Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2001 / Notices 13599

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or

may be delivered to the Commission’s

Public Document Room, located at One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20855–

2738, by the above date. A copy of the

petition should also be sent to the Office

of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001, and to Al Gutterman,

Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius LLP, 1800 M

Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036–

5869, attorney for the licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests

for hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer or the

presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board that the petition and/or request

should be granted based upon a

balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).

If a request for a hearing is received,

the Commission’s staff may issue the

amendment after it completes its

technical review and prior to the

completion of any required hearing if it

publishes a further notice for public

comment of its proposed finding of no

significant hazards consideration in

accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and

50.92.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated October 19, 2000,

which is available for public inspection

at the Commission’s Public Document

Room, located at One White Flint North,

11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),

Rockville, Maryland 20855–2738, and

accessible electronically through the

ADAMS Public Electronic Reading

Room link at the NRC Web site (http:/

/www.nrc.gov).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day

of February, 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Darl S. Hood,

Senior Project Manager, Section 1 Project

Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–5397 Filed 3–5–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available

From: Securities and Exchange

Commission, Office of Filings and

Information Services, Washington, DC

20549

Extension:

Form S–3, OMB Control No. 3235–0073,

SEC File No. 270–61

Form S–8, OMB Control No. 3235–0066,

SEC File No. 270–66

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.

Form S–3 is used by issuers to register

securities pursuant to the Securities Act

of 1933. Form S–3 gives investors the

necessary information to make

investment decisions regarding

securities offered to the public.

Approximately 3,483 issuers file Form

S–3 at an estimated 398 hours per

response for a total annual burden of

1,385,934 hours.

Form S–8 is a primary registration

statement used by qualified registrants

to register securities issued in

connection with employees benefit

plans. It is estimated that 1,660 issuers

file Form S–8 annually at estimated 24

hours per response for a total annual

burden of 39,840 hours.

Written comments are invited on: (a)

Whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

agency, including whether the

information will have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate

of the burden of the collection of

information; (c) ways to enhance the

quality, utility, and clarity of the

information collected; and (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of

information on respondents, including

through the use of automated collection

techniques or other forms of information

technology. Consideration will be given

to comments and suggestions submitted

in writing within 60 days of this

publication.

Please direct your written comments

to Michael E. Bartell, Associate

Executive Director, Office of

Information Technology, Securities and

Exchange Commission, 450 5th Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20549.

Dated: February 26, 2001.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–5401 Filed 3–5–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–44008; File No. SR–CBOE–

01–03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice

of Filing and Order Granting

Accelerated Approval of a Proposed

Rule Change by the Chicago Board

Options Exchange, Inc. Relating to the

Maximum Size of Options Orders

Eligible for Automatic Execution

February 27, 2001.

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 February

8, 2001, the Chicago Board Options

Exchange, Inc. (‘‘CBOE’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’)

filed with the Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the

proposed rule change as described in

Items I, II, and III below, which Items

have been prepared by the CBOE. The

Commission is publishing this notice to

solicit comments on the proposed rule

change from interested persons. For the

reasons discussed below, the

Commission is granting accelerated

approval of the proposed rule change.

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Terms of Substance of

the Proposed Rule Change

The CBOE proposes to amend its rules

governing the operation of its Retail

Automatic Execution System (‘‘RAES’’)

to increase the maximum order size

eligibility for RAES from seventy-five

contracts to one hundred contracts. The

text of the proposed rule change is

available at the Office of the Secretary,

CBOE and at the Commission.

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

CBOE 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 III below. The CBOE has

prepared summaries, set forth in

Sections A, B, and C below, of the most

significant aspects of such statements.

13600 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2001 / Notices

3RAES is the Exchange’s automatic execution

system for public customer market or marketable

limit orders of less than a certain size.

4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43517

(November 3, 2000), 65 FR 69082 (November 15,

2000).

5The RAES eligibility maximum is currently one

hundred contracts for options on the S&P 500

Index, the Nasdaq 100 Index, the DJIA, the High

Yield Select Ten, and interest rate options. See

supra note 4.

6 Interpretation .02 to CBOE Rule 6.8 provides, in

pertinent part, that: orders to buy or sell options

that are multiply traded in one or more markets in

addition to the Exchange will not be automatically

executed on RAES at prices inferior to the current

best bid or offer in any other market, as such best

bids or offers are identified in RAES. In respect of

those classes of options that have been specifically

designated by the appropriate FPC as coming

within the scope of this sentence (‘‘automatic stepup classes’’), under circumstances where the

Exchange’s best bid or offer is inferior to the current

best bid or offer in another market by no more than

the ‘‘step-up amount’’ as defined below, such orders

will be automatically executed on RAES at the

current best bid or offer in the other market.

7See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 41821

(September 1, 1999), 64 FR 50313 (September 16,

1999) (implementing Variable RAES); and 42824

(May 25, 2000), 65 FR 37442 (June 14, 2000)

(implementing the 100 Spoke RAES Wheel).

8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

10 15 U.S.C. 78(b)(2).

11The Commission notes that it has approved

similar proposals filed by the American Stock

Exchange LLC (‘‘Amex’’) and the Pacific Exchange,

Inc. (‘‘PCX’’). See Securities Exchange Act Release

No. 43887 (January 25, 2001), 66 FR 8831 (February

2, 2001) (order approving SR–Amex–00–57 and

PCX–00–18).

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Purpose of, and

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule

Change

1. Purpose

The purpose of the proposed rule

change is to increase from seventy-five

contracts to one hundred contracts the

maximum size of orders for equity and

index options that are eligible to be

executed through RAES.3

Currently, the maximum size of

RAES-eligible orders is seventy-five

contracts for all classes of options

traded on the CBOE for which a greater

maximum is not expressly provided in

the rules.4 Options subject to the

seventy-five contract maximum include

all classes of equity options, all classes

of sector index options and all other

classes of index options except options

on the S&P 500 index, options on the

Nasdaq 100 index, options on the Dow

Jones Industrial Average (‘‘DJIA’’),

options on the High Yield Select Ten,

and interest rate options.5

Increasing the RAES eligibility

maximum to one hundred contracts for

these classes of options will not

automatically permit orders up to this

size to be entered into RAES. Instead,

the actual maximum RAES eligibility

size is established by the appropriate

Floor Procedure Committee (‘‘FPC’’) of

the Exchange, which may maintain the

maximum for particular classes at levels

below the one hundred contract

maximum that would be allowable

under the proposed rule change.

The CBOE represents that increasing

automatic execution levels will provide

the benefits of automatic execution to a

larger number of customer orders. The

CBOE also represents that RAES affords

prompt and efficient executions at the

CBOE displayed price or, in many cases,

at the current best bid or offer in another

market if the current best bid or offer in

that market is better than the CBOE’S

displayed bid or offer.6

The Exchange notes that there are a

number of safeguards incorporated into

Exchange rules to ensure the

appropriate handling of RAES orders,

even as the maximum order size is being

increased. The Exchange rules require

CBOE Designated Primary MarketMakers to participate in any automated

execution system which may be open in

appointed option classes (CBOE Rule

8.85(a)(ix)), and state that market

makers are expected to participate in

and support Exchange-sponsored

automated programs, including, but not

limited to, RAES (Interpretation .07 to

CBOE Rule 8.7). CBOE Rule 8.16(b)

requires a market maker who has logged

onto RAES at any time during an

expiration month to log onto RAES in

that option class whenever he is present

in the trading crowd until the next

expiration. CBOE Rule 8.16(c) states

that, if there is inadequate participation

on RAES, then Floor Officials of the

appropriate Market Performance

Committee may require market makers

who are members of the trading crowd

to log on RAES absent reasonable

justification or excuse for nonparticipation, or the Floor Officials may

allow market makers in other classes of

options to log on RAES in such classes.

In addition, the Exchange does not

believe that raising the maximum order

size will create materially greater risks

for CBOE market maker participants.

The Exchange believes that the

implementation of the Variable RAES

and the 100 Spoke RAES Wheel order

assignment methodologies on the CBOE

provide safeguards to market makers

from excessive risk from any one RAES

order.7

The Exchange believes that the

proposed increase should provide

customers with quicker executions for a

larger number of orders, by providing

automatic rather than manual

executions, thereby reducing the

amount of orders subject to manual

processing. In support of its proposal to

increase the RAES eligibility maximum,

the CBOE represents that its systems

capacity is sufficient to accommodate

the increased number of automatic

executions anticipated to result from the

implementation of this proposal.

2. Statutory Basis

The Exchange believes that the

proposed rule change will enhance the

ability of the Exchange to provide

instantaneous automatic execution of

public customers’ orders at the best

available prices, which is consistent

with section 6(b) 8 of the Act in general,

and furthers the objectives of section

6(b)(5) of the Act 9 in particular, in that

it is designed to facilitate transactions in

securities, to promote just and equitable

principles of trade, to enhance

competition and to protect investors and

the public interest.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Burden on Competition

The CBOE does not believe that the

proposed rule change will impose any

burden on competition that is not

necessary or appropriate in furtherance

of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Comments on the

Proposed Rule Change Received From

Members, Participants, or Others

No written comments were solicited

or received with respect to the proposed

rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of Proposed

Rule Change and Timing for

Commission Action

The CBOE requests that the proposed

rule change be given accelerated

effectiveness pursuant to section

19(b)(2)10 of the Act. The Exchange

believes that expanding the number of

contracts in selected option classes

eligible to be entered into RAES will

make the benefits of assured,

instantaneous, automatic execution

available to a larger number of customer

orders, and will allow the Exchange to

compete with other options exchanges

which have received approval to

increase their maximum order size for

automatic executions to one hundred

contracts.11

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.

Persons making written submissions

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2001 / Notices 13601

12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 13 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 14 In approving this proposal, the Commission has

considered its impact on efficiency, competition,

and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 15See supra note 11.

16 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

17 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

3Letter from T. Grant Callery, Senior Vice

President and General Counsel, NASD, to Katherine

A. England, Assistant Director, Division of Market

Regulation (‘‘Division’’), Commission, dated

February 2, 2001 (‘‘Amendment No. 1’’). In

Amendment No. 1 the NASD provided the final

ballot summary of the membership vote regarding

the proposed amendments to the NASD By-Laws,

indicating that the NASD membership approved the

proposed amendments.

4Letter from T. Grant Callery, Senior Vice

President and General Counsel, NASD, to Katherine

A. England, Assistant Director, Division,

Commission, dated February 23, 2001

(‘‘Amendment No. 2’’). In Amendment No. 2 the

NASD amended proposed Article VII, Section

10(a)(ii) of the By-Laws to state ‘‘(ii) in the case of

petitions in support of more than one person,

petitions in support of the nominations of such

persons duly executed by ten percent of the

members.’’

should file six copies thereof with the

Secretary, Securities and Exchange

Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20549–0609. Copies of

the submission, all subsequent

amendments, all written statements

with respect to the proposed rule

change that are filed with the

Commission, and all written

communications relating to the

proposed rule change between the

Commission and any person, other than

those that may be withheld from the

public in accordance with the

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be

available for inspection and copying in

the Commission’s Public Reference

Room. Copies of such filing will also be

available for inspection and copying at

the principal office of the CBOE. All

submissions should refer to File No.

SR–CBOE–01–03 and should be

submitted by March 27, 2001.

V. Commission’s Findings and Order

Granting Accelerated Approval of the

Proposed Rule Change

After careful review, the Commission

finds that the proposed rule change is

consistent with the requirements of the

Act and the rules and regulations

thereunder applicable to a national

securities exchange and, in particular,

the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.

Among other provisions, section 6(b)(5)

of the Act requires that the rules of an

exchange be designed to foster

cooperation and coordination with

persons engaged in regulating, clearing,

settling, processing information with

respect to, and facilitating securities

transactions; remove impediments to

and perfect the mechanism of a free and

open market and a national securities

system; and protect investors and the

public interest.12

Pursuant to section 19(b)(2) 13 of the

Act, the Commission finds good cause

for approving the proposed rule change

prior to the 30th day after the date of

publication of notice thereof in the

Federal Register.14 The Commission

believes that granting accelerated

approval will provide the CBOE will

flexibility to compete for order flow

with other exchanges immediately.15

While increasing the maximum order

size limit from seventy-five to one

hundred contracts for automatic

execution eligibility by itself does not

raise concerns under the Act, the

Commission believes that this increase

raises collateral issues that the CBOE

will need to monitor and address.

Increasing the maximum order size for

particular option classes will make a

larger number of option orders eligible

for RAES. These orders may benefit

from greater speed of execution, but at

the same time create greater risks for

market maker participants. Market

makers signed onto RAES will be

exposed to the financial risks associated

with larger-sized orders being routed

through the system for automatic

execution at the displayed price. When

the market for the underlying security

changes rapidly, it may take a few

moments for the related option’s price

to reflect that change. In the interim,

customers may submit orders that try to

capture the price differential between

the underlying security and the option.

The larger the orders accepted through

RAES, the greater the risk market

makers must be willing to accept. The

Commission does not believe that,

because the CBOE’s appropriate FPC

determines to approve orders as large as

one hundred as eligible for RAES, the

FPC or any other CBOE committee or

officials should disengage RAES more

frequently by, for example, declaring a

‘‘fast’’ market. Disengaging RAES can

negatively affect investors by making it

slower and less efficient to execute their

option orders. It is the Commission’s

view that the CBOE, when increasing

the maximum size of orders that can be

sent through their respective automatic

execution systems, should not

disadvantage all customers—the vast

majority of whom enter orders for less

than one hundred contracts—by making

their automatic execution systems less

reliable.

It Is Therefore Ordered, pursuant to

section 19(b)(2) of the Act,16 that the

proposed change (SR–CBOE–01–03) is

hereby approved on an accelerated

basis.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.17

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–5330 Filed 3–5–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–44004; File No. SR–NASD–

01–06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice

of Filing of Proposed Rule Change by

the National Association of Securities

Dealers, Inc. Amending the NASD ByLaws

February 26, 2001.

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 December

17, 1999, the National Association of

Securities Dealers, Inc. (‘‘NASD’’) filed

with the Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’)

the proposed rule change as described

in Items I, II and III below, which Items

have been prepared by the NASD. The

NASD submitted Amendment No. 1 on

February 5, 2001,3 and Amendment No.

2 on February 26, 2001.4 The

Commission is publishing this notice, as

amended, to solicit comments on the

proposed rule change from interested

persons.

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement of the Terms of Substance of

the Proposed Rule Change

The NASD is proposing to amend its

By-Laws to address several corporate

governance issues, including the

treatment of staff Governors for

purposes of Industry/Non-Industry

balancing on the NASD’s Board of

Governors (the ‘‘Board’’); the role of the

National Nominating Committee

(‘‘NNC’’) in contested elections; the

petition process by which individuals

and slates can be included in the

election process; the industry

classifications that must be represented

on the Board; and other clarifying

amendments, including the addition of