[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 199 (Friday, October 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63938-63939]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26629]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4028-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Massachusetts; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for Commonwealth of Massachusetts (FEMA-4028-DR), dated September 3,
2011, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 27, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Mark H. Landry,
of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for
this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of James N. Russo as Federal
Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance

(Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation
Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator,
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-26629 Filed 10-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 85 (Friday, May 1, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25482-25485]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09253]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88757; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2020-33]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rule 928NY Relating to the Risk Limitation Mechanism

April 27, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on April 17, 2020, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 928NY (Risk Limitation
Mechanism) to reflect modifications to the operation of the trade and
trigger counters as well as the applicable time periods for determining
if a risk setting is triggered in the event of a trading halt or for
transactions at the open in regards to the Risk Limitation Mechanism.
The Exchange also proposes to relocate certain text from Rule 928NY to
Rule 970NY (Firm Quotes). The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's website at www.nyse.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 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 928NY (Risk Limitation
Mechanism) (the ``Rule'') to reflect modifications to the operation of
the trade and trigger counters as well as the applicable time periods
for determining if a risk setting is triggered in the event of a
trading halt or for transactions at the open in regards to the Risk
Limitation Mechanism. The Exchange also proposes to relocate certain
text from Rule 928NY to Rule 970NY (Firm Quotes).
Risk Limitation Mechanism
    Rule 928NY sets forth the risk-limitation mechanism (the
``Mechanism''), which is designed to help Market Makers and ATP Holders
(collectively ``ATP Holders'' for the purpose of this filing) better
manage risk related to quoting and submitting orders during periods of
increased and significant trading activity.\4\ Specifically, the
Mechanism calculates for quotes and orders, respectively: The number of
trades executed by the Market Maker or ATP Holder in a particular
options class; the volume of contracts traded by the Market Maker or
ATP Holder in a particular options class; or the aggregate percentage
of the Market Maker's quoted size or ATP Holder's order size(s)
executed in a particular options class.\5\ To determine whether the
Mechanism is triggered (i.e., the risk setting breached), the Exchange
maintains separate trade counters that are incremented every time a
trade is executed; that aggregate the number of contracts traded during
each such execution; and that calculate applicable percentages
depending on the risk setting at issue.\6\ A breach of the Mechanism
occurs if the number of increments to the trade counter, within a time
period specified by the Exchange, exceeds the threshold set by the ATP
Holder. Under the current Rule, the applicable time period will not be
less than 100 milliseconds.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Market Makers are included in the definition of ATP Holders
and therefore, unless the Exchange is discussing the quoting
activity of Market Makers, the Exchange does not distinguish Market
Makers from ATP Holders when discussing the risk limitation
mechanisms. See Rule 900.2NY(5) (defining ATP Holder as ``a natural
person, sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, limited
liability company or other organization, in good standing, that has
been issued an ATP,'' and requires that ``[a]n ATP Holder must be a
registered broker or dealer pursuant to Section 15 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934''). See also Rule 900.2NY(38) (providing that a
Market Maker is ``an ATP Holder that acts as a Market Maker pursuant
to Rule 920NY'').
    \5\ See Rule 928NY(b)-(d) (setting forth the three risk
limitation mechanisms available).
    \6\ See Rule 928NY(a).
    \7\ See Commentary .03 to Rule 928NY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Clarification to Time Period for Triggering of Risk Limitation
Mechanism
    Currently, the timer elapses at the conclusion of the time period
specified by the Exchange, unless a breach occurs sooner than the timer
expiration. The Exchange proposes to modify this functionality such
that the time period is rolling (as opposed to static) and is activated
each time a trade counter is incremented such that the Exchange ``looks
back'' at other trades that occurred within the time period specified
by the Exchange to see if a breach has occurred (See examples at the
end of this section). The Exchange believes this modification will
enhance the operation of the timer--and hence the risk protection. The
Exchange proposes to modify the Rule to ensure that it is consistent
with this proposed functionality change.
    First, the Exchange proposes to modify the Rule regarding the
applicable time period during which the increments of the trade
counters are tallied, including, to account for the occurrence of
trading halts or transactions occurring at the open of trading in a
series. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to modify Commentary .03 to
Rule 928NY to provide that the minimum time period determined by the
Exchange would be ``inclusive of the duration of any trading halt
occurring within that time''; however, ``[f]or transactions occurring
at the open per Rule 952NY, the applicable time period is the lesser of
(i) the time between the opening of a series and the initial
transaction or (ii) the time period

specified by the Exchange.'' \8\ The Exchange believes this proposed
change adds clarity and transparency to Exchange rules making them
easier to comprehend and navigate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See proposed Commentary .03 to Rule 928NY. See also Rule
953NY (Trading Halts and Suspensions) and Rule 952NY (Opening
Process)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to modify Commentary .06 to the Rule,
which relates to the operation of trade and trigger counters once the
Mechanism is activated. Current Commentary .06 to Rule provides that
``[t]he trade counters will automatically reset and commence a new
count for the ATP Holder (1) when a time period specified by the
Exchange elapses or, (2) if one of the Risk Limitation Mechanisms is
triggered'', upon the ATP Holder submitting a message to the Exchange
to be re-enabled.\9\ The Exchange proposes to clarify that the trade
counters do not reset, per se, when the time period specified by
Exchange elapses as the trade counters only commence a new count after
a breach of the risk settings upon the ATP Holder's re-entry to the
market. As proposed, modified Commentary .06 to the Rule would provide
in relevant part that ``[f]ollowing a breach of any of the Risk
Limitation Mechanisms set forth in paragraphs (b), (c) or (d), the
trade counters will commence a new count for the ATP Holder'' upon the
ATP Holder submitting a message to the Exchange to be re-enabled.\10\
Consistent with this change, the Exchange also proposes to modify the
rule text regarding the operation of the timer as it relates to the
trigger counter.\11\ As proposed, the Exchange would remove language
regarding instances resulting in the automatic reset of the trigger
counter and instead state simply that ``[f]ollowing any breach pursuant
to Rule 928NY(f), the trigger counter will commence a new count'' when
the ATP Holder submits a request to be re-enabled.\12\ The Exchange
believes this proposed clarification adds specificity and transparency
to Exchange rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Commentary .06 to Rule 928NY.
    \10\ See proposed Commentary .06 to Rule 928NY.
    \11\ See Commentary .06 to Rule 928NY (providing that ``[a]bsent
a breach pursuant to Rule 928NY(f), the trigger counter will
automatically reset and commence a new count for the ATP Holder (1)
when a time period specified by the Exchange elapses; or (2)
following any intraday update to configurable thresholds, as
provided in Commentary .03 to this Rule 928NY'' and that
``[f]ollowing any breach pursuant to Rule 928NY(f), the trigger
counter will be reset and commence a new count'' when the ATP Holder
makes non-automated contact requesting to be re-enabled).
    \12\ See proposed Commentary .06 to Rule 928NY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Examples Illustrating Current and Proposed Functionality
    Assumptions: The ATP Holder utilizes the transaction-based risk
setting for orders with a maximum of three transactions before the
setting is breached and the time period announced by the Exchange is
100ms.
    Current Mechanism: Timer is asynchronous and covers fixed, non-
overlapping periods.
    Timer starts at 10:10:00.101 (end of fixed period is 10:10:00.201).

Event 1: At 10:10:00.150, the ATP Holder trades 10 contracts.
    --The Exchange determines there was one transaction (Event 1) since
start of timer (i.e., 10:10:00.101--10:10:00.201) = no breach.
Event 2: At 10:10:00.190, the ATP Holder trades 15 contracts.
    --The Exchange determines there were two transactions (Events 1 and
2) since start of timer (i.e., 10:10:00.101-10:10:00.201) = no breach.

Timer expires at 10:10:00.201.
Timer re-starts at 10:10:00.202 (end of fixed period is 10:10:00.302).

Event 3: At 10:10:00.210, the ATP Holder trades 20 contracts.
    --The Exchange determines there was one transaction (Event 3 since
start of timer (i.e., 10:10:00.202--10:10:00.302) = no breach.
    Event 4: At 10:10:00.220, the ATP Holder trades 10 contracts.
    --The Exchange determines there were two transactions (Events 3 and
4) since start of timer (i.e., 10:10:00.202--10:10:00.302) = no breach.
Event 5: At 10:10:00.240, the ATP Holder trades 15 contracts.
    --The Exchange determines there were three transactions (Events 3,
4 and 5) since start of timer (i.e., 10:10:00.202--10:10:00.302) =
BREACH.

    Proposed Mechanism: Timer ``looks back'' prior 100ms each time a
transaction occurs.

Event 1: At 10:10:00.150, the ATP Holder trades 10 contracts.
    --The Exchange determines there was one transaction (Event 1) that
occurred in the prior 100ms (i.e., 10:10:00.150-10:10:00.050) = no
breach.
Event 2: At 10:10:00.190, the ATP Holder trades 15 contracts.
    --The Exchange determines there were two transactions (Events 1 and
2) that occurred in the prior 100ms (i.e., 10:10:00.190--10:10:00.090)
= no breach.
Event 3: At 10:10:00.210, the ATP Holder trades 20 contracts.
    --The Exchange determines there were three transactions (Events 1,
2 and 3) that occurred in the prior 100ms (i.e., 10:10:00.210--
10:10:00.110) = BREACH.

Technical Changes
    Finally, the Exchange also proposes to delete the text located in
Commentary .05 to Rule and to hold this Commentary as ``Reserved.''
\13\ Current Commentary .05 to the Rule relates to the Exchange's
dissemination of a best bid and offer when no Market Makers are quoting
in a class, which information is irrelevant to the operation of the
Mechanism.\14\ At the time Rule 928NY was implemented, the Exchange
noted that it would ``no longer generate two-sided quotes on behalf of
a Specialist in the event that there are no Market Makers quoting in an
issue'' but would instead disseminate as the BBO ``the best bids and
offers of those orders residing in the Consolidated Book in the
issue''--if such orders existed--or would ``disseminate a bid of zero
and an offer of zero in that issue.'' \15\ In retrospect, the Exchange
believes that Rule 928NY--which is focused on managing risk not quote
dissemination--was not the optimal placement for this information.
Instead, the Exchange believes such information would be more
appropriately included with information regarding quote dissemination
requirements. The Exchange therefore proposes to relocate this text to
Rule 970NY (Firm Quotes) as market participants would be more likely to
consult this rule (as opposed to Rule 928NY) in regards to quoting
information. The Exchange believes the proposed relocation of this text
would add clarity and consistency to Exchange rules, making them easier
to navigate.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See proposed Commentary .05 to Rule 928NY.
    \14\ See Commentary .05 to Rule 928NY (providing that ``[i]n the
event that there are no Market Makers quoting in a class, the best
bids and offers of those orders residing in the Consolidated Book in
the class will be disseminated as the BBO. If there are no Market
Makers quoting in the class and there are no orders in the
Consolidated Book in the class, the System shall disseminate a bid
of zero and an offer of zero'').
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59142 (December 22,
2008), 73 FR 80494, 80498 (December 31, 2008) (SR-NYSEALTR-2008-14)
(adopting, among other Section 900NY rules, Rule 928NY).
    \16\ See proposed Rule 970NY(b)(1)(A). The Exchange notes that
it proposes the change ``System'' to ``Exchange'' regarding the
source that disseminates the BBO for consistency with the rest of
Rule 970NY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b)

of the Act,\17\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\18\ in particular, in that it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ATP Holders are vulnerable to the risk from a system or other error
or a market event that may cause them to send a large number of orders
or receive multiple, automatic executions before they can adjust their
exposure in the market. Without adequate risk management tools, such as
the available risk settings, ATP Holders may opt to reduce the amount
of order flow and liquidity that they provide to the market, which
could undermine the quality of the markets available to market
participants. The Exchange believes that the proposed change would
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market by adding clarity, transparency and specificity regarding the
operation of the Mechanism thereby making Exchange rules easier to
comprehend and navigate to the benefit of all market participants.
    The Exchange believes the proposal to modify the time period to a
rolling basis (as opposed to static time segments) would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system because it would provide ATP Holders with
greater ability to monitor their risk. The proposed change, which
allows for a count after each transaction on a rolling ``look back''
basis, would provide a more finely tuned tracking method for ATP
Holders related to each transaction within a specified time period. As
such, ATP Holders that use the Mechanism to reduce their risk,
particularly in the event of a system issue or due to the occurrence of
unusual or unexpected market activity, would have greater certainty of
how the Mechanism would function with respect to each transaction.
Moreover, the proposed rule change would provide ATP Holders with
transparency regarding the manner in which the Exchange counts quotes
and orders, which would provide ATP Holders with an increased ability
to monitor transactions. Finally, the Exchange believes the proposed
change is consistent with risk timers utilized by other options markets
that offer similar risk limitation mechanisms.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See, e.g., MIAX Rule 519A, Risk Protection Monitor
(providing that, for orders, MIAX utilizes a counter that will
``look back over the specified time period'' to determine if a
market participant has triggered its risk settings) and Rule 612,
Aggregate Risk Manager (ARM) (providing that, for quotes, MIAX
utilizes a counter that will ``look back over the specified time
period'' to determine if a market maker has triggered its risk
settings).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the non-substantive change to Rule
928NY, Commentary.05 (to delete and relocate text) related to quote
dissemination requirements from the Rule, which relates to managing
risk, to the Firm Quote rule would make Exchange rules easier to
navigate, thus adding clarity and transparency to Exchange rules to the
benefit of the investing public.

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. Rather, the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would enhance the Mechanism by
providing ATP Holders with greater ability to monitor their risk by
providing a more finely tuned tracking method for ATP Holders related
to each transaction within a specified time period. In addition, the
Exchange does not believe the proposal creates any significant impact
on competition as the proposed ``look back'' time period is consistent
with risk timers utilized by other options markets that offer similar
risk limitation mechanisms.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See id. (regarding MIAX risk mechanisms for orders and
quotes, both of which utilize a counter that ``looks back over the
specified time period'' to determine if risk settings have been
triggered).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 \21\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of 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 \23\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \24\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so
that the proposed rule change may become operative upon filing. Waiver
of the operative delay would allow the Exchange to immediately amend
its rules to provide ATP Holders with a more finely tuned tracking
method for each transaction within a specified time period, which could
provide greater certainty of how the Mechanism would function with
respect to each transaction. The Commission believes that waiver of the
30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the
operative delay and designates the proposed rule change operative upon
filing.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \25\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act.

Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2020-33 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2020-33. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2020-33 and should be submitted
on or before May 22, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-09253 Filed 4-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 31, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 167)]
[Notices]
[Page 44835-44836]
[DOCID:fr31au09-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2547-092]

Village of Swanton, VT; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests, and Soliciting
Comments, Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and Fishway
Prescriptions

August 21, 2009.

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Amendment of License.
    b. Project No.: 2547-092.
    c. Date filed: June 4, 2009.
    d. Applicant: Village of Swanton, Vermont (Village).
    e. Name of Project: Highgate Falls Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Missisquoi River in
Franklin County, Vermont.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Paul V. Nolan, 5515 North 17th Street,
Arlington, VA 22205-2722; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Tom Papsidero, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, and e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, motions to intervene,
recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and fishway
prescriptions is 60 days from the issuance date of this notice; reply
comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this notice. All
documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Kimberly D.
Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number
(P-2547-092) on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: The Village proposes to install a
turbine generator unit to increase total generating capacity by
utilizing minimum flows that are currently passing over the rubber dam
of the project. The new unit would consist of a single turbine
generator with a capacity of 710 kilowatts (kW) and hydraulic capacity
of 200 cubic feet per second (cfs). The total authorized capacity for
the project would increase from 10,800 kW to 11,510 kW and the total
hydraulic capacity of the project would increase from 1,906 cfs to
2,106 cfs.
    l. Locations of Applications: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may
also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last
three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h
above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the

requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    Comments, protests, interventions, recommendations, terms and
conditions, and fishway prescriptions may be filed electronically via
the Internet in lieu of paper; See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Web site under ``e-filing'' link. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``PROTEST'', ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'', ``COMMENTS,'' ``REPLY COMMENTS,'' ``RECOMMENDATIONS,''
``TERMS AND CONDITIONS,'' or ``FISHWAY PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth
in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the
application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name,
address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening;
and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001
through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions
or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments,
recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions should relate to
project works which are the subject of the license amendment. Agencies
may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A
copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be
accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service
list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with
18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-20847 Filed 8-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


1 Madison County, Kentucky Madison County is part of the Lexington, Kentucky Metropolitan Statistical Area ( MSA). It is located southwest of Clark County, west of Estill County, northwest of Jackson County, north of Rockcastle County, northeast of Garrard County, east of Jessamine County, and southeast of Fayette County.

EPA s June 29, 2004 proposal on appropriate designations for Kentucky included Madison County as nonattainment based on the following criteria:

  EPA indicates that Madison County has significant emissions ( although this statement is not based on a single pollutant equaling 10,000 tpy or more) and that the county is part of the MSA where at least one monitor is showing a violating MSA monitor.

  EPA states that Madison County has relatively high population density and that Madison County s population growth is significant enough to contribute to PM2.5 violations in Fayette County.

  EPA contradictorily states both that Madison County has relatively high VMT ( page 19) and has the largest number of workers commuting into Fayette County ( page 22), and that no counties show commuting data with potential to impact Fayette County ( page 22), and that only Madison County has VMT and commuting data with a potential to contribute to violations in Fayette County ( page 23).

Emissions Data In Kentucky s original February recommendations, 1999 NEI data was used in the original analysis.

However, in EPA s June 29, 2004, letters to states, EPA looked outside the original MSA boundaries to determine if large emissions contributions from adjacent areas were having an impact on PM2.5 levels within the MSA. EPA also used the 2001 NEI which provided slightly newer data than had been recommended that states use.

Madison County emits only 2% of SOx emissions from the counties recommended by EPA as having the potential to impact the violating monitors. A similar comparison can be made with both NOx and PM. Madison County s NOx emissions rank at 12% of the total EPA recommended areas, and PM at 10%. In a detailed review of EPA s recommended areas to be designated nonattainment, Madison County ranks consistently less than or equal to 12% of combined emissions contributions within EPA s June 29, 2004, proposed nonattainment boundaries. See Figures 1 4 below. 2 Figure 1 Fayette Area 2001 SOx Emissions Scott 0%

Jessamine 0% Bourbon 0% Madison 2%

Clark 14% Fayette 6% Woodford 4% Mercer 74%

Figure 2 Fayette Area 2001 NOX Emissions Woodford 8%

Mercer 20% Clark 14%

Madison 12% Scott 8% Jessamine 5% Bourbon 3% Fayette 30% 3 Figure 3 Fayette Area 2001 PM Emissions Woodford 6% Scott 7% Jessamine 6%

Mercer 34% Madison 10% Clark 13% Fayette 19% Bourbon 5%

Figure 4 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 T o n s P e r Y e a r Fayette Clark Madison Mercer Woodford Scott Jessamine Bourbon Lexington Area Counties Emissions 2001 PM SOx NOx VOC NH3 4 Monitoring Data and Trends As can been seen in Figure 5 below, the speciation data from Kentucky s Lexington speciation monitor indicates that Sulfate is the major component of the PM2.5 values in the area. As can be seen in Figure 1 above, Madison County, Kentucky, contributes only 2% of the SOx in the counties recommended by EPA as having the potential to impact the violating monitor.

Figure 5 Lexington Speciation Monitoring Data 2001 2003 Average Concentration ( µ g/ m ³ )

Elemental carbon 3% Crustal component 3% Other 13%

Organic carbon 24%

Ammonium 13% Sulfate 32% Nitrate 12%

The MSA has three monitors located within its boundaries, two in Fayette County and one in Madison County. In Fayette County, one monitor is located in a central urban area in the midst of the downtown, University of Kentucky campus ( Limestone), and the other located on an arterial roadway approximately 1.9 miles north of downtown ( Newtown Pike). PM2.5 monitoring levels have continued to decline at all three monitors within this region. ( See Figure 6 below)

The monitor located in Madison County shows attainment with the PM2.5 standard. For the 2001 2003 timeframe, the design value ( 13.4 µ g/ m 3) is well below the annual standard demonstrating attainment. In fact, this monitor hs the second lowest design value of the 19 monitors in the state. 5 The Newtown Pike monitor shows attainment with the standard, having an average of 14.9 µ g/ m 3 over the time period 2001 2003, and having an average of 13.6 µ g/ m 3 through April 2004.

The latest average through April 2004 for the Limestone monitor is 14.7 µ g/ m 3.

The current design value of 15.6 µ g/ m 3 is based on the 2001 2003 time period.

PM2.5 levels at each monitor in the region have steadily declined as evidenced by a 15% reduction at the Newtown Pike monitor, a 12% reduction at the Limestone monitor, and a 13% reduction at the Madison County monitor ( See Figure 6 below).

Figure 5 Fayette Area PM2.5 Trend Utilizing Most Current Available Data 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year A n n u a l A r i th m e t i c M e a n ( m ic r o g r a m s / c u b i c m e t e r )

Newtown Limestone Madison Figure 6 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 Newtown Limestone Madison Decline in PM Values for the Fayette Area 2000 2001 2002 2003 2000 2003 shows decrease of 15% 2000 2003 shows decrease of 12% 2000 2003 shows decrease of 13% 6 Localized vs Regional Impacts It is Kentucky s position that the monitor located on the UK Campus exhibits an   Urban Core Phenomenon.  That is, the monitor s location is at the center of a large public university situated in a downtown metropolitan area with significant activity having a direct relationship to the PM2.5 levels being monitored.

This monitor is bracketed by numerous large and small boilers on the University of Kentucky campus and is located adjacent to continuing construction on the campus. Significant local impacts are occurring due to not only the close proximity of the boilers, but also from the emission contributions of construction equipment in the area. This monitor is located only 1.9 miles from the monitor showing attainment of the standard on Newtown Pike.

If significant regional impacts from emissions from Madison County were occurring, they would be expected throughout the regional monitoring network and not at one specific monitor in downtown Lexington.

Notwithstanding this Urban Core Phenomenon at the Fayette County violating monitor, Kentucky believes Madison County is attaining the PM2.5 standard and that the continuing downward trend in PM2.5 levels indicate no potential to impact Fayette County.

Population Density and Growth EPA stated that 2002 population levels indicated Madison County had the potential to impact PM2.5 violations in the area. However, while Madison County has the second highest population level of the MSA counties and surrounding counties with significant weighted emissions scores, the county itself comprises approximately 15% of the entire MSA, and only 14% of all the counties recommended by EPA as having the potential to impact the violating monitors. See Figure 7 below. 7 Figure 7 Lexington Area 2002 Population for USEPA proposed PM 2.5 Nonattainment Counties Fayette 51%

Clark 7% Madison 14% Scott 7% Woodford 5% Bourbon 4% Jessamine 8% Mercer 4%

Traffic and Commuting Patterns EPA s position on traffic and commuting patterns in the June 29 th letter was contradictory as outlined:

  On page 19, the second paragraph reads,   Madison County also has relatively high population and population growth, and relatively high VMT.

  On page 22, the last paragraph under commuting information reads,   Based on the analysis of this factor, there are no counties with commuting data showing a potential to contribute to the PM2.5 violations in Fayette County.

  On page 23, under vehicle miles traveled, it reads,   Based on the analysis of for this factor, no other Kentucky counties, with the exception of Madison County, have VMT and commuting data with a potential to contribute to PM2.5 violations in Fayette County.

Kentucky agrees with the EPA statement that while Madison County has the largest number of workers commuting into Fayette County ( 6,870 commuters), the commuting data do not indicate significant ( or any) contributions to Fayette County ( page 22 and 23 of EPA s June 29 th letter).

Therefore Kentucky believes that Madison County does not have the population, commuter, or VMT potential to contribute to PM2.5 violations in the area. 8 Meteorology EPA s response to Kentucky stated that the wind speed/ wind direction data provided by Kentucky in the February submittal did not play a significant role in the decision making process and that the information was for summertime winds. Kentucky offers the following information.

Kentucky has provided updated wind rose diagrams. These were created using year round data from EPA s Support Center for Regulatory Models ( SCRAM) website. As shown in the updated wind rose in Figure 11 below, the majority of the time the wind in the Lexington area comes from the south and the southwest. Madison County is southeast from the violating monitor in Fayette County. The wind rose data indicates that Madison County does not impact this monitor. 9 Figure 8 Scott Fayette Woodford Mercer Bourbon Clark Madison Jessamine 10 Additional Regional/ National Controls The implementation of new federal rules to decrease the amount of sulfur in both gasoline and diesel fuel will significantly decrease the amount of SO2 in the entire area. Because of the Low Sulfur Diesel Rule, in 2007, new clean engines operating on 15 ppm sulfur diesel fuel will reduce NOx emissions by 50%, and reduce PM emissions by more than 90%. Due to the Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline Sulfur program, by 2006 average national gasoline sulfur levels will be 90% lower.

Upon implementation of the Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR) SO2 emissions from power plants will be reduced nationwide by 3.6 million tons in 2010 ( approximately 40 percent below current levels) and by another 2 million tons per year when the rules are fully implemented ( approximately 70 percent below current levels). NOx emissions would be cut by 1.5 million tons nationwide in 2010 and 1.8 million tons annually in 2015 ( about 65 percent below today s levels).

The first phase of compliance under the CAIR rule to reduce both SO2 and NOx emissions would be required by 2010, allowing substantial emission reductions in the area, by the proposed attainment date for PM2.5 nonattainment areas.

Conclusions Based on the factors discussed above, Kentucky believes that Madison County should be designated attainment for the PM2.5 standard.

  Kentucky believes that EPA s use of the weighted emissions scoring approach was skewed. EPA did not include adjacent county emissions in the total emissions being analyzed for the area. If the emissions from the entire area under review were used, vs just those within the MSA, a very different result in the weighted emissions scores would have occurred. Madison County would not have the potential to contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels within the region.

  The monitor in Madison County is showing attainment of the standard. The only monitor showing a violation throughout the entire eight county region is being impacted by extreme urban core activities in a specific geographic location within Fayette County.

  PM2.5 levels continue to decline throughout the entire region. From a review of all monitors in the region, an average decline of 13% in PM2.5 levels has occurred from 2000 through 2003. Every monitor in the region is currently showing values well within attainment of the annual PM2.5 standard using 2002 through 2004 data. 11   Additional emission reductions on a national and regional level will provide substantial additional emission reductions in the region. The anticipated sulfur reductions due to the Low Sulfur Diesel Rule, the Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline Low Sulfur programs, and the Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR) will further lower pollutant levels within this region.

To have this county designated nonattainment would invoke substantial and unnecessary requirements on local government planning agencies. Drastic emission reductions are scheduled to occur in the mobile sector throughout the next several years that will greatly impact pollutant levels in the area. In addition, reductions anticipated by the CAIR provisions, the air monitoring data demonstrating attainment of the PM2.5 Standard at two of the three monitors in the area, the downward trend in monitored values, and Kentucky s position that the monitored violation of the standard in the downtown area is the result of a localized   urban core phenomenon,  lead to the conclusion that Madison County, Kentucky, should be designated attainment for the PM2.5 Standard.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 212 (Friday, November 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75589-75590]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24369]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0118; FRL-11429-01-OAR]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Control
of Evaporative Emissions From New and In-Use Portable Gasoline
Containers (Renewal), ICR 2213.07, OMB 2060-0597

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an
information collection request (ICR), ``Control of Evaporative
Emissions from New and In-Use Portable Gasoline Containers (Renewal)'',
ICR 2213.07, OMB 2060-0597 to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comment on specific aspects
of the proposed information collection request as described below. This
notice is a proposed extension of the Portable Fuel Container ICR,
which is currently approved through January 31, 2024. An Agency may not
conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 2, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing the Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2013-0118, to the EPA: online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Philip Carlson, Compliance Division,
Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105; telephone number:
734-214-4270; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting will be available in
the public docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0118, for this ICR. The docket can
be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket
Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington,
DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For
additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: EPA is required under Section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act
to regulate Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) emissions from the use of
consumer and commercial products. Under regulations promulgated on
February 26, 2007 (72 FR 8428) manufacturers of new portable gasoline
containers are required to obtain certificates of conformity with the
Clean Air Act, effective January 1, 2009. This ICR covers the burdens
associated with this certification process. EPA reviews information
submitted in a manufacturer's application for certification to
determine if the gasoline container design conforms to applicable
regulatory requirements and to verify that the required testing has
been performed. The certificate holder is required to keep records on
the testing and collect and keep warranty and defect information for
annual reporting on in-use performance of their products. The
respondent must also retain records on the units produced, apply serial
numbers to individual containers, and track the serial numbers to their
certificates of conformity. Any information submitted for which a claim
of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to EPA regulations
at 40 CFR 2.201 et seq.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: manufacturers of new portable
gasoline containers from 0.25 to 10.0 gallons in capacity.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: mandatory 40 CFR part 59,
subpart F.
    Estimated number of respondents: 9 (total).
    Frequency of response: yearly for warranty reports; at least once
every five years for certification and certificate renewals.
    Total estimated burden: 240 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $29,855.51 (per year), which includes
$21,613.67 annualized capital and operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is an increase of 33.1 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This increase of the burden and cost estimates is due
to a change in the estimated cost of labor and additional testing
requirements for new portable fuel container families to comply with
the requirements for evaporative testing promulgated in 40 CFR part 59.

Byron Bunker,
Director, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality, US Environmental Protection Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-24369 Filed 11-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5070-5072]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2133]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66250; File No. SR-CME-2012-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rules Relating to
Credit Default Swap Guaranty Fund

January 26, 2012.
    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 January 23, 2012, Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (``CME'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change described in Items I, II and III below, which
items have been prepared primarily by CME. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Italicized text
indicates additions; bracketed text indicates deletions.
* * * * *
CHICAGO MERCANTILE EXCHANGE INC. RULEBOOK
    Rule 100--Rule 8H06--No Change.
* * * * *
Rule 8H07. CDS FINANCIAL SAFEGUARDS AND GUARANTY FUND DEPOSIT
    Rule 8H07.1(i)--No Change.
    Rule 8H07.1(ii). (ii) Each CDS Clearing Member's required
contribution to the CDS Guaranty Fund shall be the greater of: (a) such
CDS Clearing Member's proportionate share of the largest two losses
described in 8H07.1(i)(a) above, each CDS Clearing Member's
proportionate share being based on the 90-day trailing average of its
[aggregate performance requirements] potential residual loss (``PRL'')
and the 90-day trailing average gross notional open interest
outstanding at the Clearing House (or, in either case, such other
shorter time interval determined by the CDS Risk Committee); and (b)
$50,000,000.
* * * * *
    Rule 8H07.2--End--No Change.
* * * * *

CME CDS MANUAL OF OPERATIONS
    CHAPTERS 1--9--No Change.
CHAPTER 10--CDS GUARANTY FUND CALCULATION

Separate CDS Guaranty Fund

    CME Clearing shall establish an additional CDS Guaranty Fund as
described in Rule 8H07.

Guaranty Fund Calculation

    Each CDS Clearing Member's Guaranty Fund contribution to the
Financial Safeguards Package will be equal to the greater of:
    (1) 50MM; and
    (2) An amount using stress test methodology equal to such Clearing
Member's proportionate share of the overall CDS Guaranty Fund based on
a 90 day trailing average of such Clearing Member's [performance bond]
PRL performance bond requirement (95% weight) and its average CDS gross
notional open interest at the CME (5% weight), as further set forth in
Rule 8H07.
    Once the overall financial safeguards pool size has been determined
using the stress testing described below, the guaranty fund calculation
is calculated as per the example below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Determine overall financial safeguards
   pool size based on net debtor stress             Time Period X
              testing results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aggregate
    1st Largest Net Debtor stress test....                  $500,000,000
    2nd Largest Net Debtor stress test....                  $400,000,000
    Required Guaranty Fund Size (Sum of 2                   $900,000,000
     Largest Net Debtor stress tests).....
                                            ............................
Hypothetical CDS Clearing Member's
 Guaranty Fund Contribution
    [performance bond] PRL Component--95%
     weight...............................
    Total average aggregate CDS                          $10,000,000,000
     [performance bond] PRL over trailing
     90 days at CME.......................
    Clearing member XYZ's average 90-day[,                  $800,000,000
     performance bond requirement] PRL....
    Clearing member XYZ's % of aggregate..                            8%
    Clearing member XYZ's calculated                         $72,000,000
     contribution to the CDS guaranty fund
     ($900M Target x 8%)..................
    Clearing member XYZ's weighted (95%)                     $68,400,000
     [performance bond] PRL contribution
     to the CDS guaranty fund.............
Open Interest (Gross Notional) Component--
 5% weight
    Total average aggregate CDS gross                   $100,000,000,000
     notional over trailing 90 days at CME
    Clearing member XYZ's average 90-day                   7,000,000,000
     CDS gross notional...................
    Clearing member XYZ's open interest %                             7%
     of aggregate.........................
    Clearing member XYZ's open interest                      $63,000,000
     component of the CDS guaranty fund
     ($900M Target x 7%)..................
    Clearing member XYZ's weighted (5%)                       $3,150,000
     open interest component of the CDS
     guaranty fund........................
    Clearing member XYZ's [performance                       $68,400,000
     bond] PRL component of the CDS
     guaranty fund........................
    Clearing member XYZ's gross notional                      $3,150,000
     component of the CDS guaranty fund...
        Total clearing member XYZ's                          $71,550,000
         calculated guaranty fund
         contribution.....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, CME included statements
concerning the purpose 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. CME has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

    CME offers clearing services for certain credit default swap index
products. Current CME Rule 8H07 provides that each CDS Clearing
Member's allocation to the CDS Guaranty Fund will be the greater of (i)
$50,000,000 and (ii) its proportionate share of the 90-day trailing
average of its aggregate performance bond requirements and average
gross notional open interest outstanding at the Clearing House. The
rule change that is the subject of this filing would replace the
``aggregate performance bond requirement'' standard with a new standard
that CME believes better allocates tail risk. CME is also proposing to
make conforming changes to its CDS Manual of Operations.
    CME believes the current ``aggregate performance bond requirement''
standard set forth in Rule 8H07 is designed to provide for margin
requirements that adequately cover day-to-day P/L moves, however, CME
believes changes could be made to provide for a more accurate
allocation of potential tail risk. Therefore, in order to more
accurately align the allocation of the CDS Guaranty Fund to each CDS
Clearing Member, consistent with the CDS Guaranty Fund's purpose of
covering tail risk events, CME proposes certain rule changes so that
the allocation will be made on the basis of each CDS Clearing Member's
potential residual loss (``PRL''). PRL is a stress test of the tail
risk CDS Clearing Member portfolios bring to the market.
    CME notes that it will also submit the proposed rule changes that
are the subject of this filing to its primary regulator, the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC''). The text of the CME proposed
rule amendments is noted in Section I above, with additions italicized
and deletions in brackets.
    CME believes the proposed rule changes are consistent with the
requirements of the Exchange Act including Section 17A of the Exchange
Act. Currently, the only swaps CME clears are CFTC-regulated swaps and
therefore the proposed rule changes will only directly affect CME's
swaps clearing activities pursuant to its registration as a derivatives
clearing organization under the Commodity Exchange Act (``CEA'').\3\
CME notes that the policies of the CEA with respect to clearing are
comparable to a number of the policies underlying the Exchange Act,
such as promoting market transparency for over-the-counter derivatives
markets, promoting the prompt and accurate clearance of transactions
and protecting investors and the public interest. CME believes the
proposed rule changes accomplish these objectives by more accurately
aligning the allocation of its CDS Guaranty Fund to each CDS Clearing
Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The staff notes that the PRL allocation will apply to any
security-based swaps CME may clear in the future.

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

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

    CME does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition.

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

    CME has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments
regarding this proposed rule change. CME has not received any
unsolicited written comments from interested parties.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) by order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:
     Electronic comments may be submitted by using the
Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml), or send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-CME-2012-01 on the subject line.
     Paper comments should be sent 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-CME-2012-01. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of CME. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CME-2012-01 and
should be submitted on or before February 22, 2012.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-2133 Filed 1-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 65 (Friday, April 3, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19040-19042]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06954]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88511; File No. SR-OCC-2020-002]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Update The Options Clearing Corporation's Operational Loss Fee in OCC's
Schedule of Fees

March 30, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'' or ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on March 24, 2020, the Options Clearing
Corporation (``OCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by OCC. OCC
filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) \3\
of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \4\ thereunder so that the proposal was
effective upon filing with the Commission.\5\ 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).
    \5\ As noted below, the proposed change would not become
effective until the later of April 8, 2020 or the date on which the
change is deemed certified under the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission's (``CFTC'') Regulation 40.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change by OCC would revise OCC's schedule of
fees, effective April 8, 2020, to implement a change in the maximum
contingent Operational Loss Fee in accordance with OCC's Capital
Management Policy. Proposed changes to OCC's schedule of fees are
attached [sic] as Exhibit 5 to the filing. Material proposed to be
added to OCC's schedule of fees as currently in effect is underlined
and material proposed to be deleted is marked in strikethrough text.
All capitalized terms not defined herein have the same meaning as set
forth in the OCC By-Laws and Rules.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ OCC's By-Laws and Rules can be found on OCC's public
website: http://optionsclearing.com/about/publications/bylaws.jsp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

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

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

(1) Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to revise OCC's
schedule of fees to update the maximum aggregate Operational Loss Fee
that OCC would charge Clearing Members in equal shares in the unlikely
event that OCC's shareholders' equity (``Equity'') falls below certain
thresholds defined in OCC's Capital Management Policy. The proposed fee
change is designed to enable OCC to replenish capital to comply with
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15) under the Exchange Act, which requires OCC, in
pertinent part, to ``hold[] liquid net assets funded by equity to the
greater of either (x) six months . . . current operating expenses, or
(y) the amount determined by the board of directors to be sufficient to
ensure a recovery or orderly wind-down of critical operations and
service'' \7\ and ``[m]aintain[] a viable plan, approved by the board
of directors and updated at least annually, for raising additional
equity should its equity fall close to or below the amount required [to
be held].'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(15)(ii).
    \8\ See 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(15)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 24, 2020, the SEC approved OCC's Capital Management
Policy, which includes OCC's replenishment plan.\9\ Pursuant to that
policy, OCC would charge an Operational Loss Fee in equal shares to
Clearing Members to raise additional capital should OCC's Equity fall
below certain defined thresholds.\10\ Specifically, after applying the
unvested balance held in respect of OCC's Executive Deferred
Compensation Program, OCC would charge an Operational Loss Fee in an
amount to raise Equity to 110% of OCC's Target Capital Requirement, up
to the maximum Operational Loss Fee identified in OCC's schedule of
fees less the amount of any Operational Loss Fees previously charged
and not refunded.\11\ OCC calculates the maximum aggregate Operational
Loss Fee based on the amount determined by the Board of Directors to be
sufficient for a recovery or orderly wind-down of critical operations
and services (``RWD Amount''),\12\ which is determined based on the
assumptions in OCC's Recovery and Orderly Wind-Down Plan (``RWD
Plan'').\13\ In order to account for OCC's tax liability for retaining
the Operational Loss Fee as earnings, OCC may apply a tax gross-up to
the RWD Amount (``Adjusted RWD Amount'') depending on whether the
operational loss that caused OCC's Equity to fall below the Trigger
Event thresholds is tax deductible.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Exchange Act Release No. 88029 (Jan. 24, 2020), 85 FR
5500 (Jan. 30, 2020) (SR-OCC-2019-007) (``Order Approving OCC's
Capital Management Policy'').
    \10\ Id. at 5503. OCC would charge an Operational Loss Fee for a
Trigger Event, which the Capital Management Policy defines as when
OCC's Equity falls below 90% of OCC's Target Capital Requirement
(i.e., the amount of Equity determined by OCC's Board to be
sufficient for OCC to meet its regulatory obligations and to serve
market participants and the public interest) or remains below the
Target Capital Requirement for ninety consecutive calendar days. See
id. at 5510. OCC's Schedule of Fees currently lists these threshold
amounts with respect to OCC's current Target Capital Requirement.
This proposed rule change does not implement any change to the
Target Capital Requirement or the corresponding threshold amounts.
    \11\ Id. at 5503.
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ See Exchange Act Release No. 83918 (Aug. 23, 2018), 83 FR
44091, 44094 (Aug. 29, 2018) (SR-OCC-2017-021) (``Order Approving
OCC's RWD Plan'').
    \14\ Order Approving OCC's Capital Management Policy, 85 FR at
5503.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RWD Amount and, in turn, the Adjusted RWD Amount are determined
annually based on OCC's corporate budget, the assumptions articulated
in

the RWD Plan,\15\ and OCC's projected effective tax rate.\16\ The
current Operational Loss Fee listed in OCC's schedule of fees is the
Adjusted RWD Amount calculated based on OCC's 2019 corporate budget.
Budgeted operating expenses in 2020 are lower than the 2019 budgeted
operating expenses. This proposed rule change would revise the maximum
Operational Loss Fee to reflect the Adjusted RWD Amount based on OCC's
2020 budget,\17\ as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The RWD Plan states OCC's basic assumptions concerning the
resolution process, including assumptions about the duration of the
resolution process, the cost of the resolution process, OCC's
capitalization through the resolution process, the maintenance of
Critical Services and Critical Support Functions, as defined by the
RWD Plan, and the retention of personnel and contractual
relationships. See Order Approving OCC's RWD Plan, 83 FR at 44094.
    \16\ See Order Approving OCC's Capital Management Policy, 85 FR
at 5501 n.20, 5503.
    \17\ Confidential data and analysis evidencing the calculation
of the Adjusted RWD Amount based on OCC's 2020 corporate budget is
included in Exhibit 3 to the rule filing.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Current fee schedule                Proposed fee schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$154,666,667.00 less the aggregate       $141,866,667.00 less the
 amount of Operational Loss Fees          aggregate amount of
 previously charged and not refunded as   Operational Loss Fees
 of the date calculated, divided by the   previously charged and not
 number of Clearing Members at the time   refunded as of the date
 charge.                                  calculated, divided by the
                                          number of Clearing Members at
                                          the time charge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the allocation of the Operational Loss Fee is a function of
the number of Clearing Members at the time of the charge, the maximum
Operational Loss Fee per Clearing Member is subject to fluctuation
during the course of the year. However, if the proposed Operational
Loss Fee were charged to 106 Clearing Members, the number of Clearing
Members as of December 31, 2019 for example, the maximum Operational
Loss Fee per Clearing Member would be $1,338,365.
(2) Statutory Basis
    OCC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act
\18\ and the rules and regulations thereunder. In particular, OCC
believes that the proposed fee change is also consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act,\19\ which requires that the rules of a
clearing agency provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among its participants. OCC believes that
the proposed fee change is reasonable because it is designed to
replenish OCC's Equity in the form of liquid net assets in the event
that OCC's Equity falls close to or below its Target Capital
Requirement so that OCC can continue to meet its obligations as a
systemically important financial market utility (``SIFMU'') to Clearing
Members and the general public should an operational losses materialize
(including through a recovery or orderly wind-down of critical
operations and services) and thereby facilitate compliance with Rule
17Ad-22(e)(15)(iii).\20\ The maximum Operational Loss Fee is sized to
ensure that OCC maintains sufficient liquid net assets to support its
RWD Plan and imposes a contingent obligation on Clearing Members that
is approximately the same amount as a Clearing Member's contingent
obligation for Clearing Fund assessments for a Clearing Member
operating at the minimum Clearing Fund deposit.\21\ Therefore, OCC
believes the proposed maximum Operational Loss Fee sized to OCC's
Adjusted RWD Amount is reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(15)(iii).
    \21\ A Clearing Member operating at the minimum Clearing Fund
deposit ($500,000) could be assessed up to an additional $1 million
(the minimum deposit, assessed up to two times), for a total
contingent obligation of $1.5 million. See OCC Rule 1006(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC also believes that the proposed Operational Loss Fee would
result in an equitable allocation of fees among its participants
because it would be equally applicable to all Clearing Members. As the
Commission has recognized, OCC's designation as a SIFMU and its role as
the sole covered clearing agency for all listed options contracts in
the U.S. makes it an integral part of the national system for clearance
and settlement, through which ``Clearing Members, their customers,
investors, and the markets as a whole derive significant benefit . . .
regardless of their specific utilization of that system.'' \22\ Neither
the SEC nor OCC has observed any correlation between measures of
Clearing Member utilization or OCC's benefit to Clearing Members \23\
and its risk of operational loss.\24\ As a result, OCC believes that
the proposed change to OCC's fee schedule provides for the equitable
allocation of reasonable fees in accordance with Section 17A(b)(3)(D)
of the Act.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Order Approving OCC's Capital Management Policy, 85 FR
at 5506.
    \23\ Id. (``The Commission is not aware of evidence
demonstrating that those benefits are tied directly or positively
correlated to an individual Clearing Member's rate of utilization of
OCC's clearance and settlement services.'')
    \24\ Id. (rejecting an objection to the equal allocation of the
proposed Operational Loss Fee based on the SEC's regulatory
experience and OCC's analyses of Clearing Member utilization (e.g.,
contract volume) or credit risk (e.g., Clearing Fund size) and the
various operational and general business risks that could trigger an
Operational Loss Fee). To date, OCC has observed no correlation
between Clearing Member utilization or credit risk and OCC's
potential risk of operational loss. See Confidential Exhibit 3.
    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, OCC believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(iii), which requires that OCC
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to identify, monitor, and manage OCC's
general business risk, including by maintaining a viable plan, approved
by the Board and updated at least annually, for raising additional
equity should its equity fall close to or below the amount required
under Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(ii).\26\ While Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(iii) does
not by its terms specify the amount of additional equity a clearing
agency's plan for replenishment capital must be designed to raise, the
SEC's adopting release states that ``a viable plan generally should
enable the covered clearing agency to hold sufficient liquid net assets
to achieve recovery or orderly wind-down.'' \27\ OCC sets the maximum
Operational Loss Fee at an amount sufficient to raise, on a post-tax
basis, the amount determined annually by the Board to be sufficient to
ensure recovery or orderly wind-down pursuant to the RWD Plan.\28\
Therefore, OCC believes the proposed change to OCC's schedule of fees
is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(iii) and the guidance provided
by the SEC in the adopting release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(15)(iii).
    \27\ Standards for Covered Clearing Agencies, Exchange Act
Release No. 78961 (Sept. 28, 2016), 81 FR 70786, 70836 (Oct. 13,
2016) (File No. S7-03-14).
    \28\ See Order Approving OCC's Capital Management Policy, 85 FR
at 5510 (``The Operational Loss Fee would be sized to the Adjusted
RWD Amount, and therefore would be designed to provide OCC with at
least enough capital either to continue as a going concern or to
wind-down in an orderly fashion.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC also believes that the proposed fee change is consistent with
Section 19(g)(1) of the Act,\29\ which, among

other things, requires every self-regulatory organization to comply
with its own rules. OCC filed its Capital Management Policy as a
``proposed rule change'' within the meaning of Section 19(b) of the
Act,\30\ and Rule 19b-4 under the Act.\31\ The Capital Management
Policy specifies that the maximum Operational Loss Fee shall be the
Adjusted RWD Amount.\32\ Because the Adjusted RWD Amount will change
annually based, in part, on OCC's corporate budget, fee filings will be
necessary to ensure that the maximum Operational Loss Fee in OCC's
schedule of fees remains consistent with the amount identified in the
Capital Management Policy. Therefore, OCC believes that the proposed
change to OCC's fee schedule is consistent with Section 19(g)(1) of the
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(1).
    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).
    \31\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \32\ Order Approving OCC's Capital Management Policy, 85 FR at
5503.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is not inconsistent with the existing
rules of OCC, including any other rules proposed to be amended.

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act \33\ requires that the rules of a
clearing agency not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. OCC does not
believe that the proposed rule change would have any impact or impose a
burden on competition. Although the proposed Operational Loss Fee
affects Clearing Members, their customers, and the markets that OCC
serves, OCC believes that the proposed rule change would not
disadvantage or favor any particular user of OCC's services in
relationship to another user because the proposed Operational Loss Fee
would apply equally to all Clearing Members. In addition, OCC does not
believe that the proposed Operational Loss Fee imposes a significant
burden on smaller firms because the maximum Operational Loss Fee
imposes a contingent obligation on Clearing Members that is
approximately the same amount as a Clearing Member's contingent
obligation for Clearing Fund assessments for a Clearing Member
operating at the minimum Clearing Fund deposit.\34\ Moreover, the
proposed rule change would lower the maximum contingent obligation,
which would be a benefit to all Clearing Members. Accordingly, OCC does
not believe that the proposed rule change would have any impact or
impose a burden on competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
    \34\ See note 18, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were not and are not
intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change and
none have been received.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) \35\ of the Act, and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) thereunder,\36\ the proposed rule change is filed for immediate
effectiveness as it constitutes a change in fees charged to OCC
Clearing Members. 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. The
proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions required
with respect to the proposal are completed.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \36\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
    \37\ Notwithstanding its immediate effectiveness, implementation
of this rule change will be delayed until this change is deemed
certified under CFTC Regulation 40.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-OCC-2020-002 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2020-002. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of OCC.
    All comments received will be posted without change. Persons
submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2020-002 and
should be submitted on or before April 24, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-06954 Filed 4-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 179 (Monday, September 18, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 63999]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20181]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of
the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the
Securities and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on
Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: The meeting will be held in Auditorium LL-002 at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 and
will be simultaneously webcast on the Commission's website at
www.sec.gov.

STATUS: This meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. (ET) and will be open to
the public. Seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis.
Visitors will be subject to security checks. The meeting will be
webcast on the Commission's website at www.sec.gov.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    1. The Commission will consider whether to adopt amendments to the
rule under the Investment Company Act of 1940 that addresses investment
company names that are likely to mislead investors about an investment
company's investments and risks. The amendments the Commission will
consider also include enhanced prospectus disclosure requirements for
terminology used in investment company names, as well as public
reporting regarding compliance with the new names-related requirements.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed,
please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.

    Dated: September 13, 2023.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-20181 Filed 9-14-23; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P