[Federal Register: November 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 215)]
[Notices]
[Page 57722-57724]
[DOCID:fr09no09-95]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Release No. 34-60916; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2009-78]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NYSE Amex LLC Amending
Exchange Rule 62 to Support Quoting and Trading in a Minimum Price
Variation Below $.01 for Securities Traded on the Exchange for Orders
or Interest Priced Below $1.00 Per Share

November 3, 2009.
    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 October 27, 2009, NYSE Amex LLC (``Exchange'' or ``NYSE Amex'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. NYSE Amex has designated the
proposed rule change as constituting a rule change under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) under the Act,\3\ which renders the proposal 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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 62 (Variations) to
support quoting and trading in a minimum price variation below $.01 for
securities traded on the Exchange for orders or interest priced below a
[sic] $1.00 per share. The text of the proposed rule change is
available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
www.nyse.com.

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 self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below,

of the most significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to amend NYSE Amex Equities Rule 62
(Variations) to support quoting and trading in a minimum price
variation below $.01 for securities traded on the Exchange for orders
or interest (``orders/interest'') priced below a [sic] $1.00 per share.
The proposed amendment to NYSE Amex Equities Rule 62 will enable the
Exchange to quote and execute orders/interest in sub-penny increments
of $0.0001 for those securities that are priced below $1.00 per share.
    The Exchange notes that parallel changes are proposed to be made to
the rules of New York Stock Exchange LLC.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See SR-NYSE-2009-107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    NYSE Amex Equities Rules establish minimum price variations for
quoting and entry of orders in equity securities depending on the price
of the orders/interest. Currently, the minimum price variations range
from ten cents (.10) for orders/interest priced $100,000 or greater, to
one cent for orders/interest priced between $1.00 and $99,999 and one
one-thousandth of a cent (.0001) for orders/interest priced less than
$1.00.\5\ Significantly for this rule filing, although Exchange systems
accept orders/interest priced below $1.00 in sub-penny increments, the
Exchange does not quote or execute orders/interest in these
increments.\6\ Instead, the second paragraph of the Supplementary
Material of NYSE Amex Equities Rule 62 sets forth the procedures for
orders/interest that contains a sub-penny component.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See NYSE Amex Equities Rule 62 Supplementary Material first
paragraph which provides in pertinent part:
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59025 (November 26,
2008), 73 FR 73769 (December 3, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-123) [sic].

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Minimum price
               Price of order or interest                    variation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less Than $1.00.........................................          $.0001
$1.00 to 99,999.99......................................            $.01
$100,000 or greater.....................................            $.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, when an order/interest is received on NYSE Amex that
contains a sub-penny component, the Exchange rounds the incoming order/
interest either up or down to the nearest whole cent increment.\7\
Thus, the price of an incoming bid is rounded down to the next round
penny and the price of an incoming offer is rounded up to the next
round penny. This rounding is completed before the order is quoted,
traded, or routed to another market center, and the rounded price is
used for all routing and execution decisions. In fact, the rounded
price assigned to the order or quotation is used for all order handling
purposes including when the order is sent to Exchange trading systems
and the Consolidated Quotation System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See NYSE [sic] Rule 62 Supplementary Material second
paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Amendment to NYSE Amex Equities Rule 62
    Through this filing, the Exchange seeks to eliminate the above
described order handling procedures for orders/interest submitted to
the Exchange that contain a sub-penny component. Instead, the Exchange
proposes to quote, trade or route to another market center orders/
interest that contain a sub-penny component without first rounding the
orders/interest. The Exchange therefore proposes to delete
Supplementary Material .20 from NYSE Rule 62 because Exchange
technology can [sic] is capable of quoting and executing orders/
interest in sub-penny increments of $0.0001 for those securities that
are priced below $1.00 per share. The Exchange further proposes to
delete the duplicate captioning of ``NYSE Amex Equities'' in Rule 62.
    The Exchange will commence implementation of the systemic changes
to allow Exchange systems to quote, trade or route to another market
center orders/interest that contain a sub-penny component on or about
November 27, 2009. The Exchange intends to progressively implement
these systemic changes on a security by security basis as it gains
experience with the new technology until it is operative in all
securities traded on the Floor. During the implementation, the Exchange
will identify on its website which securities have been transitioned to
the new system.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'')
\8\ for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section
6(b)(5) \9\ that an Exchange have rules that are designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change
also is designed to support the principles of Section 11A(a)(1) \10\ in
that it seeks to assure economically efficient execution of securities
transactions, make it practicable for brokers to execute investors'
orders in the best market and provide an opportunity for investors'
orders to be executed without the participation of a dealer. The
Exchange believes that the instant proposal is in keeping with these
principles in that it seeks to amend NYSE Amex Equities Rule 62 to
provide for executions of interest entered on the Exchange in
increments below $.01, consistent with the provisions of Rule 612 of
Regulation NMS \11\ which permits markets to accept, rank and display
orders priced less than $1.00 per share in a minimum pricing increment
of $0.0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
    \11\ 17 CFR 242.612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition 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 the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.

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

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \14\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \15\ permits the Commission to
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange requests
that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that it may
immediately provide another competitive venue for market participants
to submit orders priced less than $1.00 per share in a minimum pricing
increment of $0.0001 for execution. The Commission believes that
waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest because it will provide another
competitive venue for execution of orders priced in sub-penny
increments of $0.0001 for securities priced below $1.00 per share.\16\
For these reasons, the Commission designates that the proposed rule
change become operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposal's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2009-78 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-NYSEAmex-2009-78. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2009-78 and should
be submitted on or before November 30, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-26882 Filed 11-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 141 (Monday, July 23, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43018-43023]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17885]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0553; FRL-9702-7]

Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality
Implementation Plans for Florida, Mississippi, and South Carolina;
Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Transport Requirements for the
2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
revisions to the State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for Florida,
Mississippi, and South Carolina submitted on September 23, 2009,
October 6, 2009 and September 18, 2009, respectively. EPA is proposing
to approve the determinations, contained in those submittals, that the
existing SIPs for Florida, Mississippi, and South Carolina are adequate
to meet the obligation under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act) to address interstate transport requirements with
regard to the 2006 24-hour particulate matter (PM2.5)
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). Specifically, the
interstate transport requirements contained in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA prohibit a state's emissions from
significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with the
maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state. EPA is proposing to
approve the States' determinations that their existing SIPs satisfy
this requirement and to conclude that additional control measures are
not necessary under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) because emissions from
Florida, Mississippi and South Carolina do not contribute significantly
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state. EPA is also proposing to
disapprove the SIP submissions from Florida, Mississippi and South
Carolina to the extent that they rely on the Clean Air Interstate Rule
to meet the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. Because the Clean Air Interstate Rule has been
remanded by the court and did not address the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, it cannot be relied upon to satisfy any requirements related to
that NAAQS. In this action, EPA is only addressing the SIP revisions
respecting section

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The SIP revisions respecting the remainder of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and sections 110(a)(2)(A)-(M), except for
sections 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(I) nonattainment area requirements,
are being addressed in separate actions.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 22, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2012-0553, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0553,'' Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2012-0553. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-9043. Mr. Lakeman can be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for this proposed action?
    A. 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Infrastructure Requirements
    B. Background on Infrastructure Actions
    C. Transport Rules
II. What is EPA's analysis of Florida's, Mississippi's and South
Carolina's compliance with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS?
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this proposed action?

A. 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Infrastructure Requirements

    On September 21, 2006, EPA revised the 24-hour average
PM2.5 primary and secondary NAAQS from 65 micrograms per
cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) to 35 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of
the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. 71 FR 61144 (October 17,
2006). Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit to EPA
SIPs that provide for the ``implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement'' of a new or revised NAAQS within 3 years after
promulgation of such standards, or within such shorter period as EPA
may prescribe.\1\ Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require these submissions
to address basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories,
monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS. EPA thus refers to these submissions as ``infrastructure'' SIPs.
States were required to submit such SIPs to EPA no later than September
21, 2009, for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. SIPs must
address the requirements of 110(a)(2), as applicable, including section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which pertains to interstate transport of certain
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The rule establishing the revised PM2.5 NAAQS was
signed by the Administrator and publically disseminated on September
21, 2006. Because EPA did not prescribe a shorter period for 110(a)
``infrastructure'' SIP submittals, these submittals were due on
September 21, 2009, three years from the September 21, 2006,
signature date pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. See 42
U.S.C. 7410(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 6, 2011, WildEarth Guardians and Sierra Club filed an
amended complaint alleging that EPA had failed to take final action on
SIP submittals addressing the ``infrastructure'' requirements for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. On October 20, 2011, EPA entered
into a consent decree with WildEarth Guardians and Sierra Club which
required EPA, among other things, to sign for publication in the
Federal Register a notice of the Agency's final action either
approving, disapproving, or approving in part and disapproving in part
the Florida, Mississippi, and South Carolina 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP submittals addressing the
applicable requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(A)-(H), (J)-(M), except
for section 110(a)(2)(C) the nonattainment area requirements and the
visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), no later than
September 30, 2012.

B. Background on Infrastructure Actions

    Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make
infrastructure SIP submissions to EPA for each new or revised NAAQS,
but the contents of that submission may vary depending upon the facts
and circumstances. In particular, the data and analytical tools
available at the time the state develops and submits the SIP for a new
or revised NAAQS affects the content of the submission. The contents of
such SIP submissions may also vary depending upon what provisions the
state's existing SIP already contains. In the case of the 1997 annual
and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, some states may need to adopt
language specific to the PM2.5 NAAQS to ensure that they
have adequate SIP provisions to implement the PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements
for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must
meet for ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements related to a newly
established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned above, these requirements
include SIP infrastructure elements such as modeling, monitoring, and
emissions inventories that are designed to assure attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS. As a general matter, the infrastructure
requirements are listed in EPA's October 2, 2007, memorandum entitled
``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for
the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards'' and September 25, 2009, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on
SIP Elements Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-
Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards.'' Although all the elements are identified below, today's
action pertains only to Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
     110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
     110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
     110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures.
     110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.
     110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources.
     110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring system.
     110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power.
     110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
     110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated nonattainment and the
applicable requirements of part D.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This requirement was inadvertently omitted from EPA's
October 2, 2007, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements
Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' and
the September 25, 2009, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on SIP
Elements Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 Fine
Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards,'' but as mentioned above is not relevant to today's
proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials;
public notification; and PSD and visibility protection.
     110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
     110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local
entities.
    EPA is currently acting upon SIPs that address the infrastructure
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS for various states across the country. EPA has
previously discussed the scope of such actions in prior infrastructure
actions. See, e.g., 76 FR 14631 (March 17, 2011); 76 FR 41123 (July 13,
2011). Because today's action is focused on only the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
infrastructure element, EPA is not repeating its previously articulated
discussion on the scope of infrastructure SIP actions; however, such
considerations remain applicable here.
    The requirement for the SIP submissions at issue arises out of CAA
section 110(a)(1). That provision requires that states must make a SIP
submission ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof)'' and
that these SIPs are to provide for the ``implementation, maintenance,
and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of
specific elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must meet. EPA
has historically referred to these particular submissions that states
must make after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS as
``infrastructure SIPs.'' This specific term does not appear in the
statute, but EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of
SIP submission designed to address basic structural requirements of a
SIP from other types of SIP submissions designed to address other
different requirements, such as ``nonattainment SIP'' submissions
required to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D,
``regional haze SIP'' submissions required to address the visibility
protection requirements of CAA section 169A, NSR permitting program
submissions required to address the requirements of part D, and a host
of other specific types of SIP submissions that address other specific
matters.
    Notwithstanding that section 110(a)(2) provides that ``each'' SIP
submission must meet the list of requirements therein, EPA has long
noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally
inconsistent, insofar as section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment
SIP requirements that could not be met on the schedule provided for
these SIP submissions in section 110(a)(1).\3\ This illustrates that
EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) may be
applicable for a given infrastructure SIP submission. Similarly, EPA
has previously decided that it could take action on different parts of
the larger, general ``infrastructure SIP'' for a given NAAQS without
concurrent action on all subsections, such as section 110(a)(2)(D)(i),
because the Agency bifurcated the action on these latter ``interstate
transport'' provisions within section 110(a)(2) and worked with states
to address each of the four prongs of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with
substantive administrative actions proceeding on different tracks with
different schedules.\4\ This illustrates that EPA may conclude that
subdividing the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) into
separate SIP actions may sometimes be appropriate for a given NAAQS
where a specific substantive action is necessitated, beyond a mere
submission addressing basic structural aspects of the state's
implementation plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Id., 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005) (explaining relationship
between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) versus section
110(a)(2)(I)).
    \4\ EPA issued separate guidance to states with respect to SIP
submissions to meet section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See ``Guidance for State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' from William T. Harnett,
Director Air Quality Policy Division OAQPS, to Regional Air Division
Director, Regions I-X, dated August 15, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Transport Rules

    EPA has previously addressed the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in past regulatory actions such as the 1998
NOX SIP call, the 2005 Clean Interstate Rule (CAIR), and the
2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), also known as the
Transport Rule.\5\ In the 1998 NOX SIP call, EPA evaluated
whether or not the ozone-season NOX emissions in certain
states had prohibited interstate impacts, and if they had such impacts,
required the states to adopt substantive SIP revisions

to eliminate the NOX emissions, whether through
participation in a regional cap and trade program or by other means.
EPA's general approach to section 110(a)(2)(D) in the NOX
SIP call was upheld in Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000),
cert denied, 532 U.S. 904 (2001). However, EPA's approach to
interference with maintenance in the NOX SIP call was not
explicitly reviewed by the court. See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d
896, 907-09 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998), NOX SIP Call;
70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005), CAIR; and 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011)
(Transport Rule, also known as Cross-State Air Pollution Rule or
CSAPR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 12, 2005, EPA published the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)
in the Federal Register. See 70 FR 25162. CAIR required States to
reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) that significantly contribute to nonattainment and
interfere with maintenance of the 1997 NAAQS for PM2.5 and/
or ozone in any downwind state. EPA was sued by a number of parties on
various aspects of CAIR and on July 11, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) issued its decision to
vacate and remand both CAIR and the associated CAIR federal
implementation plans (FIPs) in their entirety. See North Carolina v.
EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Among other things, the Court found
that EPA failed to give independent meaning to the term ``interfere
with maintenance.'' Subsequently, in response to EPA's petition for
rehearing, the Court issued an order remanding CAIR to EPA without
vacating either CAIR or the CAIR federal implementation plans (FIPs).
See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The Court
remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur because it found that
``allowing CAIR to remain in effect until it is replaced by a rule
consistent with [the court's] opinion would at least temporarily
preserve the environmental values covered by CAIR.'' North Carolina v.
EPA, 550 F.3d at 1178.
    In order to address the judicial remand of CAIR, EPA promulgated a
new rule to address interstate transport pursuant to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), in the eastern United States, the ``Federal
Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate
Matter and Ozone'' (i.e., the Transport Rule, also known as the Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)). See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). In
the Transport Rule, EPA finalized regulatory changes to sunset (i.e.,
discontinue) CAIR and the CAIR FIPs for control periods in 2012 and
beyond. See 76 FR 48321.
    On December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit issued an order addressing
the status of the Transport Rule and CAIR in response to motions filed
by numerous parties seeking a stay of the Transport Rule pending
judicial review. In that order, the D.C. Circuit stayed the Transport
Rule pending the court's resolution of the petitions for review of that
rule in EME Homer Generation, L.P. v. EPA (No. 11-1302 and consolidated
cases). The court also indicated that EPA is expected to continue to
administer CAIR in the interim until the court rules on the petitions
for review of the Transport Rule.

II. What is EPA's analysis of Florida's, Mississippi's, and South
Carolina's compliance with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS?

    On September 25, 2009, EPA issued a guidance entitled, ``Guidance
on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006
24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS)'' (2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure
Guidance). EPA developed the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure
Guidance to provide additional recommendations to states for developing
SIP submissions to meet the requirements of section 110, including
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the revised 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    In the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance,
EPA explained that submissions from states pertaining to the
``significant contribution'' and ``interfere with maintenance''
requirements in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) must contain adequate
provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions from within the state
that contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state. In the Infrastructure
Guidance, EPA explained that states could not rely on the CAIR to
comply with CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because CAIR does not address this
NAAQS. Recognizing that the demonstration required may be a challenging
task for the affected states, EPA also noted in the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance the Agency's intention
to complete a rule to address interstate pollution transport in the
eastern half of the continental United States (i.e., the Transport
Rule). As noted above EPA published the Transport Rule in the Federal
Register on August 8, 2011. See 76 FR 48208.
    On September 23, 2009, October 6, 2009, and September 18, 2009,
Florida, Mississippi and South Carolina, respectively, provided EPA
with infrastructure submissions certifying that their current SIPs
addressed all the required infrastructure elements for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. In these submissions Florida, Mississippi and
South Carolina all relied on CAIR to meet section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. CAIR addressed only
the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements with respect to the 1997 ozone and
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and did not address the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS or any requirements related to that NAAQS. In
previous actions disapproving SIP revisions for 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) that
relied on CAIR, EPA explained both its rationale for disapproving those
SIP revisions as well as describing a number of considerations for
states for providing an adequate demonstration to address interstate
transport requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. See, e.g.,
76 FR 43128 (July 20, 2011); 76 FR 4588 (January 26, 2011). Among the
considerations, EPA explained that the state should explain whether or
not emissions from the state contribute significantly to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state, and that
such a conclusion should be supported by a technical analysis. As
explained in the prior disapprovals, a state may not rely on CAIR to
satisfy the requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS because CAIR addressed only the 1997
PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS and did not address the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS or any requirements related to that NAAQS. In
addition, CAIR was found flawed and remanded to EPA by the court. North
Carolina, 550 F.3d at 1176-1178. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
disapprove the States' submission to the extent they rely on CAIR to
meet these requirements.
    Since receiving these submittals, EPA conducted additional
modeling, as part of the Transport Rule. This modeling supports the
conclusion that these States' existing implementation plans are
adequate to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
This modeling is consistent with the types of analyses and
considerations that EPA recommended states undertake in determining
whether their SIPs were adequate to satisfy 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Thus,
EPA is now proposing to determine that the SIPs for Florida,
Mississippi, and South Carolina are adequate to satisfy the
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
based on modeling conducted by EPA for the Transport Rule. The
Transport Rule air quality modeling technical support document can be
accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-
0553. Today, EPA is also proposing to

disapprove the States' reliance on CAIR to meet the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, to the extent
that this rule is relied upon in the infrastructure submissions.
    The air quality modeling conducted for the Transport Rule evaluated
interstate contributions from emissions in upwind states to projected
future downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA used air quality thresholds to
indentify linkages between upwind states and downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors. The air quality threshold was calculated as 1
percent of the NAAQS, which is 0.35 [mu]g/m\3\ for 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA found states with emissions projected to
exceed this air quality threshold at one or more downwind nonattainment
receptors emissions to be linked to all such receptors. Emissions from
states with one or more linkages were subject to further evaluation.
EPA did not conduct further evaluation of emissions from states that
were not linked to any downwind receptors. The air quality modeling for
the Transport Rule did not find emissions from either Florida,
Mississippi, or South Carolina linked to any downwind receptors for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Below is a summary of the air
quality modeling results for Florida, Mississippi, and South Carolina.
A technical support document explaining the modeling in much greater
detail can be found in the docket for this rulemaking.

    Largest Contribution to Downwind 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 ([mu]g/m\3\)
                   Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Largest downwind
                                       contribution to  Largest downwind
                                        nonattainment    contribution to
                State                    for 24-hour     maintenance for
                                        PM2.5 ([mu]g/     24-hour PM2.5
                                            m\3\)         ([mu]g/m\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida.............................              0.07              0.03
Mississippi.........................              0.06              0.07
South Carolina......................              0.29              0.25
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes it is appropriate to rely on this modeling even though
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit stayed the Transport
Rule pending judicial review. The stay of the rule does not, by itself,
invalidate the modeling and nothing in the court order staying the rule
suggests that it would be improper for EPA to rely on technical
modeling conducted during the lengthy rulemaking process. Further, EPA
is not proposing to rely on any requirements of the Transport Rule or
emission reductions associated with that rule to support its conclusion
that these three states have met their 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations
with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
revisions to the State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for Florida,
Mississippi, and South Carolina submitted on September 23, 2009,
October 6, 2009 and September 18, 2009 respectively. EPA is proposing
to approve the determinations that the existing SIPs of Florida,
Mississippi, and South Carolina have adequate provisions to satisfy the
obligation under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA to address
interstate transport requirements with regard to the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA proposes to base this action on air quality
modeling, conducted by EPA during the rulemaking process for the
Transport Rule. Additionally, EPA is proposing to disapprove, the SIP
submissions from Florida, Mississippi and South Carolina to the extent
they rely on the Clean Air Interstate Rule to meet the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA notes, that once finalized, the partial disapproval will not
trigger a FIP for these States so long as today's proposed
determination that the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the Florida, Mississippi and South
Carolina SIPs are met, is finalized. No further action will be required
on the part of Florida, Mississippi or South Carolina as a result of
the proposed partial disapproval because the SIPs themselves are not
deficient.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications for
Florida and Mississippi as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), because these SIPs are not

approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes
that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments
or preempt tribal law. With regard to South Carolina, EPA notes that,
pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann.
27-16-120, the Catawba Indian Nation Reservation, which is located
within the State of South Carolina, is subject to all state and local
environmental laws and that South Carolina regulations apply to the
Catawba Indian Nation and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all
relevant state and local agencies and authorities. Thus, the South
Carolina SIP applies to the Catawba Reservation. Nonetheless, EPA has
preliminarily determined that today's proposed rule determining that
the South Carolina SIP meets the State's obligation under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and disapproving its reliance upon CAIR does not
have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR
67249). EPA has also preliminarily determined that these revisions will
not impose any substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law in South Carolina.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: July 12, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012-17885 Filed 7-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60252-60253]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27230]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82311; File No. SR-OCC-2017-008]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Related to The Options Clearing
Corporation's Collateral Risk Management Policy

December 13, 2017.

I. Introduction

    On October 27, 2017, the Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change (SR-
OCC-2017-008) to formalize and update OCC's Collateral Risk Management
Policy. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on November 9, 2017.\3\ The Commission received one
comment letter regarding the proposed change.\4\ For the reasons
discussed below, the Commission is approving the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82009 (Nov. 3, 2017), 82
FR 52079 (Nov. 9, 2017) (SR-OCC-2017-008) (``Notice'').
    \4\ Letter from Michael Kitlas, dated November 3, 2017. See
comments on the proposed rule change (SR-OCC-2017-008), https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-occ-2017-008/occ2017008.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    This proposed rule change would formalize and update OCC's
Collateral Risk Management Policy (``CRM Policy''). The CRM Policy
describes the categories of risk that are considered by OCC in
determining which asset classes should be acceptable forms of
collateral as margin assets and Clearing Fund contributions. OCC's
assessment of an asset class generally includes an evaluation of credit
risk, liquidity risk, and market risk.\5\ With respect to credit risk,
the CRM Policy requires OCC staff to evaluate the creditworthiness of
counterparties, including custodial agents and settlement banks and to
monitor the health of such counterparties on an ongoing basis.\6\
Regarding liquidity risk, OCC gives no value to a participant for its
own (or its affiliate's) debt or equity securities, and limits the
amount of a particular asset type that a participant may pledge under
the CRM Policy.\7\ With respect to market risks, the CRM Policy
provides that eligible asset classes are accepted after consideration
of their liquidity, price transparency, price volatility, offset
potential with contracts cleared by OCC, modeling implications and
projected inventories.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Notice, 82 FR at 52080.
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CRM Policy describes OCC's approach to valuing collateral and
setting and applying haircuts. OCC's pricing information, as described
in the CRM Policy, feeds into OCC's processes for establishing
haircuts, daily mark-to-market valuation of collateral, and intraday
valuation of collateral. Given the importance of pricing data to inform
these processes, OCC maintains redundant information feeds from
multiple sources to help ensure accuracy and quality.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Notice, 82 FR at 52080-81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CRM Policy also summarizes OCC's two approaches for valuing
collateral: Collateral in Margins (``CiM'') and haircuts.\10\ Under the
CiM approach, the current market value of margin assets is included as
a positive asset value in the calculation of a portfolio's net asset
value within OCC's System for Theoretical Analysis and Numerical
Simulations (``STANS''). OCC then offsets this positive asset value
based on, among other things, the expected shortfall and stress test
charges associated with an account, resulting in a net excess or net
deficit.\11\ For collateral that is not managed using the CiM process,
the CRM Policy provides that OCC subjects such collateral to percentage
haircuts established at the

time the collateral is accepted by OCC and that are monitored regularly
to help ensure the haircuts remain adequate.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Notice, 82 FR at 52081.
    \11\ Notice, 82 FR at 52081, note 23.
    \12\ Notice, 82 FR at 52081.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the CRM Policy provides that OCC's Credit and
Liquidity Working Group must review the policy's performance and
adequacy on at least an annual basis, including with respect to
collateral eligibility, concentration limits, collateral haircuts and
monitoring processes.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comment Received

    The Commission received one comment letter in response to the
proposed rule change.\14\ The commenter stated that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 4.
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a
proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that
such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such
organization.\16\ After carefully considering the proposed rule change
and the comment letter, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to OCC. More specifically, the
Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(5) under the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

A. Consistency With Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires that the rules of a
registered clearing agency be designed to do, among other things, the
following: (1) Promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement
of securities transactions; (2) assure the safeguarding of securities
and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or
for which it is responsible; and (3) in general protect investors and
the public interest.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CRM Policy describes OCC's process for limiting the collateral
that it accepts to assets with low credit, liquidity, and market risk.
The acceptance of only low-risk collateral increases the likelihood
that such collateral can be liquidated in a timely manner, thereby
enhancing OCC's ability to continue to perform its critical services
for the financial markets while also managing a default. The CRM Policy
also describes how OCC haircuts such collateral, and requires review of
such haircuts at least annually. Ensuring that collateral haircuts are
appropriately set and reviewed on a regular basis increases the
likelihood that OCC will collect and hold collateral that can be
liquidated at a value at or above the value attributed to it. This
approach thereby increases the likelihood that OCC will be able to
continue to meet its settlement obligations and manage the default of a
clearing member by liquidating the defaulting clearing member's
collateral in a timely and effective manner.
    The timely liquidation of collateral at or above the expected value
would, therefore, support OCC's ability to continue to meet settlement
obligations on time, promoting the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions. In addition, being able to
successfully liquidate collateral in a timely and effective manner
would reduce the likelihood of OCC having to draw on mutualized
resources, including Clearing Fund contributions. As such, the
Commission believes that the proposal would help assure the
safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or
control of OCC, or for which OCC is responsible. As a result, the
Commission also finds that the proposed rule change, in general,
protects investors and the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission
finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A of
the Act.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3) of the Act

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(5) requires that a covered clearing agency
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to limit the assets it accepts as
collateral to those with low credit, liquidity, and market risks; set
and enforce appropriately conservative haircuts and concentration
limits if the covered clearing agency requires collateral to manage its
or its participants' credit exposure; and, require a review of the
sufficiency of its collateral haircuts and concentration limits to be
performed not less than annually.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the proposed CRM Policy would address each
component of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(5).\20\ First, the proposed CRM Policy
requires that, in determining forms of collateral as margin assets and
Clearing Fund contributions, OCC evaluates the market, credit, and
liquidity risk of an asset class. Second, the CRM Policy provides for
the maintenance of redundant pricing information feeds from multiple
sources to ensure the availability of information that is critical to
OCC's daily and intraday processes for collateral valuation. The CRM
Policy further describes OCC's processes for setting haircuts either
via the use of STANS or percentage-based haircuts. Third, the proposed
CRM requires at least annual review of concentration limits and
collateral haircuts. The Commission finds, therefore, that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(5).\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id.
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and in
particular, with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \22\ and
the rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
that the proposed rule change (SR-OCC-2017-008) be, and hereby is,
approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-27230 Filed 12-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 247 (Monday, December 27, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 81264]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32362]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL11-11-000]

Critical Path Transmission, LLC; Clear Power, LLC; v. California
Independent System Operator, Inc.; Notice of Complaint

December 17, 2010.
    Take notice that on December 14, 2010, pursuant to Rule 206 of the
Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission), 18 CFR 385.206 (2010) and sections 206 and 306
of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e and 825e (2006), Critical Path
Transmission, LLC and Clear Power LLC (Complainants) filed a complaint
against California Independent System Operator, Inc. (CAISO or
Respondent), alleging a violation of the CAISO tariff, as more fully
explained in the complaint.
    Complainants state that copies of the complaint were served upon
Respondent.
    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. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    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 January 3, 2011.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-32362 Filed 12-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 157 (Thursday, August 13, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49363-49364]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17713]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1285-009.
    Applicants: Craven County Wood Energy Limited Partnership.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Craven
County Wood Energy Limited Partnership.
    Filed Date: 8/6/20.
    Accession Number: 20200806-5130.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/27/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2645-004.
    Applicants: Baconton Power LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Baconton
Power LLC.
    Filed Date: 8/5/20.
    Accession Number: 20200805-5162.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-57-002; ER20-339-002; ER20-58-002; ER19-115-
002; ER20-59-002; ER20-27-002; ER16-2019-003; ER17-1607-002;

ER17-1608-002; ER17-318-003; ER16-2520-003; ER19-8-003; ER19-119-003;
ER19-2476-003; ER20-1799-001; ER20-1800-001; ER20-1801-002; ER18-97-
002; ER20-422-002.
    Applicants: GA Solar 3, LLC, Twiggs County Solar, LLC, FL Solar 1,
LLC, FL Solar 4, LLC, FL Solar 5, LLC, AZ Solar 1, LLC, Wright Solar
Park LLC, Five Points Solar Park LLC, Sunray Energy 2, LLC, Sunray
Energy 3 LLC, Three Peaks Power, LLC, Grand View PV Solar Two LLC,
Sweetwater Solar, LLC, Techren Solar I LLC, Techren Solar II LLC,
Techren Solar III LLC, Techren Solar IV LLC, Techren Solar V LLC, MS
Solar 3, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to June 2, 2020 Notice of Non-Material
Change in Status of GA Solar 3, LLC, et. al.
    Filed Date: 7/20/20.
    Accession Number: 20200720-5039.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2032-001.
    Applicants: Hardin Wind LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Response to Commission Staff Request
Regarding Application for Market-Based Rate to be effective 8/10/2020.
    Filed Date: 8/5/20.
    Accession Number: 20200805-5140.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2617-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2020-08-06 Settlement
Timeline Tariff Amendment to be effective 1/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 8/6/20.
    Accession Number: 20200806-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/27/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2618-000.
    Applicants: Thordin ApS.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Baseline Aug 2020 to be
effective 8/10/2020.
    Filed Date: 8/6/20.
    Accession Number: 20200806-5010.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/27/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2619-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
American Transmission Company LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2020-08-06_Revisions to
Attachment FF-ATCLLC to Align with Cost Allocation to be effective 10/
6/2020.
    Filed Date: 8/6/20.
    Accession Number: 20200806-5051.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/27/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2620-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: DSA Hecate Energy Desert
Storage 1 LLC SA No. 1113 to be effective 10/6/2020.
    Filed Date: 8/6/20.
    Accession Number: 20200806-5081.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/27/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2621-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2020-08-06_Attachment X GIA
Section 9.7.3 Inverter Based Resources to be effective 10/6/2020.
    Filed Date: 8/6/20.
    Accession Number: 20200806-5085.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/27/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2622-000.
    Applicants: Wilmot Energy Center, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Wilmot Energy Center, LLC
Application for MBR Authority to be effective 10/5/2020.
    Filed Date: 8/6/20.
    Accession Number: 20200806-5093.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/27/20.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 6, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-17713 Filed 8-12-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 124 (Thursday, June 29, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29541-29542]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13597]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3079-013; ER10-3078-004; ER11-3861-014.
    Applicants: Tyr Energy, LLC, Commonwealth Chesapeake Company, LLC,
Empire Generating Co, LLC.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis for the Northeast Region
of Tyr Energy, LLC, et al. under ER10-3079, et al.
    Filed Date: 6/23/17.
    Accession Number: 20170623-5083.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/22/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3145-008; ER10-1728-008; ER10-1800-009; ER10-
3116-008; ER10-3120-008; ER10-3128-008; ER10-3136-008; ER11-2036-008;
ER11-2701-010; ER13-1544-005; ER16-930-002.
    Applicants: AES Alamitos, LLC, AES Energy Storage, LLC, AES
Huntington Beach, L.L.C., AES Laurel Mountain, LLC, AES ES Tait, LLC,
AES Redondo Beach, L.L.C., Indianapolis Power & Light Company, Mountain
View Power Partners, LLC, Mountain View Power Partners IV, LLC, The
Dayton Power and Light Company, AES Ohio Generation, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to December 21, 2016 Triennial Market Power
Analysis for Northeast Region of AES MBR Affiliates; also filed was an
Amended Supplement to December 21, 2016 Triennial Market Power Analysis
for Northeast Region of AES MBR Affiliates.
    Filed Dates: 6/6/17; 6/21/17.
    Accession Number: 20170606-5163; 20170621-5138.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1888-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-06-22_SA 3023 Air
Liquide-Entergy GIA (Project QF) to be effective 6/22/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20170622-5153.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/13/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1889-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-06-22_SA 758
Termination of ATC-Wisconsin River GTIA to be effective 8/22/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20170622-5156.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/13/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1890-000.
    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of Joint Use Pole
Agreement with Dairyland to be effective 8/22/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20170622-5176.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/13/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1891-000.
    Applicants: Summit Farms Solar, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing--Addition of
Docket No. to MBR Tariff to be effective 6/23/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20170622-5186.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/13/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1892-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Termination of PAC Energy Carbon
Decommissioning Construct Agmt Rev 2 to be effective 6/26/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/23/17.
    Accession Number: 20170623-5094.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/14/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1894-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original Service Agreement
No. 4730, Queue Position #AC1-039 to be effective 5/31/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/23/17.
    Accession Number: 20170623-5110.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/14/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1895-000.
    Applicants: Southwestern Electric Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: SWEPCO-Minden PSA Amendment
T&D Losses to be effective 8/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 6/23/17.
    Accession Number: 20170623-5111.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/14/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1896-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-06-23_SA 3022 Trigen-
Ameren GIA (Project Trigen) to be effective 6/23/2017.
    Filed Date: 6/23/17.
    Accession Number: 20170623-5143.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/14/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES17-38-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Application of Midcontinent Independent System
Operator, Inc. to Issue Securities Under Section 204 of the Federal
Power Act.
    Filed Date: 6/23/17.
    Accession Number: 20170623-5099.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/14/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 23, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-13597 Filed 6-28-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P