MEMORANDUM Date: February 25, 2006 Subject: 2002 2004 Annual Fluctuation in Refinery Gasoline Benzene Levels From: Julie Boledovich Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation & Air Quality U. S. Environmental Protection Agency To: Docket EPA HQ OAR 2005 0036 This memorandum provides our analysis of year to year fluctuation in refinery benzene levels based on 2002 2004 gasoline batch reports.

To begin the analysis, we computed volume weighted annual average benzene levels for 113 of the 115 U. S. gasoline refineries used in the ABT analysis. We excluded two refineries: one that exclusively produced California gasoline ( no batch reports required under RFG/ Antidumping) and another with missing batch data for 2002 ( therefore, invalid for the three year comparison).

For the 113 refineries, we calculated the percent change in refinery benzene level from year to year for 2002 2003 and 2003 2004. A negative percent change indicates an increase in benzene level from one year to the next, while a positive percent change represents a decrease. The computed annual percent change values were converted into absolute differences and statistically represented using a histogram as shown below.

We concluded that approximately 95% ( 96% in 2002 2003 and 93% in 2003 2004) of all " normal" year to year variation in refinery benzene level falls within the 0 30% range. As a result, we considered early credit trigger points within the 0 30% range in our MSAT2 ABT analysis. Refinery Actual Absolute Actual Absolute Refinery Actual Absolute Actual Absolute Refinery 1 1.04% 1.04% 11.46% 11.46% Refinery 59  12.18% 12.18%  8.19% 8.19% Refinery 2  19.65% 19.65% 12.13% 12.13% Refinery 60  4.91% 4.91%  8.94% 8.94% Refinery 3 10.82% 10.82%  30.13% 30.13% Refinery 61  0.35% 0.35% 5.11% 5.11% Refinery 4  42.34% 42.34% 23.82% 23.82% Refinery 62  24.68% 24.68%  15.69% 15.69% Refinery 5  0.75% 0.75%  0.52% 0.52% Refinery 63  0.69% 0.69%  7.19% 7.19% Refinery 6  4.29% 4.29% 6.66% 6.66% Refinery 64 13.84% 13.84%  33.23% 33.23% Refinery 7  0.38% 0.38%  0.36% 0.36% Refinery 65  15.42% 15.42% 6.80% 6.80% Refinery 8  6.93% 6.93%  14.49% 14.49% Refinery 66  22.60% 22.60%  7.07% 7.07% Refinery 9  8.98% 8.98%  1.94% 1.94% Refinery 67  21.95% 21.95% 26.40% 26.40% Refinery 10  15.62% 15.62%  2.68% 2.68% Refinery 68  3.33% 3.33%  2.49% 2.49% Refinery 11  10.59% 10.59% 0.47% 0.47% Refinery 69  11.18% 11.18% 1.27% 1.27% Refinery 12 16.13% 16.13%  11.34% 11.34% Refinery 70 8.06% 8.06%  15.46% 15.46% Refinery 13 7.20% 7.20% 4.68% 4.68% Refinery 71  1.27% 1.27%  3.92% 3.92% Refinery 14 0.34% 0.34%  17.40% 17.40% Refinery 72 0.89% 0.89%  6.84% 6.84% Refinery 15 0.85% 0.85%  20.48% 20.48% Refinery 73 10.83% 10.83%  4.48% 4.48% Refinery 16  11.90% 11.90% 2.91% 2.91% Refinery 74  0.95% 0.95%  4.35% 4.35% Refinery 17  0.11% 0.11%  34.64% 34.64% Refinery 75 5.56% 5.56%  15.59% 15.59% Refinery 18  11.19% 11.19%  9.52% 9.52% Refinery 76  16.15% 16.15% 45.94% 45.94% Refinery 19 57.46% 57.46%  55.90% 55.90% Refinery 77  18.37% 18.37% 3.30% 3.30% Refinery 20  27.10% 27.10%  31.44% 31.44% Refinery 78  16.57% 16.57%  5.62% 5.62% Refinery 21 9.49% 9.49%  28.95% 28.95% Refinery 79  12.32% 12.32% 2.02% 2.02% Refinery 22 5.30% 5.30% 23.91% 23.91% Refinery 80 6.67% 6.67% 0.18% 0.18% Refinery 23 4.20% 4.20%  24.65% 24.65% Refinery 81  2.94% 2.94%  8.75% 8.75% Refinery 24  24.21% 24.21% 21.91% 21.91% Refinery 82 1.68% 1.68%  6.54% 6.54% Refinery 25  11.04% 11.04%  0.85% 0.85% Refinery 83 12.27% 12.27% 23.54% 23.54% Refinery 26  1.93% 1.93% 4.15% 4.15% Refinery 84 3.18% 3.18%  2.91% 2.91% Refinery 27  16.86% 16.86% 4.99% 4.99% Refinery 85 15.05% 15.05% 30.05% 30.05% Refinery 28  1.00% 1.00% 9.98% 9.98% Refinery 86  2.20% 2.20%  8.85% 8.85% Refinery 29  11.56% 11.56%  0.44% 0.44% Refinery 87  6.86% 6.86%  7.83% 7.83% Refinery 30 16.59% 16.59% 15.99% 15.99% Refinery 88 9.00% 9.00%  9.48% 9.48% Refinery 31 5.60% 5.60%  51.73% 51.73% Refinery 89 4.26% 4.26%  5.03% 5.03% Refinery 32  15.83% 15.83% 15.94% 15.94% Refinery 90  1.86% 1.86% 3.89% 3.89% Refinery 33  7.10% 7.10% 10.17% 10.17% Refinery 91 4.89% 4.89% 1.25% 1.25% Refinery 34  3.41% 3.41%  10.37% 10.37% Refinery 92  7.86% 7.86% 12.63% 12.63% Refinery 35  17.33% 17.33%  1.17% 1.17% Refinery 93  2.43% 2.43%  21.89% 21.89% Refinery 36  34.98% 34.98% 3.41% 3.41% Refinery 94  3.75% 3.75% 20.01% 20.01% Refinery 37  18.55% 18.55% 4.02% 4.02% Refinery 95  23.24% 23.24% 9.29% 9.29% Refinery 38  1.65% 1.65% 24.13% 24.13% Refinery 96 6.10% 6.10%  3.10% 3.10% Refinery 39 10.03% 10.03% 0.13% 0.13% Refinery 97 11.53% 11.53% 8.67% 8.67% Refinery 40 10.67% 10.67%  7.47% 7.47% Refinery 98 4.97% 4.97%  11.38% 11.38% Refinery 41  9.04% 9.04% 1.65% 1.65% Refinery 99 6.64% 6.64%  11.29% 11.29% Refinery 42 3.31% 3.31% 12.36% 12.36% Refinery 100  8.01% 8.01% 19.65% 19.65% Refinery 43 19.33% 19.33% 0.08% 0.08% Refinery 101 11.48% 11.48% 14.86% 14.86% Refinery 44 6.59% 6.59% 7.41% 7.41% Refinery 102 3.07% 3.07%  1.72% 1.72% Refinery 45 1.19% 1.19% 7.57% 7.57% Refinery 103  1.91% 1.91% 1.34% 1.34% Refinery 46 5.91% 5.91% 4.25% 4.25% Refinery 104 4.01% 4.01% 3.88% 3.88% Refinery 47  14.98% 14.98%  3.96% 3.96% Refinery 105 13.90% 13.90% 2.74% 2.74% Refinery 48  9.90% 9.90% 3.10% 3.10% Refinery 106  4.60% 4.60% 1.59% 1.59% Refinery 49 8.97% 8.97% 1.74% 1.74% Refinery 107  7.60% 7.60%  0.46% 0.46% Refinery 50 2.13% 2.13% 2.10% 2.10% Refinery 108 1.18% 1.18% 5.01% 5.01% Refinery 51  10.25% 10.25%  6.14% 6.14% Refinery 109 6.97% 6.97%  8.71% 8.71% Refinery 52  99.61% 99.61%  15.61% 15.61% Refinery 110  1.43% 1.43% 4.81% 4.81% Refinery 53  2.05% 2.05% 8.60% 8.60% Refinery 111 36.35% 36.35% 2.76% 2.76% Refinery 54 2.72% 2.72% 9.10% 9.10% Refinery 112  11.83% 11.83%  14.27% 14.27% Refinery 55 2.33% 2.33% 12.08% 12.08% Refinery 113 6.23% 6.23%  2.69% 2.69% Refinery 56  3.21% 3.21% 2.97% 2.97% AVG  2.78% 10.39%  1.03% 10.44% Refinery 57 7.80% 7.80% 0.89% 0.89% MIN  99.61% 0.11%  55.90% 0.08% Refinery 58 5.54% 5.54%  1.47% 1.47% MAX 57.46% 99.61% 45.94% 55.90%

Note: This analysis excludes two U. S. refineries with incomplete/ unavailable batch data 2003 2004 2002 2003 2002 2003 2003 2004 2002 2003 Percent Variation in Refinery Benzene Level 42 26 20 14 5 1 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 5 > 5 10 > 10 15 > 15 20 > 20 25 > 25 30 > 30 Absolute % Variation No. of Refineries No. of Refineries 2003 2004 Percent Variation in Refinery Benzene Level 46 27 13 8 9 2 8 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 > 5 10 > 10 15 > 15 20 > 20 25 > 25 30 > 30 Absolute % Variation No. of Refineries No. of Refineries


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 48 (Monday, March 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15422-15423]
[FR Doc No: 2023-05067]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2020-D-1794]

Evaluation of Gastric pH-Dependent Drug Interactions With Acid-
Reducing Agents: Study Design, Data Analysis, and Clinical
Implications; Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled ``Evaluation
of Gastric pH-Dependent Drug Interactions With Acid-Reducing Agents:
Study Design, Data Analysis, and Clinical Implications.'' This guidance
focuses on specific recommendations pertinent to pH-dependent drug-drug
interaction (DDI) assessment and describes the current recommendations
of FDA regarding when clinical DDI studies with acid-reducing agents
(ARAs) are needed, design of the clinical studies, interpretation of
study results, and options for managing pH-dependent DDIs in patients.
This guidance finalizes the draft guidance of the same title issued on
December 1, 2020.

DATES: The announcement of the guidance is published in the Federal
Register on March 13, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit either electronic or written comments on
Agency guidances at any time as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2020-D-1794 for ``Evaluation of Gastric pH-Dependent Drug
Interactions With Acid-Reducing Agents: Study Design, Data Analysis,
and Clinical Implications.'' Received comments will be placed in the
docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,''
publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets
Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 240-
402-7500.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit

both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your
name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can
provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your
comments and you must identify this information as ``confidential.''
Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not be disclosed except
in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law.
For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets,
see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the
Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,
Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale
Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-
addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your
requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anuradha Ramamoorthy, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 3118, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-
6426, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry
entitled ``Evaluation of Gastric pH-Dependent Drug Interactions With
Acid-Reducing Agents: Study Design, Data Analysis, and Clinical
Implications.'' ARAs such as antacids, histamine H2-receptor
antagonists, and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are widely used, and
many of these drugs are available over-the-counter. Because ARAs can
elevate the gastric pH, concomitant administration of a drug with an
ARA could alter the solubility, dissolution, and bioavailability of the
drug, potentially resulting in a loss of efficacy for weak-base drugs
or increased toxicity for weak-acid drugs. Therefore, it is important
to assess the susceptibility of an investigational drug to gastric pH
change-mediated DDIs early in drug development, characterize the DDI
effect with clinical studies when needed, and communicate the relevant
findings in the drug product labeling. This guidance addresses when
clinical DDI studies with ARAs should be conducted, the design and
conduct of clinical pH-dependent DDI studies, alternative approaches
for evaluating pH-dependent DDIs, and extrapolating clinical DDI study
results among drug classes of ARAs.
    This guidance finalizes the draft guidance entitled ``Evaluation of
Gastric pH-Dependent Drug Interactions With Acid-Reducing Agents: Study
Design, Data Analysis, and Clinical Implications'' issued on December
1, 2020 (85 FR 77222). FDA considered comments received on the draft
guidance as the guidance was finalized. Changes from the draft to the
final guidance include: (1) adding footnotes to update the framework to
evaluate the pH-DDI liability of an investigational drug based on
solubility and dissolution of a drug product, (2) additional literature
and FDA guidance references included to provide additional clarity, (3)
modified examples of PPIs and their doses for clinical DDI studies, and
(4) editorial changes to improve clarity.
    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
current thinking of FDA on ``Evaluation of Gastric pH-Dependent Drug
Interactions With Acid-Reducing Agents: Study Design, Data Analysis,
and Clinical Implications.'' It does not establish any rights for any
person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an
alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable
statutes and regulations.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does
refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. Therefore,
clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) is not
required for this guidance. The previously approved collections of
information are subject to review by OMB under the PRA. The collections
of information for submissions of investigational new drug
applications, new drug applications, and biologic license applications
in 21 CFR parts 312, 314, and 601 have been approved under OMB control
numbers 0910-0014, 0910-0001, and 0910-0338, respectively. The
collections of information in 21 CFR 201.56 and 201.57 pertaining to
the submission of prescription drug labeling have been approved under
OMB control number 0910-0572.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at
https://www.fda.gov/drugs/guidance-compliance-regulatory-information/guidances-drugs, https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents, or https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: March 7, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-05067 Filed 3-10-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 146 (Monday, July 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 44609]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18504]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL12-87-000]

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power v. PacifiCorp; Notice
of Complaint

    Take notice that on July 23, 2012, pursuant to section 206 of the
Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission), 18 CFR 385.206 and section 206 of the Federal
Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824(e), the Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against PacifiCorp
(Respondent) alleging that, the Respondent is in violation of its
Commission approved Open Access Transmission Tariff in attempting to
collect unreserved use penalties from the Complainant that function to
compensate the Respondent for the difference between its maximum path
transfer capacity and the system Operating limits recognized by the
Western Electricity Coordinating Council, the regional reliability
coordinator.
    The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served
on the contacts for the Respondent as listed on the Commission's list
of Corporate Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 13, 2012.

    Dated: July 23, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-18504 Filed 7-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 131 (Monday, July 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31825-31827]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14550]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83585; File No. SR-CBOE-2018-050]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Its Fees Schedule To Adopt a Financial Incentive Program for Lead
Market-Makers Appointed in MSCI EAFE Index Options and MSCI Emerging
Markets Index Options

July 2, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on July 2, 2018, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe
Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to adopt a
financial incentive program for Lead Market-Makers appointed in MSCI
EAFE Index (MXEA) options and MSCI Emerging Markets Index (MXEF)
options (collectively, MSCI options), effective July 2, 2018.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx),
at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's
Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant 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 Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to adopt a
financial incentive program for Lead Market-Makers appointed in MSCI
EAFE Index (MXEA) options and MSCI Emerging Markets Index (MXEF)
options (collectively, MSCI options), effective July 2, 2018. More
specifically, the Exchange proposes to provide a financial incentive to
any Market-Maker that is appointed as a Lead Market-Maker (``LMM'') in
MXEA and/or MXEF (``MSCI LMM'') and meet a heightened quoting standard,
to be set forth in the Fees Schedule.\3\ MSCI LMM(s) that meet the
heightened quoting standard (which shall be explained herein), will
receive $20,000 per month/per product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ MSCI LMMs would serve as MSCI LMMs during the RTH session
only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By way of background, pursuant to Rule 8.15(a), the Exchange may
approve one or more Market-Makers to act as LMMs in a class for which a
Designated Primary Market-Maker (``DPM'') has not been appointed, for a
term of no less than the time until the end of the then-current
expiration cycle. In addition to a LMM's requirement to fulfill all
obligations of a Market-Maker under the Exchange Rules, a LMM must also
satisfy heightened quoting obligations set forth in Rule 8.15(b).
    The Exchange proposes to provide in the Fees Schedule that through
December 31, 2018, if a MSIC LMM meets the heightened standard
described below, the LMM in each class will receive $20,000 per month,
per their respective appointed class. Specifically, the LMM will
receive $20,000 per month/per class if it provides continuous
electronic quotes that meet or exceed the following heightened quoting
standards in at least 90% of the MXEA and/or MXEF series it must quote
pursuant to Rule 8.15(b) 90% of the time in a given month:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Expiring 7 days or less   Near term 8 days to 60    Mid term 61 days to 270    Long term 271 days or
                                                 --------------------------           days                      days                     greater
                  Premium level                                            -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Width         Size        Width         Size        Width         Size        Width         Size
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$0-$5.00........................................        $3.00            5        $1.50           20        $2.50           15        $5.00           10
$5.01-$15.00....................................         6.00            3         3.00           15         5.00           10        10.00            7
$15.01-$50.00...................................        15.00            2         7.50           10        10.00            7        20.00            5
$50.01-$100.00..................................        25.00            1        15.00            7        20.00            5        30.00            3
$100.01-$200.00.................................        40.00            1        25.00            3        35.00            3        48.00            2
Greater Than $200.01............................        60.00            1        40.00            1        50.00            1        72.00            1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange may consider other exceptions to this quoting standard
based on demonstrated legal or regulatory requirements or other
mitigating circumstances. For purposes of the financial benefit, MSCI
LMM(s) will not be obligated to satisfy the heightened quoting standard
shown above. Rather, the MSCI LMM(s) will only receive the financial
benefit if they satisfy the abovementioned heightened quoting standard.
If a MSCI LMM does not meet the heightened quoting standard, then it
simply will not receive the financial benefit for that month. The

Exchange notes however, that with respect to quoting obligations, MSCI
LMM(s) must still comply with the continuous quoting obligation and
other obligations of Market-Makers and LMMs described in Cboe Options
Rules.\4\ The Exchange believes the proposed financial incentive for
the additional quoting standard set forth in the Fees Schedule and
described above, will further encourage MSCI LMMs to provide
significant liquidity in MSCI options. Additionally, the Exchange notes
that it expects that TPHs may need to undertake expenses to be able to
quote at a significantly heightened standard in these classes, such as
purchase additional bandwidth. The Exchange notes that the proposed
financial incentive program for MSCI LMM(s) is similar to the rebate
program adopted for ETH LMMs and SPX Select Market-Makers, as both
programs offer financial benefits for meeting heightened quoting
standards.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See e.g., Cboe Options Rule 8.7 and Rule 8.15.
    \5\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Footnotes 38 and 49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\6\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \7\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\8\ which requires that Exchange rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using
its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to offer MSCI LMM(s) that
meet a certain heightened quoting standard (described above) $20,000
per month, per product, given the potential added costs that MSCI
LMM(s) may need to undertake in order to satisfy that heightened
quoting standard (e.g., having to purchase additional bandwidth). The
Exchange also wishes to ensure the LMM(s) is incentivized to provide
liquid and active markets in the MSCI products to encourage its growth.
Additionally, if a MSCI LMM does not satisfy the heightened quoting
standard, then it simply will not receive the $20,000 per class for
that month.
    The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to only offer the financial incentive to MSCI LMM(s)
because it benefits all market participants trading in MSCI options to
encourage MSCI LMMs to satisfy the heightened quoting standards, which
may increase liquidity and provide more trading opportunities and
tighter spreads. Indeed, the Exchange notes that the LMM provides a
crucial role in providing quotes and the opportunity for market
participants to trade MSCI products, which can lead to increased
volume, thereby providing a robust market.
    The Exchange notes that without the proposed financial incentive,
there would not be sufficient incentive for Trading Permit Holders to
undertake an obligation to quote an heightened levels, which could
result in lower levels of liquidity. The MSCI LMM incentive program is
also reasonable, as it designed to encourage increased quoting to add
liquidity in MSCI products, thereby protecting investors and the public
interest.
    The Exchange lastly notes that a similar financial incentive
program was adopted for appointed LMMs in ETH and SPX Select Market-
Makers.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Footnote 38, Cboe Options
Rule 6.1A and Footnote 49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition that are not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because, while the financial
incentive is offered only to certain market participants (i.e.,
appointed MSCI LMM(s) that meet a heightened quoting standard), those
market participants must meet heightened quoting standards to receive
the financial incentive. Additionally, MSCI LMM(s) may incur additional
costs to meet the heightened quoting standard. The Exchange believes
the proposed financial incentive encourages those market participants
to bring liquidity to the Exchange in MSCI options (which benefits all
market participants).
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because MSCI
options are proprietary products that will only be traded on Cboe
Options. To the extent that the proposed changes make Cboe Options a
more attractive marketplace for market participants at other exchanges,
such market participants are welcome to become Cboe Options market
participants.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \11\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2018-050 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-CBOE-2018-050. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2018-050 and should be submitted on
or before July 30, 2018.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-14550 Filed 7-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 162 (Thursday, August 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51521-51528]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18198]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89558; File No. SR-NSCC-2020-016]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1, To Introduce the Margin Liquidity Adjustment Charge
and Include a Bid-Ask Risk Charge in the VaR Charge

August 14, 2020.
    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 July 30, 2020, National Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'')
proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2020-016. On August 13, 2020, NSCC filed
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change, to make clarifications and
corrections to the proposed rule change.\3\ The proposed rule change,
as modified by Amendment No. 1 (hereinafter, the ``Proposed Rule
Change''), is described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have
been prepared primarily by the clearing agency.\4\ 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\ Amendment No. 1 made clarifications and corrections to the
description of the proposed rule change and Exhibits 3 and 5 of the
filing, and these clarifications and corrections have been
incorporated, as appropriate, into the description of the proposed
rule change in Item II below.
    \4\ On July 30, 2020, NSCC filed this proposed rule change as an
advance notice (SR-NSCC-2020-804) with the Commission pursuant to
Section 806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
and Consumer Protection Act entitled the Payment, Clearing, and
Settlement Supervision Act of 2010, 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1), and Rule
19b-4(n)(1)(i) under the Act, 17 CFR 240.19b-4(n)(1)(i). On August
13, 2020, NSCC filed Amendment No. 1 to the advance notice to make
similar clarifications and corrections to the advance notice. A copy
of the advance notice, as modified by Amendment No. 1 (hereinafter,
``Advance Notice'') is available at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx.

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

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

    The proposed rule change consists of modifications to NSCC's Rules
& Procedures (``Rules'') to (1) introduce a new component of the
Clearing Fund, the Margin Liquidity Adjustment (``MLA'') charge, and
(2) enhance the calculation of the volatility component of the Clearing
Fund formula that utilizes a parametric Value-at-Risk (``VaR'') model
(defined for purposes of this filing as the ``VaR Charge,'' and
described in more detail in Item II(A)1(i) below) by including a bid-
ask spread risk charge, as described in greater detail below.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Capitalized terms not defined herein are defined in the
Rules, available at http://dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/
rules/nscc_rules.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    NSCC is proposing to enhance its Clearing Fund methodology by (1)
introducing a new component, the MLA charge, which would be calculated
to address the risk presented to NSCC when a Member's portfolio
contains large Net Unsettled Positions \6\ in a particular group of
securities with a similar risk profile or in a particular asset type
(referred to as ``asset groups''), and (2) enhancing the calculation of
the VaR Charge by including a bid-ask spread risk charge, as described
in more detail below.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Net Unsettled Positions'' and ``Net Balance Order
Unsettled Positions'' refer to net positions that have not yet
passed their settlement date or did not settle on their settlement
date, and are referred to collectively in this filing as Net
Unsettled Positions. See Procedure XV (Clearing Fund Formula and
Other Matters) of the Rules, id.
    \7\ The results of a study of the potential impact of adopting
the proposed changes have been provided to the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(i) Overview of the Required Fund Deposit and NSCC's Clearing Fund
    As part of its market risk management strategy, NSCC manages its
credit exposure to Members by determining the appropriate Required Fund
Deposits to the Clearing Fund and monitoring its sufficiency, as
provided for in the Rules.\8\ The Required Fund Deposit serves as each
Member's margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Rule 4 (Clearing Fund) and Procedure XV (Clearing Fund
Formula and Other Matters), supra note 4. NSCC's market risk
management strategy is designed to comply with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)
under the Act, where these risks are referred to as ``credit
risks.'' 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The objective of a Member's Required Fund Deposit is to mitigate
potential losses to NSCC associated with liquidating a Member's
portfolio in the event NSCC ceases to act for that Member (hereinafter
referred to as a ``default'').\9\ The aggregate of all Members'
Required Fund Deposits constitutes the Clearing Fund of NSCC. NSCC
would access its Clearing Fund 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Rules identify when NSCC may cease to act for a Member
and the types of actions NSCC may take. For example, NSCC may
suspend a firm's membership with NSCC or prohibit or limit a
Member's access to NSCC's services in the event that Member defaults
on a financial or other obligation to NSCC. See Rule 46
(Restrictions on Access to Services) of the Rules, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the Rules, each Member's Required Fund Deposit amount
consists of a number of applicable components, each of which is
calculated to address specific risks faced by NSCC, as identified
within Procedure XV of the Rules.\10\ The volatility component of each
Member's Required Fund Deposit is designed to measure market price
volatility and is calculated for Members' Net Unsettled Positions. The
volatility component is designed to capture the market price risk
associated with each Member's portfolio at a 99th percentile level of
confidence. The VaR Charge is the volatility component applicable to
most Net Unsettled Positions,\11\ and usually comprises the largest
portion of a Member's Required Fund Deposit. Procedure XV of the Rules
currently provides that the VaR Charge shall be calculated in
accordance with a generally accepted portfolio volatility margin model
utilizing assumptions based on historical data as NSCC deems reasonable
and a volatility range that NSCC deems appropriate.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Supra note 4.
    \11\ As described in Procedure XV, Section I(A)(1)(a)(ii), (iii)
and (iv), and Section I(A)(2)(a)(ii), (iii) and (iv) of the Rules,
Net Unsettled Positions in certain securities are excluded from the
VaR Charge and instead charged a volatility component that is
calculated by multiplying the absolute value of those Net Unsettled
Positions by a percentage. Supra note 4.
    \12\ Procedure XV, Section I(A)(1)(a)(i) and Section
I(A)(2)(a)(i) of the Rules, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC regularly assesses market and liquidity risks as such risks
relate to its margining methodologies to evaluate whether margin levels
are commensurate with the particular risk attributes of each relevant
product, portfolio, and market. The proposed changes to include the MLA
charge to its Clearing Fund methodology and to enhance the VaR Charge
by including a bid-ask spread risk charge, as described below, are the
result of NSCC's regular review of the effectiveness of its margining
methodology.
(ii) Overview of Liquidation Transaction Costs and Proposed Changes
    Each of the proposed changes addresses a similar, but separate,
risk that NSCC faces increased transaction costs when it liquidates the
Net Unsettled Positions of a defaulted Member due to the unique
characteristics of that Member's portfolio. The transaction costs to
NSCC to liquidate a defaulted Member's portfolio include both market
impact costs and fixed costs. Market impact costs are the costs due to
the marketability of a security, and generally increase when a
portfolio contains large Net Unsettled Positions in a particular group
of securities with a similar risk profile or in a particular asset
type, as described more below. Fixed costs are the costs that generally
do not fluctuate and may be caused by the bid-ask spread of a
particular security. The bid-ask spread of a security accounts for the
difference between the observed market price that a buyer is willing to
pay for that security and the observed market price that a seller is
willing to sell that security.
    The transaction cost to liquidate a defaulted Member's portfolio is
currently captured by the measurement of market risk through the
calculation of the applicable volatility charge.\13\ The proposed
changes would supplement and enhance the current measurement of this
market risk to address situations where the characteristics of the

defaulted Member's portfolio could cause these costs to be higher than
the amount collected for the applicable volatility charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The calculation of the VaR Charge and the haircut-based
volatility charge are described in Sections I.(A)(1)(a) and
I.(A)(2)(a) of Procedure XV of the Rules. Supra note 4. The
methodologies for these calculations and how they are designed to
address risks faced by NSCC have been described in recent proposed
rule change and advance notice filings. See Securities Exchange Act
Release Nos. 82780 (February 26, 2018), 82 FR 9035 (March 2, 2018)
(File No. SR-NSCC-2017-808); 82781 (February 26, 2018), 82 FR 9042
(March 2, 2018) (File No. SR-NSCC-2017-020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, as described in more detail below, the MLA charge is
designed to address the market impact costs of liquidating a defaulted
Member's portfolio that may increase when that portfolio includes large
Net Unsettled Positions in a particular group of securities with a
similar risk profile or in a particular asset type. These positions may
be more difficult to liquidate because a large number of securities
with similar risk profiles could reduce the marketability of those
large Net Unsettled Positions, increasing the market impact costs to
NSCC. As described below, the MLA charge would supplement the
applicable volatility charge.
    Second, as described in more detail below, the bid-ask spread risk
charge would address the risk that the transaction costs of liquidating
a defaulted Member's Net Unsettled Positions may increase due to the
fixed costs related to the bid-ask spread. As described below, this
proposed change would be incorporated into, and, thereby, enhance the
current measure of transaction costs through, the VaR Charge.
(iii) Proposed Margin Liquidity Adjustment Charge
    In order to address the risks of an increased market impact cost
presented by portfolios that contain large Net Unsettled Positions in
the same asset group, NSCC is proposing to introduce a new component to
the Clearing Fund formula, the MLA charge.
    As noted above, a Member portfolio with large Net Unsettled
Positions in a particular group of securities with a similar risk
profile or in a particular asset type may be more difficult to
liquidate in the market in the event the Member defaults because a
concentration in that group of securities or in an asset type could
reduce the marketability of those large Net Unsettled Positions.
Therefore, such portfolios create a risk that NSCC may face increased
market impact cost to liquidate that portfolio in the assumed margin
period of risk of three business days at market prices.
    The proposed MLA charge would be calculated to address this
increased market impact cost by assessing sufficient margin to mitigate
this risk. As described below, the proposed MLA charge would be
calculated for different asset groups, and subgroups for the equities
asset group. Essentially, the calculation is designed to compare the
total market value of a Net Unsettled Position in a particular asset
group or subgroup, which NSCC would be required to liquidate in the
event of a Member default, to the available trading volume of that
asset group or equities subgroup in the market.\14\ If the market value
of the Net Unsettled Position is large, as compared to the available
trading volume of that asset group or subgroup, then there is an
increased risk that NSCC would face additional market impact costs in
liquidating that position in the event of a Member default. Therefore,
the proposed calculation would provide NSCC with a measurement of the
possible increased market impact cost that NSCC could face when it
liquidates a large Net Unsettled Position in a particular asset group
or subgroup.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ NSCC would determine average daily trading volume by
reviewing data that is made publicly available by the Securities
Industry and Financial Markets Association (``SIFMA''), at https://www.sifma.org/resources/archive/research/statistics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rather than calculate the market impact cost for each CUSIP, NSCC's
MLA charge would estimate market impact cost at the portfolio-level
using aggregated volume data. For example, as described in greater
detail below, the calculation of market impact cost would include a
measurement of the gross market value of the portfolio. Given the vast
number of CUSIPs processed by NSCC, this approach is simpler and is
expected to result in more predicable calculations of the MLA charge.
    To calculate the MLA charge, NSCC would categorize securities into
separate asset groups, which have similar risk profiles--(1) equities
\15\ (excluding equities defined as Illiquid Securities pursuant to the
Rules),\16\ (2) Illiquid Securities, (3) unit investment trusts, or
UITs, (4) municipal bonds (including municipal bond exchange-traded
products, or ``ETPs''), and (5) corporate bonds (including corporate
bond ETPs). NSCC would then further segment the equities asset group
into the following subgroups: (i) Micro-capitalization equities, (ii)
small capitalization equities, (iii) medium capitalization equities,
(iv) large capitalization equities, (v) treasury ETPs, and (vi) all
other ETPs.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ NSCC would exclude long positions in Family-Issued
Securities, as defined in Rule 1 (Definitions) of the Rules, from
the MLA charge. NSCC believes the margin charge applicable to long
Net Unsettled Positions in Family-Issued Securities pursuant to
Sections I.(A)(1)(a)(iv) and (2)(a)(iv) of Procedure XV of the Rules
provides adequate mitigation of the risks presented by those Net
Unsettled Positions, such that an MLA charge would not be triggered.
Supra note 4.
    \16\ See Rule 1 (Definitions), supra note 4.
    \17\ Initially, the market capitalization categorizations would
be: (i) micro-capitalization equities would be less than $300
million, (ii) small capitalization equities would be equal to or
greater than $300 million and less than $2 billion, (iii) medium
capitalization equities would be equal to or greater than $2 billion
and less than $10 billion, and (iv) large capitalization equities
would be equal to or greater than $10 billion. In determining the
range of these market capitalization categorizations, NSCC would
consult publications issued by sources it deems appropriate. NSCC
would review these categories annually and any changes that NSCC
deems appropriate would be subject to NSCC's model risk management
governance procedures set forth in the Clearing Agency Model Risk
Management Framework (``Model Risk Management Framework''). See
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 81485 (August 25, 2017), 82 FR
41433 (August 31, 2017) (File No. SR-NSCC-2017-008); 84458 (October
19, 2018), 83 FR 53925 (October 25, 2018) (File No. SR-NSCC-2018-
009); 88911 (May 20, 2020), 85 FR 31828 (May 27, 2020) (File No. SR-
NSCC-2020-008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC would first calculate a measurement of market impact cost for
each asset group and equities subgroup for which a Member has Net
Unsettled Positions in its portfolio. As described above, the
calculation of an MLA charge is designed to measure the potential
additional market impact cost to NSCC of closing out a large Net
Unsettled Position in that particular asset group or equities subgroup.
Market Impact Cost Calculation for Market Capitalization Subgroups of
Equities Asset Group
    The market impact cost for each Net Unsettled Position in a market
capitalization subgroup of the equities asset group would be calculated
by multiplying four components: (1) An impact cost coefficient that is
a multiple of the one-day market volatility of that subgroup and is
designed to measure impact costs, (2) the gross market value of the Net
Unsettled Position in that subgroup, (3) the square root of the gross
market value of the Net Unsettled Position in that subgroup in the
portfolio divided by an assumed percentage of the average daily trading
volume of that subgroup, and (4) a measurement of the concentration of
the Net Unsettled Position in that subgroup in the portfolio (as
described in greater detail below).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra note 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC also represents that its measurement of the concentration of
the Net Unsettled Position in the portfolio would include aggregating
the relative weight of each CUSIP in that Net Unsettled Position
relative to the weight of that CUSIP in the subgroup, such that a
portfolio with fewer positions in a

subgroup would have a higher measure of concentration for that
subgroup.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The relative weight would be calculated by dividing the
absolute market value of a single CUSIP in the Member's portfolio by
the total absolute market value of that portfolio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Market Impact Cost Calculation for the Other Asset Groups and Equities
Subgroups
    The market impact cost for Net Unsettled Positions in the municipal
bond, corporate bond, Illiquid Securities and UIT asset groups, and for
Net Unsettled Positions in the treasury ETP and other ETP subgroups of
the equities asset group would be calculated by multiplying three
components: (1) An impact cost coefficient that is a multiple of the
one-day market volatility of that asset group or subgroup, (2) the
gross market value of the Net Unsettled Position in that asset group or
subgroup, and (3) the square root of the gross market value of the Net
Unsettled Position in that asset group or subgroup in the portfolio
divided by an assumed percentage of the average daily trading volume of
that subgroup.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See supra note 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total MLA Charge Calculation for Each Portfolio
    For each asset group or subgroup, NSCC would compare the calculated
market impact cost to a portion of the volatility charge that is
allocated to Net Unsettled Positions in that asset group or subgroup
(as determined by Sections I.(A)(1)(a) and I.(A)(2)(a) of Procedure XV
of the Rules).\21\ If the ratio of the calculated market impact cost to
the applicable 1-day volatility charge is greater than a threshold, an
MLA charge would be applied to that asset group or subgroup.\22\ If the
ratio of these two amounts is equal to or less than this threshold, an
MLA charge would not be applied to that asset group or subgroup. The
threshold would be based on an estimate of the market impact cost that
is incorporated into the calculation of the applicable 1-day volatility
charge, such that an MLA charge would apply only when the calculated
market impact cost exceeds this threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Supra note 4. NSCC's margining methodology uses a three-day
assumed period of risk. For purposes of this calculation, NSCC would
use a portion of the applicable volatility charge that is based on
one-day assumed period of risk and calculated by applying a simple
square-root of time scaling, referred to in this proposed rule
change as ``1-day volatility charge.'' Any changes that NSCC deems
appropriate to this assumed period of risk would be subject to
NSCC's model risk management governance procedures set forth in the
Model Risk Management Framework. See supra note 16.
    \22\ Initially, the threshold would be 0.4, because, currently,
approximately 40 percent of the 1-day volatility charge addresses
market impact costs. NSCC would review this threshold from time to
time and any changes that NSCC deems appropriate would be subject to
NSCC's model risk management governance procedures set forth in the
Model Risk Management Framework. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For each Member portfolio, NSCC would add the MLA charges for Net
Unsettled Positions in each of the subgroups of the equities asset
group to determine an MLA charge for the Net Unsettled Positions in the
equities asset group. NSCC would then add the MLA charge for Net
Unsettled Positions in the equities asset group with each of the MLA
charges for Net Unsettled Positions in the other asset groups to
determine a total MLA charge for a Member.
    When applicable, an MLA charge for each asset group or subgroup
would be calculated as a proportion of the product of (1) the amount by
which the ratio of the calculated market impact cost to the applicable
1-day volatility charge exceeds the threshold, and (2) the 1-day
volatility charge allocated to that asset group or subgroup.
    The ratio of the calculated market impact cost to the 1-day
volatility charge would also determine if NSCC would apply a downward
adjustment, based on a scaling factor, to the total MLA charge, and the
size of any adjustment. For Net Unsettled Positions that have a higher
ratio of calculated market impact cost to the 1-day volatility charge,
NSCC would apply a larger adjustment to the MLA charge by assuming that
it would liquidate that position on a different timeframe than the
assumed margin period of risk of three business days. For example, NSCC
may be able to mitigate potential losses associated with liquidating a
Member's portfolio by liquidating a Net Unsettled Position with a
larger volatility charge over a longer timeframe. Therefore, when
applicable, NSCC would apply a multiplier to the calculated MLA charge.
When the ratio of calculated market impact cost to the 1-day volatility
charge is lower, the multiplier would be one, and no adjustment would
be applied; as the ratio gets higher the multiplier decreases and the
MLA charge is adjusted downward.
    The final MLA charge would be calculated daily and, when the charge
is applicable, as described above, would be included as a component of
Members' Required Fund Deposit.
Proposed Changes to NSCC Rules
    The proposal described above would be implemented into Procedure XV
of the NSCC Rules. Specifically, the proposed changes to Procedure XV
would describe the calculation of the MLA charge in a new subsection
(i) of Section I(A)(1) and a new subsection (g) of Section I(A)(2).
    These new subsections would first identify each of the asset groups
and subgroups. The proposed new subsections would then separately
describe the two calculations of market impact cost for these asset
groups and subgroups by identifying the components of these
calculations. The new subsections would state that NSCC would compare
the calculated market impact cost to a portion of that Member's
volatility charge, to determine if an MLA charge would be applied to an
asset group or subgroup. The new subsections would then state that NSCC
would add each of the applicable MLA charges calculated for each asset
group together. Finally, the new subsections would state that NSCC may
apply a downward adjusting scaling factor to result in a final MLA
charge.
    NSCC would also amend Section I(B)(2) of Procedure VX, which
describes the Excess Capital Premium charge, to add the MLA charge to
the list of Clearing Fund components that are excluded from the
calculation of the Excess Capital Premium charge.\23\ The Excess
Capital Premium is imposed on a Member when the Member's Required Fund
Deposit exceeds its excess net capital. NSCC believes that including
the MLA charge in the calculation of the Excess Capital Premium could
lead to more frequent and unnecessary Excess Capital Premium charges.
This is not the intended purpose of the Excess Capital Premium charge
and could place an unnecessary burden on Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Section I.(B)(2) of Procedure XV of the Rules. Supra
note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(iv) Proposed Bid-Ask Spread Risk Charge
    NSCC has identified potential risk that its margining methodologies
do not account for the transaction costs related to bid-ask spread in
the market that could be incurred when liquidating a portfolio. Bid-ask
spreads account for the difference between the observed market price
that a buyer is willing to pay for a security and the observed market
price that a seller is willing to sell that security. Therefore, NSCC
is proposing to include a bid-ask spread risk charge in the VaR Charge
to address this risk.
    In order to calculate this charge, NSCC would segment Member's
portfolios into four bid-ask spread risk classes: (i) Large and medium
capitalization equities, (ii) small capitalization equities, (iii)
micro-capitalization equities, and (iv) ETPs.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See supra note 16.

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

    Each risk class would be assigned a specific bid-ask spread haircut
rate in the form of a basis point charge that would be applied to the
gross market value in that particular risk class. The applicable bid-
ask spread risk charge would be the product of the gross market value
in a particular risk class in the Member's portfolio and the applicable
basis point charge. The bid-ask spread risk charge would be calculated
at the portfolio level, such that NSCC would aggregate the bid-ask
spread risk charges of the applicable risk classes for the Member's
portfolio.
    NSCC proposes to review the haircut rates annually based on either
the analysis of liquidation transaction costs related to the bid-ask
spread that is conducted in connection with its annual simulation of a
Member default or market data that is sourced from a third-party data
vendor. Based on the analyses from recent years' simulation exercises,
NSCC does not anticipate that these haircut rates would change
significantly year over year. NSCC may also adjust the haircut rates
following its annual model validation review, to the extent the results
of that review indicate the current haircut rates are not adequate to
address the risk presented by transaction costs from a bid-ask
spread.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ All proposed changes to the haircuts would be subject to
NSCC's model risk management governance procedures set forth in the
Model Risk Management Framework. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed initial haircuts are based on the analysis from the
most recent annual default simulation and market data sourced from a
third-party data vendor, and are listed in the table below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Haircut
                            Class                                (bps)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large and Medium Capitalization Equities....................         5.0
Small Capitalization Equities...............................        12.3
Micro-Capitalization Equities...............................        23.1
ETPs........................................................         1.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Changes to NSCC Rules
    The proposal described above would be implemented into Procedure XV
of the NSCC Rules. Specifically, NSCC would amend subsection (a)(i)(I)
of Sections I(A)(1) and I(A)(2) of Procedure XV by stating that the
calculations of the estimations of volatility described in these
Sections shall include an additional bid-ask spread risk charge
measured by multiplying the gross market value of each Net Unsettled
Position by a basis point charge. The proposed change to this
subsection would also state that the basis point charge would be based
on four risk classes and would identify those risk classes.
(v) Implementation Timeframe
    NSCC would implement the proposed changes no later than 10 Business
Days after the later of the approval of the proposed rule change and no
objection to the related advance notice \26\ by the Commission. NSCC
would announce the effective date of the proposed changes by Important
Notice posted to its website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    NSCC believes that the proposed changes are consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a registered clearing agency. In particular, NSCC
believes the proposed changes are consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
of the Act,\27\ and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) and (e)(6)(i), each
promulgated under the Act,\28\ for the reasons described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \28\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(i), (e)(6)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires that the rules of NSCC be
designed to, among other things, assure the safeguarding of securities
and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or
for which it is responsible.\29\ NSCC believes the proposed change to
implement the MLA charge is designed to assure the safeguarding of
securities and funds which are in its custody or control or for which
it is responsible because it is designed to address the market impact
costs to NSCC of liquidating a Member's portfolio in the event of that
Member's default. Specifically, the proposed MLA charge would allow
NSCC to collect sufficient financial resources to cover its exposure
that it may face increased market impact costs in liquidating Net
Unsettled Positions in a particular group of securities with a similar
risk profile or in a particular asset type that are not captured by the
VaR Charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Clearing Fund is a key tool that NSCC uses to mitigate
potential losses to NSCC associated with liquidating a Member's
portfolio in the event of Member default. Therefore, the proposed
change to include the MLA charge among the Clearing Fund components,
when applicable, would enable NSCC to better address the increased
market impact costs of liquidating Net Unsettled Positions in a
particular group of securities with a similar risk profile, such that,
in the event of Member default, NSCC's operations would not be
disrupted and non-defaulting Members would not be exposed to losses
they cannot anticipate or control. In this way, the proposed rule
change to implement the MLA charge is designed to assure the
safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or
control of NSCC or for which it is responsible, consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, NSCC believes that the proposed change to amend the
VaR Charge to include bid-ask spread risk charge within Members' final
VaR Charge would be designed to assure the safeguarding of securities
and funds that are in the custody or control of NSCC or for which it is
responsible because the proposed change would enable NSCC to better
limit its exposure to increased transaction costs due to the bid-ask
spread in the market when liquidating the a defaulted Member's
portfolio. NSCC believes that including the above-described bid-ask
spread risk charge within the VaR Charges would better ensure that NSCC
calculates and collects sufficient margin and, thereby, better enable
NSCC to limit its exposure to these transaction costs. By enabling NSCC
to limit its exposure to Members in this way, the proposed change is
designed to better ensure that, in the event of a Member default, NSCC
would have adequate margin from the defaulting Member and non-
defaulting Members would not be exposed to losses they cannot
anticipate or control. In this way, the proposed change to include the
bid-ask spread risk charge within the calculation of the final VaR
Charge would be designed to assure the safeguarding of securities and
funds which are in the custody or control of NSCC or for which it is
responsible and therefore consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) under the Act requires, in part, 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.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, NSCC believes that both of the proposed changes
would enable it to better identify, measure, monitor, and, through the

collection of Members' Required Fund Deposits, manage its credit
exposures to Members by maintaining sufficient resources to cover those
credit exposures fully with a high degree of confidence.
    Specifically, NSCC believes that the proposed MLA charge would
effectively mitigate the risks related to large Net Unsettled Positions
of securities in the same asset group within a portfolio and would
address the potential increased risks NSCC may face related to its
ability to liquidate such positions in the event of a Member default.
    Therefore, NSCC believes that the proposal would enhance NSCC's
ability to effectively identify, measure and monitor its credit
exposures and would enhance its ability to maintain sufficient
financial resources to cover its credit exposure to each participant
fully with a high degree of confidence. As such, NSCC believes the
proposed changes are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) under the
Act.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, NSCC believes that the proposed bid-ask spread risk
charge would enhance NSCC's ability to identify, measure, monitor and
manage its credit exposures to Members and those exposures arising from
its payment, clearing, and settlement processes because the proposed
changes would better ensure that NSCC maintains sufficient financial
resources to cover its credit exposure to each Member with a high
degree of confidence. NSCC believes that the proposed change would
enable NSCC to more effectively identify, measure, monitor and manage
its exposures to risks related to market price, and enable it to better
limit its exposure to potential losses from Member defaults by
providing a more effective measure of the risks related to market
price. As described above, due to the bid-ask spread in the market,
there is an observable transaction cost to liquidate a portfolio. The
proposed bid-ask spread risk charge is designed to manage the risk
related to this transaction cost in the event a Member's portfolio is
liquidated. As such, NSCC believes that the proposed change would
better address the potential risks that NSCC may face that are related
to its ability liquidate a Member's Net Unsettled Positions in the
event of that firm's default, and thereby enhance NSCC's ability to
effectively identify, measure and monitor its credit exposures and
would enhance its ability to maintain sufficient financial resources to
cover its credit exposure to each participant fully with a high degree
of confidence. In this way, NSCC believes this proposed change is also
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) under the Act.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) under the Act requires, in part, that NSCC
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, considers, and produces margin levels commensurate with, the
risks and particular attributes of each relevant product, portfolio,
and market.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Required Fund Deposits are made up of risk-based components (as
margin) that are calculated and assessed daily to limit NSCC's credit
exposures to Members, including the VaR Charge. NSCC's proposed change
to introduce an MLA charge is designed to more effectively address the
risks presented by large Net Unsettled Positions in the same asset
group. NSCC believes the addition of the MLA charge would enable NSCC
to assess a more appropriate level of margin that accounts for these
risks. This proposed change is designed to assist NSCC in maintaining a
risk-based margin system that considers, and produces margin levels
commensurate with, the risks and particular attributes of portfolios
that contain large Net Unsettled Positions in the same asset group and
may be more difficult to liquidate in the event of a Member default.
Therefore, NSCC believes the proposed change is consistent with Rule
17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) under the Act.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, NSCC believes that including the bid-ask spread risk
charge within the calculation of the final VaR Charge would provide
NSCC with a better assessment of its risks related to market price.
This proposed change would enable NSCC to assess a more appropriate
level of margin that accounts for this risk at the portfolio level. As
such, each Member portfolio would be subject to a risk-based margining
system that, at minimum, considers, and produces margin levels
commensurate with, the risks and particular attributes of each relevant
product, portfolio, and market, consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i)
under the Act.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NSCC believes that the proposed changes could have an impact on
competition. Specifically, NSCC believes the proposed changes could
burden competition because they would result in larger Required Fund
Deposit amounts for Members when the additional charges are applicable
and result in a Required Fund Deposit that is greater than the amount
calculated pursuant to the current formula.
    When the proposal results in a larger Required Fund Deposit, the
proposed change could burden competition for Members that have lower
operating margins or higher costs of capital compared to other Members.
However, the increase in Required Fund Deposit would be in direct
relation to the specific risks presented by each Member's Net Unsettled
Positions, and each Member's Required Fund Deposit would continue to be
calculated with the same parameters and at the same confidence level
for each Member. Therefore, Members that present similar Net Unsettled
Positions, regardless of the type of Member, would have similar impacts
on their Required Fund Deposit amounts. As such NSCC believes that any
burden on competition imposed by the proposed changes would not be
significant and, further, would be both necessary and appropriate in
furtherance of NSCC's efforts to mitigate risks and meet the
requirements of the Act, as described in this filing and further below.
    NSCC believes the above described burden on competition that may be
created by the proposed MLA charge and the bid-ask spread risk charge
would be necessary in furtherance of the Act, specifically Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\38\ As stated above, the proposed MLA charge
is designed to address the market impact costs to NSCC of liquidating a
Member portfolio in the event of the Member's default. Specifically,
the proposed MLA charge would allow NSCC to collect sufficient
financial resources to cover its exposure that it may face increased
market impact costs in liquidating net unsettled positions that are not
captured by the VaR Charge. Likewise, the proposed bid-ask spread risk
charge is designed to help limit NSCC's exposures to the increased
transaction costs due to the bid-ask spread in the market that could be
incurred when liquidating a Member portfolio in the event of a Member
default. Therefore, NSCC believes this proposed change is consistent
with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act, which
requires that the Rules be designed to assure the safeguarding of
securities and funds that are in

NSCC's custody or control or which it is responsible.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \39\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC believes these proposed changes would also support NSCC's
compliance with Rules 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) under
the Act, which require NSCC to establish, implement, maintain and
enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to (x)
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; and (y) cover its credit exposures to its
participants by establishing a risk-based margin system that, at a
minimum, considers, and produces margin levels commensurate with, the
risks and particular attributes of each relevant product, portfolio,
and market.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(i), (e)(6)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, NSCC believes the introduction of the MLA
charge would allow NSCC to employ a risk-based methodology that would
address the increased market impact costs that NSCC could face when
liquidating Net Unsettled Positions in in a particular group of
securities with a similar risk profile or in a particular asset type.
Similarly, the proposed change to include the bid-ask spread risk
charge within the VaR Charge would allow NSCC to employ a risk-based
methodology that would better measure the transaction costs that could
be incurred in liquidating a defaulted Member's portfolio. Therefore,
the proposed changes would better limit NSCC's credit exposures to
Members, consistent with the requirements of Rules 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) and
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) under the Act.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC believes that the above described burden on competition that
could be created by the proposed changes would be appropriate in
furtherance of the Act because such changes have been appropriately
designed to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are
in the custody or control of NSCC or for which it is responsible, as
described in detail above. The proposed MLA charge and the proposed
bid-ask spread risk charge would also enable NSCC to produce margin
levels more commensurate with the risks and particular attributes of
each Member's portfolio.
    The proposed MLA charge would do this by measuring the increased
market impact costs that NSCC may face when liquidating a defaulted
Member's portfolio that includes Net Unsettled Positions in a
particular group of securities with a similar risk profile or in a
particular asset type. With respect to the proposed bid-ask spread risk
charge, a haircut (in the form of a basis point charge that would be
applied to the gross market value) would be applied to separate risk
classes in the portfolio. As described above, for purposes of
calculating this charge, the portfolio would be segmented into four
separate risk classes, by product type and market capitalization, and a
haircut would be applied to the gross market value of each group.
Therefore, because the proposed changes are designed to provide NSCC
with an appropriate measure of the risks (i.e., risks related to both
market impact costs and transaction costs) presented by Members'
portfolios, NSCC believes the proposal is appropriately designed to
meet its risk management goals and its regulatory obligations.
    NSCC believes that it has designed the proposed changes in an
appropriate way in order to meet compliance with its obligations under
the Act. Specifically, the proposals would improve the risk-based
margining methodology that NSCC employs to set margin requirements and
better limit NSCC's credit exposures to its Members. Therefore, as
described above, NSCC believes the proposed changes are necessary and
appropriate in furtherance of NSCC's obligations under the Act,
specifically Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \42\ and Rules 17Ad-
22(e)(4)(i) and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) under the Act.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \43\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(i), (e)(6)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NSCC has not received or solicited any written comments relating to
this proposal. NSCC will notify the Commission of any written comments
received by NSCC.

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 such 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.

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-NSCC-2020-016 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2020-016. 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 website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of 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-2020-016 and should be
submitted on or before September 10, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-18198 Filed 8-19-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 59)]
[Notices]
[Page 15485-15486]
[DOCID:fr29mr10-113]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket ID PHMSA-2010-0097]

Pipeline Safety: Workshop on Guidelines for Integrity Assessment
of Cased Pipe

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice of workshop.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is holding a workshop on the integrity assessment of
cased pipe for pipelines subject to integrity management program
requirements. The workshop is intended to discuss PHMSA's recently
issued guidance ``Guidelines for Integrity Assessment of Cased Pipe in
Gas Transmission Pipelines'' and related Frequently Asked Questions
(FAQs). The latest guidelines and FAQs are available online at: http://
primis.phmsa.dot.gov/gasimp/documents.htm. The workshop focus will be
for the public, pipeline operators, trade associations, and others to
address ideas and concerns with using External Corrosion Direct
Assessment integrity evaluation methods and use of other technologies
to assess pipelines in casings located within high consequence areas.
    The workshop will be held at the Sheraton Inner Harbor, 300 South
Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21201 on April 28, 2010.

ADDRESSES: The April 28, 2010, cased pipe workshop will be held at the
Sheraton Inner Harbor, 300 South Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21201.
The meeting room will be posted at the hotel on the day of the
workshop.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Max Kieba at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Registration: Members of the public may
attend this free workshop. The workshop will not be webcast. Hotel
reservations under the ``U.S. Department of Transportation'' room block
for the night of April 27, 2010, can be made by contacting the hotel
directly at 1-800-325-3535. A daily base rate of $161.00 is available
for the night of April 27, 2010. For this rate, room reservations must
be made by April 13, 2010.
    To help assure that adequate space is provided, all attendees are
encouraged to register for the workshop at: https://
primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=64. Name badge pick-up
and on-site registration will be available starting at 7:30 a.m. with
the workshop taking place from 8:30 a.m. until approximately 5 p.m.
Refer to the meeting Web site for updated agenda and times at http://
primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=64. All workshop
presentations will be available on the meeting Web site within 30 days
following the workshop.
    Comments: Members of the public may also submit written comments,
either before or after the workshop. Comments should reference Docket
ID PHMSA-2010-0097. Comments may be submitted in the following ways:
     E-Gov Web Site: http://www.regulations.gov. This site
allows the public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice
issued by any agency. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management System, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140, Washington,
DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: DOT Docket Management System, Room W12-140,
on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Identify the Docket ID at the beginning of your
comments. If you submit your comments by mail, please submit two
copies. If you wish to receive confirmation that PHMSA has received
your comments, include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet
users may submit comments at http://www.regulations.gov. Note: Comments
will be posted without changes or edits to http://www.regulations.gov
including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act
heading in the Regulatory Analyses and Notices section of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for additional information.
    Privacy Act Statement: Anyone may search the electronic form of all
comments received for any of our dockets. You may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the

Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477).
    Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For
information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meeting, please
contact Max Kieba at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by April 15, 2010.
    Issue Description: Under section 14 of the Pipeline Safety and
Improvement Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-355) and the regulations issued
thereunder, all gas transmission pipelines located in areas that could
affect high consequence areas (HCAs) must have an integrity management
program (IMP). One aspect of an integrity management program is that
each operator of a gas transmission pipeline located in an area that
could affect a HCA must conduct an integrity assessment by an approved
method no later than December 17, 2012, and must periodically reassess
the pipeline at least every seven years thereafter.
    In response to Congressional mandates, PHMSA promulgated integrity
management regulations to implement this and other IMP requirements now
contained in 49 CFR 192, Subpart O. These regulations requiring
assessments apply to all pipe in a HCA, including cased pipe.
    Operators reported that they were encountering technical challenges
in conducting External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA) on cased pipe
and industry requested more detailed guidance from PHMSA. PHMSA
responded by committing to hold a workshop to address the issues and to
follow up with stakeholders to help address the challenges cased
crossing pose. That workshop was held in July 2008 (http://
primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=64).
    Following the workshop, PHMSA worked with a group of state
regulators, representatives from industry, trade associations, and
other stakeholders to develop guidelines for performing ECDA of gas
transmission pipe inside casings (http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/gasimp/
ccCASQAT.htm). These guidelines are intended to assist pipeline
operators in complying with 49 CFR 192, Subpart O for cased pipe in
HCAs. The guidelines incorporate some of the input developed by this
work group, but have been updated in some areas to conform to the
integrity management regulations and statutory requirements.
    The guidelines and FAQs are largely based on the work of this group
and state regulators, and provide guidelines for pipeline operators to
consider when implementing integrity management requirements for cased
pipe. The casing guidelines should assist operators in cases where
other integrity methods are not viable due to the pipeline being
unpiggable for reasons such as lateral location and customer outage
requirements.

Preliminary Workshop Agenda

    The April 28, 2010 workshop will include:
    (1) Briefing on the Guidelines for Integrity Assessment of Cased
Pipe.
    (2) Briefing on FAQs.
    (3) Comments from Stakeholders.
    (4) Question and Answer Forum.
    Refer to the meeting Web site for a more detailed agenda: http://
primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=64. PHMSA encourages all
interested persons to attend.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 24, 2010.
Steven Fischer,
Director, Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-7028 Filed 3-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 21 (Friday, January 31, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5680-5681]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01886]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4469-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

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

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of South Dakota (FEMA-4469-DR), dated November 18, 2019,
and related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued January 8, 2020.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of South Dakota is hereby amended to include the
following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely
affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of November 18, 2019.

    Clark, Codington, and Day Counties for Public Assistance.
    Lincoln County for Public Assistance (already designated for
Individual Assistance).

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

Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-01886 Filed 1-30-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P