Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 5, 2000 / Notices 75979

1Per SIA Management and Professional Earnings,

Table 051 (Compliance Manager) + 35% overhead

(based on end-of-year 1998 figures).

2See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 39457

(December 17, 1997), 62 FR 68018 (December 30,

1997). The Commission has not yet adopted a final

rule defining the term NRSRO. The Commission’s

Division of Market Regulation (the ‘‘Division’’) has

reviewed comments received in connection with

the proposal and is preparing a recommendation for

the Commission to determine what action, if any,

should be taken.

beginning after June 30, 2001, shall be

equal to 5 percent of the monthly

compensation base for the base year

immediately preceding the beginning of

the benefit year. Section 2(a)(3) further

provides that if the amount so computed

is not a multiple of $1, it shall be

rounded down to the nearest multiple of

$1.

The calendar year 2000 monthly

compensation base is $1,005.

Multiplying $1,005 by 0.05 yields

$50.25, which must then be rounded

down to $50. Accordingly, the

maximum daily benefit rate for days of

unemployment and days of sickness

beginning in registration periods after

June 30, 2001, is determined to be $50.

Dated: November 29, 2000.

By Authority of the Board.

Beatrice Ezerski,

Secretary to the Board.

[FR Doc. 00–30861 Filed 12–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7905–01–U

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Request for Public Comment

Upon Written Request, Copies Available

From: Securities and Exchange Commission,

Office of Filings and Information Services,

Washington, D.C. 20549.

Extension: Rule 11Aa3–2, SEC File No.

270–439, OMB Control No. 3235–0500; Rule

15c3–4, SEC File No. 270–441, OMB Control

No. 3235–0497; Rule 15c3–1(c)(13), SEC File

No. 270–443, OMB Control No. 3235–0499.

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

(‘‘Commission’’) is soliciting comments

on the collections of information

summarized below. The Commission

plans to submit these existing

collections of information to the Office

of Management and Budget for

extension and approval.

Rule 11Aa3–2 provides that selfregulatory organizations (SROs) may,

acting jointly, file a national market

system plan or may propose an

amendment to an effective national

market system plan by submitting the

text of the plan or amendment to the

Secretary of the Commission, together

with a statement of the purpose of such

plan or amendment and, to the extent

applicable, the documents and

information required by paragraphs

(b)(4) and (5) of rule 11Aa3–2.

The collection of information is

designed to permit the Commission to

achieve its statutory directive to

facilitate the development of a national

market system. The information is used

to determine if a national market system

plan, or an amendment hereto, should

be approved and implemented.

The respondents to the collection of

information are self-regulatory

organizations, including national

securities exchanges, national securities

associations, registered clearing

agencies and the Municipal Securities

Rulemaking Board.

Ten respondents file an average total

of eight responses per year, which

corresponds to an estimated annual

response burden of 267 hours. At an

average cost per burden hour of $50, the

resultant total related cost of

compliance for these respondents is

$13,350 per year (267 burden hours

multiplied by $50/hour = $13,350).

Rule 15c3–4 requires certain brokerdealers that are registered with the

Commission as OTC Derivatives Dealers

to establish, document, and maintain a

system of internal risk management

controls. The rule sets forth the basic

elements for an OTC Derivatives Dealer

to consider and include when

establishing, documenting, and

reviewing its internal risk management

control system, which are designed to,

among other things, ensure the integrity

of an OTC Derivaties Dealer’s risk

measurement, monitoring, and

management process, to clarify

accountability at the appropriate

organizational level, and to define the

permitted scope of the dealer’s activities

and level of risk. The rule also requires

that management of an OTC Derivatives

Dealer must periodically review, in

accordance with written procedures, the

OTC Derivatives Dealer’s business

activities for consistency with its risk

management guidelines.

The staff estimates that the average

amount of time an OTC Derivatives

Dealer will spend implementing its risk

management control system is 2,000

hours and that, on average, an OTC

Derivatives Dealer will spend

approximately 200 hours each year

reviewing and updating its risk

management control system. Currently,

one firm is registered with the

Commission as an OTC Derivatives

Dealer. The staff estimates that

approximately five additional OTC

Derivatives Dealers may become

registered within the next three years.

Accordingly, the staff estimates the total

burden for six OTC Derivatives Dealers

to be 1,200 hours annually for reviewing

and updating its risk management

control system.

The staff believes that the cost of

complying with Rule 15c3–4 will be

approximately $82.50 per hour.1 This

per hour cost is based upon the annual

average hourly salary for a compliance

manager, who would generally be

responsible for initially establishing,

documenting, and maintaining an OTC

Derivatives Dealer’s internal risk

management control system. The total

annual cost for all affected OTC

Derivatives Dealers is estimated to be

$275,000, based on five firms each

spending 10,000 hours to implement an

internal risk management control

system at $82.50 per hour within the

next three years.

On December 17, 1997, the

Commission proposed for comment

amendments to its net capital rule, Rule

15c3–1, which would define the term

‘‘nationally recognized statistical rating

organization’’ (‘‘NRSRO’’) 2 Rule 15c3–1

currently requires broker-dealers, when

computing net capital, to deduct from

their net worth certain percentages of

the market value (‘‘haircuts’’) of their

proprietary securities positions. Brokerdealers’ proprietary position in

commercial paper, nonconvertible debt

securities, and nonconvertible preferred

stock are accorded preferential

treatment under the net capital rule, in

the form of smaller haircuts, if the

instruments are rated investment grade

by at least two NRSROs.

The Commission believes that

defining the term NRSRO within the net

capital rule would provide more

transparency in the NRSRO application

and review process. In the proposed

amendments, the Commission sets forth

a list of attributes that it would consider

when reviewing a credit rating

organization’s NRSRO application.

Further, the proposed amendments

would formalize the appeals process if

a credit rating organization is not

provided with the NRSRO status it

requests.

Currently, the Division utilizes the

no-action letter process to determine

which credit rating organizations may

be considered NRSROs under the net

capital rule. Through the no-action

letter process, the Division has provided

seven credit rating organizations with

written assurance that it will not

recommend enforcement action against

broker-dealers that rely on their credit

75980 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 5, 2000 / Notices

3Four of these firms have since combined or are

in the process of combining with other NRSROs.

4Per SIA Management and Professional Earnings,

Table 145 (Senior Research Analyst) + 35%

overhead (based on 1999 annual base salary).

1ESE, WPPI, WPS, WEPCO and MGE are either

exempt or municipal nonassociate utility

companies of alliant and are not required to be

applicants in this matter.

ratings for purposes of the net capital

rule.3 The Division has issued one letter

in which the firm requesting NRSRO

status was not provided with the

assurance it requested.

It is difficult to estimate the number

of potential respondents to this

collection of information. However,

based on the current number of NRSROs

and the previous inquires of credit

rating organizations, it appears

reasonable to estimate that eight credit

rating organizations may apply with the

Commission pursuant to the proposed

amendments. Based on conversations

with rating organizations currently

treated as NRSROs under the net capital

rule and the Commission’s experience

in this area, it is estimated that the

average amount of time necessary to

compile the information required to

submit an NRSRO application is

approximately 100 hours. Therefore,

because there may be eight potential

respondents to this collection and

because it is estimated that it will take

approximately 100 hours to collect the

information necessary for an adequate

submission, the total reporting and

recordkeeping burden is estimated to be

approximately 800 hours.

Because the proposed amendments

only require a one-time application

process, which includes any

amendments to the initial application,

there is no recurring reporting or

recordkeeping requirement and thus no

annual reporting or recordkeeping

requirement. However, NRSROs will be

obligated to inform the Commission of

any material changes to the information

previously collected under the proposed

amendments.

The staff believes that the cost of

complying with the proposed

amendments will be approximately

$105 per hour.4 This per hour cost is

based upon the annual average hourly

salary for a senior analyst, who would

generally be the personnel responsible

for preparing an NRSRO application.

The total annual startup cost for all

affected credit rating organizations is

estimated to be $84,000, based on eight

firms spending a total of 800 hours to

prepare NRSRO applications.

Written comments are invited on (a)

whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

agency, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate

of the burden of the proposed collection

of information; (c) ways to enhance the

quality, utility, and clarity of the

information to be 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.

Direct your written comments to

Michael E. Bartell, Associate Executive

Director, Office of Information

Technology, Securities and Exchange

Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20549.

Dated: November 20, 2000.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–30849 Filed 12–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 35–27285]

Filings Under the Public Utility Holding

Company Act of 1935, as Amended

(‘‘Act’’)

November 27, 2000.

Notice is hereby given that the

following filing(s) has/have been made

with the Commission pursuant to

provisions of the Act and rules

promulgated under the Act. All

interested persons are referred to the

application(s) and/or declaration(s) for

complete statements of the proposed

transaction(s) summarized below. The

application(s) and/or declaration(s) and

any amendment(s) is/are available for

public inspection through the

Commission’s Branch of Public

Reference.

Interested persons wishing to

comment or request a hearing on the

application(s) and/or declaration(s)

should submit their views in writing by

December 22, 2000, to the Secretary,

Securities and Exchange Commission,

Washington, DC 20549–0609, and serve

a copy on the relevant applicant(s) and/

or declarant(s) at the address(es)

specified below. Proof of service (by

affidavit or, in the case of an attorney at

law, by certificate) should be filed with

the request. Any request for hearing

should identify specifically the issues of

facts or law that are disputed. A person

who so requests will be notified of any

hearing, if order, and will receive a copy

of any notice or order issued in the

matter. After December 22, 2000, the

applicant(s) and/or declaration(s), as

filed or as amended, may be granted

and/or permitted to become effective.

Alliant Energy Corporation, et al. (70–

9735)

Alliant Energy Corporation

(‘‘Alliant’’), a registered public utility

holding company and is wholly owned

utility subsidiaries, Wisconsin Power &

Light Company (‘‘WPL’’) and South

Beloit Water, Gas & Electric Company

(‘‘South Beloit’’), each with principal

executive offices N16 W23217 Stone

Ridge Drive, Waukesha, Wisconsin

53187, and American Transmission

Company LLC (‘‘Transco’’), an inactive

Wisconsin limited liability subsidiary

company of WPL which intends to

operate as a utility company, and ATC

Management Inc., an inactive Wisconsin

subsidiary corporation of WPL which

also intends to operate as a utility

company (‘‘Corporate Manager’’, and

together with Alliant, WPL, South Beloit

and Transco, ‘‘Applicants’’), with

principal executive offices at 231 W.

Michigan Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

53203, have filed an applicationdeclaration (‘‘Application’’) under to

sections 6(a), 7, 9(a), 10, 11, 12 and 13

of the Act and rules 43, 44, 54, 90 and

91 under the Act.

In summary, Applicants request

authority for: (1) WPL to transfer,

directly or indirectly, ownership and

control over its transmission assets

(‘‘WPL Transmission Assets’’) to

Transco, (2) South Beloit to transfer,

directly or indirectly, ownership and

control over its transmission assets

(‘‘South Beloit Transmission Assets’’) to

Transco, (3) Transco to issue and WPL,

South Beloit, Wisconsin Electric Power

Co. (‘‘WEPCO’’), Edison Sault Electric

Company (‘‘ESE’’), Wisconsin Public

Power, Inc. (‘‘WPPI’’), Wisconsin Public

Service Corporation (‘‘WPS’’) and

Madison Gas and Electric Company

(‘‘MGE’’ and collectively ‘‘Member

Utilities’’ 1) to acquire, directly or

indirectly, member units (‘‘Member

Units’’) of Transco in exchange for

either transmission assets or cash, (4)

WPL to purchase, and Corporate

Manager to issue Class A shares of the

Corporate Manager, (5) WPL to

purchase, and Corporate Manager to

issue, one Class B share of the Corporate

Manager, (6) Transco to acquire the

WPL Transmission Assets and the South

Beloit Transmission Assets, as well as

the transmission assets of WEPCO, ESE,

WPS and MGE and (7) a series of