[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 201 (Monday, October 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63264-63267]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26427]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76128; File No. SR-OCC-2015-016]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; the Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Modify the Options Clearing
Corporation's Margin Methodology by Incorporating Variations in Implied
Volatility

October 13, 2015
    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 5, 2015, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') 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 OCC.\3\ 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\ OCC also filed this proposal as an advance notice pursuant
to Section 802(e)(1) of the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement
Supervision Act of 2010 and Rule 19b-4(n)(1) under the Act. 15
U.S.C. 5465(e)(1) and 17 CFR 240.19b-4(n)(1). See File No. SR-OCC-
2015-804.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    This proposed rule change by The Options Clearing Corporation
(``OCC'') would modify OCC's margin methodology by incorporating
variations in implied volatility for ``shorter tenor'' options within
the System for Theoretical Analysis and Numerical Simulations
(``STANS'').

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 proposed rule change would modify OCC's margin methodology by
more broadly incorporating variations in implied volatility within
STANS. As explained below, OCC believes that expanding the use of
variations in implied volatility within STANS for substantially all \4\
option contracts available to be cleared by OCC that have a residual
tenor \5\ of less than three years (``Shorter Tenor Options'') would
enhance OCC's ability to ensure that option prices and the margin
coverage related to such positions more appropriately reflect possible
future market value fluctuations and better protect OCC in the event it
must liquidate the portfolio of a suspended Clearing Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ OCC is proposing to exclude: (i) Binary options, (ii)
options on energy futures, and (iii) options on U.S. Treasury
securities. These relatively new products were introduced as the
implied volatility margin methodology changes were in the process of
being completed by OCC. Subsequent to the implementation of the
revised implied volatility margin methodology discussed in this
filing, OCC would plan to modify the margin methodology to
accommodate the above new products. In addition, due to de minimus
open interest in those options, OCC does not believe there is a
substantive risk if the products would be excluded from the implied
volatility margin methodology modifications at this time.
    \5\ The ``tenor'' of an option is the amount of time remaining
to its expiration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implied Volatility in STANS Generally

    STANS is OCC's proprietary risk management system that calculates
Clearing Members' margin requirements in accordance with OCC's
Rules.\6\ The STANS methodology uses Monte Carlo simulations to
forecast price movement and correlations in determining a Clearing
Member's margin requirement. Under STANS, the daily margin calculation
for each Clearing Member account is constructed to comply with
Commission Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2),\7\ ensuring OCC maintains sufficient
financial resources to liquidate a defaulting member's positions,
without loss, within the liquidation horizon of two business days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Pursuant to OCC Rule 601(e)(1), however, OCC uses the
Standard Portfolio Analysis of Risk Margin Calculation System
(``SPAN'') to calculate initial margin requirements for segregated
futures accounts. No changes are proposed to OCC's use of SPAN
because the proposed changes do not concern futures. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 72331 (June 5, 2014), 79 FR 33607 (June 11,
2014) (SR-OCC-2014-13).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2). As a registered clearing agency
that performs central counterparty services, OCC is required to
``use margin requirements to limit its credit exposures to
participants under normal market conditions and use risk-based
models and parameters to set margin requirements and review such
margin requirements and the related risk-based models and parameters
at least monthly.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The STANS margin requirement for an account is composed of two
primary components: \8\ A base component and a stress test component.
The base component is obtained from a risk measure of the expected
margin shortfall for an account that results under Monte Carlo price
movement simulations. For the exposures that are observed regarding the
account, the base component is established as the estimated average of
potential losses higher than the 99% VaR \9\ threshold to help ensure
that OCC continuously meets the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2).\10\
In addition, OCC augments the base component using the stress test
component. The stress test component is obtained by considering
increases in the expected margin shortfall for an account that would
occur due to (i) market movements that are especially large and/or in
which certain risk factors would exhibit perfect or zero correlations
rather than correlations otherwise estimated using historical data or
(ii) extreme and adverse idiosyncratic movements for individual risk
factors to which the account is particularly exposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The two primary components referenced relate to the risk
calculation and are associated with the 99% two-day expected
shortfall (i.e., ES) and the concentration/dependence margin add-on
(i.e., Add-on Charge). When computing the ES or Add-on Charges,
STANS computes the theoretical value of an option for a given
simulated underlying price change using the implied volatility
reflected in the prior day closing price. Under the proposed change,
STANS would use a modeled implied volatility intended to simulate
the estimated change in implied volatilities given the simulated
underlying price change in STANS.
    \9\ The term ``value at risk'' or ``VaR'' refers to a
statistical technique that, generally speaking, is used in risk
management to measure the potential risk of loss for a given set of
assets over a particular time horizon.
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Including variations in implied volatility within STANS is intended
to ensure that the anticipated cost of liquidating each Shorter Tenor
Option position in an account recognizes the possibility that implied
volatility could change during the two business day liquidation time
horizon in STANS and lead to corresponding changes in the market prices
of the options. Generally speaking, the implied volatility of an option
is a measure of the expected future volatility of the value of the
option's annualized standard deviation of the price of the underlying
security, index, or future at exercise, which is reflected in the
current option premium in the market. The volatility is

``implied'' from the premium for an option \11\ at any given time by
calculating the option premium under certain assumptions used in the
Black-Scholes options pricing model and then determining what value
must be added to the known values for all of the other variables in the
Black-Scholes model to equal the premium. In effect, the implied
volatility is responsible for that portion of the premium that cannot
be explained by the then-current intrinsic value \12\ of the option,
discounted to reflect its time value. OCC currently incorporates
variations in implied volatility as risk factors for certain options
with residual tenors of at least three years (``Longer Tenor
Options'').\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The premium is the price that the holder of an option pays
and the writer of an option receives for the rights conveyed by the
option.
    \12\ Generally speaking, the intrinsic value is the difference
between the price of the underlying and the exercise price of the
option.
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 68434 (December
14, 2012), 77 FR 57602 [sic] (December 19, 2012) (SR-OCC-2012-14);
70709 [sic] (October 18, 2013), 78 FR 63267 [sic] (October 23, 2013)
[sic] (SR-OCC-2013-16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implied Volatility for Shorter Tenor Options

    OCC is proposing certain modifications to STANS to more broadly
incorporate variations in implied volatility for Shorter Tenor Options.
Consistent with its approach for Longer Tenor Options, OCC would model
a volatility surface \14\ for Shorter Tenor Options by incorporating
into the econometric models underlying STANS certain risk factors
regarding a time series of proportional changes in implied volatilities
for a range of tenors and absolute deltas. Shorter Tenor Option
volatility points would be defined by three different tenors and three
different absolute deltas, which produce nine ``pivot points.'' In
calculating the implied volatility values for each pivot point, OCC
would use the same type of series-level pricing data set to create the
nine pivot points that it does to create the larger number of pivot
points used for Longer Tenor Options, so that the nine pivot points
would be the result of a consolidation of the entire series-level
dataset into a smaller and more manageable set of pivot points before
modeling the volatility surface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The term ``volatility surface'' refers to a three-
dimensional graphed surface that represents the implied volatility
for possible tenors of the option and the implied volatility of the
option over those tenors for the possible levels of ``moneyness'' of
the option. The term ``moneyness'' refers to the relationship
between the current market price of the underlying interest and the
exercise price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC partnered with an experienced vendor in this area to study
implied volatility surfaces and to use back-testing of OCC's margin
requirements to build a model that would be appropriately sophisticated
and operate conservatively to minimize margin exceedances. The back-
testing results support that, over a look-back period from January 2008
to May 2013,\15\ using nine pivot points to define the volatility
surface would have resulted in a comparable number of instances in
which an account containing certain hypothetical positions would have
been under-margined compared to using a larger number of pivot points
to define the volatility surface. Therefore, although OCC could create
a more detailed volatility surface by increasing the number of pivot
points, OCC has determined that doing so for Shorter Tenor Options
would not be appropriate. Moreover, due to the significantly larger
volume of Shorter Tenor Options, OCC also believes that relying on a
greater number of pivot points could potentially lead to increases in
the time necessary to compute margin requirements that would impair
OCC's capacity to make timely calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The look-back period was determined based on the
availability of relevant data at the time of the back-testing.
Relevant data in this case means data obtained from OCC's
consultants, Finance Concepts. The back-testing was performed by
Finance Concepts using data from their OptionMetrics Ivy source. The
Ivy source maintains data from prior to 2008, but it is not clear
that data from before the market dislocation in early August 2007 is
as relevant to today's options markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under OCC's model for Shorter Tenor Options, the volatility
surfaces would be defined using tenors of one month, three months, and
one year with absolute deltas, in each case, of 0.25, 0.5, and 0.75.
This results in the nine implied volatility pivot points. Given that
premiums of deep-in-the-money options (those with absolute deltas
closer to 1.0) and deep-out-of-the-money options (those with absolute
deltas closer to 0) are insensitive to changes in implied volatility,
in each case notwithstanding increases or decreases in implied
volatility over the two business day liquidation time horizon, those
higher and lower absolute deltas have not been selected as pivot
points. OCC believes that it is appropriate to focus on pivot points
representing at- and near-the-money options because prices for those
options are more sensitive to variations in implied volatility over the
liquidation time horizon of two business days. Specifically, for SPX
index options, four factors explain 99% variance of implied volatility
movements: (i) A parallel shift of the entire surface, (ii) a slope or
skewness with respect to Delta, (iii) a slope with respect to time to
maturity; and, (iv) a convexity with respect to the time to maturity.
The nine correlated pivot points, arranged by delta and tenor, give OCC
the flexibility to capture these factors.
    In the proposed approach to computing margin for Shorter Tenor
Options under STANS, OCC would first use its econometric models to
simulate implied volatility changes at the nine pivot points that would
correspond to underlying price simulations used by STANS.\16\ For each
Shorter Tenor Option in the account of a Clearing Member, changes in
its implied volatility would then be simulated according to the
corresponding pivot point and the price of the option would be computed
to determine the amount of profit or loss in the account under the
particular STANS price simulation. Additionally, as OCC does today, it
would continue to use simulated closing prices for the assets
underlying options in the account of a Clearing Member that are
scheduled to expire within the liquidation time horizon of two business
days to compute the options' intrinsic value \17\ and use those values
to help calculate the profit or loss in the account.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ STANS relies on 10,000 price simulation scenarios that are
based generally on a historical data period of 500 business days,
which is updated monthly to keep model results from becoming stale.
    \17\ Generally speaking, the intrinsic value is the difference
between the price of the underlying and the exercise price of the
option.
    \18\ For such Shorter Tenor Options that are scheduled to expire
on the open of the market rather than the close, OCC would use the
relevant opening price for the underlying assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effects of the Proposed Change and Implementation

    OCC believes that the proposed rule change would enhance OCC's
ability to ensure that in determining margin requirements STANS
appropriately takes into account normal market conditions that OCC may
encounter in the event that, pursuant to OCC Rule 1102, it suspends a
defaulted Clearing Member and liquidates its accounts.\19\ Accordingly,
the change would promote OCC's ability to ensure that margin assets are
sufficient to liquidate the accounts of a defaulted Clearing Member
without incurring a loss.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Under authority in OCC Rules 1104 and 1106, OCC has
authority to promptly liquidate margin assets and options positions
of a suspended Clearing Member in the most orderly manner
practicable, which might include, but would not be limited to, a
private auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC estimates that Clearing Member accounts generally would
experience increased margin requirements as compared to those
calculated for the same options positions in an account today. OCC
estimates the proposed

change would most significantly affect customer accounts and least
significantly affect firm accounts, with the effect on Market Maker
accounts falling in between.
    OCC expects customer accounts to experience the largest margin
increases because positions considered under STANS for customer
accounts typically consist of more short than long options positions,
and therefore reflect a greater magnitude of direction risk than other
account types. Positions considered under STANS for customer accounts
typically consist of more short than long options positions because, to
facilitate Clearing Members' compliance with Commission requirements
for the protection of certain customer property under Rule 15c3-
3(b),\20\ OCC segregates long option positions in the securities
customers' account of each Clearing Member and does not assign them any
value in determining the expected liquidating value of the account.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(b).
    \21\ See OCC Rule 601(d)(1). Pursuant to OCC Rule 611, however,
a Clearing Member, subject to certain conditions, may instruct OCC
to release segregated long option positions from segregation. Long
positions may be released, for example, if they are part of a spread
position. Once released from segregation, OCC receives a lien on
each unsegregated long securities option carried in a customers'
account and therefore OCC permits the unsegregated long to offset
corresponding short option positions in the account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While overall OCC expects an increase in aggregate margins by about
$1.5 billion (9% of expected shortfall and stress-test add-on), OCC
does anticipate a decrease in margins in certain clearing member
accounts' requirements. OCC anticipates that such a decrease would
occur in accounts with underlying exposure and implied volatility
exposure in the same direction, such as concentrated call positions,
due to the negative correlation typically observed between these two
factors. Over the back-testing period, about 28% of the observations
for accounts on the days studied had lower margins under the proposed
methodology and the average reduction was about 2.7%. Parallel results
will be made available to the membership in the weeks ahead of
implementation.
    To help Clearing Members prepare for the proposed change, OCC has
provided Clearing Members with an Information Memo explaining the
proposal, including the planned timeline for its implementation,\22\
and discussed with certain other clearinghouses the likely effects of
the change on OCC's cross-margin agreements with them. OCC is also
publishing an Information Memo to notify Clearing Members of the
submission of this filing to the Commission. Subject to all necessary
regulatory approvals regarding the proposed change, for a period of at
least two months beginning in October 2015, OCC intends to begin making
parallel margin calculations with and without the changes in the margin
methodology. The commencement of the calculations would be announced by
an Information Memo, and OCC would provide the calculations to Clearing
Members each business day. OCC believes that Clearing Members will have
sufficient time and data to plan for the potential increases in their
respective margin requirements. OCC would also provide at least thirty
days prior notice to Clearing Members before implementing the change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ In addition to the proposal to introduce variations in
implied volatility for Shorter Tenor Options, OCC is also
contemporaneously proposing an additional change to its margin
methodology that would use liquidity charges to account for certain
costs associated with hedging in which OCC would engage during a
Clearing Member liquidation and the reasonably expected effect that
OCC's management of the liquidation would have on related bid-ask
spreads in the marketplace. The Information Memo explained both of
these proposed changes and their expected effects on margin
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (``Act''),\23\ requires that the rules of a clearing agency
ensure the safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody and
control of OCC and protect investors and the public interest. OCC has
custody and control of margin deposits it requires members to post to
limit credit exposure to members under normal market conditions. In the
event of a member default, that member's margin deposits are the first
pool of resources OCC would use to cover losses associated with the
default. Appropriately robust and accurate margin resources help ensure
that OCC does not have to access mutualized clearing fund deposits that
are also in OCC's custody and control to cover losses associated with a
member's default. By ensuring its margin methodology more accurately
and appropriately measures its credit exposure to members under normal
market conditions, OCC helps ensure that it is safeguarding of clearing
fund resources in the custody and control of OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule is also consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2),\24\
which specifically requires that OCC use margin requirements to limit
its credit exposures to Clearing Members under normal market conditions
and use risk-based models and parameters to set margin requirements, in
compliance with Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2). As explained directly above, OCC
believes the proposed rule more accurately and appropriately measures
OCC's credit exposures in normal market conditions and sets margin
requirements commensurate with this more accurate and appropriate
measure. Finally, the proposed rule change is not inconsistent with the
existing rules of OCC, including any other rules proposed to be
amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    OCC believes that the proposed rule change would increase margin
requirements more significantly with respect to Clearing Member
customer accounts than other accounts and would therefore impose a
burden on competition.\25\ While the proposed rule change to include
variations in implied volatility within STANS would be applied
uniformly to all Clearing Members for Shorter Tenor Options, the
disproportionate effect for customer accounts would result in a larger
burden for Clearing Members that engage in more customer clearing than
others. Although overall OCC expects an increase in aggregate margins
by about $1.5 billion (9% of expected shortfall and stress-test add-
on), OCC does anticipate a decrease in margins in certain clearing
member accounts' requirements, such as account with underlying exposure
and implied volatility exposure in the same direction, such as
concentrated call positions, due to the negative correlation typically
observed between these two factors. Over the back-testing period, about
28% of the observations for accounts on the days studied had lower
margins under the proposed methodology and the average reduction was
about 2.7%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, customer accounts experience higher margin
requirements than would otherwise result because long option positions
in securities customers' accounts of Clearing Members are generally
segregated by OCC, pursuant to its own Rules, to facilitate compliance
by Clearing Members with Commission Rule 15c3-3(b).\26\ However, such
an effect is justified because the customer accounts are more
directional: allowing offsets for long options positions in securities
customers' accounts of Clearing Members in STANS would not

accurately represent the conditions of a Clearing Member liquidation
scenario since the positions are not eligible for use in this scenario
under Commission rules. For the foregoing reasons, OCC believes that
the proposed rule change is in the public interest, would be consistent
with the requirements of the Act applicable to clearing agencies and
would impose a burden on competition, with respect to more significant
margin increases for customer accounts, that is necessary and
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(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

    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.
    The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions
required with respect to the proposal are completed.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ OCC also filed this proposal as an advance notice pursuant
to Section 802(e)(1) of the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement
Supervision Act of 2010 and Rule 19b-4(n)(1) under the Act. See
supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-2015-016 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-2015-016. 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
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of OCC and on OCC's
Web site at http://www.optionsclearing.com/components/docs/legal/rules_and_bylaws/sr_occ_15_016.pdf. 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-OCC-2015-016 and should be submitted on
or before November 9, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-26427 Filed 10-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 126)]
[Notices]
[Page 31790-31791]
[DOCID:fr02jy09-112]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Request Revision From the Office of
Management and Budget of a Currently Approved Information Collection
Activity, Request for Comments; Part 121 Pilot Age Limit

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve a current
information collection. The FAA is proposing to raise the upper age
limit for pilots serving in domestic, flag, and supplemental operations
until they reach their 65th birthday as long as the other pilot at the
controls is under age 60. Affected pilots would have to apply for
medical examination twice a year to maintain a first-class medical
certificate instead of once a year to maintain a second-class medical
certificate.

DATES: Please submit comments by August 31, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Mauney on<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    Title: Part 121 Pilot Age Limit.
    Type of Request: New collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-XXXX.
    Forms(s): There are no FAA forms associated with this collection.
    Affected Public: A total of 15,649 Respondents.
    Frequency: The information is collected semi-annually.
    Estimated Average Burden Per Response: Approximately 15 minutes per
response.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 3,912 hours annually.
    Abstract: The FAA is proposing to raise the upper age limit for
pilots serving in domestic, flag, and supplemental operations until
they reach their 65th birthday as long as the other pilot at the
controls is under age 60. This action would impose new paperwork
requirements. Under this proposal, all pilots over age 60 serving in
part 121 operations would have to hold a first-class medical
certificate, valid for 6 months and would require a line check
(evaluation) every six months. Although it is projected that most older
pilots serving in part 121 operations hold a first-class medical
certificate, some pilots may not since they may serve as co-pilot and
hold a commercial pilot certificate which requires a second-class
medical certificate, valid for 12 months. Affected pilots would have to
apply for medical examination twice a year to maintain a first-class
medical certificate instead of once a year to maintain a second-class
medical certificate.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Carla
Mauney, Room 712, Federal Aviation Administration, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200, 800 Independence Ave., SW.,
Washington, DC 20591.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility: The accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of
the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected: and ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 24, 2009.
Carla Mauney,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. E9-15521 Filed 7-1-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA/ Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance/ Office of Compliance 2. OMB control number b. G None a. 2060 0220 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title NSPS for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW) ( Renewal)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA ICR Number 1557.06 9. Keywords Landfills, municipal solid waste, commercial solid waste, controlled landfill, disposal facility, sludge, solid waste.

10. Abstract The provisions of this subpart apply to each municipal solid waste landfill that commenced construction, reconstruction or modification on or after May 30, 1991. Owners or operators of subpart WWW landfills are required to comply with reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and maintain records of specific information needed by EPA to determine if compliance has been achieved.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 175 _ b. Total annual responses 211 1. Percentage of these responses _ collected electronically 10 %______ c. Total hours requested 3,548 d. Current OMB inventory 3,390 e. Difference 158 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 0 2. Adjustment 158 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 21 c. Total annualized cost requested 21 d. Current OMB inventory 107 e. Difference  86 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment  86 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Application for benefits e. Program planning or management b. Program evaluation f. Research c. General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. X On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. X Annually 7. Q Biennially 8. X Other ( describe) Initially 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Learia A. Williams Phone: ( 202) 564 4113 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, I certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3):

( i) Why the information is being collected; ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( i) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Michael S. Alushin, Director Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division Office of Compliance Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility,

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency,

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C. § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( i) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of:

"( i) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any 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." OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 202 (Friday, October 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58684-58685]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23103]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2019-0862]

Port Access Route Study: Approaches to the Chesapeake Bay,
Virginia

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces the completion of the Port Access
Route Study for the Approaches to the Chesapeake Bay, Virginia. The
study was conducted to determine whether to recommend changes to
enhance navigational safety by examining existing shipping routes and
waterway uses as offshore energy development matures and to evaluate
the need for establishing or changing existing vessel routing measures.
This notice summarizes the study's recommendation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document
call or email Matthew Creelman, Marine Planner at Fifth Coast Guard
District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

BOEM--Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, U.S. Department of the
Interior
DELMARVA--Delaware, Maryland, Virginia peninsula (Eastern Shore)
FR--Federal Register
NEPA--National Environmental Policy Act
PARS--Port Access Route Study
TSS--Traffic Separation Scheme
USCG--United States Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security

II. Background and Purpose

    We conducted this Port Access Route Study (PARS) following a Notice
of Study, published in the Federal Register on November 27, 2019 (84 FR
65398). There was a 60-day public comment period, as well as other
outreach efforts identified in Section C of the study. During the
comment period USCG received 11 comments in response to the notice.

    On June 16, 2021, we published a Notice of Availability of the
draft study in the Federal Register (86 FR 32052) with a 30-day public
comment period with a request for public comment.
    During the 30-day public comment period, the USCG received eleven
comments in response to our draft study, as well as other outreach
identified in Section G of the study.
    All comments and supporting documents are available in the public
docket and can be viewed at https://www.regulations.gov. To view
documents, in the ``Search'' box insert ``USCG-2019-0862'' and click
``Search.'' Then select ``Supporting & Related Material'' in the
Document Type column.
    Comments have been addressed and summarized in section III.
    The goal of the study is to enhance navigational safety in the
study area by examining existing shipping routes and waterway uses. We
have undertaken measures to (1) determine what, if any, navigational
safety concerns exist with vessel transits in the study area; (2)
determine whether to recommend changes to enhance navigational safety
by examining existing shipping routes and all other waterway uses; and
(3) reconcile any other proposed changes with other reasonable waterway
uses.

III. Study Recommendations

    The recommendations of this PARS are based on the data analysis for
historical vessel traffic patterns, comments received to the docket,
public outreach, and consultation with other government agencies and
stakeholders. Recommendations in the draft study include:
    1. An expansion of the precautionary area between the two Traffic
Separation Schemes to preserve a naturally occurring deep draft slough
for future increases in vessel size.
    2. Modifications to shipping safety fairways as proposed in the
Atlantic Coast Shipping Safety Fairways rulemaking, to include:
    a. Re-orienting the ``Chesapeake Bay to Delaware Bay'' connector
fairway to allow space for an offshore anchorage in the approach to the
Delaware Bay.
    b. Re-orienting the ``Cape Charles to Montauk Point'' fairway to
route closer to the DELMARVA peninsula.
    c. Add one connector fairway from the offshore ``St. Lucie to New
York'' fairway and the Chesapeake Bay TSS, south of the Commercial
Virginia Offshore Wind project area, to facilitate safe transit of
commercial international vessels around future offshore energy
installations.
    The final study considered several comments from port and industry
stakeholders regarding larger vessels calling on the Port of Virginia
in the future, suggesting an additional fairway connector from the
Atlantic Coast PARS would be required. These comments were well
supported and resulted in changes to the final recommendations.

IV. Summary of Changes

    Section E was modified to address comments on fishing activity
within the study area and now contains calculations for recommended
safe transit widths based on fishing vessel transit data. Section F
changes resulted from public comments requesting addition of a
connector fairway north of the Commercial Virginia Offshore Wind lease
area. The comments supported the need to preserve a deep draft route to
support and promote navigation safety of larger vessels expected to
call more frequently on the Port of Virginia in the future. All changes
to the final study are indicated by italicized type.

V. Future Actions

    The USCG will continue to serve as a NEPA cooperating agency to
BOEM's environmental review of any proposed project. In that role, the
USCG will evaluate the navigational safety risks of each proposal on a
case-by-case basis.
    The final study will be submitted to the Office of Navigation
Systems (CG-NAV-2) for consideration and possible inclusion as part of
a future Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Shipping Safety Fairways
along the Atlantic Coast.
    The final study is available for viewing and download from the
Federal Register docket at http://www.regulations.gov or the USCG
Navigation Center website at https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=PARSReports.

    Dated: October 19, 2021.
Richard E. Batson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, Fifth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2021-23103 Filed 10-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: March 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 55)]
[Notices]
[Page 14564-14565]
[DOCID:fr22mr06-114]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53485; File No. SR-PCX-2006-15]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Pacific Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Make
Certain Housekeeping Changes to Its Schedule of Fees and Charges

March 14, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 23, 2006, the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (``PCX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The PCX
filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of
the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ 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\ CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The PCX proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees and Charges
(``Schedule'') in order to make certain housekeeping changes to the
Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is available at NYSE
Arca, at http://www.archipelago.com/regulation/filings.asp and at the

Commission.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The PCX 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 the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to make certain
housekeeping changes to the PCX Schedule.

Trade Related Charges

    On the present Schedule, in the section entitled Trade Related
Charges, the rate table shows transaction fees for different market
participants. Presently the Firm transaction fee is $0.10 per contract,
the Broker/Dealers transaction fee is $0.21 per contract and the Market
Makers transaction fee is $0.21 per contract. Customers are not charged
a transaction fee. In this same table is the On-Line Comparison fee,
which is $0.05, assessed on all Firm, Broker/Dealer and Market Maker
transactions. The On-Line Comparison fee is not assessed on Customer
transactions.
    Since the On-Line Comparison fee is the same for Firm, Broker/
Dealer and Market Maker transactions, and is not charged on Customer
transactions, the PCX proposes to simplify the Schedule by eliminating
the separate On-Line Comparison fee and incorporating it into the
transaction fees. Under the new Schedule, the rate table will now show
the Firm transaction Fee of $0.15 per contract, the Broker/Dealer
transaction fee of $0.26 per contract and the Market Maker transaction
fee of $0.26 per contract. The Customer transaction fee will remain at
zero. While the published rate schedule will appear different than it
presently does, there is actually no net change to the amount the
Exchange assesses for trade related charges.

Order Cancellation Fee

    The PCX proposes to correct an error in the footnote associated
with this fee. The PCX charges an OTP Firm a cancellation fee, under
certain conditions, when it cancels a certain number of orders in any
given month. In the footnote attached to this fee, under condition (i),
where it reads ``500 contracts'' the word ``contracts'' was mistakenly
used instead of ``orders.'' In order to make the rule text consistent,
the PCX proposes to change the word to now read ``orders''.
2. Statutory Basis
    The PCX believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\6\

in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members
and issuers and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15.U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The PCX 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

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited
nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing rule change establishes or changes a due,
fee, or other charge applicable only to a member imposed by the
Exchange, it has become effective upon filing pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \7\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\8\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of such
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 the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \8\ 17 U.S.C. 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 No. SR-PCX-2006-15 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PCX-2006-15. 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. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the PCX. 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-PCX-2006-15 and should be submitted on or before April
12, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-4121 Filed 3-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P