[Federal Register: October 27, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 207)]
[Notices]
[Page 61998-61999]
[DOCID:fr27oc05-61]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. ICR 1218-0189(2006)]

Standard on Lead in Construction; Extension of the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection
(Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comment concerning its request for an
extension of the information collection requirements contained in 29
CFR 1926.62.

DATES: Comments must be submitted by the following dates:
    Hard copy: Your comments must be submitted (postmarked or received)
by December 27, 2005.
    Facsimile and electronic transmission: Your comments must be
received by December 27, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by OSHA Docket No. ICR-
1218-0189(2006), by any of the following methods:
    Regular mail, express delivery, hand delivery, and messenger
service: Submit your comments and attachments to the OSHA Docket
Office, Room N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> (OSHA's TTY number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>). OSHA Docket Office and Department of Labor hours
are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., ET.
    Facsimile: If your comments are 10 pages or fewer in length,
including attachments, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at
(202) 693-1648.
    Electronic: You may submit comments through the Internet at http://ecomments.osha.gov.
 Follow instructions on the OSHA Web page for

submitting comments.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read or download comments or
background materials, such as the complete Information Collection
Request (ICR) (containing the Supporting Statement, OMB-83-I Form, and
attachments), go to OSHA's Web page at http://www.OSHA.gov. In

addition, the ICR, comments and submissions are available for
inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office at the address above.
You may also contact Todd Owen at the address below to obtain a copy of
the ICR. For additional information on submitting comments, please see
the ``Public Participation'' heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards
and Guidance, OSHA, Room N-3609; 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
    This program ensures that information is in the desired format,
reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments
are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information
collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act
of 1970 (the Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes information
collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of
the Act or for developing information regarding the causes and
prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29
U.S.C. 657).
    On January 5, 2005, OSHA published the Standards Improvement
Project--Phase II, Final rule (70 FR 1112). The final rule removed and
revised provisions of standards that were outdated, duplicative,
unnecessary, or inconsistent and clarified or simplified regulatory
language. The final rule contained several revisions to collections of
information contained in the Lead in Construction Standard.\1\ These
revisions included: allowing employers the option to post employee
exposure-monitoring results instead of requiring individual
notification and updating compliance plans annually. Those changes
reduced paperwork burden hours while maintaining worker protection and
improving consistency among standards. The reductions in burden hours
were taken in the prior ICR. The following is a brief description of
the current collection of information requirements contained in the
Lead in Construction Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ OMB approved the reduction of 1,938 burden hours after
reviewing the Information Collection Request for the Standards
Improvement Project-Phase-II Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
published October 31, 2002 (67 FR 66494). On January 5, 2005, when
the Final rule was published (70 FR 1112) documentation was
submitted to OMB revising the reduction of 1,938 hours to 1,220
hours to reflect the decrease in time to conduct exposure
monitoring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the Lead in Construction Standard and its
information collection requirements is to reduce occupation lead
exposure in the construction industry. Lead exposure can result in both
acute and chronic effects and can be fatal in severe cases of lead
toxicity. Some of the health affects associated with lead exposure
include brain disorders which can lead to seizures, coma, and death;
anemia; neurological problems; high blood pressure; kidney problems;
reproductive problems; and decreased red blood cell production. The
Standard requires that employers: establish and maintain a training
program; review the compliance program annually; provide exposure-
monitoring, and medical surveillance programs; and maintain exposure-
monitoring and medical surveillance records. The records are used by
employees, physicians, employers and OSHA to determine the
effectiveness of the employer's compliance efforts. The Standard seeks
to reduce disease by requiring exposure-monitoring to determine if lead
exposures are too high, by requiring medical surveillance to determine
if employee blood lead levels are too high, and by requiring treatment
to reduce blood lead levels.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA proposes to request OMB's approval to extend the collection of
information (paperwork) requirements necessitated by the Standard on
Lead in Construction (29 CFR 1926.62). The Agency will include this
summary in its request to OMB to extend the approval of these
collection of information requirements.

    Type of Review: Extension of currently approved information
collection requirements.
    Title: Lead in Construction (29 CFR 1962.62).
    OMB Number: 1218-0189.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits; Federal Government;
State, Local or Tribal Government.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Average Time Per Response: Varies from 1 minute (.02 hour) for a
clerical employee to notify employees of their right to seek a second
medical opinion to 8 hours to develop a compliance plan.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1,560,718.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $68,576,683.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments and supporting materials in response to
this notice by (1) hard copy, (2) FAX transmission (facsimile), or (3)
electronically through the OSHA Web page. Because of security-related
problems, there may be a significant delay in the receipt of comments
by regular mail. Please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
2350 (TTY)<PHONE_NUMBER>) for information about security procedures
concerning the delivery of submissions by express delivery, hand
delivery and courier service.
    All comments, submissions and background documents are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office at the above
address. Comments and submissions posted on OSHA's Web page are
available at http://www.OSHA.gov. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for

information about materials not available through the OSHA Web page and
for assistance using the Web page to locate docket submissions.
Electronic copies of this Federal Register notice as well as other
relevant documents are available on OSHA's Web page. Since all
submissions become public, private information such as social security
numbers should not be submitted.

V. Authority and Signature

    Jonathan L. Snare, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.), and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-
2002 (67 FR 65008).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on October 21, 2005.
Jonathan L. Snare,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. 05-21476 Filed 10-26-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-M


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 5 (Friday, January 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1208-1209]
[FR Doc No: 2011-91]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63630; File No. SR-BATS-2010-039]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to
Fees for Use of BATS Exchange, Inc.

January 3, 2011.
    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 22, 2010, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') 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 Exchange. The
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or
changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange under
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify its fee schedule applicable to
Members \5\ and non-members of the Exchange pursuant to BATS Rules
15.1(a) and (c). Pursuant to the proposed rule change, the Exchange
will commence charging fees to Members and non-members for 10G direct
circuit connections, change pricing for certain other physical ports,
and begin passing through in full certain hardware expenses incurred by
the Exchange that are directly related to completing a cross-connect.
While changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal will be
effective upon filing, the changes will become operative on January 3,
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A Member is any registered broker or dealer that has been
admitted to membership in the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.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 parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to establish fees for
direct 10G circuit connections, to raise the monthly fees for
``physical'' ports into the Exchange at the data centers where the
Exchange's servers are located, and to pass through in full any
hardware costs or connectivity fees incurred by the Exchange that are
directly related to completing a cross-connect where the cost or fee
exceeds $1,000. The Exchange already provides Members and non-Members
four pairs \6\ of 1G physical ports free of charge and charges $2,000
per month for each additional single physical port.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Each pair of ports consists of one port at the Exchange's
primary data center and one port at the Exchange's secondary data
center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to provide the option to connect directly
with the Exchange via 10G physical ports to any Member or non-member
that has been approved to connect to the Exchange. Due to the
infrastructure costs associated with providing the additional bandwidth
for 10G physical ports, the Exchange proposes to charge $2,500 per
month for each single physical 10G port provided by the Exchange to any
Member or non-member in any data center. The Exchange's proposal is
intended to permit those Members and non-members that require
additional bandwidth and wish to establish 10G physical ports to do so
if such constituent is willing to pay for such ports. The Exchange
notes that other market centers provide similar services to their
Members and non-members.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 62663 (August 9,
2010), 75 FR 49543 (August 13, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-077) (order
approving fees for both 1G and 10G non-co-located port connections);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62681 (August 10, 2010), 75 FR
50020 (August 16, 2010) (SR-EDGA-2010-06) (order approving fees for
both 1G and 10G port connections).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to increase the fee for each 1G physical
port used by Members and non-members in excess of the four ports
provided free of charge from $2,000 per port each month to $2,500 per
port each month. The proposal is intended to account for increasing
infrastructure costs associated with providing physical ports while at
the same time permitting those Members and non-members that wish to
establish additional physical ports do so if such constituents are
willing to pay for such ports. Based on the proposal, the change
applies to all Exchange constituents with 1G physical connections,
including Members that obtain ports for direct access to the Exchange,
non-member service bureaus that act as a conduit for orders entered by
Exchange Members that are their customers, Sponsored Participants, and
market data recipients. There are zero non-members and very few Members
that currently require more than four physical ports for their
operations related to the Exchange and thus, the proposal should not
affect many of the Exchange's constituents.
    Lastly, the Exchange proposes to pass through in full any hardware
costs or connectivity fees incurred that are directly related to
completing a cross-connect where the expense to the Exchange billed by
a third party exceeds $1,000. The Exchange proposes to pass through the
expense as an alternative to the flat installation fees charged by the
Exchange's primary competitors. The Exchange does not anticipate that
passing through these expenses will affect many of the Exchange's
constituents, because the majority of cross-connect completions cost
less than $1,000. For this reason, the Exchange proposes to pass-
through the charges associated with cross-connect completions that cost
more than $1,000 rather than to subsidize these expensive completions
by charging an installation fee for all completions regardless of their
cost.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\8\ in that it

provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and other persons using any facility or
system which the Exchange operates or controls. The Exchange notes that
it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee
levels at a particular venue to be excessive. The Exchange believes
that its fees and credits are competitive with those charged by other
venues. Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed rates are
equitable in that they apply uniformly to all Members and non-members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes
any burden on competition.

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.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) thereunder,\10\ the Exchange has designated this proposal as
establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge applicable to the
Exchange's Members and non-members, which renders the proposed rule
change effective upon filing.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
    \11\ See Section 916 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act of 2010, which amended paragraph (A) of
Section 19(b)(3) of the Act by inserting the phrase ``on any person,
whether or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory
organization'' after ``due, fee or other charge imposed by the self-
regulatory organization.'' As a result, all SRO rule proposals
establishing or changing dues, fees, or other charges are
immediately effective upon filing regardless of whether such dues,
fees, or other charges are imposed on members of the SRO, non-
members, or both.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BATS-2010-039 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-BATS-2010-039. 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 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing will also 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 No. SR-BATS-2010-039 and should be
submitted on or before January 28, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-91 Filed 1-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 94 (Monday, May 16, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29756-29757]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10457]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket Number USCG-2020-0093]

Port Access Route Study: Seacoast of North Carolina Including
Approaches to the Cape Fear River and Beaufort Inlet, North Carolina

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability, final report.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces the completion of the Port Access
Route Study for the Seacoast of North Carolina including approaches to
the Cape Fear River and Beaufort Inlet, North Carolina. The study
examined existing shipping routes and waterway uses, to include the
potential for offshore energy development, in the study area to
evaluate the need for establishing or changing existing vessel routing
measures. This notice summarizes the study's recommendations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice or study, call or email Mr. Matthew Creelman, Waterways Section
Chief at Fifth Coast Guard District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

ACPARS Atlantic Coast Ports Access Route Study
BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
IMO International Maritime Organization
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
OREI Offshore Renewable Energy Installation
PARS Port Access Route Study
SAR Search and Rescue
USCG United States Coast Guard

II. Background and Purpose

    We conducted this Port Access Route Study (PARS) following a Notice
of Study, published in the Federal Register on March 18, 2020. There
was a 60-day public comment period, as

well as other outreach efforts identified in Section C of the study.
During the comment period the USCG received 2 discrete comments in
response to the notice.
    On March 24, 2022, the Notice of Availability of the draft study
was published in the Federal Register (87 FR 16758) with a 30-day
public comment period and a request for public comment.
    During the 30-day public comment period, the USCG received 2
comments in response to the draft study.
    All comments and supporting documents are available in the public
docket and can be viewed at https://www.regulations.gov. To view
documents, in the ``Search'' box insert ``USCG-2020-0093'' and click
``Search''.

III. Study Recommendations

    The recommendations of this PARS are based on the data analysis for
historical vessel traffic patterns, comments received to the docket,
public outreach, and consultation with other government agencies and
stakeholders. Recommendations in the study include:
    1. Submit a proposal to the IMO to create a precautionary area
offshore from the entrance to the Cape Fear River at the terminus of
the Traffic Separation Scheme.
    2. Establish two Cape Fear Approach Connector Fairways aligned to
the Southeast and the Southwest of the proposed precautionary area.
    3. Establish the Beaufort Inlet Connector Fairway

IV. Summary of Changes

    No changes were recommended.

V. Future Actions

    The USCG will continue to serve as a NEPA cooperating agency to the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's (BOEM) environmental review of each
proposed OREI project. In that role, the USCG will evaluate the
navigational safety risks of each proposal on a case-by-case basis.
    The final study will be submitted to the Coast Guard's Office of
Navigation Systems (CG-NAV-2) for consideration and to inform the Coast
Guard's ongoing efforts to establish shipping safety fairways along the
Atlantic Coast, which can be found at 85 FR 37034.
    The final study is available for viewing and download from the
Federal Register docket at http://www.regulations.gov or the USCG
Navigation Center website at https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=PARSReports.

    Dated: May 3, 2022.
Laura M. Dickey,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2022-10457 Filed 5-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 16 (Thursday, January 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8555-8559]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01716]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79843; File No. SR-FICC-2016-801]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Notice of No Objection to Advance Notice Filing To Implement a Change
to the Methodology Used in the MBSD VaR Model

January 19, 2017.
    On November 23, 2016, the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation
(``FICC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the advance notice SR-FICC-2016-801 pursuant to
Section 806(e)(1) of the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Supervision
Act of 2010 (``Clearing Supervision Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4(n)(1)(i)
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'').\2\ The
advance notice was published for comment in the Federal Register on
December 28, 2016.\3\ The Commission did not receive any comments on
the advance notice. This publication serves as notice that the
Commission does not object to the changes set forth in the advance
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1). The Financial Stability Oversight
Council designated FICC a systemically important financial market
utility on July 18, 2012. See Financial Stability Oversight Council
2012 Annual Report, Appendix A, http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fsoc/Documents/2012%20Annual%20Report.pdf. Therefore, FICC is
required to comply with the Clearing Supervision Act and file
advance notices with the Commission. See 12 U.S.C. 5465(e).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(n)(1)(i).
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79643 (December 21,
2016), 81 FR 95669 (December 28, 2016) (SR-FICC-2016-801)
(``Notice''). FICC also filed a proposed rule change with the
Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Exchange Act and Rule
19b-4 thereunder, seeking approval of changes to its rules necessary
to implement the proposal. 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1) and 17 CFR 240.19b-4,
respectively. The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on December 13, 2016. Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 79491 (December 7, 2016), 81 FR 90001 (December 13,
2016) (SR-FICC-2016-007). The Commission did not receive any
comments on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description of the Advance Notice

    As described by FICC in the advance notice, FICC proposes to change
the methodology that it currently uses in the Mortgage-Backed
Securities Division's (``MBSD'') value-at-risk (``VaR'') model from one
that employs a full revaluation approach to one that would employ a
sensitivity approach.\4\ In connection with this change, FICC also
proposes to amend the MBSD Clearing Rules (``MBSD Rules'') to: (i)
Amend the definition of VaR Charge \5\ to reference an alternative
volatility calculation (``Margin Proxy'') that FICC would use in the
event that data used for the sensitivity approach is unavailable for an
extended period of time; \6\ (ii) revise the definition of VaR Charge
to include a VaR floor that FICC would use as an alternative to the
amount calculated by the proposed VaR model for portfolios where the
VaR floor would be greater than the model-based charge amount (``VaR
Floor''); (iii) eliminate two components from the Required Fund Deposit
\7\ calculation that would no longer be necessary following
implementation of the proposed VaR Charge; and (iv) change the
margining approach that FICC may use for certain securities with
inadequate historical pricing data from one that calculates charges
using a historic index volatility model to one that would use a haircut
method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The proposed sensitivity approach methodology would be
reflected in the Methodology and Model Operations Document--MBSD
Quantitative Risk Model (``QRM Methodology''). FICC requested
confidential treatment of the QRM Methodology and filed it
separately with the Secretary of the Commission, pursuant to Rule
24b-2 under the Exchange Act. See 17 CFR 240.24b-2.
    \5\ The term ``VaR Charge'' means, with respect to each margin
portfolio, a calculation of the volatility of specified net
unsettled positions of an MBSD clearing member, as of the time of
such calculation. See MBSD Rule 1.
    \6\ Details of the Margin Proxy methodology would be reflected
in the QRM Methodology.
    \7\ The term ``Required Fund Deposit'' means the amount an MBSD
clearing member is required to deposit to the Clearing Fund pursuant
to MBSD Rule 4. See MBSD Rule 1 and MBSD Rule 4 Section 2.

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

A. Overview of the Required Fund Deposit and Clearing Fund Calculation

    A key tool that FICC uses to manage market risk is the daily
calculation and collection of Required Fund Deposits from MBSD clearing
members (``Clearing Members'').\8\ The Required Fund Deposit serves as
each Clearing Member's margin. The aggregate of all Clearing Members'
Required Fund Deposits constitutes the Clearing Fund \9\ of MBSD, which
FICC would access should a defaulting Clearing Member's own Required
Fund Deposit be insufficient to satisfy losses to FICC caused by the
liquidation of that Clearing Member's portfolio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The term ``Clearing Member'' means any entity admitted into
membership pursuant to MBSD Rule 2A. See MBSD Rule 1.
    \9\ The term ``Clearing Fund'' means the Clearing Fund
established by FICC pursuant to MBSD Rules, which shall be comprised
of the aggregate of all Required Fund Deposits and all other
deposits, including cross-guaranty repayment deposits. See MBSD Rule
1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to FICC, the objective of a Clearing Member's Required
Fund Deposit is to mitigate potential losses to FICC associated with
liquidation of such Clearing Member's portfolio in the event that FICC
ceases to act for such Clearing Member (i.e., a ``default'').\10\
Pursuant to MBSD Rules, each Clearing Member's Required Fund Deposit
amount consists of multiple components. Of all of the components, the
VaR Charge comprises the largest portion of a Clearing Member's
Required Fund Deposit amount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Notice, 81 FR at 95670.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally, the VaR Charge is calculated using a risk-based margin
methodology that is intended to capture the market price risk
associated with the securities in a Clearing Member's portfolio. More
specifically, FICC calculates the VaR Charge using a methodology
referred to as the full revaluation approach. The full revaluation
approach uses a historical simulation method to fully re-price each
security in a Clearing Member's portfolio. According to FICC, the
methodology is designed to project the potential gains or losses that
could occur in connection with the liquidation of a defaulting Clearing
Member's portfolio, assuming that a portfolio would take three days to
hedge or liquidate in normal market conditions.\11\ The projected
liquidation gains or losses are used to determine the amount of the VaR
Charge, which is calculated to cover projected liquidation losses at a
99 percent confidence level.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
    \12\ The 99 percent confidence level does not apply to
unregistered investment pool clearing members, which are subject to
a VaR Charge with a higher minimum targeted confidence level
assumption of 99.5 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If FICC determines that a security's price history is incomplete
and the market price risk cannot be calculated by the VaR model, then
FICC applies the Margin Proxy until such security's trading history and
pricing reflects market risk factors that can be appropriately
calibrated from the security's historical data.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See MBSD Rule 4 Section 2(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposed Changes to the VaR Charge Calculation

    According to FICC, during the volatile market period that occurred
during the second and third quarters of 2013, FICC's full revaluation
approach did not respond effectively to the levels of market volatility
at that time, and the model did not achieve a 99 percent confidence
level.\14\ This prompted FICC to employ the Margin Proxy--a
supplemental risk charge to ensure that each Clearing Member's VaR
Charge would achieve a minimum 99 percent confidence level.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Notice, 81 FR at 95670.
    \15\ The Margin Proxy is currently used to provide supplemental
coverage to the VaR Charge; however, under this proposed change, the
Margin Proxy would only be used as an alternative volatility
calculation in the event that the requisite data used for the
sensitivity approach is unavailable for an extended period of time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC reviewed the existing model's deficiencies, examined the root
causes of the deficiencies, and considered options that would remediate
the model weaknesses. As a result of this review, FICC now proposes to
change MBSD's methodology for calculating the VaR Charge by: (i)
Replacing the full revaluation approach with the sensitivity approach;
(ii) using the Margin Proxy as an alternative volatility calculation in
the event that the data used for the sensitivity approach is
unavailable for an extended period of time; and (iii) establishing a
VaR Floor to address a circumstance where the proposed VaR model yields
a VaR Charge amount that is lower than 5 basis points of the market
value of a Clearing Member's gross unsettled positions.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Assuming the market value of gross unsettled positions of
$500,000,000, the VaR Floor calculation would be .0005 multiplied by
$500,000,000 = $250,000. If the VaR model charge is less than
$250,000, then the VaR Floor calculation of $250,000 would be set as
the VaR Charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(i) Proposed Sensitivity Approach
    FICC's current full revaluation method uses valuation algorithms to
fully re-price each security in a Clearing Member's portfolio over a
range of historically simulated scenarios. While there are benefits to
this method, according to FICC, its deficiencies are that it requires
significant historical market data inputs, calibration of various model
parameters, and extensive quantitative support for price
simulations.\17\ FICC believes that the proposed sensitivity approach
would address these deficiencies because it would leverage external
vendor expertise in supplying the market risk attributes,\18\ which
would then be incorporated by FICC into its model to calculate the VaR
Charge.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Notice, 81 FR at 95670.
    \18\ The risk factors that would be incorporated into MBSD's
proposed VaR methodology are key rate, convexity, spread,
volatility, mortgage basis and time, as more fully described in the
Notice. See Notice, 81 FR at 95671.
    \19\ FICC states that by leveraging external vendor expertise,
FICC would not need to develop such expertise in-house to supply the
market risk attributes that would then be incorporated by FICC into
its model to calculate the VaR Charge. See Notice, 81 FR at 95671.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because data quality is an important component of calculating the
VaR Charge, FICC would conduct independent data checks to verify the
accuracy and consistency of the data feed received from the vendor.
According to FICC, it has reviewed a description of the vendor's
calculation methodology and the manner in which the market data is used
to calibrate the vendor's models, and it states that it understands and
is comfortable with the vendor's controls, governance process, and data
quality standards.\20\ Additionally, FICC would conduct an independent
review of the vendor's release of a new version of the model. To the
extent that the vendor changes its model and methodologies that produce
the risk factors and risk sensitivities, FICC would review the effects
(if any) of these changes on FICC's proposed sensitivity approach.
Moreover, according to FICC, it does not believe that engaging the
vendor would present a conflict of interest to FICC because the vendor
is not an existing Clearing Member nor are any of the vendor's
affiliates existing Clearing Members.\21\ To the extent that the vendor
or any of its affiliates submit an application to become a Clearing
Member, FICC states that it will negotiate an appropriate information
barrier with the applicant in an effort to prevent a conflict of
interest from arising.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Notice, 81 FR at 95671.
    \21\ See Notice, 81 FR at 95672.
    \22\ The Commission understands that FICC will address any
potential conflicts of interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to FICC, the sensitivity approach would provide three key
benefits.\23\ First, the sensitivity

approach would incorporate both historical data and current risk factor
sensitivities while the full revaluation approach is calibrated with
only historical data. According to FICC, the integration of both
observed risk factor changes and current market conditions would enable
the model to more effectively respond to current market price moves
that may not be reflected in the historical price moves.\24\ FICC
performed backtesting to validate the performance of the proposed model
and determine the impact on the VaR Charge. According to FICC, the
backtesting results and impact study show that the sensitivity approach
provides better coverage on volatile days and a material improvement in
margin coverage, while not significantly increasing the overall
Clearing Fund.\25\ FICC believes that the proposed sensitivity approach
would be more responsive to changing market dynamics and would not
negatively impact FICC or its Clearing Members.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Notice, 81 FR at 95671.
    \24\ Id.
    \25\ Id.
    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, FICC states that the proposed sensitivity approach would
provide more transparency to Clearing Members. Since Clearing Members
typically use risk factor analysis for their own risk and financial
reporting, these Clearing Members would have comparable data and
analysis to assess the variation in their VaR Charges based on changes
in the market value of their portfolios. Therefore, Clearing Members
would be able to simulate the VaR Charge to a closer degree than under
the existing VaR model.
    Third, FICC states that the proposed sensitivity approach would
better provide FICC with the ability to increase the look-back period
used to generate the risk scenarios from one year to 10 years plus an
additional stressed period, as determined necessary by FICC.\27\ The
extended look-back period would be used to ensure that the historical
simulation is inclusive of stressed market periods. While FICC could
extend the one-year look-back period in the existing full revaluation
approach to a 10-year look-back period, performance of the existing
model could deteriorate if current market conditions are materially
different than indicated in the historical data. Additionally, since
the full revaluation method requires FICC to maintain in-house complex
pricing models and mortgage prepayment models, enhancing these models
to extend the look-back period to include 10-years of historical data
would involve significant model development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Under the proposed model, the 10-year look-back period
would include the 2008/2009 financial crisis scenario. To the extent
that an equally or more stressed market period does not occur when
the 2008/2009 financial crisis period is phased out from the 10-year
look-back period (e.g., from September 2018 onward), FICC would
continue to include the 2008/2009 financial crisis scenario in its
historical scenarios. However, if an equally or more stressed market
period emerges in the future, FICC may choose not to augment its 10-
year historical scenarios with those from the 2008/2009 financial
crisis. On an annual basis, FICC would assess whether an additional
stressed period should be included. This assessment would include a
review of: (i) The largest moves in the dominating market risk
factor of the proposed VaR model; (ii) the impact analyses resulting
from the removal and/or addition of a stressed period; and (iii) the
backtesting results of the proposed look-back period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(ii) Proposed Margin Proxy
    In connection with FICC's proposal to source data for the proposed
sensitivity approach from an external vendor, FICC is also proposing
procedures that would govern in the event that the vendor fails to
provide sensitivity data and risk factor data. If the vendor fails to
provide any data or a significant portion of the data timely, FICC
would use the most recently available data on the first day that such
data disruption occurs.\28\ If it is determined that the vendor will
resume providing data within five business days, management would
determine whether the VaR Charge should continue to be calculated by
using the most recently available data along with an extended look-back
period or whether the Margin Proxy should be invoked, as described
below. If it is determined that the data disruption will extend beyond
five business days, the Margin Proxy would be applied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ FICC states it has existing policies and procedures in
accordance with Regulation Systems Compliance and Integrity
(``SCI''), 17 CFR 242.1001(c)(1) (``Regulation SCI''), to determine
whether a disruption to, or significant downgrade of, the normal
operation of FICC's risk management system has occurred as defined
under Regulation SCI. In the event that the vendor fails to provide
the requisite sensitivity data and risk factor data, the responsible
SCI personnel at FICC would determine whether an SCI event has
occurred, and FICC would fulfill its obligations with respect to the
SCI event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC would calculate the Margin Proxy on a daily basis, and the
Margin Proxy method would be subject to monthly performance review.
FICC would monitor the performance of the calculation on a monthly
basis to ensure that it could be used in the circumstance described
above. Specifically, FICC would monitor each Clearing Member's Required
Fund Deposit and the aggregate Clearing Fund requirements versus the
requirements calculated by Margin Proxy. FICC would also backtest the
Margin Proxy results versus the three-day profit and loss based on
actual market price moves. If FICC observes material differences
between the Margin Proxy calculations and the aggregate Clearing Fund
requirement calculated using the proposed VaR model, or if the Margin
Proxy's backtesting results do not meet FICC's 99 percent confidence
level, management may recommend remedial actions, such as increasing
the look-back period and/or applying an appropriate historical stressed
period to the Margin Proxy calibration.
(iii) Proposed Change To Establish a VaR Floor
    FICC proposes to amend the definition of VaR Charge to include a
VaR Floor. The VaR Floor would be used as an alternative to the amount
calculated by the proposed model for portfolios where the VaR Floor
would be greater than the model-based charge amount. FICC's proposal to
establish a VaR Floor seeks to address the risk that the proposed VaR
model may calculate too low a VaR Charge for certain portfolios where
the VaR model applies substantial risk offsets among long and short
positions in different classes of mortgage-backed securities that have
a high degree of historical price correlation. According to FICC,
because this high degree of historical price correlation may not apply
in future changing market conditions,\29\ it is prudent to apply a VaR
Floor that is based upon the market value of the gross unsettled
positions in the Clearing Member's portfolio to protect FICC against
such risk in the event that FICC is required to liquidate a large
mortgage-backed securities portfolio in stressed market conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ According to FICC, for example, and without limitation,
certain classes of mortgage-backed securities may have highly
correlated historical price returns despite having different
coupons. However, if future mortgage market conditions were to
generate substantially greater prepayment activity for some but not
all such classes, these historical correlations could break down,
leading to model-generated offsets that would not adequately capture
a portfolio's risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Proposed Change to Eliminate the Coverage Charge and the Margin
Requirement Differential

    FICC proposes to eliminate two components of the Required Fund
Deposit--the Coverage Charge \30\ and the Margin Requirement
Differential

(``MRD'') \31\--that FICC believes would become unnecessary with the
proposed changes to the VaR Charge. Both components are based on
historical portfolio activity, which may not be indicative of a
Clearing Member's current risk profile, but were determined by FICC to
be appropriate to address potential shortfalls in margin charges under
the existing VaR model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The Coverage Charge is an additional charge to help bring a
Clearing Member's margin coverage to a targeted confidence level by
preemptively increasing the Required Fund Deposit by an amount
calculated to forecast potential deficiencies in the margin
coverage. See MBSD Rule 1.
    \31\ The MRD is designed to help mitigate the risks posed to
FICC by day-over-day fluctuations in a Clearing Member's portfolio.
It does this by forecasting future changes in a Clearing Member's
portfolio based on a historical look-back of each portfolio over a
given time period. See MBSD Rule 4 Section 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to FICC, as part of the development and assessment of the
sensitivity approach for the proposed VaR model, FICC obtained an
independent validation of the proposed model by an external party,
backtested the model's performance and analyzed the impact of the
margin changes. Results of the analysis indicated that the proposed
sensitivity approach would be more responsive to changing market
dynamics and a Clearing Member's portfolio composition coverage than
the existing model. The model validation and backtesting analysis also
demonstrated that the proposed sensitivity model would provide
sufficient margin coverage on a standalone basis. Because testing and
validation of MBSD's proposed VaR model show a material improvement in
margin coverage, FICC believes that the Coverage Charge and MRD
components are no longer necessary.

D. Proposed Change To Replace the Historic Index Volatility Model With
a Haircut Method

    According to FICC, occasionally, portfolios contain classes of
securities that reflect market price changes not consistently related
to historical risk factors. The value of these securities is often
uncertain because the securities' market volume varies widely, which
limits their price histories. Since the volume and price information
for such securities is not robust, a historical simulation approach
would not generate VaR Charge amounts that adequately reflect the risk
profile of such securities. Currently, MBSD Rule 4 provides that FICC
may use a historic index volatility model to calculate the VaR
component of the Required Fund Deposit for these classes of
securities.\32\ FICC is proposing to amend MBSD Rule 4 to replace the
historic index volatility model with a haircut method. FICC believes
that the haircut method would better capture the risk profile of these
securities because the lack of adequate historical data makes it
difficult to map such securities to a historic index volatility model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See MBSD Rule 4 Section 2(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC proposes to calculate the component of the Required Fund
Deposit applicable to these securities by applying a fixed haircut
level to the gross market value of the positions. FICC has selected an
initial haircut of one percent based on its analysis of a five-year
historical study of three-day returns during a period that such
securities were traded. This percentage would be reviewed annually or
more frequently if market conditions warrant and updated, if necessary,
to ensure sufficient coverage.

II. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Although the Clearing Supervision Act does not specify a standard
of review for an advance notice, its stated purpose is instructive: To
mitigate systemic risk in the financial system and promote financial
stability by, among other things, promoting uniform risk management
standards for systemically important financial market utilities and
strengthening the liquidity of systemically important financial market
utilities.\33\ Section 805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act \34\
authorizes the Commission to prescribe risk management standards for
the payment, clearing, and settlement activities of designated clearing
entities and financial institutions engaged in designated activities
for which it is the Supervisory Agency or the appropriate financial
regulator. Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act \35\ states
that the objectives and principles for the risk management standards
prescribed under Section 805(a) shall be to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See 12 U.S.C. 5461(b).
    \34\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(a)(2).
    \35\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Promote robust risk management;
     promote safety and soundness;
     reduce systemic risks; and
     support the stability of the broader financial system.
    The Commission has adopted risk management standards under Section
805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act \36\ and Section 17A of the
Exchange Act (``Clearing Agency Standards'').\37\ The Clearing Agency
Standards require registered clearing agencies to establish, implement,
maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that are
reasonably designed to meet certain minimum requirements for their
operations and risk management practices on an ongoing basis.\38\
Therefore, it is appropriate for the Commission to review proposed
changes in advance notices against the objectives and principles of
these risk management standards as described in Section 805(b) of the
Clearing Supervision Act and in the Clearing Agency Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(a)(2).
    \37\ See 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22. Securities Exchange Act Release No.
68080 (October 22, 2012), 77 FR 66220 (November 2, 2012) (S7-08-11).
    \38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency With Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act

    The Commission believes that the changes proposed in the advance
notice are consistent with the objectives and principles described in
Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, FICC is proposing a number of changes to the
way it calculates its Required Fund Deposits--a key tool that FICC uses
to mitigate potential losses to FICC associated with liquidating a
Clearing Member's portfolio in the event of Clearing Member default.
The Commission believes that the proposed changes are consistent with
promoting robust risk management because they are designed to enable
FICC to better limit its exposure to Clearing Members in the event of
Clearing Member default.
    First, FICC proposes to implement the sensitivity approach to its
VaR Charge calculation. The change would enable FICC to better limit
its exposure to Clearing Members by correcting deficiencies in MBSD's
existing VaR methodology by leveraging an external vendor's expertise
in supplying market risk attributes used to calculate the VaR Charge in
the proposed sensitivity approach. In turn, the sensitivity approach
would enable FICC to view and respond more effectively to market
volatility by allowing FICC to attribute market price moves to various
risk factors such as key rates. Second, the proposal to implement the
Margin Proxy as a back-up methodology to the sensitivity approach would
enable FICC to better limit its exposure to Clearing Members by helping
ensure that FICC could continue to calculate each Clearing Member's VaR
Charge in the event that FICC experiences a data disruption with the
vendor that supplies the sensitivity data. Third, FICC's proposal to
implement the VaR Floor is designed to enable FICC to better limit its
exposure to Clearing Members in the event that the proposed sensitivity
VaR model calculates too low of a VaR Charge for portfolios where the
model applies substantial offsets from certain offsetting long and
short positions. Fourth, the proposed change to

implement a haircut method for securities with inadequate historical
pricing data would enable FICC to better limit its exposure to Clearing
Members by better capturing the risk profile of the securities.
Finally, FICC's proposal to remove the Coverage Charge and MRD
components would enable FICC to remove unnecessary components from the
Clearing Fund calculation that may not be indicative of a Clearing
Member's current risk profile.
    Therefore, because the proposal is designed to enable FICC to
better limit its exposure to Clearing Members in the manner described
above, the Commission believes it is consistent with promoting robust
risk management.
    Furthermore, the Commission believes that the changes proposed in
the advance notice are consistent with promoting safety and soundness,
which, in turn, is consistent with reducing systemic risks and
supporting the stability of the broader financial system, consistent
with Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act.\40\ The proposed
changes are designed to better limit FICC's exposure to Clearing
Members in the event of Clearing Member default. As discussed above,
the sensitivity approach would enable FICC to view and respond more
effectively to market volatility. The Margin Proxy would help manage
data disruption. The VaR Floor would ensure FICC collects at least a
minimum VaR Charge. The haircut method would better capture the risk
profile of securities with inadequate historical pricing data. Finally,
removing the Coverage Charge and MRD would help ensure the Clearing
Fund calculation would not include unnecessary components that may not
be indicative of a Clearing Member's current risk profile. By better
limiting exposure to Clearing Members, the proposed changes are
designed to ensure that, in the event of Clearing Member default,
MBSD's operations would not be disrupted and non-defaulting Clearing
Members would not be exposed to losses that they cannot anticipate or
control. This is consistent with promoting safety and soundness, which
in turn, is consistent with reducing systemic risks and supporting the
stability of the broader financial system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency with Rule 17Ad-22(b)(1) and (b)(2) Under the Exchange
Act

    The Commission believes that FICC's proposal is consistent with
Clearing Agency Standards, in particular, Rules 17Ad-22(b)(1) and
(b)(2) under the Exchange Act.\41\ Rule 17Ad-22(b)(1) under the
Exchange Act \42\ requires a registered clearing agency that performs
central counterparty services to establish, implement, maintain and
enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to, among
other things, limit its exposures to potential losses from defaults by
its participants under normal market conditions so that the operations
of the clearing agency would not be disrupted and non-defaulting
participants would not be exposed to losses that they cannot anticipate
or control. FICC's proposal would enable FICC to better limit its
exposure to potential losses from defaults by its Clearing Members
under normal market conditions. As discussed above, the sensitivity
approach would enable FICC to view and respond more effectively to
market volatility. The Margin Proxy would help manage data disruption.
The VaR Floor would ensure FICC collects at least a minimum VaR Charge.
The haircut method would better capture the risk profile of securities
with inadequate historical pricing data. Finally, removing the Coverage
Charge and MRD would help ensure the Clearing Fund calculation would
not include unnecessary components that may not be indicative of a
Clearing Member's current risk profile. By better limiting its
exposures to potential losses from defaults by its participants under
normal market conditions, the proposed changes are designed to ensure
that the operations of the clearing agency would not be disrupted and
non-defaulting participants would not be exposed to losses that they
cannot anticipate or control. Therefore, the Commission believes this
proposal is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(b)(1) under the Exchange
Act.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(1) and (b)(2).
    \42\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(1).
    \43\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2) under the Exchange Act \44\ requires a
registered clearing agency that performs central counterparty services
to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to, among other things, use margin
requirements to limit its credit exposures to participants under normal
market conditions and use risk-based models and parameters to set
margin requirements. The Required Fund Deposits are the margin
requirements that FICC collects to limit its credit exposures to
participants under normal market conditions. Additionally, FICC's
proposed changes use a risk-based model (i.e., the sensitivity
approach) and parameters (e.g., the VaR Floor and Margin Proxy) to set
margin requirements. The proposed changes are designed to improve
FICC's margin requirements to better limit FICC's credit exposures to
Clearing Members, in the event of default, under normal market
conditions. Therefore, the Commission believes this proposal is
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2) under the Exchange Act \45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2).
    \45\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the Commission does not object to the advance
notice.

III. Conclusion

    It is therefore noticed, pursuant to Section 806(e)(1)(I) of the
Clearing Supervision Act,\46\ that the Commission does not object to
this advance notice proposal (SR-FICC-2016-801) and that FICC is
authorized to implement the proposal as of the date of this notice or
the date of an order by the Commission approving a proposed rule change
that reflects rule changes that are consistent with this advance notice
proposal (SR-FICC-2016-007), whichever is later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(I).

    By the Commission.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-01716 Filed 1-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 20, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77912-77914]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27539]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0108; FMCSA-2013-0442; FMCSA-2013-0443; FMCSA-
2014-0381; FMCSA-2015-0115; FMCSA-2015-0116; FMCSA-2015-0119; FMCSA-
2015-0320; FMCSA-2015-0321; FMCSA-2017-0181; FMCSA-2017-0253; FMCSA-
2017-0254; FMCSA-2018-0050; FMCSA-2018-0051; FMCSA-2019-0030; FMCSA-
2019-0034; FMCSA-2019-0036; FMCSA-2019-0206; FMCSA-2019-0211; FMCSA-
2019-0212; FMCSA-2020-0045; FMCSA-2020-0046]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 32
individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV)
drivers have ``no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of
epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of
consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.'' The exemptions
enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are
taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates
stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates provided
below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
    W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected]. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Dockets
Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Comments

    To view comments go to www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket
number (FMCSA-2013-0108, FMCSA-2013-0442, FMCSA-2013-0443, FMCSA-2014-
0381, FMCSA-2015-0115, FMCSA-2015-0116, FMCSA-2015-0119, FMCSA-2015-
0320, FMCSA-2015-0321, FMCSA-2017-0181, FMCSA-2017-0253, FMCSA-2017-
0254, FMCSA-2018-0050, FMCSA-2018-0051, FMCSA-2019-0030, FMCSA-2019-
0034, FMCSA-2019-0036, FMCSA-2019-0206, FMCSA-2019-0211, FMCSA-2019-
0212, FMCSA-2020-0045, or FMCSA-2020-0046) in the keyword box and click
``Search.'' Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose
the first notice listed, and click ``Browse Comments.'' If you do not
have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting
Dockets Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To
be sure someone is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

B. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), DOT solicits comments
from the public on the exemption request. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to www.regulations.gov. As described in the system of records
notice DOT/ALL 14 (Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)), which can
be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices, the comments are searchable by the
name of the submitter.

II. Background

    On May 13, 2022, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision
to renew exemptions for 32 individuals from the epilepsy and seizure
disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (87 FR
29430). The public comment period ended on August 13, 2022, and no
comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that renewing these exemptions would likely achieve a level
of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by complying with Sec.  391.41(b)(8).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which
is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to
control a CMV.
    In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory
criteria \1\ to assist medical examiners in determining whether drivers
with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These criteria may be found in APPENDIX A TO PART 391--
MEDICAL ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: Sec.  391.41(b)(8),
paragraphs 3, 4, and 5, which is available on the internet at
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title49-vol5/pdf/CFR-2015-title49-vol5-part391-appA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this preceding.

IV. Conclusion

    Based on its evaluation of the 32 renewal exemption applications,
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt the following drivers from the
epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in Sec.  391.41(b)(8).
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following
groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of May and
are discussed below.
    As of May 15, 2022, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b), the following 29 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure
disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (87 FR
29430):

William Brown (NC)
Frank Corino (NJ)
Barry Dull (OH)
Robert J. Forney (WI)
Scott William Gessner (PA)
Daniel Halstead (NV)
Aaron Harms (MO)
Matthew Heinen (MN)
Logan Hertzler (PA)
Brian Johnson (MN)
Preston R. Kanagy (TN)
Kenneth L. Lewis (NC)
Larry Lintelman (AK)
Kevin Market (OH)
Shane W. Martinek (OK)
Jeffrey Mills (NC)
Gary Olsen (MN)
Randy Pinto (PA)
Matthew Scarlata (NY)
Steven Shirley (UT)
Chad Smith (MA)
Alvin Strite (PA)
Jeffrey Totten (KS)
Paul Vitous (WA)
Thomas B. Vivirito (PA)
Mohammad S. Warrad (IA)
Richard J. Wenner (MN)
Michael R. Weymouth (NH)
Dennis R. Zayic (MN)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0108, FMCSA-
2013-0442, FMCSA-2014-0381, FMCSA-2015-0115, FMCSA-2015-0116, FMCSA-
2015-0119, FMCSA-2015-0320, FMCSA-2015-0321, FMCSA-2017-0181, FMCSA-
2017-0253, FMCSA-2017-0254, FMCSA-2018-0050, FMCSA-2019-0030, FMCSA-
2019-0034, FMCSA-2019-0036, FMCSA-2019-0206, FMCSA-2019-0211, FMCSA-
2019-0212, FMCSA-2020-0045, or FMCSA-2020-0046. Their exemptions were
applicable as of May 15, 2022 and will expire on May 15, 2024.
    As of May 19, 2022, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b), the following two individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure
disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:

    Ronald Hartl (WI) and Michael Miller (WI).
    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0443. Their
exemptions were applicable as of May 19, 2022 and will expire on May
19, 2024.
    As of May 30, 2022, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b), Nathan Kanouff (GA) has satisfied the renewal conditions for
obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders
prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers.
    This driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2018-0051. The
exemption was applicable as of May 30, 2022 and will expire on May 30,
2024.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), each exemption will be valid
for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) the person
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b).

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-27539 Filed 12-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31163-31164]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14242]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0191]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0034

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval for
reinstatement, without change; of the following collection of
information: 1625-0034, Ships' Stores Certification for Hazardous
Materials Aboard Ships. Our ICR describes the information we seek to
collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only
impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before August
2, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2018-0191] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, you
may submit comments to OIRA using one of the following means:
    (1) Email: [email protected].
    (2) Mail: OIRA, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, attention
Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
Commandant (CG-612), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast
Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop 7710, Washington, DC
20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments
will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this
Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG-2018-0191], and must be received by August 2,
2018.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice
of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB
Control Number: 1625-0034.

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (83 FR 14875, April 6, 2018)
required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments.
Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collections.

Information Collection Request

    Title: Ships' Stores Certification for Hazardous Materials Aboard
Ships.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0034.
    Summary: The information is used by the Coast Guard to ensure that
personnel aboard ships are made aware of the proper usage and stowage
instructions for certain hazardous materials. Provisions are made for
waivers of products in special

Department of Transportation (DOT) hazard classes.
    Need: Title 46 U.S.C. 3306 authorizes the Coast Guard to prescribe
regulations for the transportation, stowage, and use of ships' stores
and supplies of a dangerous nature. Part 147 of 46 CFR prescribes the
regulations for hazardous ships' stores.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of ships, and suppliers and
manufacturers of hazardous materials used on ships.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 8
hours to 4 hours a year due to a decrease in the estimated annual
number of responses.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: June 26, 2018.
James D. Roppel,
U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Chief, Office of Information Management.
[FR Doc. 2018-14242 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: October 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 196)]
[Notices]
[Page 62530]
[DOCID:fr12oc10-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EF10-8-000]

Southeastern Power Administration; Notice of Filing

October 1, 2010.
    Take notice that on September 16, 2010, the Deputy Secretary of the
Department of Energy submitted Rate Order No. SEPA-52, approved on an
interim basis, effective on October 1, 2010; Rate Schedule VA-1-B et
al. and Replacement-2-A for the sale of power from Southeastern Power
Administration's Kerr-Philpott System, and under the authority vested
in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by Delegation Order No. 00-
037.00, submitted Rate Schedule VA-1-B et al. and Replacement-2-A for
confirmation and approval on a final basis, effective October 1, 2010,
and ending September 30, 2015.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 20, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-25508 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


                    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

            DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                    OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                             WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on May 16, 2003

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKETS OST-2001-9767

________________________________________________________________________
_____________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of   US Airways, Inc.   filed   4/16/03  to:

XX  Renew for two years exemption under 49 U.S.C. §40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between the United States and St. Lucia.

Applicant rep:  Joel Stephen Burton<PHONE_NUMBER>  DOT Analyst:  Sylvia
Moore<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted

The above action was effective when taken:   May 16, 2003,  through
May 16, 2005

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		    Office of International Aviation

XX   The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and the United Kingdom to which St. Lucia
acceded upon its independence.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  XX  Holder’s
certificates of public convenience and necessity

   XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

________________________________________________________________________
______

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department’s regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced
Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this
Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §
385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of
issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and the
filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this order is available on the World Wide Web
at

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_ aviation.asp

APPENDIX

U.S. CARRIER

Standard Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of operations authorized by the attached notice, the
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with the applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration Regulations and with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

										10/2002

 To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder should, before commencing any new
service (including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, inform
its Principal Security Inspector of its plans.