[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 61 (Thursday, March 29, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18970-18973]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7542]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0337; Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-090-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited (BHTC) Model 407 helicopters.
This proposed AD is prompted by a review of the tailboom-attachment
installation, which revealed that the torque value of the bolts
specified in the BHTC Model 407 Maintenance Manual and applied during
manufacturing was incorrect and exceeded the torque range recommended
for the bolts. This proposed AD would require you to replace tailboom-
attachment hardware (attachment hardware), and perform initial and
recurring determinations of

the torque on the nuts of the tailboom-attachment bolts (bolts) at all
four attachment locations. The actions required by this proposed AD are
intended to prevent an over-torque of a bolt, bolt failure, loss of the
tailboom, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Examining the AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket
Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the
economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir,
Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax
(450) 433-0272, or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/. You may
review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Office
of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room
663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Miles, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Regulations and Policy Group, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas
76137; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has
issued AD No. CF-2010-33, dated September 30, 2010 (AD CF-2010-33), to
correct an unsafe condition for the BHTC Model 407 helicopter, serial
numbers (S/Ns) 53000 through 53990. Transport Canada advises that a
review of the tailboom-attachment installation determined that the
torque value of the bolts specified in the BHTC Model 407 Maintenance
Manual and applied during manufacturing exceeded the torque range
recommended for the bolts. Transport Canada states that this situation,
if not corrected, could lead to a bolt failure, detachment of the
tailboom, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
Canada and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with Canada, Transport Canada, its technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
its AD.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant
information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is
likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Related Service Information

    BHTC has issued Alert Service Bulletin No. 407-10-93, Revision A,
dated August 30, 2010 (ASB), which specifies installing new attachment
hardware with a reduced torque value. This ASB specifies performing a
torque check of the newly installed bolts and nuts every one to five
flight hours until torque stabilizes at all locations, and thereafter
at intervals not to exceed 300 flight hours. Transport Canada
classified this ASB as mandatory and issued AD CF-2010-33 to ensure the
continued airworthiness of these helicopters.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require for helicopters with 7000 hours or
less time-in-service (TIS), at the next 600 hours scheduled inspection,
or 90 days, whichever comes first; and for helicopters with more than
7000 hours TIS, within 150 hours TIS or 90 days, whichever comes first,
the following actions:
     Remove the left upper bolt, washers, and nut. Install a
new bolt, part number (P/N) NAS627-30; washers, P/N 140-007-29S25E6 and
P/N NAS1149G0732P; and new nut, P/N 42FLW-720. Repeat this action for
the opposite right upper attachment hardware.
     Remove the left lower bolt, washers, and nut. Install a
new bolt, P/N NAS626-26; washer, P/N 140-007-25S22E6, washer(s), P/N
NAS1149G0663P; and new nut, P/N 42FLW-624. Repeat this action for the
opposite right lower attachment hardware.
     After installation of the new attachment hardware, at
intervals of not less than 1 hour TIS but not exceeding 5 hours TIS,
determine the torque of each nut until torque stabilizes at each
attachment location. Thereafter, determine the torque of each nut at
recurring intervals not to exceed 300 hours TIS. If the proper torque
has not been retained since the last torquing, remove and inspect the
tailboom assembly for damage, corrosion, improper assembly, and
condition. If the tailboom assembly is airworthy, replace the
attachment hardware and determine that the torque has stabilized at
each attachment location. Replace any unairworthy tailboom assembly
with an airworthy tailboom assembly before further flight.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Transport Canada AD

    The differences between this proposed AD and the Transport Canada
AD are as follows:
     This proposed AD uses the term ``hours time-in-service''
to describe compliance times, and the Transport Canada AD uses the term
``air time'';

     For helicopters with 7000 hours or less TIS, the Transport
Canada AD requires accomplishing the actions in the AD at the next
scheduled 600-hour inspection or by December 31, 2010, whichever occurs
first. This proposed AD requires accomplishing the actions at the next
scheduled 600-hour inspection or 90 days, whichever occurs first.
     This proposed AD uses the term ``determine the torque''
when referring to the torque on a nut, and the Transport Canada AD uses
the term ``perform a torque check.''

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 552 helicopters of
U.S. registry. We estimate it would take about 2.0 work-hours per
helicopter to replace the hardware and 1.0 work-hour per helicopter to
determine the recurring torque value at an average labor rate of $85
per work hour. Required parts would cost about $498 per helicopter.
Based on these figures, we estimate for the first year the total cost
per helicopter to be $923, and the total cost impact on U.S. operators
to be $509,496. This estimated total cost assumes attachment hardware
will be replaced on all affected helicopters, the torque will be
considered stabilized after determining the torque value once, and the
300-hour TIS recurring torque determination will be accomplished twice
a year.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new
Airworthiness Directive (AD):

Bell Helicopter Textron Canada (BHTC): Docket No. FAA-2012-0337;
Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-090-AD.

(a) Applicability

    BHTC Model 407 helicopters, serial numbers 53000 through 53990,
certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This proposed AD defines the unsafe condition as an incorrect
torque value of the tailboom attachment bolt (bolt) specified in the
BHTC Model 407 Maintenance Manual and applied during manufacturing,
which exceeds the torque range recommended for the bolts. This
condition could result in an over-torque of the bolt, bolt failure,
loss of the tailboom, and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.

(c) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless accomplished
previously.

(d) Required Actions

    (1) For helicopters with 7000 hours or less time-in-service
(TIS), at the next 600 hours scheduled inspection, or 90 days,
whichever comes first; and for helicopters with more than 7000 hours
TIS, within 150 hours TIS or 90 days, whichever comes first, replace
the tailboom-attachment hardware (attachment hardware) as follows:
    (i) Remove the left upper bolt, washers, and nut.
    (ii) Install a new bolt, part number (P/N) NAS627-30; washer, P/
N 140-007-29S25E6; washer(s), P/N NAS1149G0732P; and new nut, P/N
42FLW-720 in accordance with paragraphs 2.a) through paragraph 3.e)
of the ``Accomplishment Instructions: Replacement of tailboom
attachment bolts and nuts'' section and Figure 2 in the BHTC Alert
Service Bulletin No. 407-10-93, Revision A, dated August 30, 2010
(ASB).
    (iii) Remove the opposite right upper bolt, washers, and nut,
and accomplish the requirements in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (iv) Remove the left lower bolt, washers, and nut.
    (v) Install a new bolt, (P/N) NAS626-26; washer, P/N 140-007-
25S22E6; washer(s), P/N NAS1149G0663P; and new nut, P/N 42FLW-624 in
accordance with paragraphs 6.a) through 7.e) of the ``Accomplishment
Instructions: Replacement of tailboom attachment bolts and nuts''
section and Figure 2 in the ASB.
    (vi) Remove the right lower bolt, washers, and nut, and
accomplish the requirements in paragraph (d)(1)(v) of this AD.
    (2) After installation of the new attachment hardware, at
intervals of not less than 1 hour TIS but not exceeding 5 hours TIS,
determine the torque of each nut until the torque stabilizes at each
attachment location, referring to Figure 2 of the ASB. Apply the
minimum specified torque of the range, plus the minimum acceptable
tare torque of 14 inch/lbs (1.58 Nm) for the upper nuts, and 9.5
inch/lbs (1.07 Nm) for the lower nuts.
    (3) At intervals not to exceed 300 hours TIS, determine the
torque of each of the four attachment nuts, referring to Figure 2 of
the ASB. Apply the minimum specified torque of the range plus the
minimum acceptable tare torque of 14 inch/lbs (1.58 Nm) for the
upper nuts, and 9.5 inch/lbs (1.07 Nm) for the lower nuts. If the
proper torque has not been retained since the last torque
determination, remove and inspect the tailboom assembly for damage,
corrosion, improper assembly, and condition. If the tailboom
assembly is airworthy, replace the attachment hardware in accordance
with the requirements in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (d)(1)(vi) and
determine that the torque has stabilized in accordance with
paragraph (2) of this AD. Replace any unairworthy tailboom assembly
with an airworthy tailboom assembly.

(e) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Sharon Miles,

2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone: (817) 222-
5122; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a Part 119 operating
certificate or under Part 91, Subpart K, we suggest that you notify
your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the
manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate
holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with
this AD through an AMOC.

(f) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in the Transport Canada
Civil Aviation (TCCA) AD CF-2010-33, dated September 30, 2010.

 (g) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 5302, Rotorcraft
tailboom.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 21, 2012.
Kim Smith,
Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 2012-7542 Filed 3-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 167 (Thursday, August 27, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53040-53041]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18808]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-297, OMB Control No. 3235-0336]

Proposal for OMB Review; Comment Request; Revision: Form N-14

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (``Paperwork Reduction Act''), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Form N-14 (17 CFR 239.23) is the form for registration under the
Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) (``Securities Act'') of
securities issued by management investment companies registered under
the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.)
(``Investment Company Act'') and business development companies as
defined by Section 2(a)(48) of the Investment Company Act in: (1) A
transaction of the type specified in rule 145(a) under the Securities
Act (17 CFR 230.145(a)); (2) a merger in which a vote or consent of the
security holders of the company being acquired is not required pursuant
to applicable state law; (3) an exchange offer for securities of the
issuer or another person; (4) a public reoffering or resale of any
securities acquired in an offering registered on Form N-14; or (5) two
or more of the transactions listed in (1) through (4) registered on one
registration statement. The principal purpose of Form N-14 is to make
material information regarding securities to be issued in connection
with business combination transactions available to investors. The
information required to be filed with the Commission permits
verification of compliance with securities law requirements and assures
the public availability and dissemination of such information. Without
the registration statement requirement, material information may not
necessarily be available to investors.

                                                        Table 1--Burden Estimates for Initial Registration Statements Filed on Form N-14
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost of
                                                                                Cost of      Annual             Annual        Internal burden        internal   Annual cost
                                            Internal burden                    Wage rate \1\         internal      cost             responses        (aggregate)           burden       burden
                                                                                burden      burden                                                (aggregate)  (aggregate)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                CURRENTLY APPROVED ESTIMATES
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preparing and filing reports on Form   497.31 hours............      x   $348 (blend of            $173,063.88    $23,091      x          253  125,820 hours..........  $43,758,162   $5,842,000
 N[dash]14 generally.                                                     compliance attorney and
                                                                          senior programmer).
Preparation and review of exhibit      0.25 hours..............      x   348 (blend of compliance           87        300      x          253  63 hours...............       22,011       75,900
 hyperlinks.                                                              attorney and senior
                                                                          programmer).
                                      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Burden..............  ........................  ......  ........................  ...........  .........  ......  ..........  125,883 hours..........   43,780,173    5,917,900
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                REVISED ESTIMATES
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preparing and filing reports on Form   610 hours...............      x   317.3 (blend of               193,554     27,500      x          156  96,160 hours...........   29,181,672    4,290,000
 N-14 generally.                                                          attorney, senior
                                                                          accountant, and
                                                                          paralegal).
Burden per amendment.................  290 hours...............      x   319 ((blend of attorney,       92,530     16,000      x           97  29,100 hours...........    8,674,710    1,552,000
                                                                          senior accountant, and
                                                                          paralegal).
                                      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Burden..............  ........................  ......  ........................  ...........  .........  ......  ..........  125,260 hours..........   37,856,382    5,842,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\ The Commission's estimates concerning the allocation of burden hours and the relevant wage rates are based on consultations with industry representatives and on salary information for the
  securities industry compiled by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association's Office Salaries in the Securities Industry 2013. The estimated wage figures are modified by
  Commission staff to account for an 1800-hour work-year and multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits, overhead, and adjusted to account for the effects of
  inflation. See Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, Report on Management & Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2013.

    As summarized in Table 1 above, the Commission has previously
estimated that about 253 funds will make about 253 filings on Form N-14
each year, incurring 125,883 hours of internal hour burden at a cost of
about $43.78 million. The hour burden estimates for preparing and
filing reports on Form N-14 are based on the Commission's experience
with the contents of the form. The number of burden hours may vary
depending on, among other things, the complexity of the filing and
whether preparation of the forms is performed by internal staff or
outside counsel.

    The amendments to Form N-14 to permit BDCs to incorporate certain
information by reference into that form to the same extent as
registered closed-end fund are expected to decrease the burden and
costs for BDCs that prepare and file Forms N-14. As summarized in Table
1 above, we estimate that the total internal burden associated with N-
14 will be 125,260 hours, at a cost of approximately $37,856,382.
    Estimates of average burden hours are made solely for the purposes
of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a comprehensive
or even representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules
and forms. The collection of information under Form N-14 is mandatory.
The information provided under Form N-14 will not be kept confidential.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate
of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to David Bottom, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Cynthia
Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: August 21, 2020.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-18808 Filed 8-26-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 4, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 191)]
[Notices]
[Page 57909-57916]
[DOCID:fr04oc05-109]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52521; File No. SR-NASD-00-23]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Order Approving Amendment No. 2 to Proposed Rule Change
by Relating to Amendments To Order Audit Trail System Rules and Notice
of and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to Amendment No. 3

    September 28, 2005.

I. Introduction

    On April 19, 2000, the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. (``NASD'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend its rules relating to
its Order Audit Trail System (``OATS''). On September 5, 2000, NASD
filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The proposed rule
change, as amended by Amendment No. 1, was published for comment in the
Federal Register on October 3, 2000.\3\ The Commission received 13
comment letters from 12 commenters in response to the publication.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43344 (September 26,
2000), 65 FR 59038.
    \4\ See letters to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission, from
Harold M. Golz, Krys Boyle Freedman & Sawyer, P.C. on behalf of
Rocky Mountain Securities & Investments, Inc., dated October 20,
2000 (``Rocky Mountain Letter''); Mitchell M. Almy, President,
Mitchell Securities Corporation of Oregon, dated October 20, 2000
(``Mitchell Securities Letter''); Joanne Ferrari, Compliance
Manager, Weeden & Co., dated October 23, 2000 (``Weeden Letter'');
Bonnie K. Wachtel, CEO and Wendie L. Wachtel, COO, Wachtel & Co.,
Inc. dated October 24, 2000 and March 26, 2001 (``Watchel Letters--
1''); Laurence Storch, Storch & Brenner, LLP, dated October 24, 2000
(``Stroch & Brenner Letter''); Allen Thomas, Vice President, A.G.
Edwards & Sons, Inc., dated October 24, 2000 (``A.G. Edwards
Letter''); Stuart J. Kaswell, Senior Vice President and General
Counsel, Securities Industry Association, Ad Hoc Committee, dated
October 24, 2000 (``SIA Letter-1''); W. Leo McBlain, Chairman and
Thomas J. Jordan, Executive Director, Financial Information Forum,
dated October 24, 2000 (``FIF Letter-1''); Thomas F. Guinan, Senior
Vice President, Pershing Division of Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette
Securities Corporation, dated October, 24, 2000 (``Pershing
Letter''); Paul A Merolla, Senior Vice President and General
Counsel, Instinet Corporation, dated October 25, 2000 (``Instinet
Letter''); Richard E. Schell, Vice President and Assistant General
Counsel, First Options of Chicago, dated October 25, 2000 (``First
Options Letter''); Jill W. Ostergaard, Vice President, Morgan
Stanley Dean Witter, dated October 27, 2000 (``MSDW Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to those comments, on June 10, 2005, NASD filed
Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change. Amendment No. 2 was
published for comment in the Federal Register on June 27, 2005.\5\ The
Commission received six comment letters in response to the
publication.\6\ On September 14, 2005, NASD filed Amendment No. 3 to
the proposed rule change to address the concerns raised in those
comment letters, and to make a technical change to the rule text. This
order approves Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change. In
addition, the Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change and is

simultaneously approving the amendment on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51890 (June 21,
2005), 70 FR 36985.
    \6\ See letters to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission, from
Chris Charles, President, Wulff, Hansen & Co., dated July 12, 2005
(``Wulff Letter''); Bonnie K. Wachtel, CEO and Wendie L. Wachtel,
COO, Wachtel & Co., Inc. dated July 18, 2005 (``Wachtel Letter-2'');
Ronald C. Long, Senior Vice President, Wachovia Securities, LLC,
dated July 18, 2005 (``Wachovia Letter''); Howard Meyerson, General
Counsel, Liquidnet, Inc., dated July 19, 2005 (``Liquidnet
Letter''); Bob Linville, ADP/SIS Service Bureau Committee Co-Chair,
Deborah Mittelman, Sunguard Service Bureau Committee Co-Chair, W.
Leo McBain, Chairman, Manisha Kulkarni, Executive Director,
Financial Information Forum, dated July 22, 2005 (``FIF Letter-2'');
Ira Hammerman, Senior Vice President and general Counsel, Securities
Industry Association, dated July 26, 2005 (``SIA Letter-2'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    On March 6, 1998, the Commission approved NASD Rules 6950 through
6957 (``OATS Rules'').\7\ OATS provides information regarding orders
and transactions that allows NASD to conduct surveillance and
investigations of member firms for potential violations of NASD rules
and the federal securities laws. OATS is designed,\8\ at a minimum, to:
(1) Provide an accurate, time-sequenced record of orders and
transactions, beginning with the receipt of an order at the first point
of contact between the broker/dealer and the customer or counterparty
and further documenting the life of the order through the process of
execution; and (2) provide for market-wide synchronization of clocks
used in connection with the recording of market events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 39729, 63 FR 12559
(March 13, 1998).
    \8\ OATS is intended to fulfill one of the undertakings
contained in the order issued by the Commission relating to the
settlement of an enforcement action against the NASD for failure to
adequately enforce its rules. See In the Matter of National
Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 37538, August 8, 1996; Administrative Proceeding File
No. 3-9056.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The OATS Rules generally impose obligations on member firms to
record in electronic form and report to NASD on a daily basis certain
information with respect to orders originated or received by NASD
members relating to securities listed on Nasdaq. OATS captures this
order information reported by NASD members and integrates it with quote
and transaction information to create a time-sequenced record of orders
and transactions. This information is used by NASD staff in conducting
surveillance and investigations of member firms for violations of
federal securities laws and NASD rules.
    The OATS requirements were implemented in three phases. All members
were required to synchronize their computer system clocks and all
mechanical clocks that record times for regulatory purposes by August
7, 1998, and July 1, 1999, respectively. In addition, electronic orders
received at the trading department of a market maker and those received
by ECNs were required to be reported to OATS as of March 1, 1999
(``Phase One''). Additional information relating to market maker and
ECN electronic orders and all other electronic orders were required to
be reported to OATS by August 1, 1999 (``Phase Two''). Finally,
pursuant to Rule 6957(c), the OATS Rules were to apply to all manual
orders effective 120 days after Commission approval of the instant
filing, SR-NASD-00-23, (``Phase Three'').\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The original effective date for Phase Three was July 31,
2000. NASD filed a proposed amendment with the SEC for immediate
effectiveness to extend the implementation date of Phase Three to
120 days after SEC approval of SR-NASD-00-23. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 43654 (December 1, 2000), 65 FR 77405
(December 11, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the implementation of OATS, NASD has identified several
changes to OATS that it believes would enhance NASD's automated
surveillance for compliance with trading and market making rules such
as Interpretive Material (IM) 2110-2, (commonly referred to as the
``NASD's Limit Order Protection Interpretation''), the SEC's Order
Handling Rules \10\ and a member firm's best execution obligations. In
addition to implementing Phase Three of OATS, NASD proposed these
changes in SR-NASD-00-23 and Amendment No. 1 thereto. Provided below is
a description of the original proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1,
a summary of the comments received in response to the proposed changes,
and a description of NASD's response (``Amendment No. 2'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 37619A (September
6, 1996), 61 FR 48290 (September 12, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Description of Initial Proposal and Amendment No. 1, Comments
Received and NASD's Response Thereto (Amendment No. 2)

A. Proposed Definition of Time of Receipt

1. Description
    NASD Rule 6954 requires certain identifying information be recorded
at various critical points during the life of an order, thereby
assisting NASD in carrying out its regulatory responsibilities. In
particular, NASD Rule 6954(b)(16) requires that members record and
report the date and time the order is originated or received by a
Reporting Member (``time of receipt''). The OATS Rules, which currently
only apply to electronic orders, require that the time of receipt for
an electronic order be the time an order is received by a firm's
electronic order handling system. Upon approval of the instant proposed
rule change, members will be required to record and report OATS
information for manual orders as well.
    The time of receipt for manual orders is the time the order is
received by the member from the customer, whether that is at a trading
desk or at another location. In the original filing, NASD proposed that
the time of receipt for manual orders be the time the order is received
by the member firm's trading desk or trading department for execution
or further routing purposes. NASD also proposed to codify the staff's
position that the time of receipt for electronic orders is the time the
order is captured by a member's electronic order-routing or execution
system.
    In Amendment No. 1, NASD amended its original filing and proposed
that the time of receipt for manual orders of less than 10,000 shares
be the time the order is received by the member's trading desk or
trading department for execution or routing purposes. For manual orders
that are 10,000 shares or greater, the time of receipt would continue
to be the time the order is received by the member from the
customer.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Because certain order handling rules may apply differently
to block orders of 10,000 shares or greater, NASD proposed, in
Amendment No. 1, to define the time of receipt differently depending
on the size of the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Comments and NASD's Response
    One commenter supported the proposed definitions,\12\ while several
commenters opposed having two definitions of time of receipt for manual
orders.\13\ Specifically, commenters opposed the requirement that the
time of receipt for a manual order of 10,000 shares or greater be the
time the order is received by the member from the customer, rather than
the time the order is received at the member's trading desk or trading
department for execution or routing purposes. Commenters asserted that
eliminating the time a 10,000 share or greater order is received by the
trading desk for OATS purposes would impede NASD surveillance
capabilities while, conversely, the inclusion of the customer order
receipt time for these orders would not improve significantly NASD's
ability to oversee and enforce sales practice violations.\14\ Further,
commenters noted that NASD, where necessary, could obtain from members
the customer order receipt time from members, which is required to be
maintained under Rule 17a-3(a)(6) of the Act.\15\ In addition,
commenters indicated that the two differing definitions of receipt time
would create unnecessary costs and burdens for members in establishing
automated systems to capture OATS data at branch locations, as well as
confusion for salespersons in the branches and trading

desk personnel of firms, and would lead to inadvertent mistakes and
delays in executions.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Mitchell Securities Letter.
    \13\ See SIA Letter-1; MSDW Letter; Pershing Letter; A.G.
Edwards Letter; and Rocky Mountain Letter.
    \14\ See SIA Letter-1 and A.G. Edwards Letter.
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.17a-3(a)(6); See SIA-1 Letter; MSDW Letter; A.G.
Edwards Letter; and Pershing Letter.
    \16\ See SIA-1 Letter; MSDW Letter; and A.G. Edwards Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD agreed with commenters that having two differing definitions
of time of receipt based solely on the size of the order would create
burdens for members. However, because NASD believes that it is critical
that OATS capture the time that an order is received by the trading
desk, and have an electronic record of when orders, especially larger
orders, are received at a firm to enable the staff to perform
surveillance to detect violations such as frontrunning, as reflected in
Amendment No. 2, NASD determined that OATS should capture both the time
the order is received by the member from the customer and the time the
order is received by the member's trading desk or trading department,
if those times are different.
    Given that orders may be routed to multiple locations within a firm
prior to reaching the trading desk (or even routed outside the firm
directly from a desk other than the trading desk), in Amendment No. 2,
NASD proposes to capture the various receipt times (customer receipt
time, trading desk receipt time, etc.) by expanding the OATS order
transmittal requirements that apply to intra-firm routes to include
orders routed to the trading department.\17\ Specifically, if an order
were not received immediately at the trading department, members would
be required to capture information relating to the transfer of that
order to the trading department under the order transmittal
requirements of NASD Rule 6954(c). To the extent that the time of
receipt of the order from the customer and receipt of the order by the
trading department are the same, no Desk Report would be required,
given that the New Order Report would accurately capture the time of
receipt at the trading department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ NASD Rule 6954(c) currently requires that certain
information be recorded when an order is transmitted to a department
within a firm, other than the trading department. In furtherance of
this provision, the OATS Reporting Technical Specifications requires
that this information be reported to OATS via a ``Desk Report.''
When the OATS Rules originally were adopted in 1998, the OATS
reporting framework was based on NASD staff's understanding that
most electronic orders received by members were transferred to the
trading department for execution and that such transfer was
instantaneous with receipt of the order. Members had indicated that
the ``routine'' order flow from point of receipt to the trading
department would generate a significant number of OATS Desk Reports,
and that reporting that information to OATS would be very burdensome
and provide little additional information, since the transfer was
instantaneous. As a result, Desk Reports were required only in those
instances where orders were transmitted to departments other than
the trading department (e.g., block desk, arbitrage desk). Since
that time, member order routing and handling systems have changed
and a larger percentage of orders are not routed immediately to the
trading desk. Therefore, NASD staff believes the exclusion for
orders routed to the trading department no longer makes sense and
may result in gaps in the audit trail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change, as reflected in Amendment No. 2, would
apply equally to both electronic and manual orders. In other words, the
time of receipt for purposes of order origination would always be the
time the order is received from the customer. Amendment No. 2 also
would require that members provide information on the nature of the
department to which an order was transmitted, the number of shares to
which the transmission applies, and any special handling requests. As
with other technical requirements relating to OATS, NASD represented
that it will specify in the OATS Reporting Technical Specifications how
firms should report this information.

B. Proposed Exclusion From the Definition of ``Reporting Member''

1. Description
    Certain NASD members engage in non-discretionary order routing
processes whereby, immediately after receipt of a customer order, the
member routes the order, by electronic or other means, to another
member (``receiving Reporting Member'') for further routing or
execution at the receiving Reporting Member's discretion. Currently,
the OATS Rules require both the member with which the order originated
and the receiving Reporting Member to create and report New Order
Reports and possibly Route Reports. This results in the receipt of
duplicative information by OATS. Therefore, NASD proposed in the
original filing that the OATS Rules be amended to require, in such
instances, that only the receiving Reporting Member report OATS data.
NASD proposed that a member would not be required to report OATS data
regarding an order, if the following conditions are met:
    (1) the member engages in a non-discretionary order routing
process, pursuant to which it immediately routes, by electronic or
other means, all of its orders to a single receiving Reporting
Member;\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ If any delay results in the routing of an order due to
systems problems or other reasons, the member with which the order
originated would be required to report OATS data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) the member does not direct or maintain control over subsequent
routing or execution by the receiving Reporting Member;
    (3) the receiving Reporting Member records and reports all
information required under NASD Rules 6954 and 6955 with respect to the
order; and
    (4) the member has a written agreement with the receiving Reporting
Member specifying the respective functions and responsibilities of each
party to effect full compliance with the requirements of NASD Rules
6954 and 6955.
2. Comments and NASD's Response
    One commenter suggested that the exclusion from the definition of
``Reporting Member'' for members that use a non-discretionary order
routing process as described in the proposed rule change be expanded to
allow for an additional exclusion for members that regularly route all
of a particular type of order or class of securities to a single
receiving Reporting Member pursuant to a contractual arrangement.\19\
For example, if a firm regularly routes to a receiving Reporting Member
all transactions in margin accounts and the receiving Reporting Member
otherwise has total execution discretion and meets the other
requirements set forth in the proposed rule change, the firm should be
excluded from reporting these orders under the OATS Rules. The
commenter noted that such an exclusion could be limited to no more that
two or three such relationships.\20\ One commenter also suggested an
order-by-order exclusion.\21\ Another commenter suggested allowing
firms to handle an occasional order in a discretionary manner, but
still be eligible for the exclusion.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Rocky Mountain Letter.
    \20\ See Rocky Mountain Letter.
    \21\ See Pershing Letter.
    \22\ See FIF Letter-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter stated that it is inequitable to provide an
exclusion to correspondent firms that send all their order flow to
their clearing firm, but not other kinds of order entry firms.\23\ The
commenter generally argued that this proposed exclusion is unfair to
other firms with different business models and is likely to hasten the
decision by some firms to entrust all of their order flow with one
executing party.\24\ This commenter suggested that the exemption be
extended to all reporting firms based on the number of manual orders
they handle as a percentage of total volume.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See SIA Letter-1.
    \24\ See SIA Letter-1.
    \25\ See SIA Letter-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, NASD states that the proposed exclusion from the
definition

of Reporting Member is directed at those members that use a non-
discretionary order routing process whereby, immediately after receipt
of its customer orders, the member routes all its orders, by electronic
or other means, to a single receiving Reporting Member for further
routing or execution at the receiving Reporting Member's discretion.
NASD states that the proposed exclusion is not limited to
correspondent/clearing relationships, but applies to any relationship
that meets the proposed conditions.
    NASD explained that the goal of the proposed rule is to eliminate
the reporting of duplicative information to OATS where all of the OATS
data of one member would be captured by the receiving Reporting Member.
NASD noted that if the proposed rule were to permit deviations from
this as commenters suggest, the exclusion would, in effect, permit an
exclusion for almost any category of orders that are routed to another
firm. Without the condition that all orders be routed to one firm, NASD
would not have the ability to easily identify which receiving Reporting
Member is providing the OATS order information that corresponds to the
orders initially received by the member. Therefore, NASD declined to
make any further changes to this proposed rule as described by
commenters. However, in Amendment No. 2, NASD proposes to modify the
rule text to clarify that, to qualify for the proposed exclusion to the
definition of ``Reporting Member,'' the member must route all of its
orders to a single receiving Reporting Member.

C. Recording and Reporting a Routed Order Identifier

1. Description
    OATS has the capability of tracking the history of an order by
linking such orders across firms through the use of a routed order
identifier. If the order does not contain a routed order identifier,
the order cannot be linked systematically to subsequent actions, such
as further routing or execution by other firms or Nasdaq systems. In
this regard, the complete history of a significant percentage of orders
may not be tracked because the OATS rules do not require a receiving
Reporting Member to capture and report a routed order identifier if the
order is routed to it manually.
2. Comments and NASD's Response
    Several commenters opposed the proposed requirement that members be
required to capture and report a transmitting member's unique
identifier for all manually routed orders.\26\ Commenters stated that
members should not be responsible for capturing accurately on a manual
basis the routed order identifier from other firms noting that errors
will be frequent and carried on to the next firm to which the order is
routed.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See SIA Letter-1; FIF Letter-1; MSDW Letter; Wachtel
Letters-1; Pershing Letter; and Mitchell Securities Letter.
    \27\ See SIA Letter-1; FIF Letter-1; Pershing Letter; and
Mitchell Securities Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters further noted that the proposed requirement would lead
to delays in order communication and executions and ultimately harm
public investors.\28\ Because orders that are transmitted manually may
not be entered into a firm's system and no systematic order identifier
generated, commenters indicated that the proposed requirement would
pose serious operational and logistical problems.\29\ Commenters also
argued that NASD could effectively link or match together routed orders
with new orders of the firm they are routed to without the routed order
identifier information.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See SIA Letter-1; A.G. Edwards Letter; MSDW Letter;
Pershing Letter; and Wachtel Letters-1.
    \29\ See SIA Letter-1.
    \30\ See SIA Letter-1 and A.G. Edwards Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to these comments, NASD reiterated that the use of a
routed order identifier reported through OATS permits NASD to track the
history of orders routed between firms on an automated basis and that
if the order does not contain a routed order identifier, the order
cannot be linked systematically on an automated basis to subsequent
actions, such as further routing or execution by other firms. In the
case of manually routed orders, however, NASD stated that it does not
believe that the benefits provided by such an identifier clearly
outweigh the related costs to members. In support of this, NASD noted
in particular the commenters' concerns that requiring routed order
identifiers for manually-routed orders creates potential delays in the
handling and execution of customer orders and creates the likelihood of
high levels of data errors. Further, NASD recognized that while it
would not be able to track the history of manual orders between firms
on an automated basis without a routed order identifier, the staff
could create, on an order by order basis, a process that links manual
orders to subsequent events with an acceptable level of accuracy.
Therefore, NASD concluded that the costs imposed by this proposed
requirement relating to manually routed orders as described by
commenters are not outweighed by the incremental benefits to NASD
regulatory data and surveillance systems and in Amendment No. 2,
deleted this proposed requirement.

D. Proposed Exemptive Relief

1. Description
    Finally, NASD proposed in Amendment No. 1 new paragraph (d) of NASD
Rule 6955 and an amendment to NASD Rule 9610(a) to permit NASD to grant
exemptive relief to certain members from the reporting requirements of
the OATS Rules under the procedures set forth in the NASD Rule 9600
series. Specifically, members that meet the following criteria would be
eligible to request an exemption to the OATS reporting requirements for
manual orders:
    (1) the member and current control affiliates and associated
persons of the member have not been subject within the last five years
to any disciplinary action, and within the last ten years to any
disciplinary action involving fraud;
    (2) the member has annual revenues of less than $2 million;
    (3) the member does not conduct any market making activities in
Nasdaq Stock Market equity securities;
    (4) the member does not execute principal transactions with its
customers (with limited exceptions for error corrections); and
    (5) the member does not conduct clearing or carrying activities for
other firms.
    Under the proposed rule change, any exemptive relief granted would
expire no later than two years from the date the member receives the
exemptive relief. At or prior to the expiration of a grant of exemptive
relief, members meeting the specified criteria may request a subsequent
exemption. In addition, under the proposed rule change, NASD's
exemptive authority would be in effect for five years from the
effective date of the proposed rule change.
    The proposed exemptive authority would provide NASD the ability to
grant relief to members meeting the specified criteria in situations
where, for example, reporting of such information would be unduly
burdensome for the member or where temporary relief from the rules (in
the form of additional time to achieve compliance) would permit the
member to avoid unnecessary expense or hardship.
2. Comments and NASD's Response
    Commenters generally supported the proposed rule change that would
provide NASD with the authority to exempt certain members from OATS
reporting for manual orders, but opposed many of the conditions placed

on members in order for them to request exemptive relief.\31\ For
example, several commenters suggested changes to the proposed condition
that requires that members requesting exemptive relief not have been
subject within the last five years to any disciplinary action, and
within the last ten years to any disciplinary action involving
fraud.\32\ One commenter indicated that the five and ten year
disciplinary action test should commence from the date the disciplinary
action is initiated, rather than when the disciplinary action is
finalized.\33\ The commenter indicated that the date of initiation of
the disciplinary action is the date most closely linked to the conduct
that is triggering the sanction and that members should not be
discouraged from seeking a hearing or other recourse due to the
proposed condition on obtaining exemptive relief for OATS purposes.\34\
One commenter suggested a de minimis exception for single disciplinary
action incurring a fine of not more than $10,000,\35\ while another
commenter suggested that NASD be provided discretion to consider a
firm's overall disciplinary history in determining whether to grant an
exemption.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Mitchell Securities Letter; Wachtel Letters-1; Storch &
Brenner Letter; and First Options Letter.
    \32\ See Watchel Letters-1.
    \33\ See Watchel Letters-1.
    \34\ See Watchel Letters-1.
    \35\ See Watchel Letters-1.
    \36\ See Storch & Brenner Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter suggested that exemptive relief be available for
market makers that conduct principal trades.\37\ Another commenter
recommended eliminating the condition restricting firms that clear for
others from obtaining exemptive relief where the introducing firm is
not a reporting member under NASD Rule 6951 (except the exclusion that
another member report its trades) and/or the introducing firm obtains
an exemption under NASD Rule 6955.\38\ This commenter also suggested
that the provision stating that a firm seeking an exemption cannot
clear for other firm might disrupt a longstanding relationship that is
integral to the introducing firm's business.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Mitchell Securities Letter.
    \38\ See Wachtel Letters-1.
    \39\ See Watchel Letters-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter noted that the five-year ``sunset'' provision on
NASD's ability to grant exemptions should be extended indefinitely,
noting that there currently is no reason to believe the rationale for
providing NASD exemptive authority will be any different in five years.
Moreover, the procedural impediments necessary for NASD to request that
its exemptive authority be extended would be very burdensome.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Watchel Letters-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter stated that exemptive relief should be provided
from all OATS reporting requirements for any NASD member that: (1)
Carries no accounts for customers; (2) provides execution services in
Nasdaq equity securities only to other dealers who are acting as market
makers or proprietary traders and not on behalf of a customer; and (3)
does not itself (other than in an error account) engage in market
making or proprietary trading.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See First Options Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD did not propose any changes to this exemptive provision in
Amendment No. 2. However, NASD staff committed to review and analyze
closely the application of such conditions to exemptive authority and
determine whether it would be appropriate to seek changes to these
conditions, including the types of changes suggested by commenters.
    In Amendment No. 2, however, NASD proposes to amend NASD Rule
6955(d)(1)(A) to clarify that the condition on members that may request
exemptive relief under the proposed rule applies only to final
disciplinary actions within the last five years and does not include
minor rule violations pursuant to Rule 19d-1(c)(2) of the Act.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Comments on Implementation Schedule

    Several commenters requested additional time to comply with the
proposed Phase Three requirements.\43\ In recognition of the
technological burdens that may be imposed on members as a result of the
changes proposed, in Amendment No. 2, NASD proposes to provide an
implementation date 120 days from Commission approval of the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See SIA Letter-1; FIF Letter-1; MSDW Letter; A.G. Edwards
Letter; Weeden Letter; and Pershing Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Amendment No. 2 was published for comment in the Federal Register
on June 27, 2005.\44\ The Commission received six comment letters in
response to the publication.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See note 5, supra.
    \45\ See note 6, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Summary of Comments on Amendment No. 2 and NASD's Response Thereto
(Amendment No. 3)

A. Definition of Time of Receipt

    One commenter indicated that requiring members to capture the time
the order is received by the member from the customer would create
unnecessary costs and burdens for members in establishing automated
systems to capture OATS data.\46\ In response, NASD stated that it
recognizes that this requirement may impose additional costs on member
firms, however NASD believes that it is critical to NASD's surveillance
systems and regulatory program that OATS capture the full lifecycle of
an order within a firm and, in particular, the time that an order is
received from the customer. However, in recognition of these burdens,
NASD proposed to extend the implementation period of the proposed rule
change.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See Wachovia Letter.
    \47\ See Section IV.E., infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Exemptive Authority

    Commenters generally supported the proposed rule change that would
provide NASD with the authority to exempt certain members from OATS
reporting for manual orders, but opposed the limited nature of NASD's
exemptive authority.\48\ For example, one commenter suggested that an
exemption be provided to any member that handles a small percentage of
manual orders as compared to its overall volume, \49\ while another
opposed the expiration of NASD's exemptive authority in five years.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See Wachovia Letter; SIA Letter-2; Wachtel Letter-2.
    \49\ See SIA Letter-2.
    \50\ See Wachtel Letter-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter suggested revising the condition that only members
with annual revenues of less than $2 million may request exemptive
relief. Specifically, the commenter suggested that annual revenues for
this purpose be based only on revenues from transactions in Nasdaq
securities.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See Wulff Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to these comments, NASD committed to review and analyze
closely its exemptive authority and determine whether it would be
appropriate to seek any changes, including the types of changes
suggested by commenters to the proposed rule change, but declined to
make the changes suggested by commenters in Amendment No. 3.

C. Application to Preferred and Convertible Securities

    One commenter suggested that NASD grant a carve-out or phased
implementation for preferred securities and convertible securities,
given the manual nature of the trading in these securities.\52\ In
response to this

comment, NASD stated that it does not believe it poses any additional
burdens than those associated with manual orders of other securities.
NASD noted that it proposed to extend the implementation time for the
proposed rule change, which it believes will provide members adequate
time for any technological or system changes required to address OATS
reporting of manual orders in convertible and preferred securities.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See SIA Letter-2.
    \53\ The Commission notes that when the OATS Rules where
originally proposed, a commenter argued that order information on
preferred stocks should not be required to be included in OATS. The
NASD disagreed, as did the Commission, which stated in the original
approval order, ``The Commission believes that NASDR's decision not
to provide a specific exemption from OATS requirements for preferred
stock is appropriate because the preferred stock is an equity
security that poses many of the same surveillance concerns as common
stock.'' See note 7, supra at 12568. The Commission believes this
rationale continues to apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Comments Requesting Clarification

    One commenter requested clarification on how the term ``trading
desk'' or ``trading department'' would apply, particularly for firms
that do not have a trading desk.\54\ In response, NASD noted that it
had previously issued guidance relating to the term ``trading
department'' and that this same guidance will continue to apply with
respect to the proposed rule change.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See FIF Letter-2.
    \55\ See Letter from NASD Regulation to Charles R. Hood, dated
July 30, 1998. Specifically, NASD stated that the term ``trading
department'' is intended to refer to the function within the firm
that is responsible for executing orders in Nasdaq equity
securities. For an ECN, for example, this may be interpreted as
either the trading system (where orders are executed automatically
without trader intervention) or the trading department (where orders
are executed with the assistance of traders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter requested clarification as to the time parameter
associated with the term ``immediately'' in the context of order
receipt time under the proposed rule change.\56\ In response NASD
explained that if an order were not received immediately at the trading
department, members would be required to capture information relating
to the transfer of that order to the trading department under the order
transmittal requirements of Rule 6954(c). In Amendment No. 3, NASD
stated that it believes that where a member receives and handles an
order within the same second, the member would not be required to
report a Desk Report relating to that order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See FIF Letter-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter requested clarification on order receipt time in the
context of third party Internet service providers. The commenter
indicated that a third party Internet service provider may capture
orders on behalf of a member after trading hours and submit these
orders in batch the next trading day. The commenter indicated that
order receipt data is not transmitted by the third party Internet
service provider as part of the order data.\57\ In response, NASD
explained that, as with any requirement under the OATS Rules, the
decision by a member to use a third party provider does not change the
member's obligation under the rules. As such, NASD stated that the
member is required to capture order receipt time on all orders. The
batching or other transmittal practices of a third party vendor would
not change this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter supported the proposed exclusion from the
definition of ``Reporting Member'' under the OATS Rules, but suggested
that NASD provide additional guidance in the future regarding the
condition that the member does not direct or maintain control over
subsequent routing or execution by the receiving Reporting Member.\58\
NASD responded that if the proposed rule change is approved, it would
issue a Notice to Members announcing approval of the proposed rule
change and, as part of that Notice, it would provide additional
guidance on a number of issues, including the exclusion from the
definition of ``Reporting Member.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See Wachovia Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Implementation Issues Relating to the Proposed Rule Change

    Several commenters suggested that the proposed implementation
period of the proposed rule change should be extended, noting the
significant technological changes needed to implement OATS reporting
requirements for manual orders.\59\ Commenters also requested that NASD
promptly publish the OATS Reporting Technical Specifications relating
to the proposed rule change and that the implementation date be linked
to its publication, and that NASD provide adequate time for
testing.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See Wachovia Letter; Liquidnet Letter; FIF Letter-2; and
SIA Letter-2.
    \60\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to commenters and in recognition of the technological
burdens that may be imposed on members as a result of this proposal, in
Amendment No. 3, NASD proposes to amend the text of NASD Rule 6957(c)
to provide an implementation date that is six months after publication
of the OATS Reporting Technical Specifications relating to SR-NASD-00-
23, rather than 120 days from Commission approval of the proposed rule
change. In Amendment No. 3, NASD also committed to publish the OATS
Reporting Technical Specifications within 45 days of Commission
approval. In addition, NASD states that it would ensure that adequate
time for testing is incorporated into the implementation schedule and
will make the testing environment available at least six weeks prior to
the implementation date of the proposed rule change.

F. Technical Amendments

    In Amendment No. 3, NASD also proposes to make technical amendments
to NASD Rule 6957(c) to clarify the OATS order information required
under NASD Rule 6954(b)(4) \61\ and (5) \62\ and the OATS order
transmittal requirements under NASD Rule 6954(c)(1) apply to manual
orders.\63\ NASD explained that, as stated in Amendment No. 2, the
proposed rule change applies to both electronic and manual orders. As
such, NASD clearly intended to have the inter-departmental order
transmittal requirements apply to manual orders. Similarly, department
identification information concerning where a manual order was
originated also was intended to be included. Therefore, NASD proposes
to eliminate the prior exclusion of this information from the OATS
requirements for manual orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ NASD Rule 6954(b)(4) requires members to record the
identification of any department or the number of any terminal where
an order is received directly from a customer when an order is
received.
    \62\ NASD Rule 6954(b)(5) requires members to record, where the
order is originated by a Reporting Member, the identification of the
member that originates the order when an order is received.
    \63\ As proposed in Amendment No. 2, NASD Rule 6954(c)(1) would
require members to record certain order information when a member
transmits an order to another department within the member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Discussion

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
association.\64\ Specifically, the Commission believes the proposal is
consistent with the requirements of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act.\65\
That section requires that the rules of a national securities
association be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in

regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to,
and facilitating transactions in securities, and in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ In approving this rule, the Commission notes that it has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \65\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Definition of Time of Receipt

    Currently, members are required to capture the time of receipt of
an order pursuant to NASD Rule 6954(b)(16). In Amendment No. 2, NASD
proposed to define the order origination or receipt time for an order
as the time the order is received from the customer. The Commission
believes that this change, along with a new requirement that members
must record the date and time they transmit orders to their trading
departments, should ensure that OATS captures both the time the order
is received by the member from the customer and the time the order is
received by the member's trading desk or trading department.
Importantly, these changes will apply to both electronic and manual
orders so that the time of receipt for purposes of order origination
should always be the time the order is received from the customer.
    The Commission believes that it is important to NASD's automated
surveillance systems that OATS capture the time that an order is
received by the trading desk, and have an electronic record of when
orders, especially larger orders, are received at a firm to enable NASD
to perform surveillance to detect certain violations, such as
frontrunning. Therefore, the Commission believes that it is appropriate
for OATS to capture both the time the order is received by the member
from the customer and the time the order is received by the member's
trading desk or trading department, if those times are different.
    By proposing these changes, NASD would capture the complete
lifecycle of an order within a firm, even in those situations where an
order is held at the sales trading or other desk within a member firm,
and then later routed to the trading desk. Although the Commission
recognizes that this requirement may impose additional costs on member
firms, the Commission agrees with NASD it is important to NASD's
surveillance systems and regulatory program that OATS capture the full
lifecycle of an order within a firm and, in particular, both the time
that an order is received from the customer and the time the order is
received by the trading desk.

B. Definition of Reporting Member

    The proposed exclusion from the definition of Reporting Member is
directed at those members that use a non-discretionary order routing
process whereby, immediately after receipt of its customer orders, the
member routes all its orders, by electronic or other means, to a single
receiving Reporting Member for further routing or execution at the
receiving Reporting Member's discretion. The NASD has explained that
the proposed exclusion is not limited to correspondent/clearing
relationships, but applies to any relationship that meets the proposed
conditions.
    The Commission believes that this proposed rule should eliminate
the reporting of duplicative information to OATS where all of the OATS
data of one member would be captured by the receiving Reporting Member.
The Commission also agrees with NASD's proposal to impose a condition
on the exclusion that all of a member's orders must be routed to a
single firm. The Commission believes that without this requirement,
NASD would lack the ability to easily identify which receiving
Reporting Member is providing the OATS order information that
corresponds to the orders initially received by the member, thus
decreasing NASD's ability to efficiently surveil its members.
    In addition to eliminating the reporting of duplicative information
to OATS, the Commission believes that proposed rule change should
reduce the regulatory burdens on members, particularly smaller members,
that route all their orders to another receiving Reporting Member by
means of a non-discretionary order routing process, for execution or
further routing purposes.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ This exclusion would not change a member's requirement to
capture and retain the time an order was received from a customer
under SEC Rule 17a-3(a)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Routed Order Identifier

    After considering comments regarding the pitfalls associated with
requiring members to capture and report a transmitting member's unique
identifier for all manually routed orders, in Amendment No. 2, NASD
concluded that the benefits provided by requiring the capture and
reporting of such an identifier do not outweigh the related costs to
members. In reaching this decision, NASD recognized the concern that
requiring routed order identifiers for manually routed orders could
create delays in the handling and execution of customer orders and
could result in a high level of data errors. NASD explained that
although it would not be able to track the history of manual orders
between firms on an automated basis without a routed order identifier,
the staff could create, on an order by order basis, a process that
links manual orders to subsequent events with an acceptable level of
accuracy.
    While the Commission believes that requiring the capture and
reporting of a routed order identifier for all manually routed orders
would enhance NASD's ability to track the history of orders routed
between firms on an automated basis, the Commission understands NASD's
reluctance to impose such a burdensome requirement on members given
that a history of manual orders can be created, albeit in a less
efficient fashion, and believes that it is acceptable to relieve
members of the burden of capturing a routed order identifier for manual
orders at this time.

D. Exemptive Relief

    The Commission believes that the exemptive authority proposed by
the NASD is appropriate in that it is narrowly tailored to provide NASD
the ability to grant relief to members meeting the specified criteria
in situations where, for example, reporting of such information would
be unduly burdensome for the member or where temporary relief from the
rules (in the form of additional time to achieve compliance) would
permit the member to avoid unnecessary expense or hardship.

VI. Amendment No. 3

    The Commission finds good cause for approving proposed Amendment
No. 3 prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of the
notice of filing thereof in the Federal Register. In Amendment No. 3,
NASD proposes changes to the implementation schedule for the proposed
new OATS Rules and proposes a technical change relating to data
required to be reported for manual orders. Accordingly, the Commission
believes that Amendment No. 3 raises no issues of regulatory concern.
    In Amendment No. 2, NASD proposes an implementation date for the
proposed OATS Rules of 120 days from Commission approval of the
proposed rule change. A number of commenters, however, argued that the
proposed implementation schedule should be extended to allow member
firms additional time to prepare to comply with the new OATS Rules. In
response to these comments, NASD proposed to amend the text of NASD
Rule 6957(c) to provide an implementation date that is six months after
publication of the OATS Reporting Technical Specifications relating to
SR-NASD-00-23, rather than 120 days from Commission approval of the
proposed rule change. In Amendment No. 3, NASD also committed to
publish the

OATS Reporting Technical Specifications within 45 days of Commission
approval. In addition, NASD stated that it would ensure that adequate
time for testing is incorporated into the implementation schedule and
will make the testing environment available at least six weeks prior to
the implementation date of the proposed rule change.
    The Commission believes that the proposed changes to the
implementation schedule for the proposed OATS Rules are reasonable as
the additional time provided should allow member firms ample
opportunity to develop and test their systems to ensure compliance with
the requirements of the proposed rules.
    In Amendment No. 3, NASD also proposes to make technical amendments
to NASD Rule 6957(c) to clarify that the OATS order information
required under NASD Rule 6954(b)(4) and (5) and the OATS order
transmittal requirements under NASD Rule 6954(c)(1) apply to manual
orders. Currently, NASD Rule 6957 provides that for manual orders,
firms shall not be required to record this information. However, the
Commission notes that in Amendment No. 2, NASD stated that the proposed
rule change was to apply to both electronic and manual orders. As such,
the Commission believes that NASD clearly intended to have the inter-
departmental order transmittal requirements apply to manual orders.
Similarly, the Commission believes that it was clear that NASD intended
that department identification information concerning where a manual
order was originated also was intended to be included. Therefore, the
Commission finds that it is consistent with the Act in general, and
with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act in particular,\67\ to approve
Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change, as reflected in Amendment
No.2, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning Amendment No. 3, including whether the amendment
is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the
following methods:

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-NASD-00-23 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-00-23. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of NASD.
    All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to the File Number SR-NASD-00-23
and should be submitted on or before October 25, 2005.

VIII. Conclusion

    The Commission believes that the proposed rule change, as reflected
in Amendments No. 2 and 3, is appropriate and consistent with the
requirements of the Act applicable to a national securities
association, and in particular, with the requirements of Section
15A(b)(6) of the Act \68\ and the rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\69\ that Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change (SR-NASD-00-
23) is hereby approved, and Amendment No. 3 is approved on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-19809 Filed 10-3-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 62 (Monday, April 1, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19561-19562]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07474]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69239; File No. SR-ICC-2013-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Amend
Schedule 502 of the ICC Rules for the March 20, 2013 and March 27, 2013
Scheduled Index Series Listings

March 26, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder \2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 12, 2013, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared primarily by ICC. ICC filed the proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(i)
\4\ thereunder so that the rule change was effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to update Schedule 502
of the ICC Rules in order to be consistent with the scheduled index
series listings occurring on March 20, 2013, and March 27, 2013.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, ICC included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. ICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to update Schedule 502
of the ICC Rules in order to be consistent with the scheduled index
series listings occurring on March 20, 2013, and March 27, 2013. The
credit default swap indices scheduled to be listed (the ``Scheduled
Indices'') are: North American Investment Grade, Series 20, 3-, 5-, 7-
and 10-year to be listed on March 20, 2013; Emerging Markets, Series
19, 5-year to be listed on March 20, 2013; North American High Yield,
Series 20, 5-year to be listed on March 27, 2013; European iTraxx Main
Series 19, 5- and 10-year to be listed on March 20, 2013; European
iTraxx XOver Series 19, 5-year to be listed on March 20, 2013; and
European iTraxx HiVol Series 19, 5-year to be listed on March 20, 2013.
The Scheduled Indices update does not require any changes to the body
of the ICC Rules. Also, the Scheduled Indices update does not require
any changes to the ICC risk management framework. The only change being
submitted is the update to the Scheduled Indices in Schedule 502 of the
ICC Rules.
    ICC believes that the update to the Scheduled Indices is consistent
with the purposes and requirements of Section 17A of the Act \5\ and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to ICC because it will
facilitate the prompt and accurate settlement of derivatives
agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    ICC does not believe the proposed rule change would have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition.

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

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been
solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by ICC.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \6\ and Rule 19b-

4(f)(4)(i) \7\ thereunder because updating the Scheduled Indices
effects a change in an existing service of ICC that does not adversely
affect the safeguarding of securities or funds in the custody or
control of ICC or for which it is responsible, and does not
significantly affect the respective rights or obligations of ICC or the
persons using the service. At any time within 60 days of the filing of
the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily
suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ICC-2013-04 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2013-04. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of ICC and on ICC's
Web site at https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/regulatory_filings/ICEClearCredit_031113.pdf.
    All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2013-04
and should be submitted on or before April 22, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-07474 Filed 3-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P