[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 161 (Friday, August 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55513-55517]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19799]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78578; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2016-109]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Nasdaq Rule 7047

August 15, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 3, 2016, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Nasdaq is proposing to amend Rule 7047 (Nasdaq Basic) \3\ with
language indicating the removal of certain credits that a Distributor
\4\ is eligible to receive in respect to Nasdaq Basic.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ References to rules are to Nasdaq rules, unless otherwise
noted.
    \4\ The term ``Distributor'' refers to any entity that receives
Nasdaq Basic data directly from Nasdaq or indirectly through another
entity and then distributes it to one or more Subscribers. Rule 7047
(d)(1).
    \5\ Nasdaq Basic, which is discussed below, is a proprietary
data product that provides a low cost alternative to other Level 1
offerings. Rule 7047. Level 1 provides primary market data such as
bid/ask price and size and last price and size.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While changes pursuant to this proposal are effective upon filing,
the Exchange has designated these changes to be operative on September
1, 2016.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at
nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at Nasdaq's principal office, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq 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 those statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposal is to amend Rule 7047(c) with language
indicating that the Distributor fee for Nasdaq Basic will be uniformly
applied to all Distributors, regardless of any user fees, immediately
after approval to receive Nasdaq Basic, at the current fee of $1,500
per month.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Now, as discussed below, each Distributor is eligible to
receive a credit against its monthly Distributor Fee for Nasdaq
Basic equal to the amount of its monthly user fees for Nasdaq Basic
up to a maximum of $1,500. Rule 7047(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq Basic is a proprietary data product that provides a low cost
alternative to the other Level 1 offerings. Nasdaq Basic provides the
best bid and offer and last sale information for all U.S. exchange-
listed securities based on liquidity within the Nasdaq market center,
as well as trades reported to the FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting
Facility\TM\ (TRF\TM\) (``FINRA/Nasdaq TRF'').\7\ Thus, Nasdaq Basic
provides

Nasdaq Last Sale (``NLS'') together with best bid and offer information
from Nasdaq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``FINRA'' is the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NLS was approved by the Commission in June of 2008. NLS is a non-
core market data product designed for distribution through internet
portals and broadcast television, as well as distribution to
individuals that access the data via a username/password-identified
account and/or quote-counting mechanisms.\8\ NLS includes two data
elements: (1) Last sale transaction reports from the Nasdaq Market
Center, and (2) last sale transaction reports from the FINRA/Nasdaq
TRF.\9\ As such, NLS is a ``non-core'' product that provides a subset
of the ``core'' quotation and last sale data provided by securities
information processors (``SIPs'') under the CQ/CT Plan and the Nasdaq
Unlisted Trading Privileges (``UTP'') Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57965 (June 16,
2008), 73 FR 35178 (June 20, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2006-060) (approval
order establishing NLS pilot). See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 71351 (January 17, 2014), 79 FR 4200 (January 24, 2014)
(SR-NASDAQ-2014-006) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness
regarding permanent approval of NLS pilot).
    \9\ See Rule 7039(a)-(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq Basic, another non-core market data product, was approved by
the Commission about a year later in March of 2009.\10\ As originally
proposed, the Nasdaq Basic product was to provide two data feeds: (1) A
feed carrying the best bid and offer on the Nasdaq Market Center, and
(2) a feed containing NLS which carries last sale transaction reports
from Nasdaq and from the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59582 (March 16,
2009), 74 FR 12423 (March 24, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-102) (order
approving Nasdaq Basic pilot and finding it to be consistent with
Sections 6(b)(4), (5) and (8) of the Act and Rule 603(a) under
Regulation NMS). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65527
(October 11, 2011), 76 FR 64147 (October 17, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-
129) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness re permanent
approval of Nasdaq Basic pilot).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq Basic, which is described in current Rule 7047, was expanded
to three separate components, which may be purchased individually or in
combination.\11\ The Nasdaq Basic components are: (i) Nasdaq Basic for
Nasdaq, which contains the best bid and offer on the Nasdaq Market
Center and last sale transaction reports for Nasdaq and the FINRA/
Nasdaq TRF for Nasdaq-listed stocks, (ii) Nasdaq Basic for NYSE, which
contains the best bid and offer on the Nasdaq Market Center and last
sale transaction reports for Nasdaq and the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF for NYSE-
listed stocks, and (iii) Nasdaq Basic for NYSE MKT, which contains the
best bid and offer on the Nasdaq Market Center and last sale
transaction reports for Nasdaq and the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF for stocks
listed on NYSE MKT and other listing venues whose quotes and trade
reports are disseminated on Tape B.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Rule 7047.
    \12\ Tape A and Tape B securities are disseminated pursuant to
the Security Industry Automation Corporation's (``SIAC'')
Consolidated Tape Association Plan/Consolidated Quotation System, or
CTA/CQS (``CTA''). Tape C securities are disseminated pursuant to
the UTP Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fee structure for Nasdaq Basic features a fee for Professional
Subscribers and a reduced fee for Non-Professional Subscribers.\13\ The
current monthly fees for Non-Professional Subscribers are $0.50 per
Subscriber for Nasdaq Basic for Nasdaq, $0.25 per Subscriber for Nasdaq
Basic for NYSE, and $0.25 per Subscriber for Nasdaq Basic for NYSE MKT.
The current monthly fees for Professional Subscribers are $13 per
Subscriber for Nasdaq Basic for Nasdaq, $6.50 per Subscriber for Nasdaq
Basic for NYSE, and $6.50 per Subscriber for Nasdaq Basic for NYSE MKT.
There is also a per query option for use cases that do not require a
monthly subscription for unlimited usage, a distributor fee for
internal and external distribution, and certain credits for Nasdaq
Basic users.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Per Rule 7047(d)(3): (A) A ``Non-Professional Subscriber''
is a natural person who is not (i) registered or qualified in any
capacity with the Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, any state securities agency, any securities exchange or
association, or (ii) any commodities or futures contract market or
association; engaged as an ``investment adviser'' as that term is
defined in Section 201(11) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940
(whether or not registered or qualified under that Act); or (iii)
employed by a bank or other organization exempt from registration
under federal or state securities laws to perform functions that
would require registration or qualification if such functions were
performed for an organization not so exempt. (B) A ``Professional
Subscriber'' is any Subscriber other than a Non-Professional
Subscriber.
    \14\ See Rule 7047. See also Securities Exchange Act Release No.
72620 (July 16, 2014), 79 FR 42572 (July 22, 2014) (SR-NASDAQ-2014-
070) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness regarding Nasdaq
Basic fees).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is also a separate Distributor fee for Nasdaq Basic.\15\
Currently, each Distributor of any Nasdaq Basic product shall pay a fee
of $1,500 per month for either internal or external distribution or
both.\16\ Currently, each Distributor is eligible to receive a credit
against its monthly Distributor Fee for Nasdaq Basic equal to the
amount of its monthly user fees for Nasdaq Basic up to a maximum of
$1,500 (the ``credit''). The Exchange now proposes to eliminate the
credit from subsection (c)(2) of Rule 7047.\17\ Going forward, the
Exchange proposes to apply the Distributor Fee (currently $1,500 per
month) for all Distributors of Nasdaq Basic immediately after the
Exchange approves a Distributor for the product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In addition, there is also an enterprise license available
for certain Nasdaq Basic recipients. Rule 7047(b)(4) states in part,
for example: (4) As an alternative to (b)(1), a broker-dealer may
purchase an enterprise license for internal Professional Subscribers
to receive Nasdaq Basic for Nasdaq, Nasdaq Basic for NYSE, and
Nasdaq Basic for NYSE MKT. The fee will be $365,000 per month;
provided, however, that if the broker-dealer obtains the license
with respect to usage of Nasdaq Basic provided by an External
Distributor that controls display of the product, the fee will be
$365,000 per month for up to 16,000 internal Professional
Subscribers, plus $2 for each additional internal Professional
Subscriber over 16,000; and provided further that the broker-dealer
must obtain a separate enterprise license for each External
Distributor that controls display of the product if it wishes such
External Distributor to be covered by an enterprise license rather
than per-Subscriber fees.
    \16\ Internal distribution is where a Distributor receives
Nasdaq Basic data and then distributes that data to one or more
Subscribers within the Distributor's own entity. External
distribution is where a Distributor receives Nasdaq Basic data and
then distributes that data to one or more Subscribers outside the
Distributor's own entity. Rule 7047(d)(1).
    \17\ Subsection (c)(3) of Rule 7047 will be re-numbered to
subsection (c)(2), and will continue to state: A Distributor may pay
$1,500 per month to distribute data derived from Nasdaq Basic to an
unlimited number of non-professional subscribers. This fee is in
addition to the Distributor Fee listed in (c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable
and proper. This is because Distributors will not be disadvantaged by
the rule change because this would be applied to all Distributors after
approval to receive Nasdaq Basic data. The credit was implemented in
order to incentivize new firms to subscribe to Nasdaq Basic and grow
the product. Due to strong product growth and continued overall
industry cost savings with Nasdaq Basic compared to Level 1 data, as
well as the administrative burden of maintaining the credit, the
Exchange believes the change to remove the Distributor fee credit as
described will not deter new subscribers or be unfairly discriminatory.
Charging a monthly fixed fee without a credit available to all eligible
Distributors makes this product similar to nearly all other Nasdaq data
products and makes its administration less burdensome on the Exchange.
2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\18\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\19\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its members, issuers and other

persons using its facilities, and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Nasdaq Basic product provides a subset of the data that is also
provided by the Level 1 data feed available under the Nasdaq UTP Plan.
Moreover, the current fees for Nasdaq Basic, similarly to the fees for
NLS and NLS Plus, having been previously established, and the
Commission has either specifically determined them to be consistent
with the Act or has permitted them to become effective on an
immediately effective basis.\20\ Thus, this proposed rule change does
not change a fee of the Exchange, but rather eliminates the Distributor
fee credit, such that going forward the Exchange will uniformly apply
the Distributor fee for all subscribers of Nasdaq Basic. However, to
the extent that the proposed rule change is effectively a proposed fee
that has already been approved, Nasdaq believes that this also provides
further justification that the proposed credit elimination provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility or
system which Nasdaq operates or controls, and is not designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers,\21\ in that the change reflects the full value of the product
without increase in its cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 59582
(March 16, 2009), 74 FR 12423 (March 24, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-102)
(finding current per user and per subscriber fees to be consistent
with the Act); 59933 (May 15, 2009), 74 FR 24889 (May 26, 2009) (SR-
NASDAQ-2009-208[sic]) (finding current distributor fees for Nasdaq
Basic to be consistent with the Act); 64994 (July 29, 2011), 76 FR
47621 (August 5, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-091) (immediate effectiveness
of optional derived data fee); and 65526 (October 11, 2011), 76 FR
64137 (October 17, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-130) (immediate
effectiveness of enterprise license fee). Similarly, Non-
Professional, as opposed to Professional, fees have been established
and approved. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 21856 (March
15, 1985), 50 FR 11472 (March 21, 1985) (SR-NASD-85-1); and 57965
(June 16, 2008), 73 FR 35178 (June 20, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2006-060).
See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72620 (July 16, 2014),
79 FR 42572 (July 22, 2014) (SR-NASDAQ-2014-070) (notice of filing
and immediate effectiveness regarding Nasdaq Basic fees). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75600 (August 4, 2015), 80 FR
47968 (August 10, 2015) (SR-NASDAQ-2015-88) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness regarding NLS fees).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed credit elimination continues to reflect an equitable
allocation and continues to be not unfairly discriminatory. Nasdaq
Basic, like NLS and NLS Plus, are voluntary products for which market
participants can readily substitute core data feeds that provide
quotation and last sale information. Accordingly, Nasdaq is constrained
from pricing such products in a manner that would be inequitable or
unfairly discriminatory. The distinction between fees for professional
and non-professional users, and between Distributors and other users,
is consistent with the distinction made under Commission-approved fees
for core data, and the applicable fees are lower than applicable fees
for core data to reflect the lesser quantum of data made available. The
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. This is because current
Distributors will not be disadvantaged by the rule change, because even
if the credit deletion could be seen in the nature of a fee increase,
current Distributors have been able to take advantage of the credit
under current Rule 7047. And, on a going forward basis the monthly
Distributor fee would be applied uniformly to all Distributors after
approval to receive Nasdaq Basic data, which would help with the
administration of costs by the Exchange.
    In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted SROs and broker-
dealers (``BDs'') increased authority and flexibility to offer new and
unique market data to the public. It was believed that this authority
would expand the amount of data available to consumers, and also spur
innovation and competition for the provision of market data. Nasdaq
believes that its Nasdaq Basic, as also NLS and NLS Plus, market data
products are precisely the sort of market data product that the
Commission envisioned when it adopted Regulation NMS. The Commission
concluded that Regulation NMS--by deregulating the market in
proprietary data--would itself further the Act's goals of facilitating
efficiency and competition:

    [E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the
data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the
NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to
receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that
efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive
(and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal
analysis of the need for such data.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').

    By removing unnecessary regulatory restrictions on the ability of
exchanges to sell their own data, Regulation NMS advanced the goals of
the Act and the principles reflected in its legislative history. If the
free market should determine whether proprietary data is sold to BDs at
all, it follows that the price at which such data is sold should be set
by the market as well.
    Moreover, fee liable data products such as Nasdaq Basic, and also
NLS and NLS Plus, are a means by which exchanges compete to attract
order flow, and this proposal simply codifies the relevant fee
structure into an Exchange rule. To the extent that exchanges are
successful in such competition, they earn trading revenues and also
enhance the value of their data products by increasing the amount of
data they are able to provide. Conversely, to the extent that exchanges
are unsuccessful, the inputs needed to add value to data products are
diminished. Accordingly, the need to compete for order flow places
substantial pressure upon exchanges to keep their fees for both
executions and data reasonable.
    The Exchange believes that data products are a means by which
exchanges compete to attract order flow. To the extent that exchanges
are successful in such competition, they earn trading revenues and also
enhance the value of their data products by increasing the amount of
data they are able to provide. Conversely, to the extent that exchanges
are unsuccessful, the inputs needed to add value to data products are
diminished. Accordingly, the need to compete for order flow places
substantial pressure upon exchanges to keep their fees for both
executions and data reasonable.
    The fee structure for Nasdaq Basic, similarly to NLS and NLS Plus,
also continues to reflect an equitable allocation and continues not be
unfairly discriminatory, because these are voluntary products which
market participants can readily substitute (or put together
themselves).\23\ Accordingly, Nasdaq is constrained from providing such
products in a manner that would be inequitable or unfairly
discriminatory. Moreover, the fee schedules for Nasdaq Basic, as also
for NLS and NLS Plus, are designed to ensure that the fees charged are
tailored to the specific usage patterns of a range of potential
customers. Thus, for example, Professional Subscriber fees provide a
means for brokerage customers to use the information internally; and
the distinction between fees for Professional and Non-Professional
users, as also Distributors,

is consistent with the distinction made under Commission-approved fees
for core data, and the applicable fees are lower than applicable fees
for core data to reflect the lesser quantum of data made available. The
range of fee options further ensures that customers are not charged a
fee that is inequitably disproportionate to the use that they make of
the product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75257 (June
22, 2015), 80 FR 36862 (June 26, 2015) (SR-NASDAQ-2015-055) (order
approving NLS Plus), wherein the Exchange notes that NLS Plus is a
data product that a competing market data vendor could create and
sell on his own without being in a disadvantaged position relative
to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, deletion of the Distributor credit so that the
Distributor fee for Nasdaq Basic will be uniformly applied to all
Distributors, regardless of any user fees, will help to protect a free
and open market by continuing to provide additional non-core data
(offered on an optional basis for a fee) to the marketplace and by
providing investors with greater choices.\24\ Additionally, the
proposal would not permit unfair discrimination because Basic will be
available to all Distributors as discussed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Sec. Indus. Fin. Mkts. Ass'n (SIFMA), Initial Decision
Release No. 1015, 2016 SEC LEXIS 2278 (ALJ June 1, 2016) (finding
the existence of vigorous competition with respect to non-core
market data). See also the decision of the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in NetCoalition v. SEC,
615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (``NetCoalition I'') (upholding the
Commission's reliance upon competitive markets to set reasonable and
equitably allocated fees for market data).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed fee structure is
designed to ensure a fair and reasonable use of Exchange resources by
allowing the Exchange to recoup costs while continuing to offer its
data products at competitive rates to firms.
    The market for data products is extremely competitive and firms may
freely choose alternative venues and data vendors based on the
aggregate fees assessed, the data offered, and the value provided. This
rule proposal does not burden competition, which continues to offer
alternative data products and, like the Exchange, set fees, but rather
reflects the competition between data feed vendors and will further
enhance such competition. Nasdaq Basic, like NLS and NLS Plus, compete
directly with existing similar products and potential products of
market data vendors. Nasdaq Basic, like NLS and NLS Plus, are part of
the existing market for proprietary last sale data products that is
currently competitive and inherently contestable because there is
fierce competition for the inputs necessary to the creation of
proprietary data and strict pricing discipline for the proprietary
products themselves. Numerous exchanges compete with each other for
listings, trades, and market data itself, providing virtually limitless
opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish to produce and distribute
their own market data. This proprietary data is produced by each
individual exchange, as well as other entities, in a vigorously
competitive market. Similarly, with respect to the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF
data that is a component of Nasdaq Basic, NLS, and NLS Plus, allowing
exchanges to operate TRFs has permitted them to earn revenues by
providing technology and data in support of the non-exchange segment of
the market. This revenue opportunity has also resulted in fierce
competition between the two current TRF operators, with both TRFs
charging extremely low trade reporting fees and rebating the majority
of the revenues they receive from core market data to the parties
reporting trades.
    Transaction execution and proprietary data products are
complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of
the execution service. In fact, market data and trade execution are a
paradigmatic example of joint products with joint costs. The decision
whether and on which platform to post an order will depend on the
attributes of the platform where the order can be posted, including the
execution fees, data quality and price, and distribution of its data
products. Without trade executions, exchange data products cannot
exist. Moreover, data products are valuable to many end users only
insofar as they provide information that end users expect will assist
them or their customers in making trading decisions.
    The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of
the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing,
maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution
platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair
operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a
trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both
products and the joint costs it incurs. Moreover, the operation of the
exchange is characterized by high fixed costs and low marginal costs.
This cost structure is common in content and content distribution
industries such as software, where developing new software typically
requires a large initial investment (and continuing large investments
to upgrade the software), but once the software is developed, the
incremental cost of providing that software to an additional user is
typically small, or even zero (e.g., if the software can be downloaded
over the internet after being purchased).\25\ In Nasdaq's case, it is
costly to build and maintain a trading platform, but the incremental
cost of trading each additional share on an existing platform, or
distributing an additional instance of data, is very low. Market
information and executions are each produced jointly (in the sense that
the activities of trading and placing orders are the source of the
information that is distributed) and are each subject to significant
scale economies. In such cases, marginal cost pricing is not feasible
because if all sales were priced at the margin, Nasdaq would be unable
to defray its platform costs of providing the joint products.
Similarly, data products cannot make use of TRF trade reports without
the raw material of the trade reports themselves, and therefore
necessitate the costs of operating, regulating,\26\ and maintaining a
trade reporting system, costs that must be covered through the fees
charged for use of the facility and sales of associated data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See William J. Baumol and Daniel G. Swanson, ``The New
Economy and Ubiquitous Competitive Price Discrimination: Identifying
Defensible Criteria of Market Power,'' Antitrust Law Journal, Vol.
70, No. 3 (2003).
    \26\ It should be noted that the costs of operating the FINRA/
Nasdaq TRF borne by Nasdaq include regulatory charges paid by Nasdaq
to FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain
the aggregate return each platform earns from the sale of its joint
products, but different platforms may choose from a range of possible,
and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering
total costs. Nasdaq pays rebates and credits to attract orders, charges
relatively low prices for market information and charges relatively
high prices for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose
a strategy of paying lower liquidity rebates to attract orders, setting
relatively low prices for accessing posted liquidity, and setting
relatively high prices for market information. Still others may provide
most data free of charge and rely exclusively on transaction fees to
recover their costs. Finally, some platforms may incentivize use by
providing opportunities for equity ownership, which may allow them to
charge lower direct fees for executions and data.
    In this environment, there is no economic basis for regulating
maximum prices for one of the joint products in an industry in which
suppliers face

competitive constraints with regard to the joint offering. Such
regulation is unnecessary because an ``excessive'' price for one of the
joint products will ultimately have to be reflected in lower prices for
other products sold by the firm, or otherwise the firm will experience
a loss in the volume of its sales that will be adverse to its overall
profitability. In other words, an increase in the price of data will
ultimately have to be accompanied by a decrease in the cost of
executions, or the volume of both data and executions will fall.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Moreover, the level of competition and contestability in
the market is evident in the numerous alternative venues that
compete for order flow, including eleven SRO markets, as well as
internalizing BDs and various forms of alternative trading systems
(``ATSs''), including dark pools and electronic communication
networks (``ECNs''). Each SRO market competes to produce transaction
reports via trade executions, and two FINRA-regulated TRFs compete
to attract internalized transaction reports. It is common for BDs to
further and exploit this competition by sending their order flow and
transaction reports to multiple markets, rather than providing them
all to a single market. Competitive markets for order flow,
executions, and transaction reports provide pricing discipline for
the inputs of proprietary data products. The large number of SROs,
TRFs, BDs, and ATSs that currently produce proprietary data or are
currently capable of producing it provides further pricing
discipline for proprietary data products. Each SRO, TRF, ATS, and BD
is currently permitted to produce proprietary data products, and
many currently do or have announced plans to do so, including
Nasdaq, NYSE, NYSE MKT, NYSE Arca, and BATS/Direct Edge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed fee structure is designed to ensure a fair and
reasonable use of Exchange resources by allowing the Exchange to recoup
costs and ease administrative burden while continuing to offer its data
products at competitive rates to firms.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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-NASDAQ-2016-109 on the subject line.

Paper comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2016-109. 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 such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2016-109, and should
be submitted on or before September 9, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-19799 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Customer Service Hotline: 1 800 438 2474 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION III 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 2029 Mr. Robert G. Burnley, Director October 28, 2005 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 629 East Main Street P. O. Box 10009 Richmond, VA 23240 Dear Mr. Burnley:

On September 26, 2005, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) received revisions to the Virginia State Implementation Plan ( SIP) from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality ( VADEQ). These revisions consist of amendments to existing regulations ( 9 VAC 5 Chapter 30) covering the ambient air quality standards for the 8 hour ozone and PM 2.5 , as well as general revisions to make the state regulation consistent with 40 CFR Part 50. EPA has determined that the submittals are administratively and technically complete, and is reviewing them to prepare a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( NPR).

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to Rose Quinto, at ( 215) 814 2182. She is the principal contact for this rulemaking.

Sincerely,

/ s/

Judith M. Katz, Director Air Protection Division cc: John Daniel, VADEQ Karen Sabasteanski, VADEQ


Small Medium Large Small Medium Large Small Medium Large 123 44 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 45 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 46 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 47 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 48 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 49 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 50 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 51 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 52 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 53 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 54 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 55 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 56 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 57 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 58 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 59 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 60 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 61 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 62 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 63 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 64 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 65 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 66 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 67 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 68 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 69 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 70 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 71 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 72 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 73 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 74 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 75 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 76 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 77 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 78 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 79 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 80 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 81 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 82 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 83 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 84 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 85 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 86 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 87 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 88 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 89 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 90 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 91 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 92 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 93 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 94 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 Alternative Processing Periods Month Containers: Tank Systems: Containment Buildings:

Small Medium Large Small Medium Large Small Medium Large 124 95 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 96 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 97 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 98 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 99 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 100 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 101 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 102 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 103 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 104 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 105 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 106 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 107 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 108 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 109 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 110 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 111 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 112 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 113 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 114 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 115 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 116 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 117 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 118 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 119 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 120 $ 8 $ 95 $ 476 $ 346 $ 721 $ 5,336 $ 3,166 $ 7,269 $ 37,814 Discount Net Present Value ( NPV) of ROA Streams: Net Present Value = $ 443 $ 5,515 $ 27,573 $ 20,053 $ 41,777 $ 309,149 $ 183,401 $ 421,112 $ 2,190,783 Average Annual Equivalent ( AAE) = $ 63 $ 785 $ 3,926 $ 2,855 $ 5,948 $ 44,016 $ 26,112 $ 59,957 $ 311,918 Annual discount rate for computing NPV = 7%

Effective monthly discount rate = 0.6% Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 125 ATTACHMENT C 5 Estimation of Improved Financial Return on Assets ( ROA)

Over Future 30 Year Period of Analysis Item POA*

Year Potential Improvement in ROA Count of annual new permits Cumulative new permits If " Case B":

2.5 months delay If " Case C":

28.3 months delay If improvement =

$ 511 per permit per year unit type prevalence average If ROA improvement =

$ 4,448 per permit per year unit type prevalence average 1 2005 2 2 $ 1,022 $ 8,897 2 2006 2 4 $ 2,044 $ 17,794 3 2007 2 6 $ 3,065 $ 26,691 4 2008 2 8 $ 4,087 $ 35,587 5 2009 2 10 $ 5,109 $ 44,484 6 2010 2 12 $ 6,131 $ 53,381 7 2011 2 14 $ 7,153 $ 62,278 8 2012 2 16 $ 8,174 $ 71,175 9 2013 2 18 $ 9,196 $ 80,072 10 2014 2 20 $ 10,218 $ 88,969 11 2015 2 22 $ 11,240 $ 97,866 12 2016 2 24 $ 12,262 $ 106,762 13 2017 2 26 $ 13,283 $ 115,659 14 2018 2 28 $ 14,305 $ 124,556 15 2019 2 30 $ 15,327 $ 133,453 16 2020 2 32 $ 16,349 $ 142,350 17 2021 2 34 $ 17,370 $ 151,247 18 2022 2 36 $ 18,392 $ 160,144 19 2023 2 38 $ 19,414 $ 169,041 20 2024 2 40 $ 20,436 $ 177,937 21 2025 2 42 $ 21,458 $ 186,834 22 2026 2 44 $ 22,479 $ 195,731 23 2027 2 46 $ 23,501 $ 204,628 24 2028 2 48 $ 24,523 $ 213,525 25 2029 2 50 $ 25,545 $ 222,422 26 2030 2 52 $ 26,567 $ 231,319 27 2031 2 54 $ 27,588 $ 240,215 28 2032 2 56 $ 28,610 $ 249,112 29 2033 2 58 $ 29,632 $ 258,009 30 2034 2 60 $ 30,654 $ 266,906 Column totals= 60 $ 475,134 $ 4,137,044 Average annual = 2 $ 15,838 $ 137,901 Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 126 ATTACHMENT D SENSITIVITY ANALYSES:

  DISCOUNT RATE   PERIOD OF ANALYSIS   FORECAST OF FUTURE ELIGIBLE TSFs Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 127 ATTACHMENT D 1 Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 128 ATTACHMENT D 2 Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 129 ATTACHMENT D 3 Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 130 ATTACHMENT D 4 Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 131 ATTACHMENT D 5 Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 132 ATTACHMENT D 6 Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 133 ATTACHMENT D 7 Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 134 ATTACHMENT D 8 Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 135 ATTACHMENT D 9 Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 136 ATTACHMENT D 10 Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 137 ATTACHMENT D 11 Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 138 ATTACHMENT D 12 Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 139 ATTACHMENT D 13 ( for n = 866 on site facilities) Economics Background Document: RCRA Standardized Permit 29 March 2005 140 ATTACHMENT D 14 ( for n = 1,133 on site + off site facilities)


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 115 (Thursday, June 15, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 39311]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12753]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97679; File No. SR-CBOE-2023-020]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change To Make the Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program Permanent

June 9, 2023.
    On April 11, 2023, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to make permanent
the operation of its pilot program that permits the Exchange to list
broad-based index options with nonstandard expirations. The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on May 1,
2023.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 97371 (April 25,
2023), 88 FR 26621.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is June 15, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is extending this 45-day time period. The Commission
finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which
to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient
time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission,
pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\5\ designates July 30, 2023,
as the date by which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the
proposed rule change (File No. SR-CBOE-2023-020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-12753 Filed 6-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 12, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44200-44205]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14771]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1408; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00791-T;
Amendment 39-22502; AD 2023-14-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Canada Limited Partnership
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11
airplanes. This AD was prompted by a determination that radio
altimeters cannot be relied upon to perform their intended function if
they experience interference from wireless broadband operations in the
3.7-3.98 GHz frequency band (5G C-Band), and a recent determination
that this interference may affect other airplane systems using radio
altimeter data, including the ground spoiler deployment system. This AD
requires revising the limitations section of the existing AFM to
incorporate limitations prohibiting the use of a certain master minimum
equipment list (MMEL) item. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective July 27, 2023.
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by August 28, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1408; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this final rule, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brett Portwood, Continued Operational
Safety Technical Advisor, COS Program Management Section, Operational
Safety Branch, FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address
listed under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2023-1408; Project
Identifier MCAI-2023-00791-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The
most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the final rule,
explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting
data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date
and may amend this final rule because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this final rule.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brett
Portwood, Continued Operational Safety Technical Advisor, COS Program
Management Section, Operational Safety Branch, FAA, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA receives which
is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public
docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA issued AD 2021-23-12, Amendment 39-21810 (86 FR 69984,
December 9, 2021) (AD 2021-23-12), to address the effect of
interference from wireless broadband operations in the 5G C-Band on all
transport and commuter category airplanes equipped with a radio (also
known as radar) altimeter. AD 2021-23-12 was prompted by a
determination that radio altimeters cannot be relied upon to perform
their intended function if they experience interference from wireless
broadband operations in the 5G C-Band. The FAA subsequently superseded
AD 2021-23-12 and issued AD 2023-10-02 (88 FR 34065, May 26, 2023) (AD
2023-10-02). AD 2023-10-02 requires revising the limitations section of
the existing AFM to incorporate limitations prohibiting transport and
commuter category airplanes from performing certain low-visibility
landing operations at any airport unless they have upgraded their radio
altimeters (i.e., are ``radio altimeter tolerant''). Transport Canada,
which is the aviation authority for Canada, issued corresponding AD CF-

2023-46, dated June 26, 2023, to prohibit certain flight operations
requiring radio altimeter data in U.S. airspace affected by 5G C-Band
wireless signals.
    Transport Canada evaluated additional 5G-related hazards presented
by 5G C-Band interference on certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership
(formerly C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership and Bombardier) model
airplanes and issued Transport Canada AD CF-2023-47, dated June 26,
2023 (AD CF-2023-47) (also referred to after this as ``the MCAI''). AD
CF-2023-60 was prompted by a determination that 5G C-Band interference
can result in unavailable or misleading radio altimeter information,
which in combination with dispatch under certain minimum equipment list
(MEL) items and a weight-on-wheels (WOW) signal failure, could result
in a reversion to ground mode in air or the deployment of ground
spoilers in the air.
    Transport Canada AD CF-2023-47 applies to all Airbus Canada Limited
Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes and prohibits
dispatch under certain MEL items, for non-radio altimeter tolerant
airplanes, at all airports in the contiguous United States. For radio
altimeter tolerant airplanes, AD CF-2023-47 does not prohibit dispatch
under the MEL items at 5G C-Band mitigated airports (CMAs) as
identified in an FAA Domestic Notice.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1408.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is issuing this AD after determining that the
unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on
other products of the same type design.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires, before further flight, revising the AFM to
incorporate limitations prohibiting dispatch under MMEL item WOW
Proximity Sensor at all airports for non-radio altimeter tolerant
airplanes. For radio altimeter tolerant airplanes, the prohibited
operations are allowed at 5G CMAs as identified in an FAA Domestic
Notice.

Differences Between the MCAI and This AD

    The MCAI prohibits dispatch under four items in the Airbus Canada
Limited Partnership MEL approved by Transport Canada, which include the
brake data concentrator unit (BDCU) and three WOW items. The Airbus
Canada Limited Partnership MMEL approved by the FAA does not include
provisions for the BDCU and only has one provision for the WOW system.
Therefore, instead of the MEL items listed in the MCAI, this AD
prohibits dispatch under the WOW proximity sensor as specified in the
FAA-approved Airbus Canada Limited Partnership MMEL.

Interim Action

    The FAA considers that this AD is an interim action. Once the
Technical Standard Order (TSO) standard for radio altimeters is
established, which will follow the existing international technical
consensus on the establishment of the minimum operational performance
standards (MOPS), the FAA anticipates that the MOPS will be
incorporated into the TSO. Once a new radio altimeter TSO is developed,
approved, and available, the FAA might consider additional rulemaking.

Justification for Immediate Adoption and Determination of the Effective
Date

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 551 et seq.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and
comment procedures for rules when the agency, for ``good cause,'' finds
that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to
the public interest.'' Under this section, an agency, upon finding good
cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking
comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA
authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days,
upon a finding of good cause.
    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to
adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public
justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule,
because radio altimeters cannot be relied upon to perform their
intended function if they experience interference from wireless
broadband operations in the 5G C-Band. Further, this interference may
affect other airplane systems using radio altimeter data, including the
ground spoiler deployment system, which, in combination with a WOW
signal failure, could lead to loss of continued safe flight and
landing. To address this unsafe condition, the actions required by this
AD must be accomplished before further flight. The FAA based this
compliance time on the changes to the 5G C-Band environment beginning
on July 1, 2023. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public
comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), and this AD.
    In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment immediately effective, for the
same reasons the FAA found good cause to forgo notice and comment.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not
apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt
a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined
that it has good cause to adopt this rule without prior notice and
comment, RFA analysis is not required.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 90 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFM revision..........................  1 work-hour x $85 \1\                 $0             $85      \2\ $7,650
                                         per hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The labor rate of $85 per hour is the average wage rate for
an aviation mechanic.
    \2\ The estimated cost for this revision does not constitute a
significant economic impact (even for small entities) because $85 is
a minimal cost compared to the regular costs of maintaining and
operating a Model BD-500-1A10 or BD-500-1A11 transport category
airplane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA is 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

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will 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 above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866, and
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
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]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

2023-14-02 Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (Type Certificate
Previously Held by C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership;
Bombardier, Inc.): Amendment 39-22502; Docket No. FAA-2023-1408;
Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00791-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective July 27, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (Type
Certificate previously held by C Series Aircraft Limited
Partnership; Bombardier, Inc.) Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11
airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 34, Navigation.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that radio altimeters
cannot be relied upon to perform their intended function if they
experience interference from wireless broadband operations in the
3.7-3.98 GHz frequency band (5G C-Band), and a recent determination
that this interference may affect other airplane systems using radio
altimeter data, including the ground spoiler deployment system. The
FAA is issuing this AD to address inadvertent ground spoiler
deployment in flight that could lead to increased flightcrew
workload and loss of continued safe flight and landing.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Definitions

    (1) For purposes of this AD, a ``5G C-Band mitigated airport''
(5G CMA) is an airport at which the telecommunications companies
have agreed to voluntarily limit their 5G deployment at the request
of the FAA, as identified by an FAA Domestic Notice.
    (2) For purposes of this AD, a ``radio altimeter tolerant
airplane'' is one for which the radio altimeter, as installed,
demonstrates the tolerances specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and
(ii) of this AD, using a method approved by the FAA.
    (i) Tolerance to radio altimeter interference, for the
fundamental emissions (3.7-3.98 GHz), at or above the power spectral
density (PSD) curve threshold specified in figure 1 to paragraph
(g)(2)(i) of this AD.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

Figure 1 to Paragraph (g)(2)(i)--Fundamental Effective Isotropic PSD at
Outside Interface of Aircraft Antenna
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JY23.035

    (ii) Tolerance to radio altimeter interference, for the spurious
emissions (4.2-4.4 GHz), at or above the PSD curve threshold
specified in figure 2 to paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this AD.

Figure 2 to Paragraph (g)(2)(ii)--Spurious Effective Isotropic PSD at
Outside Interface of Aircraft Antenna
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JY23.036

    (3) For purposes of this AD, a ``non-radio altimeter tolerant
airplane'' is one for which the radio altimeter, as installed, does
not demonstrate the tolerances specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and
(ii) of this AD.

(h) Revision of Existing Airplane Flight Manual (AFM): Master Minimum
Equipment List (MMEL) Restriction for Non-Radio Altimeter Tolerant
Airplanes

    Before further flight, revise the Limitations section of the
existing AFM to include the information specified in figure 3 to
paragraph (h) of this AD. This may be done by inserting a copy of
figure 3 to paragraph (h) of this AD into the existing AFM.

Figure 3 to Paragraph (h)--MMEL Restriction for Non-Radio Altimeter
Tolerant Airplanes
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JY23.037

(i) Revision of Existing AFM: MMEL Restriction for Radio Altimeter
Tolerant Airplanes

    Before further flight, revise the Limitations section of the
existing AFM to include the information specified in figure 4 to
paragraph (i) of this AD. This may be done by inserting a copy of
figure 4 to paragraph (i) of this AD into the existing AFM.

Figure 4 to Paragraph (i)--MMEL Restriction for Radio Altimeter
Tolerant Airplanes
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JY23.038

(j) Additional AD Provisions

    (1) The Manager, Operational Safety Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight
Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the manager of the Operational Safety Branch, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the responsible Flight Standards Office.

(k) Additional Information

    (1) Refer to Transport Canada AD CF-2023-47, dated June 26,
2023, for related information. This Transport Canada AD may be found
in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1408.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Brett Portwood,
Continued Operational Safety Technical Advisor, COS Program
Management Section, Operational Safety Branch, FAA, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued on July 3, 2023.
Michael Linegang,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-14771 Filed 7-7-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 16, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 8891]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03269]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 34501; 812-15293]

Brinker Capital Destinations Trust

February 10, 2021.
AGENCY:  Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION:  Notice.

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

    Notice of an application under Section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from Section 15(c) of
the Act.

Summary of Application:  The requested exemption would permit a Trust's
board of trustees (the ``Board'') to approve new sub-advisory
agreements and material amendments to existing sub-advisory agreements
without complying with the in-person meeting requirement of Section
15(c) of the Act.

Applicant:  Brinker Capital Destinations Trust (the ``Trust'').

Filing Dates:  The application was filed on December 28, 2021.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing:  An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing
the SEC's Secretary at [email protected] and serving the
relevant applicant with a copy of the request by email, if an email
address is listed for the relevant applicant below, or personally or by
mail, if a physical address is listed for the relevant applicant below.
    Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m.
on March 7, 2022, and should be accompanied by proof of service on
applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate
of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should
state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the
desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request,
and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing
may request notification by emailing the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES:  The Commission: [email protected]. Applicants: John
J. O'Brien, Esq., [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Terri Jordan, Branch Chief, at (202)
551-3239 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  For Applicants' representations, legal
analysis, and condition, please refer to Applicants' application, dated
December 28, 2021, which may be obtained via the Commission's website
by searching for the file number, using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-03269 Filed 2-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 9, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 46)]
[Notices]
[Page 12223-12224]
[DOCID:fr09mr06-105]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.

Extension: Rule 17f-1; File No. 270-236; OMB Control No. 3235-0222.
    Form N-17f-1; File No. 270-316; OMB Control No. 3235-0359.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit these existing collections of information to the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Rule 17f-1 under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'')
[17 CFR 270.17f-1] is entitled: ``Custody of Securities with Members of
National Securities Exchanges.'' Rule 17f-1 provides that any
registered management investment company (``fund'') that wishes to
place its assets in the custody of a national securities exchange
member may do so only under a written contract that must be ratified
initially and approved annually by a majority of the fund's board of
directors. The written contract also must contain certain specified
provisions. In addition, the rule requires an independent public
accountant to examine the fund's assets in the custody of the exchange
member at least three times during the fund's fiscal year. The rule
requires the written contract and the certificate of each examination
to be transmitted to the Commission. The purpose of the rule is to
ensure the safekeeping of fund assets.
    Commission staff estimates that each fund makes 1 response and
spends an average of 3.5 hours annually in complying with the rule's
requirements.\1\ Commission staff estimates that on an annual basis it
takes: (i) 0.5 hours for the board of directors at a total cost of
approximately $1000 to review and ratify the custodial contracts; \2\
and (ii) 3 hours for the fund's controller at a total cost of
approximately $445 to assist the fund's independent public auditors in
verifying the fund's assets.\3\ Approximately 60 funds rely on the rule
annually.\4\ Thus, the total annual burden for rule 17f-1 is estimated
to be approximately 210 hours.\5\ Based on the total costs per fund
listed above, the total cost of the rule 17f-1's collection of
information requirements is estimated to be $86,700.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 1 response is the board's approval of the custodial
contract.
    \2\ Estimates of the number of hours are based on conversations
with individuals in the mutual fund industry. In preparing this
submission, Commission staff randomly selected 9 funds from the pool
of Form N-17f-1 filers. The actual number of hours may vary
significantly depending on individual fund assets. The hour burden
for rule 17f-1 does not include preparing the custody contract
because that would be part of customary and usual business practice.
    \3\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: 3 x
$148.38 (fund controller hourly rate) = $445. This estimate is based
on the following calculation: 3 x $148.38 (fund controller hourly
rate) = $445. The estimated costs for all fund professional and
support staff time are based on the average annual salaries reported
for employees in New York City in Securities Industry Association,
Management and Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry
(2003) and Securities Industry Association, Office Salaries in the
Securities Industry (2003), which are adjusted to reflect additional
overhead costs and employee benefits.
    \4\ Based on a review of Form N-17f-1 filings in 2004, the
Commission staff estimates that 60 funds relied on rule 17f-1 in
2005.
    \5\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: 60
(respondents) x 3.5 (total annual hourly burden per respondent) =
210 hours. The annual burden for rule 17f-1 does not include time
spent preparing Form N-17f-1. The burden for Form N-17f-1 is
included in a separate collection of information.
    \6\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: 60
hours x $1445 (total annual cost per fund) = $86,700.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Form N-17f-1 is entitled: ``Certificate of Accounting of Securities
and Similar Investments of a Management Investment Company in the
Custody of Members of National Securities Exchanges.'' Form N-17f-1 (17
CFR 274.219) is the cover sheet for accountant examination certificates
filed under rule 17f-1 of the Act. Rule 17f-1 requires the accountant's
certificate of each examination be attached to Form N-17f-1 and
transmitted to the Commission promptly after each examination. The form
facilitates the filing of the accountant's certificate, and increases
the accessibility of the certificate to both Commission's staff and
interested investors.
    Commission staff estimates that on an annual basis it takes: (i) On
average 1 hour of clerical time at a total cost of $28 to prepare and
file the Form N-17f-1; and (ii) 1 hour for the fund's chief compliance
officer at a total cost of $137 to review the Form N-17f-1 prior to
filing with the Commission. As noted above, approximately 60 funds
currently file Form N-17f-1 with the Commission, and each fund is
required to make three filings annually for a total annual burden per
fund of approximately 6 hours. The total annual hour burden for Form N-
17f-1 is therefore estimated to be approximately 360 hours. Based on
the total costs per fund listed above, the total cost of Form N-17f-1's
collection of information requirements is estimated to be approximately
$59,400.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: 360
hours x $165 (total annual cost per fund) = $59,400.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules. Compliance with the collections of information
required by rule 17f-1 and Form N-17f-1 is mandatory for funds that
place their assets in the custody of a national securities exchange
member. Responses 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 control
number.
    The Commission requests written comments on: (a) Whether the
collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of
the

functions of the Commission, including whether the information has
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the
burdens 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 R. Corey Booth, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Office of Information Technology, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549.

    Dated: March 2, 2006.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-3329 Filed 3-8-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P