[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8418-8419]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01672]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Staff Attendance at the Southwest Power Pool Regional
Entity Trustee, Regional State Committee, Members' Committee and Board
of Directors' Meetings

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives
notice that members of its staff may attend the meetings of the
Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Regional Entity Trustee (RET), Regional
State Committee (RSC), Members' Committee and Board of Directors as
noted below. Their attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing
outreach efforts.
    All meetings will be held at the Doubletree Hotel, 4099 Valley View
Lane, Dallas, TX 75244. The phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. All
meetings are Central Time.

SPP RET
    January 30, 2017 (8:00-5:00 p.m.)
SPP RSC
    January 30, 2017 (1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m.)
SPP Members/Board of Directors
    January 31, 2017 (8:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m.)

    The discussions may address matters at issue in the following
proceedings:

    Docket No. ER11-1844, Midcontinent Independent System Operator,
Inc.
    Docket No. ER12-1179, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER14-2850, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER15-1499, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER15-1775, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER15-1777, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER15-1943, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER15-1976, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER15-2028, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER15-2115, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER15-2324, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER15-2347, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER15-2351, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER15-2356, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. EL16-91, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. EL16-108, Tilton Energy v. Midcontinent Independent
System Operator, Inc.
    Docket No. EL16-110, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER16-13, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER16-204, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER16-209, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER16-791, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER16-829, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER16-846, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER16-862, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER16-863, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER16-932, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER16-1211, Midcontinent Independent System Operator,
Inc.
    Docket No. ER16-1305, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER16-1351, Westar Energy, Inc.
    Docket No. ER16-1314, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER16-1341, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER16-1546, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER16-1797, Midcontinent Independent System Operator,
Inc.
    Docket No. ER16-1799, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER16-1912, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER16-1945, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER16-2522, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER16-2523, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. EL17-11, Alabama Power Co.
    Docket No. EL17-21, Kansas Electric Co.
    Docket No. EL17-29, American Municipal Power
    Docket No. ER17-236, Southwestern Public Service Co.
    Docket No. ER17-238, Southwestern Public Service Co.
    Docket No. ER17-253, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER17-264, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER17-267, Southwestern Public Service Co.
    Docket No. ER17-300, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER17-353, Southwest

Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER17-358, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER17-426, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER17-427, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER17-428, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER17-469, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER17-483, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER17-587, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER17-589, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER17-591, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER17-722, ITC Midwest, LLC
    Docket No. ER17-738, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER17-739, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER17-745, ITC Midwest, LLC
    Docket No. ER17-749, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER17-762, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    These meetings are open to the public.
    For more information, contact Patrick Clarey, Office of Energy
Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-
5937 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: January 18, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-01672 Filed 1-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 CHAPTER SEVEN

 SMALL ENTITY IMPACT ANALYSIS

This chapter addresses the potential impacts of the final rule on small
entities.  The New Eligibility for Form A: PBT Option and Expanded
Eligibility for Form A: Non-PBT Option create net cost savings rather
than imposing costs on the regulated universe.  A Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) analysis is typically not
required when regulatory activities result in cost savings.  However,
facilities filing those non-PBT forms that may lose their current Form A
eligibility as a result of including Section 8.8 amounts (e.g.,
catastrophic events) in the ARA threshold determinations for Form A
eligibility will experience an increase in burden and costs (see Chapter
6).

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C. § 601 et. seq.)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of regulations on small
entities and, in some instances, to examine alternatives to the
regulations that may reduce adverse economic effects on significantly
impacted small entities.  The RFA requires agencies to prepare an
initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis for each rule unless
the Agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Since 1980, the RFA has required Federal agencies to assess the economic
impacts of their actions on small entities, including businesses,
nonprofit agencies, and governments.  Section 604 of the RFA, as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996, requires EPA to perform a final regulatory flexibility analysis
for the final rule unless the Agency certifies under section 605(b) that
the regulatory action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.  The RFA does not specifically
define “a significant economic impact on a substantial number” of
small entities.

	For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities,
small entity is defined as: (1) a business that is classified as a
“small business” by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a
city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any
not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and
is not dominant in its field.

	The economic impact analysis conducted for today's rule indicates that
these revisions to Form R and Form A would generally result in savings
to affected entities compared to baseline requirements.  However, some
businesses that currently file one or more Form As would be required to
file Form Rs as a result of including Section 8.8 amounts (e.g.,
catastrophic events) in the ARA threshold determinations for Form A
eligibility.   While this rule will result in a cost savings for most
affected entities, these businesses would suffer a burden increase.
Since the burden increase will be attributable to significant non
production-related wastes (i.e., unusual events) the number of
facilities experiencing this burden each year will likely remain about
the same, although the specific facilities are likely to change.

This analysis uses annual cost impact percentages to measure potential
impacts on small entities. The cost impact percentage is defined as
annual compliance costs as a percentage of annual revenues or sales.
This approach is based on the premise that the cost impact percentage is
an appropriate measure of a firm's ability to afford the costs
attributable to a regulatory change.  For purposes of determining small
entity impacts, comparing annual compliance costs to annual revenues
provides a reasonable indication of the magnitude of the regulatory
burden relative to a commonly available and objective measure of a
company's business volume. Where regulatory costs represent a very small
fraction of a typical firm's revenue, the impacts of the regulation are
likely to be minimal.

The cost impact percentages are calculated using both first- and
subsequent-year compliance costs (which are the same in this analysis).
Under this rule, annual compliance costs are composed of report-specific
costs including Form R completion and recordkeeping that will vary
according to the total number of TRI reports a facility files. The
general methodology followed to estimate the impacts on small entities
consists of the following steps:

Estimate the number of forms and facilities that will lose eligibility
to report using Form A for at least one chemical due to the final rule;

(2) Estimate the number of small parent companies affected (i.e., the
number of small companies with at least one reporting facility losing
eligibility);

(3) Develop company-level annual compliance cost estimates, based on the
number of facilities per company and the number of reports per facility;

(4) Model annual revenues of potentially affected small companies (i.e.
parent companies of Form A filers) by SIC code;

(5) Estimate the company-level impact percentages, defined as annual
compliance costs as a percentage of annual revenues, as a measure of
regulatory burden;

(6) Estimate the percentage and number of small companies with
company-level annual impact percentages in each of three categories: (1)
less than one percent of annual revenues; (2) between one and three
percent of annual revenues; and (3) greater than or equal to three
percent of annual revenues.

Because the specific identity of each affected company is not known and
specific facilities are likely to change each year, this analysis models
the characteristics of potentially affected companies by constructing
SIC code profiles that represent current Form A filers.  Company revenue
data were obtained for commercial facilities in the SIC codes affected
by the final rule from Dun and Bradstreet’s Market Spectrum (hereafter
referred to as D&B).  Due to time constraints, it was necessary to rely
on an earlier linkage of TRI facilities to D&B facilities to identify
size and revenue information in D&B for current Form A filers.

Tables 7-1 and 7-2 present information on current Form A forms and
filers in general and current Form A forms and filers that would lose
Form A eligibility in particular.  This information is used to estimate
the regulatory cost to small parent companies affected as a percent of
annual revenues.

TABLE 7-1

CHARACTERISTICS OF CURRENT FORM A FILERS AFFECTED BY THE FINAL RULE

Percent Large Parent Companies	55%

Percent Small Parent Companies	45%

Avg. # of Facilities filing Form A per Small Parent Company	1.07

Avg. # of Form As per Facility Owned by a Small Parent Company	2.47

Avg. # of Form As switching to Form Rs per Affected Small Parent Company
	1.56

Incremental Reporting Burden	9.1 hrs/form

Incremental Reporting Cost	$438/form

Total Reporting Burden per Affected Small Parent Company	14 hours

Total Reporting Cost per Affected Small Parent Company	$681/parent
company

Source: RY2002 TRI data and 2004 D&B data.

Note: This analysis assumes that the characteristics of current Form A
filers required to switch to Form Rs are similar to all current Form A
filers.

As shown in Table 7-2, this rule is expected to adversely affect 19
parent companies that own 32 facilities that currently file Form A
submissions.  Of the affected parent companies, approximately 45
percent, or 9 companies, are small businesses as defined by the Small
Business Administration.  No small governments or small organizations
are expected to be affected by this action.  Each affected small parent
company is expected to expend approximately 14 hours and $681 per year
to comply with the additional reporting requirements. Note that this
small entity analysis reflects the estimated impacts to facilities
currently filing Form As.  The current utilization rate for Form A,
however, is much lower than 100 percent. If the utilization rate were to
increase in the future, the number of small affected parent companies
could be as much as twice the number estimated in this analysis,
although the per parent cost increase would be the same.

TABLE 7-2

NUMBERS OF FORMS, FACILITIES, AND PARENT COMPANIES ASSOCIATED WITH
CURRENT FORM A FILERS AFFECTED BY THE FINAL RULE

	New Ineligibility for Form A: Non-PBT Chemicals Option

Number of Affected Facilitiesa	32

58

Number of Affected Forms	50

80

Number of Affected Parent Companies	19

Number of Affected Large Parent Companies	10

18

Number of Affected Small Parent Companies	9

15

Total Number of Forms Associated with Small Parent Companies	14

40

a Includes total affected facilities that file Form A (this number is
not adjusted to account for overlap with facilities that file Form Rs
eligible for Form A, as in Chapter 6)

Source: RY2002 TRI data and 2004 D&B data.

Note: This analysis assumes that the characteristics of current Form A
filers required to switch to Form Rs are similar to all current Form A
filers.

Resulting cost impact percentages are presented using average revenues
and revenue quartiles, as shown in Table 7-3 and 7-4.  Based on the
incremental cost, the number of facilities owned by each small business,
and the annual revenues of the affected small businesses, all 9 affected
small businesses are expected to experience cost impacts of less than
one percent of annual revenues.

TABLE 7-3

SMALL ENTITY COST IMPACT PERCENTAGES FOR CURRENT FORM A FILERS UNDER THE
FINAL RULE

USING AVERAGE REVENUES

(FIRST AND SUBSEQUENT YEAR FILERS)

SIC	Average Revenue	Cost Impact Percentage

20	 $51,410,260 	0.002%

22	 $14,984,636 	0.005%

24	 $19,935,399 	0.004%

25	 $10,823,034 	0.007%

26	 $25,430,556 	0.003%

27	$ 8,750,000 	0.009%

28	 $19,312,136 	0.004%

29	 $31,290,558 	0.002%

30	 $15,801,997 	0.005%

31	 $ 5,233,333 	0.015%

32	 $20,258,694 	0.004%

33	 $17,957,569 	0.004%

34	 $12,484,351 	0.006%

35	 $14,493,950 	0.005%

36	 $22,360,460 	0.003%

37	 $28,045,966 	0.003%

38	 $ 7,269,825 	0.011%

39	 $18,647,261 	0.004%

5169	 $10,144,756 	0.008%

5171	 $22,449,518 	0.003%

7389	 $ 1,170,000 	0.066%

Other	 $12,994,601 	0.006%

Source: RY2002 TRI data and 2004 D&B data.

Note: This analysis assumes that the characteristics of current Form A
filers required to switch to Form Rs are similar to all current Form A
filers.

TABLE 7-4

SMALL ENTITY COST IMPACT PERCENTAGES FOR CURRENT FORM A FILERS UNDER THE
FINAL RULE USING REVENUE QUARTILES

(FIRST AND SUBSEQUENT YEAR FILERS)

SIC Code	25% Quartile	50% Quartile	75% Quartile	100% Quartile

20	0.007%	0.002%	0.001%	0.000%

22	0.022%	0.009%	0.005%	0.002%

24	0.038%	0.013%	0.004%	0.000%

25	0.012%	0.006%	0.005%	0.005%

26	0.008%	0.003%	0.002%	0.002%

27	0.031%	0.009%	0.005%	0.005%

28	0.021%	0.010%	0.004%	0.000%

29	0.015%	0.007%	0.002%	0.000%

30	0.027%	0.009%	0.004%	0.001%

31	0.019%	0.019%	0.010%	0.010%

32	0.028%	0.009%	0.004%	0.000%

33	0.026%	0.010%	0.003%	0.001%

34	0.029%	0.012%	0.004%	0.001%

35	0.021%	0.008%	0.004%	0.001%

36	0.015%	0.005%	0.002%	0.001%

37	0.009%	0.004%	0.002%	0.001%

38	0.052%	0.029%	0.008%	0.002%

39	0.010%	0.006%	0.003%	0.002%

5169	0.031%	0.012%	0.005%	0.001%

5171	0.019%	0.010%	0.003%	0.001%

7389	0.149%	0.065%	0.052%	0.031%

Other	0.034%	0.017%	0.005%	0.001%

Source: RY2002 TRI data and 2004 D&B data.

Note: This analysis assumes that the characteristics of current Form A
filers required to switch to Form Rs are similar to all current Form A
filers.

 Size and revenue data for current Form A filers were obtained by using
frozen TRI RY2002 data and data from D&B. The TRI facilities were
assigned D&B numbers using the D&B numbers reported to TRI in 2002 as
well as a TRI/D&B linkage file provided to Abt Associates by EPA for
RY2000. The RY2000 TRI/D&B linkages provided by EPA were used when
available. Self-reported D&B numbers in TRI were used for RY2002
reporters not included in the EPA linkage file. For facilities listed in
EPA’s linkage file with no D&B number, the TRI D&B number was used
when it was possible to verify the linkage using TRI and D&B street
addresses. Facilities were excluded from this analysis if it was not
possible to link the facility to a valid D&B number.

***September 22, 2006***


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 80 (Thursday, April 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19435-19438]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08498]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2005-22177; FMCSA-2005-22905; FMCSA-2006-26600;
FMCSA-2008-0009; FMCSA-2008-0399; FMCSA-2009-0055; FMCSA-2011-0011;
FMCSA-2011-0025; FMCSA-2013-0011; FMCSA-2013-0013; FMCSA-2014-0314]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes

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

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions of 135
individuals from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated
diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles
(CMVs) in interstate commerce. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt
individuals from this rule if the exemptions granted will not
compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these
exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to
or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions
for these CMV drivers.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions are effective from the dates
stated in the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before
May 30, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. FMCSA-2005-22177; FMCSA-
2005-22905; FMCSA-2006-26600; FMCSA-2008-0009; FMCSA-2008-0399; FMCSA-
2009-0055; FMCSA-2011-0011; FMCSA-2011-0025; FMCSA-2013-0011; FMCSA-
2013-0013; FMCSA-2014-0314 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act
heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on January
17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-
113, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 5:30
p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 2-year period if it
finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent
such exemption.'' The statute also allows the Agency to renew
exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 135 individuals listed
in this notice have recently become eligible for a renewed exemption
from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. The drivers remain in good
standing with the Agency, have maintained their required medical
monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would
compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-
year exemption period.

II. Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 135 individuals who have requested renewal of
their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. These 135 drivers
remain in good standing with the Agency, have maintained their required
medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would
compromise

their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-year
exemption period. Therefore, FMCSA has decided to extend each exemption
for a renewable two-year period. Each individual is identified
according to the renewal date.
    The exemptions are renewed subject to the following conditions: (1)
That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed
by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a
comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each individual reports
within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe
hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage
diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse
event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an
episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual submit an annual
ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report; and (4) that each individual
provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for
retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her
driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must
also have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to
a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

III. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. The following groups of
drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of April and are
discussed below.
    As of April 2, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 9 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 7852; 79 FR
19798):

Isaias Gomez (IN)
Brandon E. Hamlett (NV)
Douglas F. Keller (MI)
Mark R. Loesel (WI)
Jason E. McAnnally (AL)
Samuel L. Sergio (MA)
Paul M. Shierk (OR)
David W. West (MO)
Eugene R. Zollner II (OH)

    The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0011. Their
exemptions are effective as of April 2, 2017, and will expire on April
2, 2019.
    As of April 5, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, James R. Moretz, Jr. (PA) has satisfied the renewal conditions
for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM
from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (70 FR 60875; 71 FR 17159).
    This driver was included in docket No. FMCSA-2005-22177. The
exemption is effective as of April 5, 2017, and will expire on April 5,
2019.
    As of April 6, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 11 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (74 FR 7093; 74 FR
15577):

Daniel J. Conner (PA)
Luis G. Garcia (FL)
Joey M. Godinho (CA)
Gerardo Gonzalez (WI)
Edwin L. Haynie (TX)
Darryl D. Hewitt (CA)
Mark D. Hoag (WA)
Patrick H. Junkins (SC)
Jeffrey D. Moul (SD)
Frank B. Rivett (NY)
Michael L. Wise (IN)

    The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2008-0399. Their
exemptions are effective as of April 6, 2017, and will expire on April
6, 2019.
    As of April 7, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 3 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (70 FR 75236; 71 FR
17943):

Roy G. Hill (KY)
Anthony D. Izzi (RI)
Kenneth L. Pogue (MO)

    The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2005-22905. Their
exemptions are effective as of April 7, 2017, and will expire on April
7, 2019.
    As of April 18, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 27 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (80 FR 14232; 80 FR
26986):

Scott A. Anderson (MN)
Peter A. Breister (WI)
Donald J. Carino (IL)
Marc B. Curtis (NV)
Aaron M. Dixon (SD)
Bradley O. Gibson (TX)
Theodore F. Griffith (MA)
Lawrence E. Handel (OR)
Danny P. Hersh (NE)
Bryan W. Hughes-Gariepy (NY)
James L. Johnson (GA)
Thomas Landis (IL)
Grant L. Lupold (PA)
Nathan R. McGathey (IN)
Mark A. Mesnard (OH)
Gene K. Milburn (ID)
Andrew M. Oliver (MI)
Richard L. Peak (KS)
Anthony P. Reith (PA)
Steven Smith (FL)
Robert L. Snyder (MA)
John H. Spierings (WI)
Robert E. Stokes (WA)
Corey R. Sturm (IN)
Christopher W. Williams (ID)
Robert L. Witt (VT)
Paul G. Wright (CO)

    The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2014-0314. Their
exemptions are effective as of April 18, 2017, and will expire on April
18, 2019.
    As of April 22, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 10 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (74 FR 9467; 74 FR
18436):

Scott D. Baroch (MT)
Michael G. Chisum (NM)
Timothy N. Davenport (TN)
Henry S. Glover (TX)
James R. Halliday (NY)
Nathan M. Hennix (ND)
Wilbert E. Isadore (TX)
Eddie J. Nosser (MO)
Joseph C. Perrin III (MN)
Ronald A. Stachura (WI)

    The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2009-0055. Their
exemptions are effective as of April 22, 2017, and will expire on April
22, 2019.
    As of April 24, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 19 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 14406; 78 FR
24303):

Christopher R. Anderson (MN)
Brent T. Applebury (MO)
Jospeh A. Auchterlonie (NH)
Brett D. Bertagnolli (IN)
Brian T. Bofenkamp (WA)
Scott A. Carlson (PA)
John Fityere (NJ)
Ronald A. Heaps (OH)
Martin A. Houts (IA)
Michael T. Kraft (MN)
Kris W. Lindsay (KS)
Edward M. Luczynski (NJ)
John E. Ruth (IL)
Greggory A. Smith (MO)
James M. Torkildson (WI)
Terry R. Washa (NE)
Alfred J. Williams (VA)
Scott B. Wood (ND)
James L. Zore (IN)

    The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2013-0013. Their
exemptions are effective as of April 24, 2017, and will expire on April
24, 2019.
    As of April 25, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 36 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (73 FR 11982; 73 FR
22456; 76 FR 9854; 76 FR 9862; 76 FR 22940; 76 FR 22941):

Ryan N. Adams (CA)
Kevin J. Agler (IN)
Michael B. Bessinger (UT)
Douglas D. Brown (WI)
Warren S. Brown (GA)
Roger R. Cabana (ME)
Steven W. Ceckiewicz (WI)
Joseph F. Colbert (PA)
Daniel E. Coufal (NE)
Gregory M. Cox (NY)
Dennis J. Dallmann (MN)
Bruce R. Davis (NJ)
Michael B. Elzey (WY)
Earl S. Fibish (CA)
Todd W. Gillespie (NY)
Omar S. Griffin, Jr. (MN)
Richard E. Grunden (ND)
Mark Hall (NJ)
Michael B. Heuett (ID)
Dennis P. Hohnerlein (GA)
Todd A. Kozemchak (PA)
Chad M. Kunkel (MN)
Paul F. Lanich (PA)
Kenneth L. Lefeld (OH)
Daryl G. Lewis (TX)
Jeffrey S. Lomber (MI)
Joseph G. McDonald (MD)
Alan J. Mitchell (DE)
Raymond P. Mora, Sr. (AZ)
James L. Mynars (MN)
John R. Pile (IN)
Dale A. Roberts (IA)
Richard S. Synakowski (NY)
Bruce K. Thomas (NY)
Kory M. Tobias (IL)
Kevin J. Van Horn (MI)

    The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos:
FMCSA-2008-0009; FMCSA-2011-0011; FMCSA-2011-0025. Their exemptions are
effective as of April 25, 2017, and will expire on April 25, 2019.
    As of April 28, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, Spencer J. Olson (ID) has satisfied the renewal conditions for
obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from
driving CMVs in interstate commerce (80 FR 14232; 80 FR 26986).
    This driver was included in docket No. FMCSA-2014-0314. The
exemption is effective as of April 28, 2017, and will expire on April
28, 2019.
    As of April 30, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 18 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (72 FR 9399; 72 FR
21316):

Daniel W. Bezdek (OH)
Jason L. Freeseman (IA)
Rusty W. Frost (NM)
Andrew J. Hayek (WI)
Gary L. Koehn (NE)
Edward T. Megee (CA)
Steven T. Moody (AL)
Timothy W. Nelson (MN)
Richard W. Newman (NY)
Jamison P. Noel (IA)
Rex S. Norquist (KS)
Steven B. Novak (CA)
Russell D. Rockefeller (NY)
Scott W. Sheerer (OH)
Richard L. Strange (IA)
Samuel G. Thiel (ND)
Robert J. Varetoni (NJ)
Michael R. Vaupel (KS)

    The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2006-26600. Their
exemptions are effective as of April 30, 2017, and will expire on April
30, 2019.
    Each of the 135 drivers in the aforementioned groups qualifies for
a renewal of the exemption. They have maintained their required medical
monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would
compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-
year exemption period.
    These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each
driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce.
Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each of the
135 drivers for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of
safety equal to that existing without the exemption. The drivers were
included in docket numbers FMCSA-2005-22177; FMCSA-2005-22905; FMCSA-
2006-26600; FMCSA-2008-0009; FMCSA-2008-0399; FMCSA-2009-0055; FMCSA-
2011-0011; FMCSA-2011-0025; FMCSA-2013-0011; FMCSA-2013-0013; FMCSA-
2014-0314.

IV. Request for Comments

    FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a
particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of
the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with
specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit
comments by May 30, 2017.
    FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially
granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed,
subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated
above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition
announcing its decision to exempt these 135 individuals from rule
prohibiting persons with ITDM from operating CMVs in interstate
commerce in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3). The final decision to grant an
exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each
case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received
to its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in
detail the medical condition of each applicant for an exemption from
rule prohibiting persons with ITDM from operating CMVs in interstate
commerce. That information is available by consulting the above cited
Federal Register publications.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

V. Submitting Comments

    You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail,
or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA
recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email
address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA
can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
in the search box insert the docket numbers FMCSA-2005-22177; FMCSA-
2005-22905; FMCSA-2006-26600; FMCSA-2008-0009; FMCSA-2008-0399; FMCSA-
2009-0055; FMCSA-2011-0011; FMCSA-2011-0025; FMCSA-2013-0011; FMCSA-
2013-0013; FMCSA-2014-0314 and click the search button. When the new
screen appears, click on the blue ``Comment Now!'' button on the right
hand side of the page. On the new page, enter information required
including the specific section of this document to which each comment
applies, and

provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. If you submit
your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound
format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and
electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to
know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-
addressed postcard or envelope.
    We will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after
the close of the comment period.

VI. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert
the docket number FMCSA-2005-22177; FMCSA-2005-22905; FMCSA-2006-26600;
FMCSA-2008-0009; FMCSA-2008-0399; FMCSA-2009-0055; FMCSA-2011-0011;
FMCSA-2011-0025; FMCSA-2013-0011; FMCSA-2013-0013; FMCSA-2014-0314 and
click ``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket Folder'' and you will find
all documents and comments related to this notice.

    Dated: April 19, 2017.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-08498 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 17, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46043-46047]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17541]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92640; File No. SR-NSCC-2021-005]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing of Partial Amendment No. 1 and Order
Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Partial Amendment No. 1, To Increase the National Securities Clearing
Corporation's Minimum Required Fund Deposit

August 11, 2021.

I. Introduction

    On April 26, 2021, National Securities Clearing Corporation
(``NSCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2021-005 (the ``Proposed
Rule Change'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder \2\ to increase its
minimum required fund deposit. The Proposed Rule Change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on May 14, 2021,\3\ and the
Commission has received comments \4\ on the changes proposed
therein.\5\ On June 24, 2021, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\6\ the Commission designated a longer period within which to
approve, disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.\7\ On August 5, 2021,
NSCC filed a partial amendment (``Partial Amendment No. 1'') to modify
the Proposed Rule Change.\8\ The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on Partial Amendment No. 1 from interested persons
and is approving the Proposed Rule Change, as modified by Partial
Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 91809 (May 10, 2021), 86
FR 26588 (May 14, 2021) (File No. SR-NSCC-2021-005) (``Notice of
Filing'').
    \4\ See Letter from Parsons, Behle & Latimer, Counsel for Alpine
Securities Corporation, dated June 4, 2021, to Vanessa Countryman,
Secretary, Commission (``Alpine Letter''), available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nscc-2021-005/srnscc2021005.htm.
    \5\ NSCC appended an Exhibit 2 to the materials filed on April
26, 2021. The appended Exhibit 2 consists of a comment letter that
NSCC received from one of its members objecting to NSCC's proposal
in response to member outreach NSCC conducted in 2019 (``Wachtel
Letter''). See Notice of Filing, supra note 3, at 26593. NSCC
considered that comment in its Proposed Rule Change, and the
Commission has considered the comment letter in making its
determination, as discussed in Section III below. A copy of the
comment letter is available at https://www.dtcc.com/-/media/Files/Downloads/legal/rule-filings/2021/NSCC/SR-NSCC-2021-005.pdf.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92250 (June 24, 2021),
86 FR 34798 (June 30, 2021) (File No. SR-NSCC-2021-005).
    \8\ In Partial Amendment No. 1, NSCC updates the proposed rule
text filed as Exhibit 5 to the proposed rule change to include a
legend to indicate a delayed implementation date, specifically that
the rule change would be implemented not later than 20 business days
after Commission approval of the Proposed Rule Change. NSCC did not
change the purpose or substance of, or basis for, the Proposed Rule
Change.
    \9\ References to the Proposed Rule Change from this point
forward refer to the Proposed Rule Change as modified by Partial
Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    Currently, NSCC requires each Member to maintain a minimum Required
Fund Deposit \10\ amount of $10,000.\11\ NSCC proposes to increase each
Member's minimum Required Fund Deposit amount to $250,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Capitalized terms not defined herein are defined in NSCC's
Rules and Procedures (``Rules''), available at http://dtcc.com/~/
media/Files/Downloads/legal/rules/nscc_rules.pdf.
    \11\ See Section 1 of Rule 4, id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Background

    NSCC provides central counterparty (``CCP'') services, including
clearing, settlement, risk management, and a guarantee of completion
for virtually all broker-to-broker trades involving equity securities,
corporate and municipal debt securities, and certain other securities.
In its role as a CCP, a key tool NSCC uses to manage its credit
exposure to its Members is determining and collecting an appropriate
Required Fund Deposit (i.e., margin) from each Member.\12\ A Member's
Required Fund Deposit serves as collateral to mitigate potential losses
to NSCC associated with the liquidation of the Member's portfolio
should that Member default. The aggregate of all Members' Required Fund
Deposits constitutes NSCC's Clearing Fund, which it would access, among
other instances, should a defaulting Member's own Required Fund Deposit
be insufficient to satisfy losses to NSCC caused by the liquidation of
that Member's portfolio.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Rule 4 (Clearing Fund) and Procedure XV (Clearing Fund
Formula and Other Matters) of the Rules (``Procedure XV''), supra
note 8. The minimum Required Fund Deposit amount is required to be
in cash. See Section II.(A) of Procedure XV, supra note 8.
    \13\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC conducts daily backtesting to evaluate whether each Member's
Required Fund Deposit is sufficient to cover NSCC's credit exposures to
that Member based on a simulated liquidation of the Member's portfolio
on that day.\14\ Backtesting is an ex-post comparison of actual
outcomes with expected outcomes derived from the use of margin
models.\15\ A backtesting deficiency occurs when NSCC determines that
the projected liquidation losses to NSCC arising in the event of a
Member's default would be greater than the Member's Required Fund
Deposit.\16\ Therefore, backtesting deficiencies highlight exposure
that could subject NSCC to potential losses under normal market
conditions in the event that a Member defaults.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81485 (August 25,
2017), 82 FR 41433 (August 31, 2017) (NSCC-2017-008) (adopting Model
Risk Management Framework and stating that Required Fund Deposit
backtesting would be performed at least on a daily basis);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84458 (October 19, 2018), 83 FR
53925 (October 25, 2018) (File No. SR-NSCC-2018-009) (amending the
Model Risk Management Framework to provide enhanced governance).
    \15\ See 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(a)(1).
    \16\ See Notice of Filing, supra note 3, at 26589.
    \17\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC regularly reviews backtesting results to assess the
effectiveness of its margining requirements.\18\ As part of its review,
NSCC investigates the causes of any backtesting deficiencies, paying
particular attention to repeat backtesting deficiencies that would
result in the Member's backtesting coverage to fall below the 99%
confidence target to determine if there is an identifiable cause of
repeat backtesting deficiencies.\19\ NSCC also evaluates whether
multiple Members may experience backtesting deficiencies for the same
underlying reason.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Notice of Filing, supra note 3, at 26589.
    \19\ NSCC states a Member's backtesting coverage would fall
below the 99% confidence target if the Member has more than two
backtesting deficiency days in a rolling twelve-month period. See
Notice of Filing, supra note 3, at 26589. In other words, if a
Member has three or more backtesting deficiency days during a
twelve-month period, then the Member's margin would not be
sufficient 99% of the time. NSCC believes that its targeted 99%
confidence level is consistent with its regulatory requirements
under Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) and (e)(6)(iii). 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22
(e)(4)(i), and (e)(6)(iii).
    \20\ See Notice of Filing, supra note 3, at 26589.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on its regular reviews, NSCC states it has found that Members
with Required Fund Deposits below $250,000 disproportionately
experience repeat backtesting deficiencies because, should the Member's
settlement activity abruptly increase, the additional exposure to NSCC
would not be mitigated until the collection of the Required Fund
Deposit either intraday or on the next business day.\21\ NSCC states it
has also found that its current minimum margin requirement of $10,000
is disproportionately lower

than the minimum margin requirements of other CCPs that clear similar
securities products.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See id.
    \22\ See id. For example, the minimum initial contribution for
The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') is $500,000. See Rule
1002(d) of the OCC Rules, available at https://www.theocc.com/components/docs/legal/rules_and_bylaws/occ_rules.pdf. The minimum
Required Fund Deposit for both the Government Securities Division
(``GSD'') and Mortgage-Backed Securities Division (``MBSD'') of
Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'') is $100,000. See Rule 4
of FICC GSD Rulebook, available at http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/
Files/Downloads/legal/rules/ficc_gov_rules.pdf and Rule 4 of the
FICC MBSD Clearing Rules, available at http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/
Files/Downloads/legal/rules/ficc_mbsd_rules.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, NSCC proposes to increase its minimum Required Fund
Deposit from $10,000 to $250,000.

B. Impact Study Results

    To support its proposal, NSCC relies upon the results of recent
backtesting analyses.\23\ Specifically, NSCC examines the backtesting
coverage \24\ of each of its Members during the period from June 3,
2019 to May 29, 2020, under the current $10,000 minimum Required Fund
Deposit amount compared to hypothetical (or ``pro forma'') minimum
Required Fund Deposit amounts, including the proposed $250,000 amount
and $100,000 (``Impact Study Results'').\25\ NSCC uses the Impact Study
Results to show the number of Member backtesting deficiencies \26\ that
would have been eliminated during the period had NSCC's minimum
Required Fund Deposit been $250,000 and compared to $100,000. NSCC then
uses the Impact Study Results to analyze the improvement to each
Member's backtesting coverage ratio \27\ and, taking all Members'
backtesting coverage ratio results together, to analyze the improvement
to NSCC's Clearing Fund backtesting coverage.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See supra text accompanying notes 12-16.
    \24\ See supra note 17 and accompanying text.
    \25\ NSCC provided a public summary of the information in this
Section II.B in its Notice of Filing, upon which this discussion is
based. See Notice of Filing, supra note 3, at 26590-92. NSCC filed
the data underlying the Impact Study Results as a confidential
Exhibit 3 to the Proposed Rule Change pursuant to 17 CFR 240.24b-2.
    \26\ See supra text accompanying notes 14-15.
    \27\ See supra note 17 and accompanying text.
    \28\ The Clearing Fund backtesting coverage represents the daily
sufficiency of the aggregate of all Members' margin over a rolling
12-month period. As described in Section II.A above, NSCC would be
able to access the Clearing Fund to cover any losses to it should a
Member with insufficient margin default. See supra text accompanying
note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the impact study period under the current minimum Required
Fund Deposit, NSCC observed a total of 227 Member backtesting
deficiencies, and 29 Members experienced repeat backtesting
deficiencies causing them to fall below the 99% confidence target.\29\
Members with a Required Fund Deposit lower than $250,000 accounted for
22% of the total backtesting deficiencies and constituted approximately
45% of the Members whose margin levels fell below the 99% confidence
target.\30\ Additionally, NSCC's twelve-month aggregate Clearing Fund
backtesting coverage was 99.28%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See id.
    \30\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A minimum requirement of $250,000 would have eliminated 44
backtesting deficiencies across 13 Members and would have eliminated
approximately 88% of the deficiencies that occurred on the days when
Members maintained a Required Fund Deposit of less than $250,000.\31\
Additionally, a minimum requirement of $250,000 would have improved
NSCC's rolling twelve-month coverage for seven Members to above the 99%
confidence interval.\32\ NSCC states that, if the proposed $250,000
minimum had been in place, the remaining Members still below the 99%
confidence interval would constitute only 27% of Members that fell
below the 99% confidence target, which is comparable to those Members'
overall representation as a class of NSCC's total Members.\33\
Moreover, a minimum requirement of $250,000 would have increased NSCC's
twelve-month aggregate Clearing Fund backtesting coverage by 0.14% to
99.41%.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Notice of Filing, supra note 3, at 26590. Not all of
the backtesting deficiencies would have been eliminated because if
the Member's Required Fund Deposit calculation increases to above
$250,000 intraday, due to, for example, increases in trading volume
and/or adverse mark-to-market adjustments, the $250,000 proposed
minimum Required Fund Deposit would still be insufficient to cover
NSCC's exposure between margin collections. See supra text
accompanying note 19.
    \32\ See Notice of Filing, supra note 3, at 26590.
    \33\ See id.
    \34\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An increase to $250,000 compared to $100,000 would have further
reduced NSCC's credit exposure to its Members by eliminating ten
additional backtesting deficiencies from 34 to 44 total backtesting
deficiencies and resulting in increasing two additional Members' margin
levels to above the 99% confidence interval from five Members to seven
Members. Additionally, NSCC's aggregate Clearing Fund backtesting
coverage would have improved from 99.38% to 99.41% representing an
increase of 0.03%.
    NSCC had approximately 150 total Members during the impact study
period.\35\ Of those, 46 Members would be impacted by the proposed
$250,000 minimum Required Fund Deposit.\36\ On average, 18 Members
maintained excess deposits greater than the proposed increase;
therefore, 28 Members on average would have been required to deposit
additional funds if the proposal had been implemented.\37\ In addition,
the 46 Members that would be impacted by the proposed $250,000 minimum
Required Fund Deposit maintained excess net capital or equity capital
(as applicable) (``ENC'') in excess of $800,000 on average over the
Impact Study Period, ranging between an average of $834,000 to $211.5
billion, with 98% of the impacted Members having on average an ENC
above $2.5 million.\38\ NSCC states it used ENC in its analysis to
estimate impacted Members' ability to satisfy additional Required Fund
Deposit amounts required by the proposal.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See CPMI IOSCO Quantitative Disclosure Results 2019 Q2
(September 25, 2019), available at https://www.dtcc.com/-/media/Files/Downloads/legal/policy-and-compliance/CPMI-IOSCO-Quantitative-Disclosure-Results-2019-Q2-2.pdf.
    \36\ See Notice of Filing, supra note 3 at 26593.
    \37\ See id.
    \38\ See id.
    \39\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \40\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to such organization. After careful consideration, the
Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations applicable to
NSCC.\41\ In particular, the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule
Change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) and (b)(3)(I) \42\ of
the Act and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(4) and (e)(6) thereunder.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \41\ The Commission's findings are based on its review of the
Proposed Rule Change, including its analysis of the Impact Study
Results, which are summarized in Section II.B above. See supra note
23 and accompanying text.
    \42\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \43\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4) and (e)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the rules
of a clearing agency, such as NSCC, be designed, in part, to assure the
safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or
control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible.\44\ The
Commission believes

that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in Section II.A above, backtesting deficiencies
highlight when a Member's margin is insufficient to cover NSCC's credit
exposure to that Member.\45\ If a defaulted Member's margin is
insufficient to satisfy losses caused by the closeout of that Member's
positions, NSCC and its non-defaulting Members may be subject to
losses. As summarized in Section II.B above, the proposed increase
would have provided NSCC with additional resources, which would have
resulted in a decrease in backtesting deficiencies and thus a reduction
in credit exposure to its Members under the proposal.\46\ Therefore,
the Commission believes NSCC would improve the probability that the
increased minimum margin amount it collects is sufficient to cover
NSCC's credit exposure to those Members, particularly in instances
where the defaulted Member's clearing activity abruptly increases
following a period of low or no activity. This increase, in turn, could
reduce the possibility that NSCC or its non-defaulting Members face
losses from the close-out process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See supra text accompanying note 15.
    \46\ See supra text accompanying notes 29-31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, NSCC would continue to require that Members pay an amount
equal to the minimum Required Fund Deposit amount in cash. Therefore,
the proposal would enable NSCC to have available additional collateral
that is easier for NSCC to access quickly to complete end of day
settlement upon a Member's default, further reducing the risk of losses
to NSCC or non-defaulting Members. Accordingly, the Commission believes
the Proposed Rule Change would promote the safeguarding of securities
and funds which are in the custody or control of NSCC or for which NSCC
is responsible, consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ In addition to its arguments about the Proposed Rule
Change, one commenter also asserts that NSCC's other recent efforts
to increase capital or methodology-based margin requirements
represent unfair discrimination against Members who deal in stocks
trading in the OTC Markets, inconsistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
of the Act. See Alpine Letter, supra note 4, at 4-5. However, the
Proposed Rule Change would not amend NSCC's capital or methodology-
based margin requirements and is limited to the amendment of the
minimum Required Fund Deposit amount. Therefore, the commenter's
arguments pursuant to Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act are outside
the scope of this Proposed Rule Change. The commenter also argues
that NSCC should instead eliminate risk by shortening the settlement
cycle, rather than monetizing risk through increased margin
requirements, such as under this Proposed Rule Change. See Alpine
Letter, supra note 4, at 7-8. However, the Proposed Rule Change is
limited to NSCC's minimum Required Fund Deposit amount in order to
manage risk under the current settlement cycle. Therefore, the
commenter's arguments related to shortening the settlement cycle are
likewise outside the scope of this Proposed Rule Change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act requires that the rules of a
clearing agency do not impose any burden on competition not necessary
or appropriate in furtherance of the Act.\48\ This provision does not
require the Commission to find that a proposed rule change represents
the least anti-competitive means of achieving the goal.\49\ Rather, it
requires the Commission to balance the competitive considerations
against other relevant policy goals of the Act.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
    \49\ See Bradford National Clearing Corp., 590 F.2d 1085, 1105
(D.C. Cir. 1978) (``Bradford'').
    \50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission acknowledges that the impact of increased margin
requirements will likely present higher costs to some Members with
lower operating margins, lower cash reserves or higher costs of capital
compared to other Members, which may weaken those Members' competitive
positions relative to others. For example, certain smaller Members
could be required to make and hold an additional deposit of up to
$240,000 to the Clearing Fund, which would limit the smaller Member's
ability to utilize that cash for other operating or investing purposes.
Although some of NSCC's Members could experience a burden on
competition because of these higher costs, the Commission concludes any
burden to these Members is necessary and appropriate in furtherance of
the policy goals under the Act \51\ for the following reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I). Specifically, as discussed in
greater detail in Section III.C and III.D below, the Proposed Rule
Change is necessary and appropriate to further the policy goals
under Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) and (e)(6)(iii). 17 CFR 240.17Ad-
22(e)(4)(i) and (e)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in Section II.A above, NSCC seeks to maintain
sufficient resources (i.e., margin) to cover its credit exposures to
its Members fully with a high degree of confidence. Conversely, NSCC
uses backtesting to determine when a Member's margin would have been
insufficient to cover NSCC's credit exposure to that Member.\52\ As
previously discussed, the Impact Study Results show the proposed
$250,000 minimum Required Fund Deposit would have decreased the number
of backtesting deficiencies, thereby increasing the number of Members
for which NSCC maintained sufficient coverage at a confidence level of
at least 99%.\53\ Therefore, the Proposed Rule Change would enable NSCC
to better manage its credit exposure to its Members by ensuring it
holds sufficient collateral to cover that exposure, thereby reducing
the likelihood that NSCC or non-defaulting Members would incur losses
resulting from a Member default.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See supra text accompanying notes 12-15.
    \53\ See supra text accompanying note 44. See also, supra text
accompanying notes 29-31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, based on the information set forth in Section II.B
above regarding the average ENC of the impacted Members,\54\ the
Commission believes that the vast majority of impacted Members likely
would not experience a weakened competitive position compared to others
as a result of the Proposed Rule Change. The average ENC data shows
that almost all of the impacted Members would likely be able to satisfy
the additional cash deposits needed to comply with the Proposed Rule
Change with minimal impact to the Members' financials.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See supra notes 34-37 and accompanying text. 98% of the
impacted Members had, on average, an ENC above $2.5 million.
Therefore, on average, 2% of the 46 impacted Members would maintain
ENC below $2.5 million, which equals approximately one Member who
could be required to hold 9.6% or more of its ENC on deposit at
NSCC.
    \55\ NSCC represents it would continue to require that Members
pay an amount equal to the minimum Required Fund Deposit amount in
cash. See Notice of Filing, supra note 3, at 26590.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters have raised concerns regarding the Proposed Rule Change
in light of its potential competitive impact on certain NSCC Members.
Specifically, one commenter objects to the proposed increase to
$250,000, stating that NSCC's current Rules are more than adequate to
guard against risk at the small firm-level and that the increase would
be purely a tax on the smallest, inactive and lowest risk firms.\56\
Another commenter similarly objects to the proposed change stating the
increase would disproportionately affect NSCC's smallest Members.\57\
The Commission disagrees for the reasons discussed above, which
indicate that the proposed increase would increase Members' Required
Fund Deposits proportional to the risks posed by those Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See Wachtel Letter, supra note 5.
    \57\ The commenter concludes the Proposed Rule Change will
``undoubtedly put some members out of business.'' See Alpine Letter,
supra note 4, at 5. Based on its consideration of the ENC data, as
discussed above, the Commission does not agree with the commenter's
argument. See supra text accompanying notes 51-52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, as discussed in Section II.A above, it is possible that,
in certain circumstances, the current minimum Required Fund Deposit
amount would

be insufficient to manage NSCC's credit exposure to participants
between margin collections should, for example, the Member's clearing
activity abruptly increase.\58\ As summarized in Section II.B above,
the Impact Study Results show that approximately 88% of the
deficiencies that occurred on the days when Members maintained a
Required Fund Deposit of less than $250,000 would have been eliminated,
which indicates the proposed increase to $250,000 would have mitigated
this risk.\59\ Seven of the 28 Members that would have to provide some
additional funding still held an average actual clearing fund deposit
of above $250,000 during the Impact Study Period, ranging from
approximately $315,000 to $1.7M. In other words, there would have been
many days during the study period where those seven Members would not
have to provide additional funding. Additionally, four of the remaining
21 Members that would have to provide some additional funding had an
average ENC below $5 million, ranging from $834,000 to $4.8 million,
during the Impact Study Period, while 11 of the 21 Members had an
average ENC above $100 million during the same period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See supra text accompanying notes 17-19.
    \59\ See supra text accompanying note 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For those 28 Members, the number of backtesting deficiencies ranged
from zero and 22 based on the $10,000 minimum Required Fund Deposit
compared to zero and five had the $250,000 minimum Required Fund
Deposit been in place during the Impact Study Period. Moreover, the
average number of backtesting deficiencies of the 28 Members would have
decreased from 1.54 to 0.41 per Member had the $250,000 minimum
Required Fund Deposit been in place during the study period. For the 14
Members impacted with backtesting deficiencies, the largest deficiency
was $1.3 million and the smallest deficiency was $11,000 (out of 50
total deficiencies). Under the proposed minimum Required Fund Deposit
of $250,000, there would only be six deficiencies across four members,
with a maximum deficiency of $1.1 million and a minimum deficiency of
$11,000.
    One commenter further states that it would not object to an
increase to a $100,000 Required Fund Deposit. However, as discussed in
Section II.B above, an increase to $250,000 compared to $100,000 would
have further reduced NSCC's credit exposure to its Members by
eliminating ten additional backtesting deficiencies resulting in NSCC
maintaining sufficient margin levels for two additional Members to
above the 99% confidence interval. Therefore, the Commission concludes
that any competitive burden to Members imposed by the Proposed Rule
Change is necessary and appropriate in furtherance of the Act.
Accordingly, the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change is
consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the
Act.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i)

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) requires that NSCC establish, implement,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to effectively identify, measure, monitor, and manage its
credit exposures to participants and those arising from its payment,
clearing, and settlement processes, including by maintaining sufficient
financial resources to cover its credit exposure to each participant
fully with a high degree of confidence.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above in Section II.A, NSCC and its non-defaulting
Members may be subject to losses should a defaulted Member's own
Required Fund Deposit be insufficient to satisfy losses caused by the
liquidation of that Member's portfolio. As summarized in Section II.B
above,\62\ the Impact Study Results show a $250,000 minimum Required
Fund Deposit would have decreased the number of backtesting
deficiencies, which would likely help NSCC better manage its credit
exposure to each of its Members and credit exposures arising from its
payment, clearing, and settlement processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See supra text accompanying notes 29-32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, as discussed in Sections II.A and III.B above, NSCC
would continue to require that Members pay an amount equal to the
minimum Required Fund Deposit amount in cash,\63\ which should enable
NSCC to better maintain sufficient prefunded margin to mitigate
potential future exposures to its Members. Therefore, requiring the
proposed minimum $250,000 deposit to be made in cash should reduce the
probability that NSCC or non-defaulting Members would incur losses
resulting from a Member default. Accordingly, the Commission finds that
NSCC's proposed increase to its minimum Required Fund Deposit would be
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i).\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See supra note 52. See also, Notice of Filing, supra note
3, at 26590.
    \64\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Consistency with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(iii)

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(iii) under the Act requires that a covered
clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to cover its credit
exposures to its participants by establishing a risk-based margin
system that, at a minimum, calculates margin sufficient to cover its
potential future exposure to Members in the interval between the last
margin collection and the close out of positions following a Member
default.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As summarized in Section III.B above,\66\ NSCC employs daily
backtesting to determine the adequacy of each Member's Required Fund
Deposit paying particular attention to Members that have backtesting
deficiencies below the 99% confidence target.\67\ Such backtesting
deficiencies highlight exposure that could subject NSCC to potential
losses if a Member defaults.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See supra text accompanying note 49.
    \67\ See supra text accompanying notes 16-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the Impact Study Results, which the Commission has
reviewed and analyzed, approximately 22% of all backtesting
deficiencies occur for those Members that maintain a Required Fund
Deposit of less than $250,000, and approximately 88% of the
deficiencies of those Members would have been eliminated during the
Impact Study Period if the Required Fund Deposit were $250,000 or
higher. By raising the minimum Required Fund Deposit amount to
$250,000, the Commission believes the proposal could enable NSCC to
decrease the number of backtesting deficiencies by Members, and thus
decrease NSCC's exposure to such Members in the event of a Member
default.
    Additionally, based on the Commission's review and analysis of the
Impact Study Results, the proposed $250,000 minimum Required Fund
Deposit amount would have decreased the number of repeat backtesting
deficiencies during the study period, which would have decreased the
number of Members whose margin levels during the study period fell
below the 99% confidence target.\68\ Therefore, by raising the minimum
Required Fund Deposit amount to $250,000, the Commission concludes that
the increase in margin for NSCC Members that currently maintain a
Required Fund Deposit of less than $250,000 would improve the
probabilities that the

margin maintained by these Members is sufficient to cover NSCC's
potential future exposure to Members in the interval between the last
margin collection and the close out of positions following a Member
default.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See supra text accompanying notes 29-31. See also, supra
text accompanying notes 17-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter states the increase in margin is unwarranted because
NSCC's Clearing Fund backtesting results from the Impact Study Results
show that NSCC's current minimum Required Fund Deposit amount is
sufficient to cover the risks presented by smaller Members.\69\ As
summarized in Section II.B above, the Impact Study Results show that
the proposed $250,000 minimum requirement would have increased NSCC's
twelve-month rolling Clearing Fund coverage by 0.14% to 99.41%
resulting from decreased backtesting deficiencies, which the commenter
argues does not warrant the proposed increase in the minimum Required
Fund Deposit amount. However, as discussed above and based on the
Commission's review, the Impact Study Results show that certain Members
who maintained Required Fund Deposits of less than $250,000 experienced
repeat backtesting deficiencies that resulted in those Members'
individual margin levels falling below the 99% confidence level. In
other words, these Members' individual margin levels were not
sufficient 99% of the time during the study period. For that reason,
the Commission is not persuaded by the commenter's argument.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See Alpine Letter, supra note 4, at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Commission concludes NSCC's Proposed Rule Change
should better ensure NSCC maintains sufficient margin to cover its
potential future exposure to its Members in the interval between the
last margin collection and the close out of positions following a
Member default, thereby reducing the likelihood NSCC or non-defaulting
Members would incur losses as a result. Accordingly, the Commission
finds that NSCC's proposed increase to its minimum Required Fund
Deposit would be consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(iii).\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as modified by Partial Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the
Exchange 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-NSCC-2021-005 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2021-005. 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 NSCC and on DTCC's website
(http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). 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-NSCC-2021-005 and should be submitted on
or before September 7, 2021.

V. Accelerated Approval of the Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Partial Amendment No. 1

    The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Exchange Act,\71\ to approve the proposed rule change prior to the
30th day after the date of publication of Partial Amendment No. 1 in
the Federal Register. As discussed above, in Partial Amendment No. 1,
NSCC updates its proposed rule text to include a legend to indicate a
delayed implementation date, specifically that the rule change would be
implemented no later than 20 business days after Commission approval of
the Proposed Rule Change. Partial Amendment No. 1 improves the
efficiency of the filing process by obviating the need for NSCC to
propose another change to its rules to resolve the omitted legend in
the future, while not changing the purpose of or basis for the Proposed
Rule Change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For similar reasons as discussed above, the Commission finds that
Partial Amendment No. 1 is consistent with the requirement that NSCC's
rules be designed, in part, to assure the safeguarding of securities
and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or
for which it is responsible under Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange
Act.\72\ Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause for approving the
Proposed Rule Change, as modified by Partial Amendment No. 1, on an
accelerated basis, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange
Act.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \73\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
in particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \74\ and
the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\75\ that Proposed Rule Change SR-NSCC-2021-005, as modified by Partial
Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \76\ In approving the Proposed Rule Change, the Commission
considered the proposals' impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). See discussion supra Section
III.B.
    \77\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\77\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-17541 Filed 8-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 18, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 242)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 67144-67145]
[DOCID:fr18de09-24]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Parts 200, 232, 240, 249, and 274

[Release Nos. 33-9086; 34-61161; IC-29069; File No. S7-10-09]
RIN 3235-AK27

Facilitating Shareholder Director Nominations

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; re-opening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: In June 2009, the Securities and Exchange Commission proposed
changes to the federal proxy rules in ``Facilitating Shareholder
Director Nominations,'' Release Nos. 33-9046; 34-60089; IC-28765; File
No. S7-10-09 (June 10, 2009), 74 FR 29024 (June 18, 2009) (the
``Proposal''). The Commission is re-opening the comment period to
permit interested persons to comment on additional data and related
analyses that have been included in the public comment file.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before January 19, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number S7-10-09 on the subject line; or

     Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://
www.regulations.gov). Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number S7-10-09. This file number
should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us
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/proposed.shtml). These
comments also are available for Web site viewing and copying in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549, between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. All comments received
will be posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lillian Brown or Tamara Brightwell,
Division of Corporation Finance, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-4553.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In June 2009, the Commission proposed
changes to the federal proxy rules that would require a company, under
certain circumstances, to include in the company's proxy statement
disclosure concerning a shareholder's, or group of shareholders',
nominees for director and to include on the company proxy card the
names of those nominees.\1\ In addition, the proposed rules would
require companies to include in their proxy materials, under certain
circumstances, shareholder proposals that would amend, or that request
an amendment to, a company's governing documents regarding nomination
procedures or disclosures related to shareholder nominations, provided
the shareholder proposal does not conflict with the Commission's
disclosure rules, including the proposed new rules. The Commission also
proposed changes to certain of our other rules and regulations,
including the existing exemptions from the proxy rules and the
beneficial ownership reporting requirements. The Proposal was published
for comment in the Federal Register on June 18, 2009, and the initial
comment period closed on August 17, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Facilitating Shareholder Director Nominations, Release Nos.
33-9046; 34-60089; IC-28765; File No. S7-10-09 (June 10, 2009) [74
FR 29024].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with the Proposal, a variety of data and related
analyses have been submitted and included in the public comment
file,\2\ including data and related analysis by Commission staff. A
portion of that data and the related analyses were submitted or added
to the public comment file at or after the close of the initial comment
period. The Commission is re-opening the comment period to allow
interested persons to comment on the additional data and analyses in
the public comment file, including the following materials:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Comment File No. S7-10-09, available at http://
www.sec.gov/comments/s7-10-09/s71009.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Report on Effects of Proposed SEC Rule 14a-11 on
Efficiency, Competitiveness and Capital Formation, in Support of
Comments by Business Roundtable, NERA Economic Consulting (submitted on
August 17, 2009 by the Business Roundtable);
     Why Did Some Banks Perform Better During the Credit
Crisis? A Cross-Country Study of the Impact of Governance and
Regulation, Andrea Beltratti and Rene M. Stulz (submitted on September
11, 2009 by the Business Roundtable);
     The Limits of Private Ordering: Restrictions on
Shareholders' Ability to Initiate Governance Change and Distortions of
the Shareholder Voting Process, The Corporate Library (submitted on
November 18, 2009 by the Shareowner Education Network and the Council
of Institutional Investors); and
     Supplemental analysis of share ownership and holding
period patterns from Form 13F data by the Commission's Division of
Risk, Strategy, and Financial Innovation, dated November 24, 2009.
    The Commission is re-opening the comment period for the Proposal
with regard to the additional data and related analyses for thirty days
from the date of publication of this release in the Federal Register.

    By the Commission.

    Dated: December 14, 2009.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-30076 Filed 12-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P