[Federal Register: July 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 134)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 40143-40152]
[DOCID:fr11jy08-9]

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

Part V

Securities and Exchange Commission

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

17 CFR Parts 200 and 241

Commission Guidance and Amendment to the Rules Relating to Organization
and Program Management Concerning Proposed Rule Changes Filed by Self-
Regulatory Organizations; Final Rule

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Parts 200 and 241

[Release No. 34-58092]

Commission Guidance and Amendment to the Rules Relating to
Organization and Program Management Concerning Proposed Rule Changes
Filed by Self-Regulatory Organizations

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Final rule and interpretation.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is
providing guidance regarding a rule under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') concerning filings with respect to proposed
rule changes of self-regulatory organizations (``SROs'') that the
Commission expects will streamline the process by which SROs file
proposed rule changes with the Commission and result in a broader range
of rule changes qualifying for immediate effectiveness. Further, the
Commission is amending its rules to delegate authority to the Director
of the Division of Trading and Markets. These actions are intended to
facilitate more expeditious handling of proposed rule changes submitted
by SROs pursuant to Exchange Act section 19(b).

DATES: Effective Date: July 11, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marlon Quintanilla Paz, Senior Counsel
to the Director, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Richard Holley III, Senior
Special Counsel, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Division of Trading and Markets,
Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549-6628.

I. Introduction

    Self-regulation, with oversight by the Commission, is a basic
premise of the Exchange Act. For example, Congress recognized the
regulatory role of national securities exchanges in section 6 of the
Exchange Act,\1\ requiring all existing securities exchanges to
register with the Commission and to function as self-regulatory
organizations. SROs (such as exchanges, registered national securities
associations, and clearing agencies) are subject to various
requirements under the Exchange Act, including the requirement in
section 19(b) and Rule 19b-4 thereunder \2\ to file their proposed rule
changes with the Commission. Commission review and the public comment
process are intended, among other things, to help ensure that SROs
carry out the purposes of the Exchange Act.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b) and 17 CFR 240.19b-4, respectively. See
also Form 19b-4. The rule filing requirements of Section 19(b) also
apply to other SROs, such as national securities associations,
clearing agencies, and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(``MSRB'').
    \3\ See Section 19 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s. See also
Market 2000: An Examination Of Current Equity Market Developments,
Study VI, Division of Market Regulation, U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (January 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    National securities exchanges registered under section 6(a) of the
Exchange Act \4\ face increased competitive pressures from entities
that trade the same or similar financial instruments, such as foreign
exchanges, futures exchanges,\5\ electronic communications networks
(``ECNs''), and alternative trading systems (``ATSs''). These
competitors, however, can change their trading rules or trade new
products with greater ease and without the required Commission
review.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(a).
    \5\ Certain futures exchanges are also registered as national
securities exchanges under Section 6(g) of the Exchange Act, 15
U.S.C. 78f(g), solely for the purpose of trading security futures
products.
    \6\ While a security futures exchange registered under Section
6(g) of the Exchange Act is required to file certain proposed rule
changes with the Commission, few such filings must receive
Commission approval under Section 19(b)(2). If they must be filed at
all, most may be filed under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Exchange
Act. See 15 U.S.C. 78f(g)(4)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission previously has stated its belief that, ``investors
are best served by a regulatory structure that facilitates fair and
vigorous competition among market participants and fosters investor
protection'' and that, ``[e]nhancing the SROs'' ability to implement
and to respond quickly to changes in the marketplace should encourage
innovation and better services to investors. * * *'' \7\ Consequently,
the Commission periodically has revised the SRO rule filing
requirements to balance the needs of the exchanges in a competitive
financial marketplace against maintaining the statutorily required
Commission oversight of the SROs and the SRO rule change process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43860 (January 19,
2001), 66 FR 8912 (February 5, 2001) (S7-03-01) (``Rule 19b-6
Proposing Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1994, the Commission adopted amendments to Rule 19b-4 to allow
certain non-controversial proposed rule changes and proposed rule
changes for minor systems changes to ``become immediately effective''
upon filing and without Commission approval.\8\ In 1998, the Commission
again amended Rule 19b-4 to allow for the listing and trading of
certain derivative securities products without prior submission of a
proposed rule change under section 19(b).\9\ The 1998 rulemaking was
intended to speed the introduction of new derivative securities
products and enable exchanges to remain competitive with foreign and
over-the-counter derivatives markets that are not subject to section
19(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 35123 (December 20,
1994), 59 FR 66692 (December 28, 1994) (S7-17-94) (``Non-
Controversial Rule Adopting Release'').
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40761 (December 8,
1998), 63 FR 70952 (December 22, 1998) (S7-13-98) (``New Products
Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2001, the Commission proposed comprehensive changes to the SRO
rule filing process.\10\ The Commission proposed to completely replace
Rule 19b-4, the rule governing the requirements for SRO rule filings,
with proposed new Rule 19b-6. Proposed Rule 19b-6, among other things,
would have defined terms used in proposed Rule 19b-6 to allow most
exchange trading rules, other than proposals involving fundamental
market structure changes, to be immediately effective upon filing with
the Commission pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Exchange Act. The
Commission also proposed related changes that would have imposed a
number of new obligations on SROs filing proposed rule changes with the
Commission. For example, in proposed Rule 19b-6, the Commission would
have required, among other things, that a senior SRO official certify
the accuracy and completeness of the proposal. The Commission also
proposed to eliminate the 30-day operational date and the five-day pre-
filing requirement for non-controversial rule filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Rule 19b-6 Proposing Release, supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission received 21 comment letters on proposed Rule 19b-6,
many of which opposed various aspects of the proposal, though for
widely divergent reasons. Four commenters explicitly supported the
proposal to make certain trading rules effective upon filing.\11\
Several SROs believed that the proposal provided only minor benefits
that were potentially outweighed by new burdensome requirements.\12\ A
few

commenters believed that the category of trading rules eligible for
immediate effectiveness was too narrow, or that more objective
standards were needed to determine what qualifies as a trading
rule.\13\ In contrast, other commenters were concerned that the
proposal might reduce the opportunity to comment on proposed rule
changes,\14\ and that the Commission might be hesitant to abrogate
immediately effective filings.\15\ Several commenters explicitly
opposed making certain types of trading rules immediately effective,
noting that such rule changes may have particular importance to the
public or have a major impact on market participants.\16\ Several
commenters also opposed the proposal to remove the operative delay \17\
from Rule 19b-4(f)(6).\18\ In addition, several commenters expressed
support for Commission issuance of notice of a proposed rule change
within 10 business days or such longer period as the SRO consents.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Comment letters from Nasdaq (dated April 6, 2001); the
Pacific Exchange (dated April 24, 2001); Bloomberg Tradebook LLC
(dated April 5, 2001); and the Chicago Stock Exchange (dated April
5, 2001).
    \12\ See, e.g., Comment letters from The Options Clearing
Corporation (dated April 6, 2001); the Philadelphia Stock Exchange
(dated April 6, 2001); the Chicago Stock Exchange (dated April 5,
2001); the International Securities Exchange (dated March 23, 2001);
and the Chicago Board Options Exchange (dated April 11, 2001).
    \13\ See, e.g., Comment letters from Credit Suisse First Boston
(dated March 26, 2001); the International Securities Exchange (dated
March 23, 2001); the Philadelphia Stock Exchange (dated April 6,
2001); the Pacific Exchange (dated April 24, 2001); Nasdaq (dated
April 6, 2001); the Chicago Board Options Exchange (dated April 11,
2001); the Chicago Stock Exchange (dated April 5, 2001); and the
Mercatus Center of George Mason University (dated April 9, 2001).
    \14\ See, e.g., Comment letters from the Investment Company
Institute (dated April 6, 2001); Bloomberg Tradebook LLC (dated
April 5, 2001); Brunelle & Hadjikow (dated April 4, 2001); the
Consumer Federation of America (dated April 6, 2001); the Securities
Industry Association (dated April 6, 2001); and the American Council
of Life Insurers (dated April 10, 2001). See discussion below in
Section III.A.2(b) regarding the importance of public comment to the
SRO proposed rule change process.
    \15\ See, e.g., Comment letters from Credit Suisse First Boston
(dated March 26, 2001); the Council of Institutional Investors
(dated March 26, 2001); the Investment Company Institute (dated
April 6, 2001); and the Consumer Federation of America (dated April
6, 2001). See discussion below in Section IV regarding abrogation of
immediately effective proposals.
    \16\ See, e.g., Comment letters from the Securities Industry
Association (dated April 6, 2001) and Brunelle & Hadjikow (dated
April 4, 2001). These commenters believed that entities that are
familiar with the technology and operation of SRO trading systems
should be given an opportunity to comment on proposed changes to
such systems. See Section III.A.2(b), below (``Opportunity for
Public Comment With Regard to Immediately Effective Rule Filings'').
    \17\ A proposed rule change designated immediately effective
normally becomes operative upon filing with the Commission, except
for a proposal submitted pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6), which becomes
operative 30 days after the date of filing with the Commission or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest. 17 CFR 240.19b-
4(f)(6)(iii).
    \18\ See, e.g., Comment letters from the Investment Company
Institute (dated April 6, 2001); the State of Wisconsin Investment
Board (dated March 28, 2001); Brunelle & Hadjikow (dated April 4,
2001); the Consumer Federation of America (dated April 6, 2001); the
Securities Industry Association (dated April 6, 2001); and the
American Council of Life Insurers (dated April 10, 2001). One
commenter suggested that a delay between the effective and operative
date would allow the Commission to abrogate a rule with a minimum of
disruption to an SRO's operations. See Comment letter from the State
of Wisconsin Investment Board (dated March 28, 2001).
    \19\ See Comment letters from Credit Suisse First Boston (dated
March 26, 2001); the Chicago Stock Exchange (dated April 5, 2001);
the Philadelphia Stock Exchange (dated April 6, 2001); Nasdaq (dated
April 6, 2001); the Securities Industry Association (dated April 6,
2001); the Pacific Exchange (dated April 24, 2001); the Government
Securities Clearing Corporation (dated March 20, 2001); NASD Dispute
Resolution and NASD Regulation (dated May 3, 2001). One commenter
suggested that the Commission publish notice of a proposed rule
change within ten calendar days, not business days, and recommended
that there be a mechanism to ensure compliance with the requirement.
See Comment letter from the Chicago Board Options Exchange (dated
April 11, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has considered thoroughly all of these comments. The
Commission is not taking action today on proposed Rule 19b-6 nor with
regard to any of the other related changes,\20\ but the Commission's
action in this release is consistent with the objectives underlying the
Rule 19b-6 proposal and takes into account the varying views expressed
in the comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ For example, the Commission is taking no further action at
this time on the Rule 19b-6 proposal to require certifications or to
remove the pre-filing or operative delay from Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under
the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the guidance and rule adopted herein do
not alter the existing legal obligations for SROs filing proposed rule
changes. The Commission today is not modifying or replacing Rule 19b-4,
nor is it imposing related obligations on SROs with regard to the rule
filing process and, therefore, the Commission believes that the
additional requirements proposed in the Rule 19b-6 Proposing Release
are not necessary at this time. As discussed below, the guidance in
this release addresses a much narrower part of the SRO rule filing
process and imposes no new obligations on SROs.
    The Commission believes that it is now appropriate to issue
guidance related to the filing of certain immediately effective
proposed rule changes by SROs and to adopt a rule amendment designed to
streamline further the SRO proposed rule change process. Specifically,
the Commission today is (1) providing an interpretation of the
Commission's views as to which SRO rule filings could be filed as
immediately effective and (2) modifying only its own internal
processes.

II. Background on the Current Rule Filing Process

    Section 19(b)(1) of the Exchange Act requires an SRO to file with
the Commission any proposed rule change,\21\ which must be
``accompanied by a concise general statement of the basis and purpose
of such proposed rule change'' and be submitted electronically on Form
19b-4, in accordance with the General Instructions thereto.\22\ Exhibit
1 of Form 19b-4 requires an SRO to prepare the notice of its proposed
rule change for publication in the Federal Register.\23\ A proposed
rule change may not take effect unless it is approved by the Commission
\24\ or becomes immediately effective upon filing pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Exchange Act.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Section 19(b)(1) of the Exchange Act defines a ``proposed
rule change'' as ``any proposed rule, or any proposed change in,
addition to, or deletion from the rules of'' an SRO. 15 U.S.C.
78s(b)(1). Section 3(a)(27) of the Exchange Act defines ``rules'' to
include ``the constitution, articles of incorporation, bylaws, and
rules, or instruments corresponding to the foregoing * * * and such
of the stated policies, practices, and interpretations of such
exchange, association, or clearing agency as the Commission, by
rule, may determine to be necessary or appropriate in the public
interest or for the protection of investors to be deemed to be rules
of such exchange, association, or clearing agency.'' 15 U.S.C.
78c(a)(27).
    \22\ 17 CFR 249.819. Among other things, the General
Instructions to Form 19b-4 specify that an SRO's proposal must be
clear and complete before it will be accepted as filed by the
Commission. See General Instruction B to Form 19b-4 (``This form,
including the exhibits, is intended to elicit information necessary
for the public to provide meaningful comment on the proposed rule
change and for the Commission to determine whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the [Exchange] Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder * * * The [SRO] must provide
all the information called for by the form, including the exhibits,
and must present the information in a clear and comprehensible
manner * * * Any filing that does not comply with the requirements
of this form may be returned to the [SRO] at any time before the
issuance of the notice of filing. Any filing so returned shall for
all purposes be deemed not to have been filed with the
Commission''). See also Rule 0-3 under the Exchange Act, 17 CFR
240.0-3 (``The date on which papers are actually received by the
Commission shall be the date of filing thereof if all of the
requirements with respect to the filing have been complied with. * *
*'').
    \23\ If the conditions of Rule 19b-4 and Form 19b-4 are
satisfied, a proposed rule change submitted electronically via the
Commission's Electronic Form Filing System on or before 5:30 p.m.
Eastern Time on a business day is deemed ``filed'' on that business
day, and all filings submitted after 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time are
deemed filed on the next business day. See Rule 19b-4(k), 17 CFR
240.19b-4(k).
    \24\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Proposals Subject to Commission Approval

    For those proposals that are subject to Commission approval,
section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act specifies the standards and time
periods for Commission action either to approve a proposed rule change
or to institute proceedings to determine whether a

proposed rule change should be disapproved.\26\ After expiration of the
applicable comment period and due consideration of any comment letters
received, the Commission shall approve a proposed rule change if it
finds such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of
the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to
the SRO.\27\ The Commission shall disapprove a proposed rule change if
it cannot make such a finding.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). The Commission must either approve
or institute disapproval proceedings within thirty-five days of the
date of publication of notice of the filing in the Federal Register,
or within such longer period as the Commission may designate (up to
ninety days of such date if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding) or as to which
the SRO consents. See id.
    \27\ The Commission may approve a proposed rule change on an
accelerated basis prior to the 30th day after publication of the
notice in the Federal Register if it finds good cause and publishes
its reasons for so doing. See id.
    \28\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Immediately Effective Proposals

    Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Exchange Act provides that,
notwithstanding the provisions of section 19(b)(2), a proposed rule
change may take effect upon filing with the Commission if designated by
the SRO as:
    (i) Constituting a stated policy, practice, or interpretation with
respect to the meaning, administration, or enforcement of an existing
rule of the self-regulatory organization;
    (ii) Establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed
by the self-regulatory organization; or
    (iii) Concerned solely with the administration of the self-
regulatory organization or other matters which the Commission, by rule
* * * may specify * * *.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Exchange Act grants the Commission
authority to expand the scope of proposed rule changes entitled to
qualify for immediate effectiveness to other matters which the
Commission, by rule, consistent with the public interest and the
purposes of section 19(b) of the Exchange Act, may specify. Rule 19b-
4(f) under the Exchange Act \30\ specifies the following types of
proposed rule changes that may take effect upon filing with the
Commission pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) if properly designated by an
SRO as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Constituting a stated policy, practice, or interpretation with
respect to the meaning, administration, or enforcement of an existing
rule;
    (2) Establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge applicable
to a member;
    (3) Concerned solely with the administration of the self-regulatory
organization;
    (4) Effecting a change in an existing service of a registered
clearing agency that: (i) Does not adversely affect the safeguarding of
securities or funds in the custody or control of the clearing agency or
for which it is responsible; and (ii) does not significantly affect the
respective rights or obligations of the clearing agency or persons
using the service;
    (5) Effecting a change in an existing order-entry or trading system
of a self-regulatory organization that: (i) Does not significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does
not impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) does not
have the effect of limiting the access to or availability of the
system; or
    (6) Effecting a change that: (i) Does not significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not impose
any significant burden on competition; and (iii) by its terms, does not
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest; provided that the
self-regulatory organization has given the Commission written notice of
its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief
description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five
business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change
(the ``pre-filing''), or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ The five-day period commences from the date the Commission
receives the SRO's pre-filing. The pre-filing requirement was
designed to serve as an opportunity for Commission staff to
``discuss with the SRO whether there exists an adequate basis upon
which the proposed rule change may properly qualify'' for immediate
effectiveness under Rule 19b-4(f)(6), and allows the SRO to ``elicit
guidance from Commission staff to help the SRO identify those
aspects of a proposed rule change that the Commission deems
important'' in order to ``help the SRO articulate in its subsequent
filing the purpose and effects of the proposed rule change, which in
turn should further facilitate and expedite the filing process.''
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34140 (June 1, 1994), 59 FR
29393, 29395 (June 7, 1994) (S7-17-94) (``Non-Controversial Rule
Proposing Release''). The Commission also notes that it has enhanced
its electronic system through which SROs file proposed rule changes
to allow the electronic submission of pre-filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with a proposed rule change filed pursuant to section 19(b)(2)
of the Exchange Act, the Commission publishes notice in the Federal
Register of a proposed rule change designated for immediate
effectiveness under section 19(b)(3)(A).\32\ An immediately effective
filing becomes operative upon filing with the Commission, except for a
proposal submitted pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6), which becomes
operative 30 days after the date of filing with the Commission or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ An SRO must designate the basis for immediate effectiveness
of the proposed rule change in Item 7 of Form 19b-4. See Item 7 of
Form 19b-4 (``Basis for Summary Effectiveness Pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) or for Accelerated Effectiveness Pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) or Section 19(b)(7)(D)'').
    \33\ With respect to amendments to filings designated for
immediate effectiveness pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6), the Commission
has stated that ``any substantive amendment would trigger a new 30-
day period, assuming the changes do not render the filing ineligible
for this category.'' Non-Controversial Rule Adopting Release, supra
note 8, 59 FR at 66695. The Commission staff, however, has
``discretion to accept editorial changes without triggering a new
30-day period.'' Id. Such proposals should not require extensive
amendments, since ``[a] filing requiring further substantive
amendments may indicate that it is not appropriate for the expedited
treatment afforded by the noncontroversial category.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange Act provides that at any time within 60 days
of the date of filing of a proposed rule change designated for
immediate effectiveness under section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 19b-4(f) thereunder, the Commission summarily may abrogate the
proposed rule change and require that the SRO re-file the proposal
under section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act ``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 Exchange Act].'' \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Interpretive Guidance on the Rule Filing Process

    The Commission today takes several actions, discussed in greater
detail below, intended to facilitate more expeditious handling of
proposed rule changes submitted by SROs. The Commission is providing
interpretive guidance regarding the range of proposed changes to
exchange trading rules that qualify for immediate effectiveness
pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 19b-4(f)(6) as not significantly
affecting the protection of investors or the public interest and not
imposing any significant burden on competition.\35\ The Commission
anticipates that the guidance will result in exchanges filing a broader
range of proposed changes to trading rules for immediate effectiveness
under Rule 19b-4(f)(6).

Additionally, the Commission is providing guidance on proposed rule
changes relating to an SRO's minor rule violation plan (``MRVP'') and
``copycat'' filings relating to SRO rules other than trading rules. The
guidance provided herein as it relates to proposed changes to trading
rules is directed at SROs that operate trading systems (i.e., the
national securities exchanges). The additional guidance is applicable
to all SROs, including exchanges, national securities associations,
clearing agencies, and the MSRB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Rule 19b-4(f)(6), 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, as discussed in section V below, the Commission is
adopting an amendment to Rule 200.30-3(a)(12) relating to the
delegation of authority to the Director of the Division of Trading and
Markets regarding the publication of proposed rule changes.\36\ Amended
Rule 200.30-3(a)(12) applies with regard to all SRO rule filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ To assist the Commission in processing proposed rule
changes expeditiously, the Commission emphasizes the obligation of
each SRO to prepare proposed rule changes that are clear and
complete. See supra note 22 and accompanying text. The Commission
encourages SROs to devote sufficient resources to the rule filing
process to assure quality work product to enable the Commission to
evaluate efficiently whether the proposed rule change is consistent
with the Exchange Act and applicable rules and regulations
thereunder as well as the SRO's own rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Interpretive Guidance on Immediately Effective Proposed Rule Changes

    The national securities exchanges' need to implement quickly new
trading rules has become increasingly critical, particularly given the
evolving role of securities exchanges, innovations in U.S. and cross-
border trading, and the increasingly competitive financial marketplace.
Specifically, the Commission recognizes that the national securities
exchanges registered under section 6(a) of the Exchange Act \37\ face
increased competitive pressures from entities that trade the same or
similar financial instruments--such as foreign exchanges, futures
exchanges, ECNs, and ATSs. These competitors can change their trading
rules or trade new products with greater ease, and without filing them
with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, to inform exchanges' understanding of the range of
exchange trading rules eligible for immediate effectiveness and to
encourage exchanges to consider filing a broader range of proposed
changes to trading rules that do not ``significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest'' \38\ or do not
``impose any significant burden on competition,'' \39\ and thus qualify
for immediate effectiveness under Rule 19b-4(f)(6), the Commission is
providing the interpretive guidance set forth in this release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(i).
    \39\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Previous Commission Guidance on Immediately Effective Proposals
    As discussed above, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) permits a proposed rule change
to become immediately effective if, among other things, it is properly
designated by an SRO as effecting a change that does not significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest, and does not
impose any significant burden on competition. Further, an immediately
effective rule pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6), by its terms, may not
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest, provided that the SRO
has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the
proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the
proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of
filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated
by the Commission.
    When adding paragraph (f)(6) to Rule 19b-4 in 1994, the Commission
referred to it as the ``noncontroversial category'' and noted that it
was intended to accommodate proposed rule changes that were generally
``less likely to engender adverse comments or require the degree of
review attendant with more controversial filings.'' \40\ Accordingly,
the Commission contemplated that proposals eligible for filing under
paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 would generally be ``inherently simple
and concise'' and ``otherwise require little in the way of extended
review or analysis by the Commission.'' \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Non-Controversial Rule Adopting Release, supra note 8, 59
FR at 66696.
    \41\ Id. at 66695.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Interpretation of Rule 19b-4(f)(6) for Rule Proposals Involving
Exchange Trading Rules
    The rule filing process, by which national securities exchanges are
required to file their proposed rule changes with the Commission,
currently allows the exchanges to implement many of their proposed rule
changes relating to trading rules on an expedited basis. The Commission
believes that more rule filings pertaining to the operation of an SRO's
trading systems qualify for immediate effectiveness than are currently
filed as such. A number of proposed rule changes that could qualify for
immediate effectiveness under section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Exchange Act
are filed, instead, ``regular way'' under section 19(b)(2), thus
requiring the Commission to issue a notice and an approval order.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ The Commission understands, however, that there may be a
variety of reasons why an SRO may file a proposed rule change under
Section 19(b)(2), even though the rule change would have been
appropriately filed as an immediately effective rule filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that a proposed trading rule change
appropriately may be filed as an immediately effective rule so long as
each policy issue raised by the proposed trading rule (i) has been
considered previously by the Commission when the Commission approved
another exchange's trading rule (that was subject to notice and
comment) pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, and (ii) the
rule change resolves such policy issue in a manner consistent with such
prior approval. The Commission believes that filing such proposed rule
changes for immediate effectiveness not only will reduce the time
before which an exchange could implement its new rule or modify an
existing one, but also will eliminate the need for the Commission to
issue both a notice and an approval order for each such filing.
    The Commission notes that certain types of proposals remain
ineligible for immediate effectiveness under Rule 19b-4(f)(6). For
example, proposals that introduce potentially anti-competitive or
unfairly discriminatory aspects to an SRO's operation, or otherwise
conflict with stated Commission policy, would not be eligible for
immediate effectiveness since they would not meet the standard of Rule
19b-4(f)(6) and the interpretation. Similarly, proposals that would
substantially alter an exchange's market structure would continue to be
ineligible for immediate effectiveness.
(a) Examples of Trading Rules Eligible for Immediate Effectiveness
    Below is a partial list of the types of trading rules that the
Commission believes are appropriate for filing as immediately effective
rule changes under this interpretation. The Commission emphasizes that
this is a partial--not exhaustive--list, designed to assist exchanges
in determining the types of proposed trading rule changes that are
appropriately filed as immediately effective.
     Protection of Limit Orders. In approving exchange trading
rules, the

Commission carefully reviews whether they protect limit orders that are
displayed on an exchange's book, since limit orders contribute to price
discovery, provide liquidity to the market, and may narrow the quoted
spread.\43\ A proposed trading rule change is eligible for immediate
effectiveness if the proposal facilitates trading of public customer
orders, or otherwise enables them to interact with order flow on the
exchange on an equitable basis (such as price/time priority).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 37619A (September
6, 1996), 61 FR 48290 (S7-30-95) (adopting Rule 11Ac1-4) (``The
Commission believes that limit orders are a valuable component of
price discovery. The uniform display of such orders will encourage
tighter, deeper, and more efficient markets.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Market Maker Obligations. The Commission carefully reviews
special advantages provided to market makers when it considers exchange
trading rule proposals. Market makers can play an important role in
providing liquidity to the market, and an exchange can appropriately
reward them for that as well as the services they provide to the
exchange's market, so long as the rewards are not disproportionate to
the services provided.\44\ For example, a proposed trading rule change
that strengthens the market while providing benefits to market makers
is eligible for immediate effectiveness if the benefits conferred are
offset by corresponding responsibilities to the market that provide
customer trading interest a net benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 54580
(October 6, 2006), 71 FR 60781, 60782 (October 16, 2006) (SR-ISE-
2006-40) (order approving the establishment of ISE's Second Market);
54238 (July 28, 2006), 71 FR 44758, 44761 (August 7, 2006) (SR-NYSE
Arca-2006-13) (``Market Makers receive certain benefits for carrying
out their duties. * * * The Commission believes that a Market Maker
must have an affirmative obligation to hold itself out as willing to
buy and sell options for its own account on a regular or continuous
basis to justify this favorable treatment.''); 53652 (April 13,
2006), 71 FR 20422 (April 20, 2006) (SR-Amex-2005-100) (order
approving the establishment of a new class of registered options
trader called a Remote Registered Options Trader); 52094 (July 21,
2005), 70 FR 43913, 43915 (July 29, 2005) (SR-CHX-2004-11) (order
approving a fully-automated electronic book for the display and
execution of orders in securities that are not assigned to a
specialist) (``Because market makers receive certain benefits for
carrying out their duties, the Commission believes that they should
have an affirmative obligation to hold themselves out as willing to
buy and sell securities for their own account on a regular or
continuous basis to justify this favorable treatment.''); and 51366
(March 14, 2005), 70 FR 13217, 13221 (March 18, 2005) (order
approving the introduction of Remote Market Makers) (``In
particular, the Commission believes that RMMs' affirmative
obligations are sufficient to justify the benefits they receive as
market makers.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Preferenced Order Flow. The Commission recognizes that
exchanges compete for preferenced order flow. A proposal to allow
broker-dealers to execute preferenced orders on an exchange is eligible
for immediate effectiveness if the rule change provides other market
participants a reasonable opportunity to interact with preferenced
orders and the proposal does not impinge upon the incentive for market
participants to post competitive quotes.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 37406 (March
29, 1996), 61 FR 15322 (April 5, 1996) (SR-CSE-95-03) (``The
Commission has concluded that preferencing, as supplemented by the
order handling policies, is not necessarily inconsistent with the
attainment of best execution of customer orders, the maintenance of
fair and orderly markets, or the protection of investors and the
public interest under Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.''). See also,
e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 50819 (December 8, 2004),
69 FR 75093, 75097 (December 15, 2004) (SR-ISE-2003-06) (order
approving the establishment of rules to implement a price
improvement mechanism) (``The Commission * * * has expressed its
concern that proposals by options exchanges that guarantee a
significant portion of orders to any market participant could erode
the incentive to display aggressively priced quotes. Thus, the
Commission must weigh whether the proposed participation right would
so substantially reduce the ability of other market participants to
trade with an order that it would reduce price competition.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Trading Hours. With respect to trading hours, the
Commission believes that proposals to modify the trading hours of an
exchange, provided there is a sufficient degree of quotation and last-
sale transparency during any extended hours, also are eligible for
immediate effectiveness under Rule 19b-4(f)(6).\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ The Commission notes, however, that an exchange proposal to
modify the ``regular trading hours,'' as defined in Rule 600(b)(64)
of Regulation NMS (17 CFR 242.600(a)(64) (defining ``regular trading
hours'' as the time between 9:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Eastern Time)) for
any NMS stocks that it lists--which thereby has the effect of
extending the time during which all trading centers must protect
quotations pursuant to Rule 611 of Regulation NMS (17 CFR 242.611)--
must be filed under Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act. The
Commission believes that, because such a proposal could potentially
raise significant competitive issues and could affect existing SRO
surveillance and oversight programs, it must be considered by the
Commission after prior notice and comment before it becomes
operative. See Non-Controversial Rule Proposing Release, supra note
31, 59 FR at 29394 (noting that a proposal that would affect the
surveillance or oversight capabilities of an SRO could directly
impair the protection of investors and should be filed under Section
19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Conforming Rules to Approved Changes to NMS Plan or
Commission Rule. The Commission believes that proposed rule changes to
implement provisions of an approved national market system plan (such
as the Options Linkage Plan \47\) or a Commission rule are eligible for
immediate effectiveness under Rule 19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ The Options Linkage Plan is a national market system plan
for the purpose of creating and operating an intermarket linkage
among the various participant exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Opportunity for Public Comment With Regard to Immediately Effective
Rule Filings
    Although the Commission is encouraging the exchanges to designate
additional proposed changes in the category of trading rules as
immediately effective, the Commission is not minimizing the importance
of receiving public comments on proposed rule changes relating to
trading rules. The Commission emphasizes that it continues to believe
that the public interest is served by offering the public, investors,
SRO members, and other market participants the opportunity to comment
on SRO rule proposals. The Commission considers all comments it
receives on each proposed rule change, and makes available all comments
to the applicable SRO for its consideration as well.
    Comments on an immediately effective filing help the Commission
analyze the impact of the filing and evaluate whether to abrogate
it.\48\ Comments also help the exchange address legitimate concerns, in
a manner that does not delay implementation of the proposed rule
change, while still preserving the Commission's ability to act to
abrogate when appropriate. For example, in response to a comment letter
that raises significant concerns with an immediately effective rule
change, an exchange could consider revising its rule (by submitting
either another immediately effective proposal or a proposed rule change
that requires notice and comment) in a manner that reasonably addresses
the issues raised by the commenter.\49\ As described below,\50\ an
exchange will decrease the likelihood of abrogation of an immediately
effective filing by clearly describing the significance of the rule
change and how the proposal is consistent with the standards applicable
to exchange rules, such as the provisions set forth in section 6 and
section 11A of the Exchange Act.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ The Commission notes that no inference should be made
regarding whether an SRO's proposed rule change ``impose[s] a
significant burden on competition'' merely because an SRO's
competitor objects to the rule filing.
    \49\ If the second proposal were filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6),
the Commission could consider waiving the five-day pre-filing period
and the 30-day pre-operative period to permit the revision to the
new rule to be operative as quickly as possible. See Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii).
    \50\ See infra Section IV.
    \51\ 15 U.S.C. 78f and 15 U.S.C. 78k-1, respectively.

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

B. Other Types of Immediately Effective Proposed Rule Changes

1. Filings Based on the Rules of Another SRO, Other Than Trading Rules
    The Commission also is issuing interpretive guidance for all SROs
with respect to ``copycat'' filings relating to SRO rules other than
trading rules that are eligible for immediate effectiveness. The
Commission previously had stated that filings that are ``virtually
identical'' to an SRO filing already approved by the Commission are
eligible for immediate effectiveness under Rule 19b-4(f)(6).\52\ The
Commission now clarifies that an SRO may designate a proposed rule
change for immediate effectiveness even if not ``virtually identical''
to another SRO's rules.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See Non-Controversial Rule Adopting Release, supra note 8,
59 FR at 66697.
    \53\ The Commission guidance contained herein applicable to
``copycat'' and MRVP filings that are based on SRO rule changes
previously approved by the Commission is not intended to limit the
ability of SROs to continue to file proposals under Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Exchange Act where such proposals are based on
another SRO's rules that also were effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Commission recognizes that, while each SRO is
unique and has modified its rulebook over time to reflect its
particular structure and terminology, all share basic similarities such
that a proposed rule change need not be ``virtually identical'' to the
precise text of another SRO's rules in order for the prescribed conduct
and scope of the rule change to be consistent with the other SRO's rule
on which it is based. The Commission believes that a proposed rule
change appropriately may be filed as an immediately effective rule so
long as it is based on and similar to another SRO's rule and each
policy issue raised by the proposed rule (i) has been considered
previously by the Commission when the Commission approved another
exchange's rule (that was subject to notice and comment), and (ii) the
rule change resolves such policy issue in a manner consistent with such
prior approval. For this class of proposed rule changes, in support of
its designation for immediate effectiveness, the SRO is required under
Item 8 of Form 19b-4 to identify the original SRO rule(s) on which its
proposed rule change is based and explain any differences between its
proposed rule change and the rule(s) upon which it is based.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ In identifying a rule on which its proposal is based, the
SRO should cite to the Commission's approval order for that rule.
See Item 8 of Form 19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Changes to an SRO's Minor Rule Violation Plan
    The Commission also believes that more filings relating to an SRO's
MRVP could be appropriately filed as immediately effective upon filing
under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4. Based on its experience with MRVP
proposals and various changes to those MRVPs over the years, the
Commission believes that MRVPs have been useful elements of SROs'
disciplinary function. The MRVP allows an SRO to impose a limited
sanction on a member using an abbreviated process when a full
disciplinary proceeding may not be warranted. Proposed rule changes
that enable SROs to bring new rules into the MRVP sanctioning process
rarely raise significant issues and promote compliance by the SRO's
members with the SRO's rules and the rules of the Commission.
    The Commission previously has stated that certain changes to an
SRO's MRVP can be filed for immediate effectiveness pursuant to Rule
19b-4(f)(6) and reiterates that guidance here.\55\ Moreover, consistent
with ``copycat'' filings, the Commission believes that a change to an
SRO's MRVP appropriately may be filed as an immediately effective rule
so long as each policy issue raised (i) has been considered previously
by the Commission when the Commission approved another exchange's MRVP
rule change, and (ii) the rule change resolves such policy issue in a
manner consistent with such prior approval.\56\ Immediate effectiveness
of such proposals reduces the administrative burdens on SROs that seek
to expand the use of their MRVPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See Non-Controversial Rule Proposing Release, supra note
31, 59 FR at 29395 (noting that a proposed change that adds an
existing rule to an SRO's MRVP, that is objective in nature, such as
a reporting obligation, and does not involve a violation of the
federal securities laws or the rules thereunder, could be eligible
for filing as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change). See
also Non-Controversial Rule Adopting Release, supra note 8, 59 FR at
66696 (noting that an NYSE proposal to add violations of an NYSE
rule would have been eligible for immediate effectiveness under Rule
19b-4(f)(6)).
    \56\ As with any immediately effective filing, the Commission
could abrogate an MRVP-related immediately effective proposed rule
change that raises significant issues. For example, an MRVP filing
that has the effect of excusing certain rule violations (by, for
example, aggregating several instances of violative behavior as a
single offense under the SRO's MRVP) would not be eligible for
filing under Rule 19b-4(f)(6). In addition, when proposing a change
to its MRVP, it would be helpful for the SRO to specify which
violations trigger sanctions, and to cite the rules of conduct that
may be enforced using the MRVP. If one of the rules of conduct is
lengthy, to facilitate ease of reference, the SRO could consider
including citations to the necessary sub-paragraphs in the MRVP
rule. Providing a sufficient level of detail as to the rules and
violations covered by the MRVP would help affected entities better
understand the operation of the plan and would provide specificity
useful to assist the SRO in administering its MRVP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Abrogation of Immediately Effective Proposals

    We have designed the guidance to be principles-based because we
cannot anticipate the content and nature of every proposed rule change
that might be filed. By its nature, therefore, applying the guidance
will involve an element of judgment. We encourage SROs to file
immediately effective proposed rule changes when in the judgment of the
SRO that approach is appropriate and consistent with the statute,
rules, and this guidance.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ An SRO that files an immediately effective proposed rule
change with the Commission should try to anticipate and address
concerns relating to the protection of investors, the public
interest, and the burdens on competition. See generally Items 3 and
4 of Form 19b-4. The Commission further notes that conclusory
statements made in Item 7 of Form 19b-4 could make it more difficult
for the Commission to confirm that the proposed rule change has been
properly designated. See Item 7 of Form 19b-4 (``Basis for Summary
Effectiveness Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) or for Accelerated
Effectiveness Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) or Section
19(b)(7)(D)'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We acknowledge that the Commission ultimately may determine to
abrogate the immediately effective proposed rule change. As described
in greater detail above, pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(C), at any time
within 60 days of the date of filing of an immediately effective
proposed rule change, the Exchange Act permits the Commission summarily
to abrogate the 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 Exchange Act].'' \58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with the interpretation, the Commission also is
removing its delegation of authority to the Director of the Division of
Trading and Markets to abrogate SRO rule filings. We emphasize that
abrogation does not necessarily imply that a proposed rule change is
inconsistent with the Exchange Act.\59\ If the Commission abrogates an
SRO's proposed rule change filed for immediate effectiveness after it
became effective but before it becomes operative (i.e., 30 days after
filing or such shorter period as the Commission may designate), the SRO
would not have to revert to its previous rules, because they

never ceased being operative.\60\ A Commission determination to
abrogate a proposed rule change does not affect the validity or force
of the rule change during the period it was in effect.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ By its terms, Section 19(b)(3)(C) states that the
Commission may abrogate a proposal and ``require that the proposed
rule change be refiled * * *'' pursuant to Exchange Act Section
19(b)(1) to be reviewed by the Commission pursuant to Section
19(b)(2).
    \60\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). A proposed rule change filed
pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) becomes effective upon filing, but may
not become operative until 30 days after the date of filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. See 17 CFR 240.19b-
4(f)(6)(iii).
    \61\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Amendment to Rule 200.30-3(a)(12)

    The Commission believes that explicitly outlining the mechanism for
issuance of notices of proposed SRO rule changes will further enhance
the efficiency of the rule filing process. As such, the Commission is
modifying its delegation of authority to the Director of the Division
of Trading and Markets. The amended rule specifies that the Division
shall issue notices of all proposed rule changes within 15 business
days of filing thereof by the self-regulatory organization unless the
Director of the Division personally directs otherwise, and, if the
Director has so directed, he shall promptly notify the Commission and
either the Commission or the Director may order publication of the
notice thereafter.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Nevertheless, the Division may continue to submit proposed
rule changes and related matters to the Commission for its
consideration as it considers appropriate.
    The Commission notes that Commission rules require an SRO to
post its proposed rule change on its Web site when the proposed rule
change is submitted to the Commission. Further, the proposed rule
change will be posted on the Commission's Web site shortly after the
Commission issues notice thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that this requirement will enhance
transparency with respect to the rule filing process, which also will
provide additional certainty to SROs with respect to the issuance of
notices of proposed rule changes. The Commission also expects this
requirement to significantly improve the efficiency of the processing
of SRO proposed rule changes and the issuance of notices of proposed
rule changes, particularly with respect to filings subject to notice
and comment pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act. The
Commission believes that requiring the Division to issue notice of all
proposed rule changes that are properly filed and comply with all
applicable requirements within 15 business days of filing thereof will
help SROs plan accordingly as well as assist the Commission staff in
managing their work flow.
    The Commission notes that SRO rule change proposals will continue
to be required to be drafted with precision if they are to provide
information necessary to elicit meaningful public comment on the
proposed rule change. As is currently the case, a proposal that does
not comply with the requirements of Form 19b-4 and Rule 19b-4 under the
Exchange Act will not be accepted as filed.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See supra note 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to provide for the possibility that there may be unusual
and infrequent circumstances in which the 15 business day requirement
is impractical, the rule permits the Director of the Division of
Trading and Markets in such circumstances to direct otherwise. The rule
provides that this function cannot be subdelegated.

VI. Administrative Procedure Act, Regulatory Flexibility Act, and
Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Commission finds, in accordance with section 553(b)(3)(A) of
the Administrative Procedure Act,\64\ that the interpretive guidance
issued today and amended Commission Rule 200.30-3(a)(12) relate solely
to interpretations and agency organization, procedure, or practice.
Accordingly, the guidance and Rule 200.30-3(a)(12) are not subject to
the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act requiring notice,
opportunity for public comment, and publication prior to their
adoption.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A).
    \65\ For similar reasons, the amendments do not require analysis
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act or analysis of major rule
status under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
See 5 U.S.C. 601(2) (for purposes of Regulatory Flexibility Act
analyses, the term ``rule'' means any rule for which the agency
publishes a general notice of proposed rulemaking); 5 U.S.C.
804(3)(C) (for purposes of Congressional review of agency
rulemaking, the term ``rule'' does not include any rule of agency
organization, procedure, or practice that does not substantially
affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, publication of a substantive rule not less than 30 days
before its effective date is required by the Administrative Procedure
Act except as otherwise provided for in Section 553(d). However,
interpretive rules may take effect less than 30 days after
publication.\66\ In addition, because the amended rule relates solely
to the internal processes of the Commission with regard to the
publication of proposed rule changes filed by SROs, the Commission
finds that there is good cause for making amended Rule 200.30-3(a)(12)
effective upon publication in the Federal Register.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(2).
    \67\ See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the rule and the Commission's interpretation do not
contain any new or additional collections of information as defined by
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as amended.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ 44 U.S.C. 3501.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Amendments

    The Commission is sensitive to the costs and benefits of its rules,
and has considered carefully the costs and the benefits of the
interpretive guidance and the rule amendment. To the extent that SROs
decide to avail themselves of the guidance contained in this release,
the Commission believes that more rule changes will be filed as
immediately effective rule filings and more proposed rule changes
relating to trading rules, MRVPs, and ``copycat'' proposals that
currently are filed under section 19(b)(2) will take effect upon filing
with the Commission. As SROs increase their use of section 19(b)(3)(A)
to file more proposed rule changes for immediate effectiveness, SROs
will be able to modify their trading systems and rules more quickly in
response to competitive pressures, while still being subject to the
protections provided by Exchange Act section 19(b). Further, as more
proposed rule changes become effective upon filing, the burdens on the
SROs, as well as on the Commission and its staff, are expected to be
reduced since such proposals will be processed and take effect more
quickly, as those rule changes would not be subject to the issuance of
a Commission order before they may take effect. Also, to the extent
that the guidance increases the percentage of SRO proposed rule changes
that may take effect upon filing with the Commission, there will be
efficiencies as the processing of such proposed rule changes requires
fewer staff resources since the Commission is not required to issue an
order approving such proposed rule changes.
    In addition, the revised rule regarding the issuance of a notice of
a proposed rule change within 15 business days of filing with the
Commission will benefit SROs by providing additional certainty to them
regarding the process, thereby enabling them to plan according, and
improving the efficiency and the speed with which the Commission
processes SRO rule filings. The Commission believes that this rule will
increase the speed with which the Commission handles SRO proposed rule
changes. The Commission does not expect its guidance and the rule
amendment to increase the costs on SROs of filing proposed rule changes
with the Commission.
    Certain costs associated with the Commission's action today may
potentially result from the change in the

amount of time that interested persons will have to comment on proposed
changes to trading rules before they become operative. In particular,
to the extent that SROs designate a greater number of proposed rule
changes for immediate effectiveness pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)
where they previously would have submitted them pursuant to section
19(b)(2), then the opportunity for interested persons to comment on
such proposals will now occur after the proposal has taken effect upon
filing with the Commission, since such proposals are not be subject to
Commission approval before they become effective.
    The Commission believes that this potential cost is limited by a
number of factors. First, interested persons will continue to have an
opportunity to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning
such proposed rule changes before market participants must comply with
the new rules because proposals that take effect upon filing with the
Commission pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) ordinarily will not become
operative until 30 days after filing with the Commission unless the SRO
demonstrates to the Commission that waiver of the operative delay would
be consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
In addition, the Commission summarily may abrogate a proposed rule
change. If an SRO were to re-file the proposed rule change pursuant to
section 19(b)(2), the proposed rule change will be published for notice
and comment.\69\ The Commission's action or inaction with regard to
abrogation will be informed by its own views, as well as the views
expressed by commenters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, as currently is the case, a proposed rule change may take
effect upon filing with the Commission only if it satisfies the
standards set forth in section 19(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 19b-4
thereunder. Additionally, the Commission guidance outlined above
specifies that an immediately-effective proposed rule change involving
a trading rule, MRVP, or copycat proposal may not raise policy issues
that the Commission previously has not considered in a proposed rule
change filed by another exchange that was approved by the Commission
after notice and comment. Accordingly, since the rule on which the new
proposal is modeled will have been previously subject to notice and
comment, the interested persons will have had the opportunity to
comment before the prior proposal (or proposals) became effective and
on the immediately-effective rule filing, as well.
    In addition, amended Rule 200.30-3(a)(12) relates to internal
agency management. The Commission's rule amendment is intended to
increase the efficiency of the Commission's review of SRO proposed rule
changes by outlining the Commission's expectations with respect to
Commission review of and the timing of issuance of a notice of an SRO's
proposed rule change. Any increase in the costs of this amended rule
fall on the Commission and its staff. In particular, the Commission
will have to concentrate staff resources on reviewing and noticing
within 15 days the proposed rule changes submitted by SROs. However,
the ability of SROs to devote sufficient resources to preparing clear
and complete proposals should enable the staff to review expeditiously
a proposed rule change and issue the notice substantially in the form
provided by the SRO when both are clear, complete, and consistent with
all applicable requirements.

VIII. Effect on Efficiency, Competition, and Capital Formation

    Section 23(a)(2) of the Exchange Act \70\ prohibits the Commission
from adopting any rule that would impose a burden on competition not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange
Act. Rule 200.30-3(a)(12) applies to the Commission's delegation of
authority with regard to the publication of notice of proposed rule
changes filed by SROs pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Exchange
Act.\71\ Specifically, the modifications to the rule, which require the
Division of Trading and Markets to issue notice of a proposed rule
change within 15 business days of filing with the Commission, do not
impose any burdens or costs on SROs. Further, the interpretation likely
will facilitate the ability of SROs to modify their trading systems and
rules more quickly in response to competitive pressures, while still
preserving the protections provided by Exchange Act section 19(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ 15 U.S.C. 78w(a)(2).
    \71\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission expects the interpretive guidance and amended Rule
200.30-3(a)(12) to have a positive effect on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation in that the exchanges that utilize the guidance
are expected to find themselves in a better position to compete with
entities that operate trading systems that are not subject to the rule
filing processes of section 19(b) of the Exchange Act.
    Furthermore, any increase in the number of proposed rule changes
that may become effective upon filing with the Commission should
improve the ability of SROs to amend their rules efficiently,
particularly with respect to rules relating to trading systems and
``copycat'' proposals, which will enhance their ability to respond to
competitive pressures by allowing them to file changes to their systems
on an immediately effective basis. In addition, to the extent that SROs
file an increasing number of their proposed rule changes for immediate
effectiveness pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Exchange Act
rather than for Commission approval pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act, this guidance should allow the Commission to focus on
those filings that raise significant issues and that are required to be
submitted under section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act for Commission
approval.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). The Commission notes that the majority
of rule proposals filed by SROs are currently designated for
immediate effectiveness. For example, in 2006, SROs filed 1,018
proposed rule changes with the Commission. Of those filings, 478
(47%) were filed pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) and 540 (53%) were
filed pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IX. Statutory Basis and Text of Amendments

    This amendment to 17 CFR Part 200.30-3(a)(12) is being adopted
pursuant to statutory authority granted to the Commission, including
sections 4A, 6, 11A, 15A, 15B, 17A, 19, and 23 of the Exchange Act.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ 15 U.S.C. 78d-1, 78f, 78k-1, 78o-3, 78o-4, 78q-1, 78s, and
78w, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects

17 CFR Part 200

    Administrative practice and procedures, Authority delegations
(Government agencies).

17 CFR 241

    Securities.

Text of the Adopted Rules

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 17, Chapter II of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 200--ORGANIZATION; CONDUCT AND ETHICS; AND INFORMATION AND
REQUESTS

Subpart A--Organization and Program Management

0
1. The authority citation for part 200, subpart A continues to read in
part as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77o, 77s, 77sss, 78d, 78d-1, 78d-2, 78w,
78ll(d), 78mm, 80a-37, 80b-11, and 7202, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *

0
2. Section 200.19a is amended by:
0
a. Revising the section heading as set forth below;
0
b. In the first sentence of the introductory text of the section,
revise the phrase ``Division of Market Regulation'' to read ``Division
of Trading and Markets''; and
0
c. Remove the authority citation following the section.

Sec.  200.19a  Director of the Division of Trading and Markets.

* * * * *

0
3. Section 200.30-1, paragraph (i), first sentence is amended by
revising the phrase ``Division of Market Regulation'' to read
``Division of Trading and Markets''.

0
4. Section 200.30-3 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the section heading as set forth below;
0
b. In the introductory text to the section, revising the phrase
``Division of Market Regulation'' to read ``Division of Trading and
Markets'';
0
c. Adding two sentences to the end of paragraph (a)(12); and
0
d. removing and reserving paragraph (a)(58).
    The revision and addition reads as follows:

Sec.  200.30-3  Delegation of authority to Director of Division of
Trading and Markets.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (12) * * * The Division shall issue such notices of proposed rule
changes within 15 business days of filing by the self-regulatory
organization unless the Director of the Division personally otherwise
directs. If the Director has so directed, the Division Director shall
promptly notify the Commission and either the Commission or the
Director may order publication of the notice thereafter.
* * * * *

0
5. In Sec.  200.30-4, paragraph (a)(12), the first sentence is amended
by revising the phrase ``Division of Market Regulation'' to read
``Division of Trading and Markets''.

0
6. In Sec.  200.30-11, paragraph (c)(2), is amended by revising the
phrase ``Division of Market Regulation'' to read ``Division of Trading
and Markets''.

0
7. In Sec.  200.30-18, introductory text of paragraph (h), is amended
by revising the phrase ``Division of Market Regulation'' to read
``Division of Trading and Markets''.

PART 241--INTERPRETATIVE RELEASES RELATING TO THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS THEREUNDER

0
8. Part 241 is amended by adding Release No. 58024 and the release date
of June 25, 2008 to the list of interpretive releases.

    By the Commission.

    Dated: July 3, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-15574 Filed 7-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: August 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 162)]
[Notices]
[Page 42666]
[DOCID:fr24au09-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13543-000]

Free Flow Power Ohio River 6, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

August 14, 2009.
    On July 14, 2009, Free Flow Power Ohio River 6, LLC filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the Krotz
Springs Hydrokinetic Energy Project, located on the Atchafalaya River,
Pointe Coupee, Saint Landry, and Saint Martin Parishes, Louisiana. The
sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit
holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A
preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any
land disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters
owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) 1,110 turbine-generator
units configured in a series of turbine arrays which in turn will be
grouped to form turbine fields; (2) a combination of freestanding
pilings, a floating barge-like platform, or existing shore
infrastructure such as dock pilings onto which the turbine arrays will
be moored; (3) submersible electric cables interconnecting the arrays
within each turbine field and transmit the turbine field's generation
to a shore station; (4) several shore stations each consisting of less
than 100 square meters which will transition the submersible cabling to
the overhead transmission; (5) a 4.5 mile, 69 kV line interconnecting
the shore stations and delivering power to the project substation; and
(6) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would generate about
96 gigawatt-hours annually.
    Applicant contact: Ramya Swaminathan, Free Flow Power Corporation,
33 Commercial Street, Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930, phone: (978)
226-1531.
    FERC Contact: Sergiu Serban,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project, including a copy of
the application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13543) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-20222 Filed 8-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Conventional pollutant means biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), bacteria, oil and grease, and pH as defined in 40 CFR 401.16.
Continuous Discharge means a discharge which occurs without interruption throughout the operating hours of the facility, except for infrequent shutdowns for maintenance, process changes, or other similar activities [40 CFR 122.2].
CWA means the Clean Water Act in the United States Code (USC) (formerly referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972) Public Law 92-500, as amended by Public Law 95-217, Public Law 95-576, Public Law 96-483, and Public Law 97 - 117, 33 USC 1251 et seq. [40 CFR 122.2].
Daily discharge means the "discharge of a pollutant" measured during a calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents the calendar day for purposes of sampling. For pollutants with limits expressed as mass, "daily discharge" is calculated as the total mass of the pollutant discharged over the day. For pollutants with limitations expressed in other units of measurement, the "daily discharge" is calculated as the average measurement of the pollutant over the day [40 CFR 122.2].
Designated Use means those beneficial uses assigned to identified waters in Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Rules in the Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA), IDAPA 58.01.02, "Water Quality Standards," Sections 110 through 160, whether or not the uses are being attained [IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>.24].
Diatomaceous earth filtration means a process resulting in substantial particulate removal in which (1) a precoat of diatomaceous earth filter media is deposited on a support membrane (septum), and (2) while the water is filtered by passing through the cake on the septum, additional filter media known as body feed is continuously added to the feed water to maintain the permeability of the filter cake.
Direct filtration means a series of processes including coagulation and filtration but excluding sedimentation resulting in substantial particulate removal.
Discharge when used without qualification means the "discharge of a pollutant."
Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) means the EPA uniform national form, including any subsequent additions, revisions, or modifications for the reporting of self-monitoring results by Permittees [40 CFR 122.2].
Discharge of a pollutant means: Any addition of any "pollutant" or combination of pollutants to "waters of the United States" from any "point source," or any addition of any pollutant or combination of pollutants to the waters of the "contiguous zone" or the ocean from any point source other than a vessel or other floating craft which is being used as a means of transportation. This definition includes additions of pollutants into waters of the United States from: surface runoff which is collected or channeled by man; discharges through pipes, sewers, or other conveyances owned by a State, municipality, or other person which do not lead to a treatment works; and discharges through pipes, sewers, or other conveyances, leading into privately owned treatment works. This term does not include an addition of pollutants by any "indirect discharger" [40 CFR 122.2].
Draft permit means a document prepared under 40 CFR 124.6 indicating the EPA's tentative decision to issue or deny, modify, revoke and reissue, terminate, or reissue a "permit" [40 CFR 122.2].
Effluent limitation means any restriction imposed by the EPA on quantities, discharge rates, and concentrations of "pollutants" which are "discharged" from "point sources" into "waters of the United States," the waters of the "contiguous zone," or the ocean [40 CFR 122.2].
Effluent limitations guidelines (ELG) means a regulation published by the Administrator under section 304(b) of CWA to adopt or revise effluent limitations" [40 CFR 122.2].
The EPA means the Regional Administrator of the EPA Region 8 or an authorized representative thereof.
Excluded Waters, or prohibited waters, means water bodies not authorized as receiving waters to be covered under this general NPDES permit.
Facility means any NPDES point source or any other facility or activity (including land or appurtenances thereto) that is subject to regulation under the NPDES program.
Filtration means a process for removing particulate matter from water by passage through porous media. Flocculation means a process to enhance agglomeration or collection of smaller floc particles into larger, more easily settleable particles through gentle stirring by hydraulic or mechanical means.
General permit means an NPDES "permit" issued under 40 CFR 122.28 authorizing a category of discharges under the CWA within a geographical area [40 CFR 122.2].
Grab sample means a single water sample or measurement of water quality taken at a specific time.
Hazardous Material is defined in the IDAPA to mean a material or combination of materials which, when discharged in any quantity into state waters, presents a substantial present or potential hazard to human health, the public health, or the environment [IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>.46]. It is also defined at 40 CFR 122.2 to mean any substance designated in 40 CFR 116, pursuant to Section 311 of the CWA.
Indian Country as indicated by 18 USC §1151 means: (a) All land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation,
(b) All dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state, and,
(c) All Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same.
Ion exchange treatment means the use of ion exchange (a reversible process in which an ion in solution in contact with a crystal replaces an ion in the lattice of that crystal) for water softening or other water-treatment processes.
Indian Tribe means any Indian Tribe, band, group, or community recognized by the Secretary of the Interior and exercising governmental authority over a Federal Indian Reservation [40 CFR 122.2].
Influent means the water from upstream that enters the facility.
Maximum means the highest measured discharge or pollutant in a waste stream during the time period of interest.
Maximum Daily Discharge limitation means the highest allowable "daily discharge" [40 CFR 122.2].
Membrane filtration is a pressure or vacuum driven separation process in which particulate matter larger than1 micro meter is rejected by an engineered barrier, primarily through a size-exclusion mechanism, and which has a measurable removal efficiency of a target organism that can be verified through the application of a direct integrity test. This definition includes the common membrane technologies of microfiltration, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, and reverse osmosis. [40 CFR 141.2]. (Also, note that reverse osmosis units are not covered by this General Permit).
Monthly Average Limit means the average of "daily discharges" over a monitoring month, calculated as the sum of all "daily discharges" measured during a monitoring month divided by the number of "daily discharges" measured during that month [40 CFR 122.2].
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) means the national program for issuing, modifying, revoking and reissuing, terminating, monitoring and enforcing permits, and imposing and enforcing pretreatment requirements, under sections 307, 402, 318, and 405 of CWA [40 CFR 122.2].
Nonconventional Pollutants means all pollutants that are not included in the list of conventional or toxic pollutants in 40 CFR 401. This includes pollutants such as total residual chlorine, ammonia, COD, nitrogen, and phosphorous.
Notice of Intent (NOI) means a request, or application, to be authorized to discharge under a general NPDES permit.
Nuisance means anything which is injurious to the public health or an obstruction to the free use, in the customary manner, of any waters of the State [IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>.67].
Outstanding resource water means a high quality water, such as water of national and state parks and wildlife refuges and water of exceptional recreational significance, which has been designated by the legislature and subsequently listed in this chapter (of IDAPA 58.01.02). ORW designation constitutes an outstanding national or state resource that requires protection from point and nonpoint source activities that may lower water quality [IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>.72].
Pollutant means dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, filter backwash, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials [except those regulated under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 USC 2011 et seq.)], heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water [40 CFR 122.2].
Product Water means the water produced at a drinking water treatment plant for the intention of distribution for domestic and industrial uses.
Quarterly monitoring means monitoring during the quarters defined as: January to March; April to June; July to September; and, October to December.
Slow sand filtration means a process involving passage of raw water through a bed of sand at low velocity (generally less than 0.4 m/h) resulting in substantial particulate removal by physical and biological mechanisms.
Sufficiently Sensitive  -  An analytical chemical-specific test method is sufficiently sensitive when:
            The method minimum level (ML) is at or below the level of the effluent limit established in the permit for the measured pollutant or pollutant parameter; or
            The method has the lowest ML of the analytical methods approved under 40 C.F.R. Part 136 or required under 40 C.F.R. Chapter I, Subchapter N or O for the measured pollutant or pollutant parameter.
Technology-based effluent limitation (TBEL) means treatment requirements under Section 301(b) of the Clean Water Act that represent the minimum level of control that must be imposed in a permit issued under section 402 of the Clean Water Act. EPA is required to promulgate technology-based limitations and standards that reflect pollutant reductions that can be achieved by categories, or subcategories of industrial point sources using specific technologies that EPA identifies as meeting the statutorily prescribed level of control under the authority of CWA sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402, and 501 [33 USC § 1311, 1314,1316,1318,1342, and 1361].
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) means the sum of the individual wasteload allocations (WLAs) for point sources, load allocations (LAs) for non-point sources, and natural background when allocating pollutant loading to a particular waterbody. Such load shall be established at a level necessary to implement the applicable water quality standards with seasonal variations and a margin of safety which takes into account any lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between effluent limitations and water quality [IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>.100].
Upset means an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with technology-based permit effluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the Permittee. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, or careless or improper operation [40 CFR 122.41(n)].
Waters of the United States or waters of the U.S. means:
(a) All waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
(b) All interstate waters, including interstate "wetlands;"
(c) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, "wetlands," sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds the use, degradation, or destruction of which would affect or could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters:
(1) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes;
(2) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or
(3) Which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce;
(d) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition;
(e) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this definition;
(f) The territorial sea; and
(g) "Wetlands" adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (a) through (f) of this definition [40 CFR 122.2].


[Federal Register: June 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 122)]
[Notices]
[Page 36464]
[DOCID:fr25jn10-111]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent to Request Extension From the Office of
Management and Budget of a Currently Approved Information Collection
Activity, Request for Comments; Certification Procedures for Products
and Parts

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve a current
information collection. CFR part 21 prescribes certification standards
for aircraft, aircraft engines, propellors, products, and parts. The
information collected is used to determine compliance and applicant
eligibility.

DATES: Please submit comments by August 24, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Scott on<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    Title: Certification Procedures for Products and Parts.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of an approved
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0018.
    Form(s): 8110-12, 8130-1, 8130-3, 8130-6, 8130-9, 8130-12.
    Affected Public: A total of 13,339 respondents.
    Frequency: The information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Approximately 17 minutes per
response.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 30,487 hours annually.
    Abstract: CFR part 21 prescribes certification standards for
aircraft, aircraft engines, propellors, products, and parts. The
information collected is used to determine compliance and applicant
eligibility. The respondents are aircraft parts designers,
manufacturers, and aircraft owners.

Addresses: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Carla
Scott, Room 712, Federal Aviation Administration, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200, 800 Independence Ave., SW.,
Washington, DC 20591.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of
the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 21, 2010.
Carla Scott,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2010-15424 Filed 6-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P