard QQQQ option contract limit Pilot Program QQQQ option contract limit 300,000 900,000 To date, the Exchange believes that there have been no adverse affects on the market as a result of these increases in the limits for equity option contracts and options overlying QQQQ. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 9 in general, and furthers the objective of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 10 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and the national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest, by extending the Pilot Program for approximately an additional six months. 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 10 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 rule change does not:

(1)Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;

(2)impose any significant burden on competition; and

(3)become operative for 30 days from the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 11 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 12 A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. 13 However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 14 permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file this proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing the proposed rule change. In addition, the Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day pre-operative delay. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day pre-operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and in the public interest because it will allow the Pilot Program to continue uninterrupted. 15 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 13 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). 14 *Id.* 15 For purposes only of waiving the pre-operative delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 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 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 Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File No. SR-Phlx-2006-48 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-2006-48. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the 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 No. SR-Phlx-2006-48 and should be submitted on or before September 28, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 16 16 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jill M. Peterson, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-14793 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration # 10597 and # 10598] New Mexico Disaster # NM-00004 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of New Mexico (FEMA-1659-DR), dated 08/30/2006. *Incident:* Severe Storms and Flooding. *Incident Period:* 07/26/2006 and continuing. *Effective Date:* 08/30/2006. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 10/30/2006. *Economic Injury

(Eidl)Loan Application Deadline Date:* 05/30/2007. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, National Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 08/30/2006, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans): Dona Ana. Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only): New Mexico: Luna, Otero, Sierra.Texas: El Paso. *The Interest Rates are:* Percent *For Physical Damage:* Homeowners with credit available elsewhere 6.250 Homeowners without credit available elsewhere 3.125 Businesses with credit available elsewhere 7.934 Other (including non-profit organizations) with credit available elsewhere 5.000 Businesses and non-profit organizations without credit available elsewhere 4.000 *For Economic Injury:* Businesses & small agricultural cooperatives without credit available elsewhere 4.000 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 10597 6 and for economic injury is 10598 0. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-14778 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration # 10515 and # 10516] Pennsylvania Disaster Number PA-00004 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Amendment 6. SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Pennsylvania (FEMA-1649-DR), dated 07/04/2006. *Incident:* Severe Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides. *Incident Period:* 06/23/2006 through 07/10/2006. *Effective Date:* 08/31/2006. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 10/03/2006. *EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:* 04/04/2007. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, National Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Pennsylvania, dated 07/04/2006, is hereby amended to extend the deadline for filing applications for physical damages as a result of this disaster to 10/03/2006. All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008). Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-14780 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Public Federal Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Hearing; Region VIII Regulatory Fairness Board The U.S. Small Business Administration

(SBA)Region VIII Regulatory Fairness Board and the SBA Office of the National Ombudsman will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, September 26, 2006, at 9 a.m. The meeting will take place at the Colorado District Office, 721 19th Street, Room 426, Maroom Bells Conference Center, Denver, CO 80202-2508. The purpose of the meeting is to receive comments and testimony from small business owners, small government entities, and small non-profit organizations concerning regulatory enforcement and compliance actions taken by Federal agencies. Anyone wishing to attend or to make a presentation must contact Amy McDowell, in writing or by fax, in order to be placed on the agenda. Amy McDowell, Business Development Assistant, SBA, 721 19th Street, Room 426, Denver, CO 80202, phone

(303)844-2607, Ext. 209 and fax

(303)844-6539, e-mail: *Amy.McDowell@sba.gov* . For more information, see our Web site at *http://www.sba.gov/ombudsman* . Thomas M. Dryer, Acting Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E6-14779 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Change Notice for RTCA Program Management Committee AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of RTCA Program Management Committee meeting. SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of the RTCA Program Management Committee. DATES: The meeting will be held September 19, 2006 starting at 9 a.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 850, Washington, DC 20036; telephone

(202)833-9339; fax

(202)833-9434; Web site *http://www.rtca.org.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for a Program Management Committee meeting. The revised agenda will include: • September 19: • Opening Session (Welcome and Introductory Remarks, Review/Approve Summary of Previous Meeting). • Publication Consideration/Approval: • Final Draft, Change 3 to DO-210, *Minimum Operational Performance Standards

(MOPS)for Geosynchronous Orbit Aeronautical Mobile Satellite Services

(AMSS)Avionics,* RTCA Paper No. 182-06/PMC-465, prepared by SC-208. • Discussion: • Special Committee Chairman's Reports. • Request to Revise DO-239- *MOPS for Traffic Information Service Data Link Communications—Discussion.* • Action Item Review: • Synthetic Vision Systems (SVS)—Discussion—Possible New Committee Request. • SC-147—Traffic Alert & Collision Avoidance System—Discussion—Updates. • SC-203—Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)—Discussion—Schedule—Status Review. • SC-205-Software Considerations—Discussion—Status. • Cabin Management Systems—Discussion—Status. • Closing Session (Other Business, Document Production, Date and Place of Next Meeting, Adjourn). Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may present a written statement to the committee at any time. Dated: Issued in Washington, DC, on August 29, 2006. Francisco Estrada C., RTCA Advisory Committee. [FR Doc. 06-7488 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 14

Traces to 14 documents

CFR