[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 230 (Friday, December 1, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 83937]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26387]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER24-471-000]

Indra Power Business OH LLC, Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Indra Power Business OH LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is December 14, 2023.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: November 24, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-26387 Filed 11-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 192 (Thursday, October 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46550-46552]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21402]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81765; File No. SR-MRX-2017-19]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule
716(c) on the Block Order Mechanism

September 29, 2017.
    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 18, 2017, Nasdaq MRX, LLC (``MRX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II, below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 716(c) to more accurately
describe the allocation methodology used in the Block Order Mechanism,
and add language regarding how the block execution price is determined.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at www.ise.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Block Order Mechanism is a process by which a member can obtain
liquidity for the execution of block-sized orders,\3\ defined as orders
for fifty contracts or more.\4\ When an order is entered in the Block
Order Mechanism, that order is exposed to members who are given an
opportunity to respond with the prices and sizes at which they would be
willing to trade with the block-sized order.\5\ The exposure period is
designated by the Exchange via circular, but must be no less than 100
milliseconds and no more than 1 second.\6\ At the conclusion of the
exposure period, either an execution will occur at a single block
execution price,\7\ or the order will be cancelled.\8\ The purpose of
the proposed rule change is to amend Rule 716(c) to more accurately
describe the allocation methodology used in the Block Order Mechanism,
and add language regarding how the block execution price is determined.
The Exchange believes that these changes will increase transparency
around the operation of the Block Order Mechanism to the benefit of
members and market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Rule 716(c).
    \4\ See Rule 716(a).
    \5\ A ``Response'' is an electronic message that is sent by
members in response to a broadcast message. See Rule 716(b).
    \6\ See Supplementary Material .04 to Rule 716.
    \7\ Responses and orders and quotes on the order book at the
time the block order is executed that are priced better than the
block execution price are executed at the block execution price. See
Rule 716(c)(2)(i).
    \8\ See Rule 716(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Rule 716(c)(2)(ii) provides that Responses, quotes, and
Professional Orders \9\ at the block execution price will participate
in the execution of the block-size order according to Rule 713(e)--
i.e., the Exchange's regular allocation rule. As implemented today,
however, interest that is executed in the Block Order Mechanism follows
the customer priority pro-rata allocation methodology designed for the
Exchange's auction mechanisms, including, for example, the Facilitation
Mechanism,\10\ Solicited Order Mechanism,\11\ and Price Improvement
Mechanism,\12\ with the exception that those two-sided auction
mechanisms also allocate contracts against the contra order. This
auction allocation methodology is similar to the Exchange's regular
allocation methodology but does not provide enhanced allocations to the
Primary Market Maker (``PMM'') pursuant to Rule 713(e) and
Supplementary Material .01(b) to Rule 713.\13\ The Exchange therefore
proposes to amend Rule 716(c)(2)(ii) to provide that, at the block
execution price, Priority Customer Orders and Priority Customer
Responses will be executed first in time priority, and then quotes,
Professional Orders, and Professional Responses will participate in the
execution of the block-size order based upon the percentage of the
total number of contracts available at the block execution price that
is represented by the size of the quote, Professional Order, or
Professional Response. In addition, the Exchange proposes to specify in
Rule 716(c)(2)(i) that interest that is priced better than the block
execution price is executed in full. In particular, the Exchange
proposes to amend this rule to state that bids (offers) on the Exchange
at the time the block order is executed that are priced higher (lower)
than the block execution price, as well as Responses that are priced
higher (lower) than the block execution price, will be executed in full
at the block execution price. Although Rule 716(c)(2)(ii) described
above explains how allocations are handled at the block execution
price, the Exchange believes that additional the additional clarity
that interest that is priced better than the block execution

price is executed in full would be helpful to members. With these two
proposed changes, Rule 716(c) will more accurately describe the
allocation methodology used in the Block Order Mechanism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The term ``Professional Order'' means an order that is for
the account of a person or entity that is not a Priority Customer.
See Rule 100(a)(37C).
    \10\ See Rule 716(d).
    \11\ See Rule 716(e).
    \12\ See Rule 723.
    \13\ Supplementary Material .01(b) to Rule 713 provides that, if
the PMM is quoting at the best price, it has participation rights
equal to the greater of the proportion of the total size at the best
price represented by the size of its quote, or a percentage
allocation entitlement based on the number of other Professional
Orders and market maker quotations at the best price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the Exchange proposes add language to Rule
716(c)(2)(i) that explains the price at which orders entered into the
Block Order Mechanism are executed. In particular, the Exchange
proposes to state that Responses, orders, and quotes will be executed
at a single block execution price that is the price for the block-size
order at which the maximum number of contracts can be executed
consistent with the member's instruction. For example, if a member
enters a block-sized order to buy 100 contracts at $1.00 into the Block
Order Mechanism, and members enter Response A to sell 50 contracts at
$0.90 and Response B to sell 40 contracts at $0.95, the block execution
price would be $0.95 as this is the price at which the maximum number
of contracts could be executed. The block-sized order and both
Responses would then be executed at this single block execution price.
Responses A and B would be executed in full since there is sufficient
size to execute both Responses against the block-size order. In
addition, if two other members also enter Responses C (Priority
Customer) and D (non-Priority Customer) to sell at $0.98 for 10
contracts each, the block execution price would be $0.98 as additional
contracts could be executed at that price. In that instance, Responses
A and B, which are priced better than the block execution price, would
be executed in full, while Responses B and C, which are priced at the
block execution price, would participate in accordance with the
allocation methodology described in this proposed rule change--i.e.,
the remaining 10 contracts would go to Response C, which is a Priority
Customer Response. The Block Order Mechanism is designed to provide an
opportunity for members to receive liquidity for their block-sized
orders and therefore trades at a price that allows the maximum number
of contracts of such order to be executed against Responses entered to
trade against the block-size order and interest on the Exchange's order
book. The Exchange believes that describing how the block execution
price is determined in Rule 716(c)(2)(i) will increase transparency
around pricing of executions in the Block Order Mechanism.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and,
in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\14\ In
particular, the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\15\ because is designed to promote just and equitable principles
of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free
and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the allocation
language in Rule 716(c)(2)(i)-(ii) are consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest as the proposed allocation
language more accurately reflects the Exchange's process for allocating
contracts executed in the Block Order Mechanism. Although the
Exchange's allocation rule for the Block Order Mechanism currently
references the allocation process for regular trading, the allocation
methodology does not include certain parts of the regular allocation
procedure. In particular, the Exchange does not grant any special
allocation to the PMM for interest executed in the Block Order
Mechanism. The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to not provide
an enhanced allocation entitlement to the PMM for interest executed in
the Block Order Mechanism, as the Block Order Mechanism provides an
auction process that does not rely on market maker quoting and other
obligations to source liquidity. Furthermore, the Exchange believes
that it is helpful to explain in this rule that interest that is priced
better than the block execution price would be executed in full. The
allocation process used for the Block Order Mechanism is similar to how
the Exchange allocates contracts in other auction mechanisms,
including, for example, the Facilitation Mechanism, Solicited Order
Mechanism, and Price Improvement Mechanism, with the exception that
those two-sided auction mechanisms also allocate contracts against the
contra order.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See supra notes 10-12 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed changes to describe
how the block execution price is determined is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest as this change will
increase transparency around the price at which interest is executed in
the Block Order Mechanism. As explained above, the Block Order
Mechanism is designed to provide an opportunity for members to receive
liquidity for their block-sized orders and therefore trades at a price
that allows the maximum number of contracts of such order to be
executed against Responses entered to trade against the block-size
order and interest on the Exchange's order book. The Exchange believes
that describing how the block execution price is determined in Rule
716(c)(2)(i) will increase transparency around pricing of executions in
the Block Order Mechanism.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\17\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on intermarket or intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed
rule change is designed to correct the Exchange's rules to more
accurately reflect the handling of auctions in the Block Order
Mechanism. No changes are proposed to the operation of the Exchange's
trading system, and no members will be impacted by the proposed rule,
which merely reflects current functionality offered to members that
trade in the Block Order Mechanism. The proposed rule change is
therefore not designed to impose any significant burden on competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \18\ and

subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \20\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\21\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange requests
that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Exchange
notes that a waiver is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest because it will allow the Exchange to correct its
Block Order Mechanism rules to reflect the current functionality of the
system without undue delay. The Commission believes that waiving the
30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the
30-day operative delay and designates the proposed rule change
operative upon filing.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \22\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MRX-2017-19 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MRX-2017-19. 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 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-MRX-2017-19 and should be
submitted on or before October 26, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-21402 Filed 10-4-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 23, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 99)]
[Notices]
[Page 29692-29694]
[DOCID:fr23my06-91]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53810; File No. SR-DTC-2006-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Relating
to Changes to Its SMART/Track for Buy-Ins Service

May 16, 2006.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on March 27, 2006, The
Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change described
in Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared primarily
by DTC. DTC filed the proposed rule change pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \2\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) thereunder\3\ so
that the proposal was effective upon filing with the Commission. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The proposed rule change consists of changes to the functionality
of DTC's SMART/Track for Buy-Ins service.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, DTC 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. DTC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these
statements.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by DTC.

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

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

    The proposed rule change relates to DTC's SMART/Track for Buy-Ins
service as it pertains to the retransmittal of buy-ins in the National
Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC'')'s Continuous Net Settlement
(``CNS'') system.
    Since 2003, DTC has made several rule filings relating to a service
that was originally known as Universal Hub and that is now known as
SMART/Track.\5\ With its rule filing SR-DTC-2005-19,\6\ DTC implemented
the fourth phase of SMART/Track, ``SMART/Track for Buy-Ins,'' that
provides automated communication, warehousing and tracking of various
types of buy-in related notices pertaining to buy-ins governed by the
rules of either NSCC or other self-regulatory organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 50029 (July 15, 2004),
69 FR 43870 (July 22, 2004) [SR-DTC-2003-10] (Universal Hub, Stock
Loan notification service); 50887 (Dec. 20, 2004), 69 FR 77802 (Dec.
28, 2004) [SR-DTC-2004-11] (Corporate Action Liability Notification
Service); 52104 (July 21, 2005), 70 FR 43730 (July 28, 2004) [SR-
DTC-2005-06] (SMART/Track for Agency Lending Disclosure); and 53032
(December 28, 2005), 71 FR 1457 (January 9, 2006) [SR-DTC-2005-19]
(SMART/Track for Buy-Ins).
    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53032 (December 28,
2005), 71 FR 1457 (January 9, 2006). See also, DTC Important Notice
B8796 (Nov. 23, 2005) available online at http://www.dtc.org/
.

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

    The phase-in of SMART/Track for Buy-In functionality pertaining to
NSCC CNS Buy-Ins was commenced on November 14, 2005, for CNS buy-in
executions and completed on February 10, 2006, with the addition of CNS
notices of intent to buy-in and CNS buy-in orders. The buy-in
functionality of DTC's PEX platform relating to NSCC CNS buy-ins was
discontinued on March 13, 2006.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53503 (March 16, 2006),
71 FR 15237 (March 27, 2006) [SR-DTC-2006-01].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2005, NSCC submitted rule filing SR-NSCC-2005-15 which modified
NSCC's Rules with regard to CNS buy-ins, creating a new buy-in
retransmittal procedure that may be utilized by NSCC members receiving
buy-in notices initiated outside of the CNS system (a ``Buy-In
Retransmittal Notice'').\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53528 (March 21, 2006),
71 FR 15506 (March 28, 2006) [SR-NSCC-2005-15].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to that rule change, the NSCC member originating a Buy-In
Retransmittal Notice will be provided with five additional fields that
will be used for identification of the entity (or entities, as
appropriate) that initiated the buy-in against the member. At least one
such entity other than the originating member must be identified or the
Buy-In Retransmittal Notice will be rejected. NSCC members with short
positions will be advised of their potential buy-in liability through
DTC's SMART/Track for Buy-Ins. Concurrent with NSCC's implementation of
the changes set forth in rule filing SR-NSCC-2005-15, DTC will make
corresponding changes to SMART/Track for Buy-Ins to activate the CNS
Retransmittal Buy-In functionality.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ This functionality includes notices of intent to buy-in,
buy-in orders, buy-in executions, and short member buy-in liability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the NSCC CNS Retransmittal Buy-In functionality is an added
feature to an existing DTC service that will conform the functionality
of DTC's service to that which is required by NSCC's rules, DTC
believes that the proposed rule change effects a change in an existing
service of DTC that (i) does not adversely affect the safeguarding of
securities or funds in the custody or control of DTC and (ii) does not
significantly affect the respective rights or obligations of DTC or
those participants using the service. The proposed rule change is
therefore consistent with Section 17A of the Act \10\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to DTC. Moreover, DTC has represented
that the proposed rule change will be implemented consistently with the
statutory obligation to safeguard securities and funds in its
possession or control or for which it is responsible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change will 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 yet
been solicited or received. DTC will notify the Commission of any
written comments received by DTC.

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)(iii) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) \12\
thereunder because the proposed rule effects a change in an existing
service of DTC that (i) does not adversely affect the safeguarding of
securities or funds in the custody or control of DTC or for which it is
responsible and (ii) does not significantly affect the respective
rights or obligations of DTC or persons using the service. At any time
within sixty days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the
Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-DTC-2006-06 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-DTC-2006-06. 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 Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of DTC and on DTC's
Web site at http://www.dtc.org. 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-DTC-2006-06 and should be submitted on or before June
13, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to
delegated authority.\13\
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-7805 Filed 5-22-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST SUPPORTING STATEMENT Information Requirements for Marine Diesel Engines ( Nonroad Large SI Engines and Marine Diesel Engines) ( Amendments) ( Final Rule)

November 2002 Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality Office of Air and Radiation U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Information Collection Request 1( a). Title Information Requirements for Nonroad Large SI Engines and Marine Diesel Engines ICR Tracking Number: 1897.04 1( b). Short Characterization The Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to adopt emission standards for new nonroad engines. We need information to verify that manufacturers comply with emission standards   before production begins, during production, and after units have been placed into service. In the rulemaking we require manufacturers to generate or retain information to demonstrate that engines comply with emission standards.

Manufacturers generally send us the data they collected and keep these records and other pertinent information. We may request to see any of these records.

We and the regulated companies will use the data exclusively to ensure compliance with emission standards. Information such as engine family, total numbers of engines built, and emission rates for specific pollutants, are examples of what we require. This ICR is a revision to the information collection request already established for marine diesel engines (# 1897.02).

2. Need For and Use of the Collection 2( a). Need/ Authority for the Collection The data we require in this ICR is necessary to comply with Title II of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990. The Act directs us to adopt regulations for nonroad engines if we determine those engines contribute significantly to air pollution in the U. S. Now that we have made this determination, the Act directs us to set emission standards for any category of nonroad engines that contributes to air quality nonattainment in two or more areas in the U. S. We can only meet the requirements of the Act by collecting data from the regulated industry. Also, we will only have an effective program if we know that these engines maintain their certified emission level throughout their operating lives.

2( b). Use/ Users of the Data We will oversee the certification process and maintain the program database. We will use the data items to verify compliance with the following requirements associated with the new emission standards.

determine whether or not a prototype engine may adequately represent an engine family.

ensure compliance of production line engines. 1Category 3 marine diesel engines are those with per cylinder displacement at or above 30 liters.

issue a recall to correct a noncompliant family of engines.

confirm actual emission benefits gained by the program.

ensure proper maintenance and setting of physically adjustable parameters.

aid in the production projections to randomly select the engines which are to undergo testing.

determine whether a prototype or freshly manufactured engine should be issued a certificate of conformity.

ensure that durability of emission controls is consistent with the manufacturer's stated useful life.

ensure control of emissions across the range of engine operation expected in the normal course of its lifetime 3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and other Collection Criteria 3( a) Nonduplication Emissions from the engines and vehicles subject to the new emission standards have been largely unregulated in the United States. Moreover, state and local governments are preempted from adopting emission standards for many of the engines covered by this rulemaking. For this reason, the information requested under this ICR is not available from other sources.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB We published a proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register on October 5, 2001 regarding emission standards for industrial spark ignition engines and recreational marine diesel engines. In addition, we published proposed emission standards for Category 3 marine diesel engines on May 29, 2002.1 These proposed rules included invitations to comment on the ICR. We received comments on several issues related to information collection, sometimes indirectly. These comments and our responses are summarized in the following table. Table 1 Comments Related to Information Collection Commenter Comment Response Large SI Industrial Truck Association/ Ford New dynamometers for running transient duty cycle will be expensive. Test will be hard to run. Benefits of the new cycle may not be worth the cost. Emission modeling shows substantial benefits resulting from the new cycle. Capital costs incorporated into cost analysis, which shows that cost per engine and cost per ton are favorable.

Wisconsin/ Ford Evaporative controls should not be part of certification, since engine manufacturers don't control fuel tank design. Evaporative controls are not justified because of the limited number of gasoline engine sales. Commenters supported design based requirements. Impact analysis shows that evaporative controls are clearly justified. Final rule includes design based certification to minimize costs and implementation issues for engine manufacturers.

Caterpillar Manufacturer in use testing is not appropriate, since engine manufacturer does not control engine after sale. Also, smallvolume families should be exempt from inuse testing requirements. The Clean Air Act clearly assigns engine manufacturers the responsibility to meet standards throughout the useful life and authorizes testing to verify this. The regulations provide for alternative compliance demonstration for small volume families.

Engine Manufacturers Association Production line testing is burdensome and unjustified. Selective enforcement audits are a preferred way of establishing compliance for production engines. Production line testing provides much better assurance of compliance than selective enforcement auditing. Special provisions allow for decreased testing burden, either for a lower cost alternative procedure, or as a reward for consistently good test results.

Recreational Marine Diesel Engine Manufacturers Association Emission standards should be harmonized with those under consideration in Europe to avoid increasing compliance burden. The emission standards in the final rule are consistent with the Clean Air Act. Manufacturers meeting EPA standards can easily meet less stringent international standards.

Cummins Identifying the worst case engine configuration in an engine family is overly burdensome. Manufacturers are responsible to use " good engineering judgment" in selecting the worstcase engine. This is consistent with their ongoing liability for meeting the emission standards for all engine configurations.

Engine Manufacturers Association Manufacturers should not be required to install a sample port in the exhaust system, since that part of the engine is typically installed by another company ( usually the boat builder). The regulations specify that the manufacturers may meet this requirement by including emission related installation instructions with their engines. Boat builders would then be required to follow these instructions. Commenter Comment Response Engine Manufacturers Association Production line testing is burdensome and unjustified. Selective enforcement audits are a preferred way of establishing compliance for production engines. Production line testing provides much better assurance of compliance than selective enforcement auditing. Special provisions allow for decreased testing burden, either for a lower cost alternative procedure, or as a reward for consistently good test results.

Category 3 Marine Diesel Wartsila, MAN B& W, et al EPA emission standards should not depart from the internationally negotiated standards. Separate U. S. standards would be very costly and disruptive to international commerce. In this rulemaking, we are incorporating the internationally negotiated standards. We intend to revisit these questions in a future rulemaking.

Euromot, Wartsila The certification requirements should follow the documentation procedures in the Annex VI NOx Technical Code. The final rule aligns in almost all respects with the NOx Technical Code. The few exceptions, such as useful life and warranty requirements, come directly from the Clean Air Act.

Euromot, Wartsila, MAN B& W, Caterpillar Onboard NOx monitoring would be unreliable and burdensome. We disagree with the commenters, but are not adopting onboard NOx monitoring. We will reconsider this in any future rulemaking in which we consider the use of advanced emission control technologies. 3( c) Consultations We have met with companies that will be subject to the new emission standards. These contacts are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2 Industry Contacts Regarding Information Collection Date Contact Large SI March 2000 Jim Hudzinski, et al, Ford Power Products 248 945 4412 April 2000 Brad Garner, et al, Impco Technologies 810 264 1200 April 6, 2000 Bill Studzinski, et al, Wis Con Total Power 901 369 4029 April 26, 2000 Meeting with engine manufacturers June 27, 2000 Meeting with engine manufacturers March 15, 2001 George Maes, et al, Nissan Forklift Corp. 815 568 2139 April 17, 2001 Carl Bryant, Westebeke 508 823 7677 April 24, 2001 Meeting with engine manufacturers May 30, 2001 Carl Bryant, Westebeke 508 823 7677 January 15, 2002 George Maes, Nissan 815 568 2139 April 3, 2002 Josh Sutherland, Wisconsin Motors 888 591 6842 April 16, 2002 Bill Passie et al, Caterpillar 309 675 5362 May 21, 2002 Meeting with engine manufacturers Date Contact Recreational Marine Diesel June 21, 2000 Engine Manufacturers Association, Tim French ( 312) 269 5670 January 10, 2001 Engine Manufacturers Association, Tim French ( 312) 269 5670 March 14, 2001 Mercruiser, Rolf Lichtner ( 405) 743 7540 March 29, 2001 Cummins, Mike Brand ( 812) 377 3752 May 24, 2002 Meeting with engine manufacturers Category 3 Marine Diesel September 6, 2001 Wartsila, Fred Danska ( 954) 327 4868 September 17, 2001 conference call with Caterpillar/ MaK, Bill Passie 309 675 5362 November 1, 2001 U. S. Chamber of Shipping, Kathy Metcalf ( 202) 775 4399 December 6, 2001 Euromot, Hartmut Mayer 49 69 66 03 1354 December 14, 2001 National Shipbuilders Association, Frank Losey ( 202) 544 8170 September 18, 2002 Meeting with engine manufacturers 3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Annual reporting for certifying engine families is necessary to align with the regulatory requirement to certify engine families every year. Quarterly reporting of test results from production line testing is necessary to allow adequate response to any problem that may arise.

3( e) General Guidelines This ICR complies with the general guidelines, except for the requirement to retain records for an eightyear period, as described in 4( b)( ii) below.

3( f) Confidentiality We hold information from the engine manufacturers as confidential until the associated engines are available for purchase. Manufacturers may submit proprietary information, consisting generally of sales projections and certain sensitive technical descriptions. We grant confidentiality in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, and class determinations issued by our Office of General Council.

3( g) Sensitive Questions We don't ask sensitive questions. This collection complies with The Privacy Act and OMB Circular A 108. 4. Respondents and Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ NAICS and SIC Codes The respondents are generally involved in the industries shown in Table 3.

Table 3 NAICS and SIC Codes for Respondent Categories Respondent Categories NAICS Codesa SIC Codesb Manufacturers of new nonroad SI engines, new marine engines 333618 3519 Manufacturers of farm equipment 333111 3523 Manufacturers of construction equipment, recreational marine vessels 333112 3531 Manufacturers of industrial trucks 333924 3537 Manufacturers of marine vessels   3732 Engine repair and maintenance 811310 7699 aNorth American Industry Classification System ( NAICS) bStandard Industrial Classification ( SIC) system code.

4( b) Respondents and Information Requested ( i) Data Items Manufacturers must send us an application for certification, including emission data and other descriptive information. Manufacturers must also send us reports of production line or other emission testing.

( ii). Respondent Activities Companies retain records as hard copy and may also reduce the information to microfilm, computer disks, etc. We require very little submission of information to process applications for certification. This reduces the resource burden, both for the industry and for us. However, because we don't have the information on file, we depend on manufacturers to retain the records to allow us to verify compliance throughout the useful life of the engines. Eight years is sufficient time for most engines. Any investigation of in use engines generally does not start until three or more years after the manufacturer completes the application for certification.

The manufacturer also submits all emission testing results generated from in use testing within three months after testing is complete ( Large SI engines only).

Companies that rebuild regulated engines need to keep records of their maintenance practices. This is consistent with their normal business practice. Individuals who maintain or rebuild their own engines are not required to keep records. This also applies to owners and operators of commercial marine vessels with Category 3 engines, where onboard mechanics do significant maintenance and adjustment of the engines.

In addition, we require operators of vessels powered by Category 3 engines to keep records showing their position when servicing the engines. This information is readily available and is, to a large extent, already routinely recorded by operators as part of normal procedures. Also, owners of marine vessels with Category 3 engines must send minimal annual notification to EPA to show that engine maintenance and adjustments have not caused engines to be noncompliant. All reports, submissions, notifications, and requests for approval must be addressed to: Manager, Engine Programs Group ( 6405 J), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20460. Respondents must submit information in an approved EPA information format.

5. The Information Collected Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 5 ( a) Agency Activities Our certification and tracking process involves reviewing applications and emission data from engine and vehicle manufacturers. From this data, we issue certificates of conformity, and may confirm that production and in use engines continue to comply with standards. We may also select families to be tested in a given production year and require additional testing, based on an analysis of the submitted data.

5 ( b) Collection Methodology and Management We currently use computers extensively to collect information from vehicle manufacturers. Based on this approach as a model, much routine information ( test results, projections) can be electronically transmitted directly from the manufacturers to our computer database. We expect to publish this information on our website once certified engines go into production ( www. epa. gov/ otaq/).

5 ( c) Small Entity Flexibility We have a variety of provisions to ease the compliance burden on small businesses. Small volume manufacturers can generally combine their products into a single engine family or use design based certification to reduce testing efforts. Testing rates for the production line testing program decrease or are waived for smallvolume manufacturers. For in use testing of Large SI engines, the testing rate is smaller for companies with fewer engine families.

5( d) Collection Schedule The principal reporting requirements are associated with certification to the emission standards, which begin to apply according to the schedule shown below. Reporting requirements therefore don't begin until the end of the preceding year at the earliest. Annual reporting is based on the beginning of the model year, which can vary for each manufacturer and for each engine family, as shown in Table 4. Quarterly reporting of production line testing results begins when certified engines go into production. Table 4 Implementation Schedule Engine Category Implementation Date Large SI January 2004 Recreational marine diesel January 2006 Category 3 marine diesel January 2004 6. Estimating Burden and Cost of the Collection We estimate burden and cost estimates separately for two groups of companies. First, engine manufacturers comply with emission standards by submitting an application for certification, which obligates them to do a certain amount of testing to show they comply with the standards. Second, companies that rebuild the regulated engines need to keep records of their maintenance practices, consistent with their normal business practice. Due to industry and consumer practices, the recordkeeping requirements for rebuilding apply only to recreational marine diesel and Large SI engines. The following discussion develops burden and cost estimates for the first three years of the program.

6 ( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The estimates of respondent burden utilizes data from the affected industries or commercially available databases. Burden hours per engine family are based upon established hour amounts for engine families, as published in the " Application for Motor Vehicle Emission Certification and Fuel Economy Labeling" ( OMB No. 2060 0104).

The burden for certification testing is generally based on conducting two engine tests for each engine family, then using that test data for several years. For Large SI engine families, six tests per family are expected, since engine families may include separate tests on three different fuels. The estimated cost for full certification testing, including durability demonstration testing, is $ 10,000 per engine test ( combining labor and O& M expenses). For Category 3 marine diesel engines, testing costs are approximately twice as high to account for the expenses related to testing very big engines. The manufacturer's application for certification involves an extensive effort the first year, followed by relatively little effort in subsequent years. We estimate that manufacturers will conduct new certification testing every five years; the costs have been estimated on an annual average basis.

In addition to testing, manufacturers must prepare the application for certification and maintain appropriate records. We have estimated the cost of these combined activities, which include engineering and clerical effort, to be $ 10,000 per engine family per certification cycle ( about $ 20,000 for Category 3 marine diesel). As with the testing costs, we are presenting annual average costs.

The burden for production line testing is based on an industry wide calculation. For Large SI engines, testing is expected for two engines from an engine family for each quarter for a total of eight tests per year. For recreational marine diesel engines, we estimate a testing rate of one percent of production, which would average about five tests per year for each engine family. In general, production line testing requirements don't apply to small volume manufacturers. Lower testing costs apply to production line testing due to the potential to incorporate testing into the assembly process on the production line. We estimate $ 5,000 per test for engine testing. The rulemaking includes several provisions that will reduce the estimated costs for production line testing, either through simplified testing or reduced testing rates.

Large SI engines will also be subject to in use testing requirements. EPA may select up to 25 percent of a company's engine families for testing. We estimate a total of six engine tests for each family subject to testing. Estimated costs for each test are about $ 20,000 to take into account engine removal and replacement, transport, and testing over steady state and transient duty cycles. Allowing $ 5,000 for reporting leads to total costs of $ 125,000 per engine family. These costs would be substantially lower if companies choose to pursue the flexibility of field testing procedures, which includes a separate set of emission standards roughly equivalent to the duty cycle standards.

Rebuilders, including operators of marine vessels with Category 3 engines, must keep records as needed to show that rebuilt engines continue to meet emission standards, consistent with the manufacturer's original design. In addition, owners and operators of marine vessels with Category 3 engines must record information about their location when rebuilding engines or making other adjustments and send minimal annual notification to EPA to show that engine maintenance and adjustments have not caused engines to be noncompliant.

These burden estimates apply equally whether the manufacturer conducts the required activities, or if the manufacturer hires a third party for some of these activities.

6 ( b) Estimating Respondent Costs ( i) Estimating Labor Costs Labor rates on a per hour basis, are taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics web site at http:// stats. bls. gov/ news. release/ ecec. t12. htm ( accessed November 24, 2000). Technical labor is $ 42.89/ hr, managerial labor is $ 65.19/ hr, clerical labor is $ 27.11/ hr. Labor rates were multiplied by 1.5 to account for fringe benefits and other overhead expenses.

( ii) Estimating Operations and Maintenance Costs Operation and maintenance costs include expenses related to engine testing. Costs are for laboratory time, the use of test equipment, engine parts, fuel and other supplies, and fabrication of test tools and fixtures. Direct labor costs and operations and maintenance costs combine for the total test costs described above.

( iii) Capital/ Start up Costs Companies required to conduct testing generally either have testing facilities or are expected to conduct testing at a contractor's laboratory. Thus, no capital or startup costs are anticipated for purchasing emission testing equipment.

( iv) Annualizing Capital Costs With no estimated capital or start up costs, there is no need to annualize these costs.

6 ( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost Our Engine Programs Compliance Group administers emission certification programs. This group has approximately 17 full time employees. We project 25 hours per week of staff time ( at $ 40 per hour, loaded) to manage engine compliance programs related to new emission standards. This comes to approximately 1,250 hours or $ 50,000 per year to oversee the requirements of the final rule.

6 ( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs The following tables shows the labor and other costs associated with meeting the new requirements for each engine family. This includes certification costs, plus the cost of any additional testing. Per family costs are multiplied by the number of engine families and added to estimated capital costs ( if any) to arrive at an estimated total cost.

In addition, we estimate that 200 companies would be affected by new requirements to keep records related to rebuilding, maintaining, or adjusting engines ( see Table 8); these companies must keep records of their business practices, but they don't need to design or certify engines or measure emissions. These estimates are based on the projected costs for each company to meet the requirements of the rule. Table 5 Annual Respondent Burden and Cost   Large SI Engine Manufacturers Information Collection Activity Average annual burden and cost per family # of Families Annualized Capital &

Startup cost Total Hours and Costs Mgr. @

$ 65/ hr Tech. @

$ 43/ hr Cler. @

$ 27/ hr Hours per family Labor cost per family O& M Cost Total Hours/ yr Total Cost/ yr Cert. application 2 36 6 44 $ 1,840 $ 0 40 $ 0 1,760 $ 73,600 Recordkeeping 0.2 2.2 2 4.4 $ 162 $ 0 40 $ 0 176 $ 6,464 Cert./ durability testing 168 168 $ 7,224 $ 4,776 40 $ 174,419 6,720 $ 480,000 Prod. line testing/ reporting 5 100 10 115 $ 4,895 $ 35,105 40 $ 0 4,600 $ 1,600,000 In use testing/ reporting 25 725 35 785 $ 33,745 $ 91,255 10 $ 0 7,850 $ 1,250,000 Defect reporting 2 10 10 22 $ 830 $ 0 40 $ 0 880 $ 33,200 Subtotal Total O& M cost = $ 2,507,790   $ 174,419 21,986 $ 3,443,264 Table 6 Average Annual Respondent Burden and Cost   Recreational Marine Diesel Engines Information Collection Activity Average annual burden and cost per family # of Families Annualized Capital &

Startup cost Total Hours and Costs Mgr. @

$ 65/ hr Tech. @

$ 43/ hr Cler. @

$ 27/ hr Hours per family Labor cost per family O& M Cost Total Hours/ yr Total Cost/ yr Cert. application 2 36 6 44 $ 1,840 $ 0 38 $ 0 1,672 $ 69,920 Recordkeeping 0.2 2.2 2 4.4 $ 162 $ 0 38 $ 0 167 $ 6,141 Cert./ durability testing 0 28 0 28 $ 1,204 $ 2,796 38 $ 0 1,064 $ 152,000 Prod. line testing/ reporting 5 100 10 115 $ 4,895 $ 20,105 38 $ 0 4,370 $ 950,000 Subtotal Total O& M cost = $ 870,238   $ 0 7,273 $ 1,178,061 13 Table 7 Average Annual Respondent Burden and Cost   Category 3 Marine Diesel Engines Information Collection Activity Average annual burden and cost per family # of Families Capital &

Startup cost Total Hours and Costs Mgr. @

$ 65/ hr Tech. @

$ 43/ hr Cler. @

$ 27/ hr Hours per family Labor cost per family O& M Cost Total Hours/ yr Total Cost/ yr Cert. application 3 80 7 90 $ 3,824 $ 0 12 $ 0 1,080 $ 45,888 Recordkeeping 0.2 2.2 2.6 5.0 $ 178 $ 0 12 $ 0 60 $ 2,134 Cert./ durability testing 0 56 0 56 $ 2,408 $ 5,592 12 $ 0 672 $ 96,000 Defect reporting 1 2 2 5 $ 205 $ 0 12 $ 0 60 $ 2,460 Subtotal Total O& M cost = $ 67,104   $ 0 1,872 $ 146,482 14 Table 8 Annual Respondent Burden and Cost   Rebuilders Information Collection Activity Mgr. @

$ 65/ hr Tech. @

$ 43/ hr Cler. @

$ 27/ hr Company hours/ year Labor cost per year O& M Cost Capital cost Total Hours and Costs # of companies Total Hours/ yr Total Cost/ yr Recordkeeping 2 4 6 $ 194 $ 0 $ 0 200 1,200 $ 38,800 15 6 ( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables ( i) Respondent Tally Bottom line burden and cost for the first three years of the rulemaking are shown in Table 10. The table shows industry totals and average values for each respondent by category. These estimated costs include startup expenses ( for example, the purchase of emission sampling equipment and new recordkeeping software).

Table 9 Summary of Bottom line Burden Hours and Cost Affected Entities Number of Respondents Industry Totals Average per Respondent Annualized Capital Costs Total O& M Costs per Year Total Hours per Year Total Costs per Year Total Hours per Year Total Costs per Year Large SI engine manufacturers 12 $ 174,419 $ 2,507,790 21,986 $ 3,617,683 1,832 $ 301,474 Recreational marine diesel engine manufacturers 12 $ 0 $ 870,238 7,273 $ 1,178,061 606 $ 98,172 Category 3 marine diesel engine manufacturers 6 $ 0 $ 67,104 1,812 $ 144,022 302 $ 24,004 Engine rebuilders 200 $ 0 $ 0 1,200 $ 38,800 6 $ 194 Total 230 $ 174,419 $ 3,445,132 32,271 $ 4,978,566 140 $ 21,646 ( ii) Agency Tally Our estimated burden is approximately 1,250 hours or per year ( or $ 50,000) to oversee the requirements of the final rule, as described in Section 6( c).

6 ( f) Burden Statement Table 9 presents the estimated annual respondent burden for the different categories of companies affected by the final rule. These estimates include time to conduct testing, prepare applications, prepare and submit reports, and record and keep required information.

Burden means the total time for, or financial resources expended by, persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. 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 16 OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

Send comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division; U. S. Environmental Agency, ( mail code 2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N. W.; Washington DC 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Include the ICR number in any correspondence. 17 Appendix to ICR # 1897.04 Original ICR (# 1897.02) for marine diesel engines; approved Oct. 12, 2001 Summary of Bottom line Burden Hours and Cost Affected Entities Number of Respondents Total Hours per Year Total Costs per Year Manufacturers and Marinizers 12 20,280 $ 2,453,632 Dressers 20 40 $ 1,840 Rebuilders 200 1,200 $ 38,800 Total 232 21,520 $ 2,494,272


[Federal Register: August 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 162)]
[Notices]
[Page 42711-42714]
[DOCID:fr24au09-114]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60493; File No. SR-BSECC-2009-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; the Boston Stock Exchange Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Related to an Amendment to the By-Laws of The NASDAQ OMX
Group, Inc.

August 12, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on July 22, 2009, Boston
Stock Exchange Clearing Corporation (``BSECC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission or SEC'') the proposed
rule change described in Items I and II below, which items have been
prepared primarily by BSECC. BSECC filed the proposed rule change under
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act \2\ so that the proposal was effective
upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the rule change from interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    BSECC is filing this proposed rule change with regard to proposed
changes to the bylaws of its parent corporation, The NASDAQ OMX Group,
Inc. (``NASDAQ OMX''). The proposed rule change will be implemented as
soon as practicable following submission of this filing. The text of
the proposed rule change is available at http://
nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com, at BSECC'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, BSECC 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. BSECC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these
statements.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by DTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

1. Purpose
    NASDAQ OMX made certain amendments to its by-laws to update its by-
laws and to make improvements in its governance. In SR-NASDAQ-2009-039,
The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ Exchange'') sought and received
Commission approval to adopt these by-law changes as part of the rules
of the NASDAQ Exchange.\4\ BSECC is submitting this filing to adopt the
same by-law changes as rules of BSECC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59858 (May 4, 2009), 74
FR 22191 (May 12, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2009-039); Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 60183 (June 26, 2009), 74 FR 32207 (July 7, 2009)
(SR-NASDAQ-2009-039).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes to the by-laws are as follows:
     Article I is being amended to reflect the recent name
changes of the Philadelphia Stock Exchange and the Boston Stock
Exchange to NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. and NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.,
respectively.
     Article III is being amended to modify the procedures
governing proposals by stockholders, including proposals by
stockholders to nominate directors. Specifically, the amendment will
require a stockholder making a proposal to supply more complete
information about the stockholder's background, including a description
of any agreement, arrangement, or understanding between the
stockholder, the beneficial owner of the stock, and any other persons
acting in concert with them; a description of any agreement,
arrangement or understanding (including any derivative or short
positions, profit interests, options, warrants, convertible securities,
stock appreciation or similar rights, hedging transactions, and
borrowed or loaned shares), the effect or intent of which is to
mitigate loss to, manage risk or benefit of share price changes for, or
increase or decrease the voting power of, such stockholder or such
beneficial owner, with respect to shares of stock of NASDAQ OMX; and
any other information regarding the stockholder and beneficial owner
that would be required to be disclosed in a proxy statement under
Section 14(a) of the Act. These changes are designed to provide the
NASDAQ OMX Board of Directors and its stockholders with greater insight
into the identity and intentions of persons presenting stockholder
proposals to allow more thorough consideration of the merits of such
proposals. These requirements are

deemed satisfied, however, in the case of a proposal that is validly
submitted under the rules and regulations promulgated under the Act
(i.e. , SEC Rule 14a-8) and included in NASDAQ OMX's proxy. However,
compliance with the By-Laws or with SEC Rule 14a-8 provides the
exclusive means for stockholders to make proposals. The amendments also
provide that a representative of a stockholder qualified to appear at
an annual meeting must be an officer, manager, or partner of the
stockholder or must have written authorization from the stockholder.
The amendments also make several minor clarifying changes to the text
of Article III.
     Article IV is being amended to state explicitly that the
Management Compensation Committee and the Audit Committee must be
composed exclusively of independent directors within the meaning of the
rules of the NASDAQ Stock Market that govern NASDAQ OMX's listing (and
in the case of the Audit Committee, Section 10A of the Act).\5\
Although NASDAQ OMX adheres scrupulously to the independence
requirements imposed by the NASDAQ Stock Market and the Act, it
believes that these requirements should be explicitly stated in the By-
Laws as well. NASDAQ OMX is also removing language making its Chief
Executive Officer an ex-officio, non-voting member of the Management
Compensation Committee. In this regard, listing standards of the NASDAQ
Stock Market require management compensation determinations regarding
executive officers to be made by vote of the Board's independent
directors or by vote of or upon the recommendation of a committee
composed solely of independent directors.\6\ NASDAQ OMX has satisfied
this requirement by submitting compensation decisions to the vote of
all of NASDAQ OMX's independent directors, but removing the Chief
Executive Officer as an ex-officio director will provide it with
flexibility to act upon the vote or upon the recommendation of the
committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78j-1(m). Notably, ``Staff Directors,'' who are
officers of NASDAQ OMX serving on the NASDAQ OMX Board, are not
considered independent under these provisions, and are therefore
ineligible for service on the Audit Committee or Management
Compensation Committee or, as discussed below, the newly constituted
Nominating Committee.
    \6\ NASDAQ Exchange Rule 4350(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Currently, NASDAQ OMX's Nominating Committee is required
to be composed of persons who are not directors or who are directors
not standing for reelection. This compositional requirement, which
NASDAQ OMX's predecessor, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc., originally
adopted while it was a wholly owned subsidiary of the National
Association of Securities Dealers (``NASD''), is highly unusual for a
public company such as NASDAQ OMX. In light of NASDAQ OMX's continued
evolution into a public company with global operations, NASDAQ OMX
believes that it is appropriate to adopt a standard nominating
committee structure in which the committee is composed exclusively of
independent directors. Under the amended bylaw, the nominating
committee shall consist of four or five directors, each of whom shall
be an independent director within the meaning the rules of the NASDAQ
Exchange. In addition, the number of Non-Industry Directors (i.e.,
Directors without material ties to the securities industry) must equal
or exceed the number of Industry Directors, and at least two members of
the committee must be Public Directors (i.e., directors who have no
material business relationship with a broker or dealer, NASDAQ OMX, or
its affiliates, or FINRA).
     Article VIII is being amended to provide that NASDAQ OMX
shall provide indemnification against liability, advancement of
expenses, and the power to purchase and maintain insurance on behalf of
persons serving as a director, officer, or employee of any wholly owned
subsidiary of NASDAQ OMX to the same extent as indemnification,
advancement of expenses, and the power to maintain insurance is
provided for directors, officers, or employees of NASDAQ OMX. Thus, for
example, a director of one of NASDAQ OMX's U.S. or Nordic exchanges
would be entitled to indemnification (and advancement of expenses) by
NASDAQ OMX if made a party to a lawsuit to the same extent as a
director of NASDAQ OMX. Similarly, the discretionary authority of
NASDAQ OMX under Section 8.1(c) of the By-Laws to provide
indemnification to persons serving as an agent of NASDAQ OMX is being
extended to persons serving as an agent of any wholly owned subsidiary
of NASDAQ OMX. Article VIII is also being amended to clarify that any
repeal, modification, or amendment of, or adoption of any provision
inconsistent with the indemnification and advancement of expenses
provided for in Article VIII will not adversely affect the right of any
person covered by the provision if the act or omission that any
proceeding arises out of or is related to had occurred prior to the
time for the repeal, amendment, adoption, or modification.
     Article IX is being amended to modernize the language of
the provisions dealing with capital stock to reflect possible
participation in the Direct Registration System (``DRS''). DRS provides
for the electronic registration of eligible securities in an investor's
name on the books of the transfer agent or corporation eliminating the
need for physical stock certificates or shares held in book-entry form
by the beneficial owner's broker. Although under the Delaware General
Corporation Law, NASDAQ OMX can authorize participation in the program
through a resolution, the various amendments to Article IX track more
closely the language of Section 158 of the Delaware General Corporation
Law, as recently revised, to explicitly reference the possibility of
capital stock in uncertificated form. The amendments, however, do not
require NASDAQ OMX to participate in DRS or to eliminate stock
certificates.
     Article XII is being amended to conform certain of its
provisions more closely to corresponding provisions in the Amended and
Restated By-Laws of NYSE Euronext (``NYSE Euronext By-Laws''). Article
XII contains provisions that govern the relationship between NASDAQ OMX
and each of its subsidiaries that is a self-regulatory organization.
First, the article requires NASDAQ OMX's ``[d]irectors, officers,
employees, and agents'' (emphasis added) to give due regard to the
preservation of the independence of each self-regulatory subsidiary,
not to take any actions that would interfere with each self-regulatory
subsidiary's regulatory functions, to cooperate with the Commission, to
consent to U.S. jurisdiction, and to consent in writing to the
applicability of these provisions. Corresponding provisions of Articles
VII, VIII, and IX of the NYSE Euronext By-Laws, however, do not include
the ambiguous and potentially expansive word ``agent.'' NASDAQ OMX is
concerned that a broad construction of the term to include not only
parties with which it establishes an explicit contractual agency
relationship but also other service providers such as law firms and
financial advisors that may act on NASDAQ OMX's behalf on certain
occasions may deter some parties from providing services to NASDAQ OMX.
However, in lieu of the requirement to obtain specific consents from
agents, NASDAQ OMX proposes to adopt a provision from the NYSE Euronext
By-Laws providing that NASDAQ OMX shall comply with the U.S. Federal
securities laws and the

rules and regulations thereunder and shall cooperate with the
Commission and the self-regulatory subsidiaries pursuant to and to the
extent of their respective regulatory authority and shall take
reasonable steps necessary to cause its agents to cooperate with the
Commission and where applicable with the self-regulatory subsidiaries
pursuant to their regulatory authority. Second, Article XII provides
that NASDAQ OMX and its officers, directors, and employees \7\ agree to
maintain an agent for service of process in the U.S. By contrast,
Article VII of the NYSE Euronext By-Laws includes a statement that
officers, directors and employees shall be deemed to agree that the
Corporation may serve as the U.S. agent for service of process.
Accordingly, NASDAQ OMX proposes to adopt this more self-executing
version. Finally, while the NASDAQ OMX By-Laws provide that NASDAQ OMX
shall take such action as is necessary to insure that officers,
directors and employees consent in writing to the applicability of
these provisions, Article IX of the NYSE Euronext By-Laws requires only
that NYSE Euronext take reasonable steps necessary to cause officers,
directors, and employees to consent. Although NASDAQ OMX has begun the
process of collecting written consents from current officers,
directors, and employees, it believes that the current language may be
unreasonably demanding as applied to a multinational exchange operator
with over 2,000 employees in over 20 countries. Accordingly, NASDAQ OMX
proposes to adopt a version of NYSE Euronext's language, which will
require reasonable steps to obtain consent from both current officers,
directors, and employees, as well as prospective officers, directors,
and employees prior to their acceptance of a position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The existing reference to ``agents'' in the sentence is
proposed to be deleted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with provisions of Section
17A of the Act \8\ in general and with Section 17A(b)(3)(A) of the
Act,\9\ in particular, because it is designed to ensure that BSECC is
so organized and has the capacity to be able to facilitate the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and to
enforce compliance by its participants with the rules of the clearing
agency. The proposed changes will enhance the clarity of NASDAQ OMX's
governance documents and improve its Board committee structures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    BSECC does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

(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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
becomes operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter
time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest. BSECC requests that the Commission waive the 30-
day pre-operative waiting period contained in Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii).\12\ Waiver of the waiting period will ensure that NASDAQ
OMX is able to implement the proposed rule change, which has already
been approved as a rule of the NASDAQ Exchange, without undue delay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest.\13\ The Commission notes the proposal is substantively
identical to proposals that were recently approved by the Commission
and does not raise any new regulatory issues.\14\ For these reasons,
the Commission designates the proposed rule change as operative upon
filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \14\ See infra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BSECC-2009-04 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-BSECC-2009-04. 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, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filings also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of BSECC. 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-BSECC-2009-04
and should be submitted on or before September 14, 2009.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-20193 Filed 8-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P