[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 82 (Monday, May 1, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20404-20405]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08698]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80520; File No. SR-FICC-2017-802]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Extension of Review Period of Advance Notice To Implement the
Capped Contingency Liquidity Facility in the Government Securities
Division Rulebook

April 25, 2017.
    On March 1, 2017, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'')
advance notice SR-FICC-2017-802 (``Advance

Notice'') 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 (``Clearing
Supervision Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4(n)(1)(i) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'').\2\ The Advance Notice was
published for comment in the Federal Register on March 15, 2017.\3\ The
Commission received one comment on the proposal contained in the
Advance Notice.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1). The Financial Stability Oversight
Council designated FICC a systemically important financial market
utility on July 18, 2012. See Financial Stability Oversight Council
2012 Annual Report, Appendix A, http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fsoc/Documents/2012%20Annual%20Report.pdf. Therefore, FICC is
required to comply with the Payment, Clearing and Settlement
Supervision Act and file advance notices with the Commission. See 12
U.S.C. 5465(e).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(n)(1)(i).
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80191 (March 9, 2017),
82 FR 13876 (March 15, 2017) (SR-FICC-2017-802). FICC also filed a
related proposed rule change (SR-FICC-2017-002) with the Commission
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Exchange Act and Rule 19b-4
thereunder, seeking approval of changes to its rules necessary to
implement the Advance Notice (``Proposed Rule Change''). 15 U.S.C.
78s(b)(1) and 17 CFR 240.19b-4, respectively. The Proposed Rule
Change was published in the Federal Register on March 20, 2017.
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80234 (March 14, 2017), 82 FR
14401 (March 20, 2017) (SR-FICC-2017-002).
    \4\ See letter from Robert E. Pooler, Chief Financial Officer,
Ronin Capital LLC, dated April 10, 2017, to Robert W. Errett, Deputy
Secretary, Commission, available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-ficc-2017-002/ficc2017002-1694243-149787.pdf. Because the proposals
contained in the Advance Notice and Proposed Rule Change raise the
same substantive issues, supra note 3, the Commission is considering
all public comments received on the proposal regardless of whether
the comments were submitted to the Advance Notice or the Proposed
Rule Change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 806(e)(1)(G) of the Clearing Supervision Act provides that
FICC may implement the changes if it has not received an objection to
the proposed changes within 60 days of the later of (i) the date that
the Commission receives the Advance Notice or (ii) the date that any
additional information requested by the Commission is received,\5\
unless extended as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(G).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 806(e)(1)(H) of the Clearing Supervision Act,
the Commission may extend the review period of an advance notice for an
additional 60 days, if the changes proposed in the advance notice raise
novel or complex issues, subject to the Commission providing the
clearing agency with prompt written notice of the extension.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(H).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Here, as the Commission has not requested any additional
information, the date that is 60 days after FICC filed the Advance
Notice with the Commission is April 30, 2017. However, the Commission
finds the Advance Notice complex because the material aspects of the
proposal are detailed, substantial, and are interrelated with other
risk management practices at FICC, and therefore finds it appropriate
to extend the review period of the Advance Notice for an additional 60
days under Section 806(e)(1)(H) of the Clearing Supervision Act.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 806(e)(1)(H) of
the Clearing Supervision Act,\8\ extends the review period for an
additional 60 days so that the Commission shall have until June 29,
2017 to issue an objection or non-objection to the Advance Notice (File
No. SR-FICC-2017-802).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id.

    By the Commission.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-08698 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 14, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 238)]
[Notices]
[Page 66128]
[DOCID:fr14de09-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL10-21-000; QF93-159-008]

Glenns Ferry Cogeneration Partners, Ltd.; Notice of Filing

December 4, 2009.
    Take notice that on December 1, 2009, Glenns Ferry Cogeneration
Partners, Ltd. (Glenns Ferry) filed an application for recertification
as a qualifying cogeneration facility, located in Glenns Ferry, Idaho,
pursuant to section 292.205(a) of the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR
292.205(a). Glenns Ferry also requests a limited waiver of the
Commission's qualifying cogeneration facility operating and efficiency
standard requirements for its facility for year 2009.
    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. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 4, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-29619 Filed 12-11-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 187 (Thursday, September 30, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54207-54208]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21322]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2021-D-0776]

Studying Multiple Versions of a Cellular or Gene Therapy Product
in an Early Phase Clinical Trial; Draft 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 draft document entitled ``Studying Multiple
Versions of a Cellular or Gene Therapy Product in an Early-Phase
Clinical Trial; Draft Guidance for Industry.'' The draft guidance
document provides recommendations to sponsors interested in studying
multiple versions of a cellular or gene therapy product in an early
phase clinical trial for a single disease. Sponsors have expressed
interest in gathering preliminary evidence of safety and activity using
multiple versions of a cellular or gene therapy product in a single
clinical trial, where each version is a distinct product that should be
submitted to FDA in a separate investigational new drug application
(IND). The draft guidance describes the regulatory framework for
conducting such studies, including recommendations on how to organize
and structure the INDs, submit new information, and report adverse
events.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by December 29, 2021 to ensure that the Agency considers your
comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final
version of the guidance.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on any guidance 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-2021-D-0776 for ``Studying Multiple Versions of a Cellular or Gene
Therapy Product in an Early-Phase Clinical Trial; Draft Guidance for
Industry.'' 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,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     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 the draft guidance to
the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-
0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in
processing your requests. The draft guidance may also be obtained by
mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or<PHONE_NUMBER>. See the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft
guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tami Belouin, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-
402-7911.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft document entitled
``Studying Multiple Versions of a Cellular or Gene Therapy Product in
an Early-Phase Clinical Trial; Draft Guidance for Industry.'' The draft
guidance document provides recommendations to sponsors interested in
studying multiple versions of a cellular or gene therapy product in an
early phase clinical trial for a single disease. Sponsors have
expressed interest in gathering preliminary evidence of safety and
activity using multiple versions of a cellular or gene therapy product
in a single clinical trial, where each version is a distinct product
that should be submitted to FDA in a separate IND. The objective of
these early phase clinical studies is to guide which version(s) of the
product to pursue for further development in later phase studies. Thus,
these studies are not intended to provide primary evidence of
effectiveness to support a marketing application and generally are not
adequately powered to demonstrate a statistically significant
difference in efficacy between the study arms. The draft guidance
describes the regulatory framework for conducting such studies,
including recommendations on how to organize and structure the INDs,
submit new information, and report adverse events.
    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on ``Studying
Multiple Versions of a Cellular or Gene Therapy Product in an Early-
Phase Clinical Trial.'' 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 in 21 CFR part 312 and Form FDA 1572 have been approved
under OMB control number 0910-0014.

III. Electronic Access

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

    Dated: September 24, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-21322 Filed 9-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: October 1, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 189)]
[Notices]
[Page 50868-50871]
[DOCID:fr01oc09-136]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Environmental Impact Statement for the California High-Speed
Train Project from Merced to Fresno, CA

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The FRA issued a Notice of Intent on March 13, 2009 for the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) with the California High-Speed Rail
Authority (Authority) for the Merced to Bakersfield section of the
Authority's proposed California High-Speed Train (HST) System in
compliance with relevant state and federal laws, in particular the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In that Notice, alternatives
involving the alignments and stations located between Merced and
Bakersfield were identified. This notice amends the project
environmental process for the Merced to Bakersfield section and
announces the preparation of two separate EIR/EISs.
    FRA and the Authority have determined that the environmental
effects of the HST System from Merced to Bakersfield are more
appropriately assessed in two separate documents; one for Merced to
Fresno and another for Fresno to Bakersfield. This Notice amends the
environmental process started on March 13, 2009 to instead a Project
EIR/EIS for the Merced to Fresno section of the HST System. The
decision to complete two separate EIR/EISs was made because the project
sections are of sufficient length, with logical termini allowing for an
analysis of environmental matters on a broad scope to ensure that the
project will function properly without requiring additional
improvements elsewhere; and the assessment of HST alternatives in the
Merced to Fresno section will not restrict consideration of
alternatives for other transportation improvements.
    In 2001, the Authority and FRA started a tiered environmental
review process for the HST System and in 2005, completed the first tier
California High Speed Train Program EIR/EIS (Statewide Program EIR/EIS)
and approved the statewide HST System for intercity travel in
California between the major metropolitan centers of Sacramento and the
San Francisco Bay Area in the north, through the Central

Valley, to Los Angeles and San Diego in the south. The approved HST
System would be about 800-miles long, with electric propulsion and
steel-wheel-on-steel-rail trains capable of operating speeds of 220
miles per hour (mph) on a dedicated system of fully grade-separated,
access-controlled steel tracks with state-of-the-art safety, signaling,
communication, and automated train control systems. In approving the
HST System, the Authority and FRA also selected corridors/general
alignments and station location options throughout most of the system.
The Statewide Program EIR/EIS generally selected the Burlington
Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) corridor for the high-speed train
route from Merced to Fresno with stations at Merced and in Fresno.
    In 2008, the Authority and FRA completed a second program EIR/EIS
to evaluate and select general alignments and station locations within
the broad corridor between, and including, the Altamont Pass and the
Pacheco Pass to connect the Bay Area and Central Valley portions of the
HST System. The Authority and FRA selected the Pacheco Pass with San
Francisco and San Jose termini network alternative, as well as
preferred corridor alignments and station location options. The Union
Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) corridor was selected as the preferred
alignment through the portion of the Central Valley from south of
Stockton to north of Madera and the BNSF railroad corridor from Madera
to Fresno was selected by the Statewide Program EIR/EIS.
    The preparation of the Merced to Fresno HST Project EIR/EIS will
involve the development of preliminary engineering designs and the
assessment of potential environmental effects associated with the
construction, operation, and maintenance of the HST System, including
track, ancillary facilities and stations, along the preferred
alternative corridors from Merced to Fresno. The Merced to Fresno HST
Project also includes the connection from the San Jose to Merced HST
Project.

DATES: FRA and the Authority invite the general public, other
government agencies, and all other interested parties to comment on the
amended scope and content of the Merced to Fresno HST Project EIR/EIS.
FRA and the Authority are soliciting additional oral and written
comments, suggestions, requests for information, and requests for
public meetings no later than October 30, 2009. These comments will
receive equal consideration as comments presented during the March 2009
scoping period for the former Merced to Bakersfield HST Project EIR/
EIS.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the scope should be sent to Ms. Carrie
Bowen, Regional Director, ATTN. Merced to Fresno, California High-Speed
Rail Authority, 925 L Street, Suite 1425, Sacramento, CA 95814, or via
e-mail with subject line ``Merced to Fresno HST'' to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments may also be provided orally at the same
address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Valenstein, Environmental
Program Manager, Office of Railroad Development, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (Mail Stop 20), Washington,
DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>); or Ms. Carrie Bowen, Regional
Director, ATTN. Merced to Fresno, California High-Speed Rail Authority,
925 L Street, Suite 1425, Sacramento, CA 95814 (telephone: 559-221-
2636).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Authority was established in 1996 and is
authorized and directed by statute to undertake the planning and
development of a proposed statewide HST network that is fully
coordinated with other public transportation services. The Authority
adopted a Final Business Plan in June 2000, which reviewed the economic
feasibility of an 800-mile-long HST System capable of operating speeds
in excess of 200 miles per hour on a dedicated, fully grade-separated
state-of-the-art track. The Authority released an updated Business Plan
in November 2008.
    The FRA has responsibility for overseeing the safety of railroad
operations, including the safety of any proposed high-speed ground
transportation system. FRA is also authorized to provide Federal
funding for intercity passenger rail capital investments including
high-speed rail. For the proposed HST, it is anticipated that FRA would
need to take certain regulatory actions prior to operation and may
provide financial assistance for the project including grant funds.
    In 2005, the Authority and FRA completed a Statewide Program EIR/
EIS for the Proposed California High Speed Train System, as the first
phase of a tiered environmental review process. The Authority certified
the Program EIR under CEQA and approved the proposed HST System, and
FRA issued a Record of Decision under NEPA for the Program EIS. This
Statewide Program EIR/EIS established the purpose and need for the HST
System, analyzed an HST System, and compared it with a No Project/No
Action Alternative and a Modal Alternative. In approving the Statewide
Program EIR/EIS, the Authority and FRA selected the HST Alternative,
selected certain corridors/general alignments and general station
locations for further study, incorporated mitigation strategies and
design practices, and specified further measures to guide the
development of the HST System during the site-specific project level
environmental review to avoid and minimize potential adverse
environmental impacts. In the subsequent Bay Area to Central Valley HST
Final Program EIR/EIS, the Authority and FRA selected the Pacheco Pass
alternative, via Henry Miller Road, to connect the Bay Area to the
Central Valley.
    The Merced to Fresno HST Project EIR/EIS will tier from the
Statewide Program EIR/EIS and the Bay Area to Central Valley HST
Program EIR/EIS in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) regulations, (40 CFR 1508.28) and State CEQA Guidelines (14
California Code of Regulations 15168(b)). Tiering will ensure that the
Merced to Fresno HST Project EIR/EIS builds upon all previous work
prepared for and incorporated in the Statewide Program EIR/EIS and the
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS.
    The Merced to Fresno HST Project EIR/EIS will describe site-
specific environmental impacts, identify specific mitigation measures
to address those impacts and incorporate design features to avoid and
minimize potential adverse environmental impacts. The FRA and the
Authority will assess the site characteristics, size, nature, and
timing of the proposed project to determine whether the impacts are
potentially significant and whether impacts can be avoided or
mitigated. This Project EIR/EIS will identify and evaluate reasonable
and feasible site specific alignment alternatives, and evaluate the
impacts of construction, operation, and maintenance of the HST System.
Information and documents regarding this HST environmental review
process will be made available through the Authority's Internet site:
http://www.cahighspeedrail.gov/.
    Purpose and Need: The purpose of the proposed HST System is to
provide a new mode of high-speed intercity travel that would link major
metropolitan areas of the state; interface with airports, mass transit,
and highways; and provide added capacity to meet increases in intercity
travel demand in California in a manner sensitive to and protective of
California's unique natural resources. The need for a HST System is
directly related to the expected growth in

population, and increases in intercity travel demand in California over
the next twenty years and beyond. With the growth in travel demand,
there will be an increase in travel delays arising from the growing
congestion on California's highways and at airports. In addition, there
will be negative effects on the economy, quality of life, and air
quality in and around California's metropolitan areas from an
increasingly congested transportation system that will become less
reliable as travel demand increases. The intercity highway system,
commercial airports, and conventional passenger rail serving the
intercity travel market are currently operating at or near capacity,
and will require large public investments for maintenance and expansion
to meet existing demand and future growth. The proposed HST system is
designed to address some of the social, economic and environmental
problems associated with transportation congestion in California.
    Alternatives: The Merced to Fresno HST Project EIR/EIS will
consider a No Action or No Project Alternative and an HST Alternative
for the Merced to Fresno section.
    No Action Alternative: The No Action Alternative (No Project or No
Build) represents the conditions in the corridor as it existed in 2009,
and as it would exist based on programmed and funded improvements to
the intercity transportation system and other reasonably foreseeable
projects through 2035, taking into account the following sources of
information: the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP),
Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) for all modes of travel, airport
plans, intercity passenger rail plans, and city and county plans.
    HST Alternative: The Authority proposes to construct, operate and
maintain an electric-powered steel-wheel-on-steel-rail HST System,
about 800 miles long, capable of operating speeds of 220 mph on
dedicated, fully grade-separated tracks, with state-of-the-art safety,
signaling, and automated train control systems. As part of the Bay Area
to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS, the Authority and FRA selected
the UPRR railroad alignment through the portion of the Central Valley
from north of Madera to south of Stockton as the preferred alternative.
This Project EIR/EIS will also evaluate the BNSF railroad alignment in
this part of the Central Valley because of the uncertainty of
negotiating with the UPRR for some of their right-of-way and will
continue investigation of alignments/linkages to a potential
maintenance facility at Castle AFB.
    The BNSF alignment from Madera to Fresno was selected with the
Statewide Program EIR/EIS. As defined in the Statewide Program EIR/EIS,
this alignment would utilize the UPRR corridor through the urban area
of Fresno. The HST would operate in this area at speeds up to 220 mph
on tracks separate from the existing BNSF and UPRR tracks. Engineering
studies to be undertaken as part of this EIR/EIS process will examine
and refine alignments in the BNSF and UPRR corridors. The entire
alignment would be grade separated from existing roadways. In addition,
alternative sites for right-of-way maintenance, train storage
facilities, and a light or heavy maintenance and repair facility will
be evaluated in the Merced to Fresno HST project area. The preferred
station locations selected by the Authority and FRA through the
Statewide Program EIR/EIS and the Bay Area to Central Valley HST
Program EIR/EIS in Merced will be evaluated in the Merced to Fresno HST
Project EIR/EIS. The station in Fresno will be analyzed in the EIR/EIS
for the Fresno-Bakersfield section of the HST System. Alternative
station sites at or near the selected station locations may be
identified and evaluated.
    Probable Effects: The purpose of the EIR/EIS process is to explore,
in a public setting, the effects of the proposed project on the
physical, human, and natural environment. The FRA and the Authority
will continue the tiered evaluation of all significant environmental,
social, and economic impacts of the construction and operation of the
HST System. Impact areas to be addressed include transportation
impacts; safety and security; land use and zoning; land acquisition,
displacements, and relocations; agricultural land impacts; cumulative
and secondary impacts; cultural resource impacts, including impacts on
historical and archaeological resources and parklands/recreation areas;
neighborhood compatibility and environmental justice; and natural
resource impacts including air quality, wetlands, water resources,
noise, vibration, energy, wildlife and ecosystems, including endangered
species. Measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts will
be identified and evaluated.
    The Merced to Fresno HST Project EIR/EIS will be prepared in
accordance with FRA's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts
(64 FR 28545, May 26, 1999) and will address not only NEPA and CEQA but
will also address, as necessary, other applicable statutes,
regulations, and executive orders, including the Clean Air Act, Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, Section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation Act, the Endangered Species Act, and Executive Order
12898 on Environmental Justice. This EIR/EIS process will also continue
the NEPA/Clean Water Act Section 404 integration process established
through the Statewide Program EIR/EIS process. The EIR/EIS will
evaluate project alignment alternatives, and station and maintenance
facility locations to support a determination of the Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
    Comments: FRA encourages broad participation in the EIS process and
review of the resulting environmental documents. Comments are invited
from all interested agencies and the public to ensure the full range of
issues related to the proposed action and reasonable alternatives are
addressed and all significant issues are identified. In particular, FRA
is interested in learning whether there are areas of environmental
concern where there might be a potential for significant site-specific
impacts from the Merced-Fresno section of the HST system. Public
agencies with jurisdiction are requested to advise FRA and the
Authority of the applicable permit and environmental review
requirements of each agency, and the scope and content of the
environmental information that is germane to the agency's statutory
responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Public
agencies are requested to advise FRA if they anticipate taking a major
action in connection with the proposed project and if they wish to
cooperate in the preparation of the Project EIR/EIS.
    Public scoping meetings were held in March 2009 for the Merced to
Bakersfield HST Project EIR/EIS and are an important component of the
scoping process for the Merced to Fresno HST Project EIR/EIS for both
the State and Federal environmental review. FRA is seeking
participation and input of all interested federal, state, and local
agencies, Native American groups, and other concerned private
organizations or individuals on the scope of the EIR/EIS.
Implementation of the Merced to Fresno section of the HST System is a
federal undertaking with the potential to affect historic properties.
As such, it is subject to the requirements of section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470f). In
accordance with regulations issued by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, 36 CFR part 800, FRA intends to coordinate

compliance with Section 106 of this Act with the preparation of the
EIR/EIS, beginning with the identification of consulting parties in a
manner consistent with the standards set out in 36 CFR 800.8.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 25, 2009.
Mark E. Yachmetz,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Development, Federal Railroad
Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-23728 Filed 9-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 188 (Monday, September 28, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60847-60854]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21290]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89952; File No. SR-DTC-2020-011]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 4

September 22, 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 September 9, 2020, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have
been prepared by the clearing agency.\3\ The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ On September 9, 2020, DTC filed this proposed rule change as
an advance notice (SR-DTC-2020-801) 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). A copy of
the 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 would amend Rule 4 \4\ to provide
expressly that the Participants Fund continues to be a liquidity
resource that may be used by DTC to fund a settlement funding gap to
complete settlement on a Business Day, whether the funding gap is the
result of a Participant Default or otherwise. In addition, the proposed
rule change

would make other technical and clarifying amendments to Rule 4 to
provide enhanced transparency with respect to use of the Participants
Fund and other resources to complete settlement on a Business Day, as
discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Each capitalized term not otherwise defined herein has its
respective meaning as set forth in DTC's rules, including, but not
limited to, the Rules, By-Laws and Organization Certificate of DTC
(the ``Rules'') and the DTC Settlement Service Guide (the
``Settlement Guide''), available at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures.aspx. The Settlement Guide is a Procedure of DTC
filed with the Commission that, among other things, operationalizes
and supplements the DTC Rules that relate to settlement, including,
but not limited to, Rule 4 (Participants Fund and Participants
Investment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
    The proposed rule change would amend Rule 4 to provide expressly
that the Participants Fund continues to be a liquidity resource that
may be used by DTC to fund a settlement funding gap to complete
settlement on a Business Day, whether the funding gap is the result of
a Participant Default or otherwise. In addition, the proposed rule
change would make other technical and clarifying amendments to Rule 4
to provide enhanced transparency with respect to use of the
Participants Fund and other resources to complete settlement on a
Business Day, as discussed below.
(i) Background
A. DTC Settlement on a Business Day
    DTC is the central securities depository (``CSD'') for
substantially all corporate and municipal debt and equity securities
available for trading in the United States. DTC plays a critical role
in the national financial infrastructure.\5\ As a CSD, DTC provides a
central location in which securities may be immobilized, and interests
in those securities are reflected in accounts maintained for its
Participants, which are financial institutions such as brokers or
banks.\6\ As a CSD, DTC is structured to provide for the settlement of
book-entry transfers and pledges of interests in securities between
Participants, and for end-of-day net funds settlement on each Business
Day.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Financial Stability Oversight Council (``FSOC'') 2012
Annual Report, Appendix A at 166, available at https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fsoc/Documents/2012%20Appendix%20A%20Designation%20of%20Systemically%20Important%20Market%20Utilities.pdf.
    \6\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 20221
(September 23, 1983), 48 FR 45167, 45168 (October 3, 1983) (File No.
600-1) (``A securities depository is a ``custodial'' clearing agency
that operates a centralized system for the handling of securities
certificates. Depositories accept deposits of securities from
broker-dealers, banks, and other financial institutions; credit
those securities to the depositing participants accounts; and,
pursuant to participant's instructions, effect book-entry movements
of securities. The physical securities deposited with a depository
are held in a fungible bulk; each participant or pledgee having an
interest in securities of a given issue credited to its account has
a pro rata interest in the physical securities of the issue held in
custody by the securities depository in its nominee name.
Depositories collect and pay dividends and interest to participants
for securities held on deposit. Depositories also provide facilities
for payment by participants to other participants in connection with
book-entry deliveries of securities. . . .'').
    \7\ See, e.g., Rule 9(A) (Transactions in Securities and Money
Payments), Rule 9(B) (Transactions in Eligible Securities), Rule
9(C) (Transactions in MMI Securities), Rule 9(D) (Settling Banks),
and Rule 9(E) (Clearing Agency Agreements), supra note 4, which
provide the mechanism to achieve a ``DVP Model 2 Deferred Net
Settlement System'' (as defined in Annex D of the Principles for
Financial Market Infrastructures issued by the Committee on Payment
and Settlement Systems and the Technical Committee of the
International Organization of Securities Commissions (April 2012),
available at https://www.bis.org/cpmi/publ/d101a.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The DTC settlement system records money debits and credits to
Participant settlement accounts throughout a Business Day. Credits to a
Participant settlement account arise from deliveries versus payment,
receipt of payment orders, principal and interest distributions in
respect of securities held, intraday settlement progress payments and
any other items or transactions that give rise to a credit. Debits to a
Participant settlement account are primarily due to receives versus
payment, as well as other types of charges to the account permitted
under the Rules. As these debits and credits to a Participant's
settlement account are recorded intraday, the Participant's settlement
account will be in a net debit balance or net credit balance from time
to time and, finally, at the end of a Business Day, a net debit, net
credit or zero balance is determined. This final net debit or net
credit balance determines whether the Participant has an obligation to
pay or to be paid in the process of DTC completing settlement on that
Business Day. A Participant with an end-of-day net debit balance has an
obligation to pay DTC that amount; a Participant with an end-of-day net
credit balance is entitled to receive a payment from DTC. When a
Participant has an end-of-day zero net balance or an end-of-day net
credit balance, it is deemed to have satisfied its settlement
obligations for that Business Day, and securities processed for
delivery versus payment for delivery to the Participant will be
credited to its account. When a Participant with a net debit balance
pays its settlement obligation, and DTC completes system-wide
settlement, all securities processed for delivery versus payment to
that Participant on that Business Day will be credited to its account
and it will have paid for those deliveries. As to payments due to the
Participant for its deliveries on that Business Day, the Participant
will have been paid as well, because credits for those deliveries
intraday have offset and reduced its other debit obligations, even
though, on balance, it finished the Business Day with a settlement
obligation. A Participant that defaults on its settlement obligations
on a Business Day will not have paid for the securities processed for
delivery versus payment, and the securities will not be credited to its
account.
B. Settlement Gap on a Business Day
    There may be circumstances in which the amount of settlement
payments received or available to DTC on a Business Day is not
sufficient to pay all Participants with an end-of-day net credit
balance on that Business Day (a ``settlement gap''). A settlement gap
could occur on a Business Day as a result of, principally, a
Participant Default, where a Participant fails to pay its settlement
obligation (a ``default gap''). A settlement gap could also occur on a
Business Day as a result of causes other than a Participant Default (a
``non-default gap''). For example, a non-default gap could occur if the
funds required to complete settlement are not available to DTC, in
whole or in part, due to an operational or data issue arising at DTC, a
Participant or Settling Bank, or due to a cyber incident, or other
technological business disruption.
    The Rules and Procedures of DTC specify the extent of the
obligation of DTC to achieve settlement on each Business Day, and, as
DTC is not a central counterparty (``CCP''), do not guarantee
settlement.\8\ However, as a critical part of the national financial
infrastructure, if DTC does not complete settlement on a given Business
Day, there could be significant market-wide

effects.\9\ The Rules and Procedures of DTC are structured so that if
there is a settlement gap on a Business Day, DTC has liquidity
resources to mitigate the risks relating to a disruption to obligations
settling at DTC on that Business Day. If there is any problem with the
receipt or disbursement of funds for settlement, the issue would need
to be addressed quickly. Access to liquidity resources needs to be
optimized during the tight timeframe in which settlement must be
completed on a Business Day, in order for DTC to quickly and
effectively respond to and resolve any settlement gap, whether a
default gap or non-default gap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, e.g., Rule 9(B), supra note 4 (``Each Participant and
the Corporation shall settle the balance of the Settlement Account
of the Participant on a daily basis in accordance with these Rules
and the Procedures. Except as provided in the Procedures, the
Corporation shall not be obligated to make any settlement payments
to any Participants until the Corporation has received all of the
settlement payments that Settling Banks and Participants are
required to make to the Corporation.'').
    \9\ Supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Participants Fund as a Liquidity Resource To Complete Settlement on
a Business Day
    The Participants Fund is designed to be one of the foundational
liquidity resources available to DTC to fund a settlement gap to
complete settlement on a Business Day. Rule 4 contains the key
provisions of the Rules and Procedures specifying the rights, duties
and obligations of Participants and DTC with respect to the
Participants Fund. Every Participant is required to make at least a
minimum deposit to the Participants Fund, and Participants with higher
levels of activity that impose greater liquidity risk to the DTC
settlement system have proportionally larger required deposits. The
principal purpose of the Participants Fund is, and historically has
been, to provide a mutualized liquidity resource to satisfy DTC losses
and liabilities attributable to its business conducted for the benefit
of its Participants.\10\ Key among these is daily settlement on each
Business Day, but also, historically, the Participants Fund was a
resource to cover losses and other liabilities as well.\11\ Prior to
August 28, 2018, Rule 4 (``Previous Rule 4''), in particular Section 4
of Previous Rule 4, provided a unified set of provisions that addressed
this application of the Participants Fund ``in satisfaction of losses
and liabilities of the Corporation incident to the business of DTC.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Settlement Guide at 48, supra note 4 (``The
Participants Fund . . . provided in DTC Rule 4 create[s] liquidity
and collateral resources to support the business of DTC and to cover
losses and liabilities incident to that business.''). The term
``business'' with respect to DTC means ``the doing of all things in
connection with or relating to the Corporation's performance of the
services specified in the first and second paragraphs of Rule 6 or
the cessation of such services.'' Rule 4, Section 1(f), supra note
4. The first two paragraphs of Rule 6 describe services provided by
DTC, including settlement. Rule 6, supra note 4. DTC notes that, as
early as 1975, the Rules provided that ``[t]he Participants Fund may
be used by the Corporation for the purposes of its business . . .
.'' See DTC CA-1 Application for Permanent Registration as a
Clearing Agency, dated December 15, 1980 (File 600-1) at page 588.
In addition, the range of permissible uses of a clearing or
participants fund as covering ``all losses and liabilities incident
to clearance and settlement activities'' of the clearing agency was
specifically noted in the 1983 order of the Commission granting DTC
full registration as a clearing agency. Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 20221 (September 23, 1983), 48 FR 45167 (October 3,
1983) (File No. 600-1). The concept was also in Rule 4 of Central
Certificate Service, Inc., the predecessor of DTC, filed with the
Commission in 1972. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 9849
(November 8, 1972), 37 FR 24795 (November 21, 1972) (As described by
the Commission: ``Rule 4. A participant's fund will require deposits
by participants upon the basis of a formula established by CCS,
Inc., based upon usage. The minimum contribution is $10,000. The
fund is available for the uses specified in the rules including for
the purposes of its business.'').
    \11\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 28, 2018, the Commission approved a rule change filed by
DTC with respect to Rule 4 (``Loss Allocation Rule Change'').\12\ A
primary purpose of the Loss Allocation Rule Change was to harmonize the
loss allocation provisions of the Rules of DTC with similar provisions
of the rules of its two affiliated CCPs, National Securities Clearing
Corporation (``NSCC'') and Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'')
(collectively, the ``CCPs'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83969 (August 28,
2018), 83 FR 44955 (September 4, 2018) (SR-DTC-2017-022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the Loss Allocation Rule Change, Previous Rule 4 was
restructured to provide separate and distinct provisions for (i) in
Section 4 of Rule 4, the application of liquidity resources, including,
but not limited to, the pro rata application of the Participants Fund,
in order to complete settlement on a given Business Day when there is a
settlement gap, and (ii) in Section 5 of Rule 4, the allocation of
losses and liabilities of DTC arising out of Default Loss Events or
Declared Non-Default Loss Events.\13\ Revised Section 4 of Rule 4 was
meant to retain the core principle of Previous Rule 4 for the
application of the Participants Fund as a liquidity resource to
complete settlement.\14\ A new Section 5, consisting of loss allocation
provisions that were revised for substantial conformity with revisions
for the CCPs, was inserted into Rule 4 to provide a discrete loss
allocation waterfall (``Loss Allocation Waterfall'') more comparable to
NSCC and FICC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ As a result, the main sections of Rule 4 relating to the
Participants Fund are: Section 1, which focuses on Required
Participants Fund Deposits and Actual Participants Fund Deposits,
and briefly addresses the maintenance, permitted use and investment
of the Participants Fund; Section 3, which provides for the
application of a defaulting Participant's own Actual Participants
Fund Deposit to its unpaid settlement obligations; and Section 4,
which provides for, in relevant part, the pro rata application of
the Actual Participants Fund Deposits of all Participants (except a
defaulting Participant) to fund a settlement gap on a Business Day.
DTC notes that Section 5 of Rule 4 does not provide for the direct
application of the Participants Fund as part of the Loss Allocation
Waterfall. The reference in Section 1(f) of Rule 4 to the use of the
Actual Participants Fund Deposits ``to satisfy losses and
liabilities of the Corporation incident to the business of the
Corporation, as provided in Section 5 of this Rule'' refers to the
application of the Actual Participants Fund Deposit of a Participant
that fails to timely make its loss allocation payment under the Loss
Allocation Waterfall, as provided for in Section 3 of Rule 4.
Accordingly, this proposed rule change has no relationship to or
effect on the Loss Allocation Waterfall. Nor do the proposed
drafting changes to Section 4 of Rule 4 affect, in any degree, the
likelihood of the occurrence of a Default Loss Event or Declared
Non-Default Loss Event subject to Section 5.
    \14\ See infra note 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nevertheless, as explained in more detail below, DTC now recognizes
that certain of the provisions of amended Section 4 of Rule 4 might be
read in a manner that conflicts with the stated, and historical,
purpose of the Participants Fund.\15\ Specifically, certain provisions
might be construed to narrow the scope of use of the Participants Fund
for settlement to a default gap only.\16\ Therefore, because settlement
is a critical service of DTC, and the Participants Fund is a critical
liquidity resource to fund any settlement gap, DTC is proposing to
amend certain provisions of Section 4 of Rule 4 to reflect expressly
that the Participants Fund continues to be a liquidity resource that
may be used by DTC to fund a settlement gap to complete settlement on a
Business Day, whether the settlement gap is the result of a Participant
Default, or otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See supra note 10.
    \16\ The rule filing for the Loss Allocation Rule Change did not
mention any intention to narrow the scope of the permitted use of
the Participants Fund under Rule 4. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 83629 (July 13, 2018), 83 FR 34246, 34248 (July 19,
2018) (SR-DTC-2017-022) (``The proposed rule change would retain the
core principles of [Previous] Rule 4 for both application of the
Participants Fund as a liquidity resource to complete settlement and
for loss allocation.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(ii) Overview of Proposed Rule Change
A. Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 4
    Currently, Sections 3 and 4 are the primary sections of Rule 4 that
are relevant to the application of the Participants Fund to fund a
settlement gap.
    Section 3 of Rule 4 provides, in relevant part, that ``[i]f a
Participant is a Participant that is a Defaulting Participant pursuant
to Rule 9(B) or is otherwise obligated to the Corporation pursuant to
these Rules and the Procedures and fails to satisfy any such obligation
(a ``Participant Default'') . . . the Corporation shall, to the extent

necessary to eliminate such obligation, apply some or all of the Actual
Participants Fund Deposit of such Participant to such obligation to
satisfy the Participant Default.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 3 of Rule 4 is the basic provision of remedies if a
Participant fails to satisfy an obligation to DTC.\18\ In that case,
DTC may apply the Actual Participants Fund Deposit of the responsible
Participant to the extent necessary to satisfy its Participant Default.
A Participant Default includes a situation where a Participant fails to
pay its net debit balance at the end of a Business Day. If the amount
of the Actual Participants Fund Deposit of the responsible Participant
is insufficient to satisfy its net debit balance, DTC has recourse to
the Actual Participants Fund Deposits of the other Participants, to be
charged pro rata in accordance with Section 4 of Rule 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Therefore, Section 3 of Rule 4 does not apply to a
situation where there is no Participant Default.

    Section 4 of Rule 4 currently provides:
    The Participants Fund shall constitute a liquidity resource
which may be applied by the Corporation in such amounts as the
Corporation shall determine, in its sole discretion, to fund
settlement if there is a Defaulting Participant and the amount
charged to the Actual Participants Fund Deposit of the Defaulting
Participant pursuant to Section 3 of this Rule is not sufficient to
complete settlement. In that case, the Corporation may apply the
Actual Participants Fund Deposits of Participants other than the
Defaulting Participant (each, a ``non-defaulting Participant'') as
provided in this Section and/or apply such other liquidity resources
as may be available to the Corporation from time to time, including
the End-of-Day Credit Facility.
    If the Participants Fund is applied to complete settlement, the
Corporation shall promptly after the event notify each Participant
and the SEC of the amount applied and the reasons therefor
(``Settlement Charge Notice''). Each non-defaulting Participant's
pro rata share of such application of the Participants Fund (each, a
``pro rata settlement charge'') shall be equal to (i) its Required
Participants Fund Deposit, as such Required Participants Fund
Deposit was fixed on the Business Day of such application less its
Additional Participants Fund Deposit, if any, on that day, divided
by (ii) the sum of the Required Participants Fund Deposits of all
non-defaulting Participants, as such Required Participants Fund
Deposits were fixed on that day, less the sum of the Additional
Participants Fund Deposits, if any, of such non-defaulting
Participants on that day.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Supra note 4. The proposed rule change would not affect the
balance of Section 4 of Rule 4. Section 4 of Rule 4 also provides,
in part, that a Participant shall have a period of five Business
Days following issuance of a Settlement Charge Notice to notify DTC
of its election to terminate its business with DTC and thereby cap
its maximum obligation with respect to other pro rata settlement
charges (``Settlement Charge Cap''). If the Participant gives such
notice, Section 4 of Rule 4 provides that DTC may still retain the
entire amount of the Actual Participants Fund Deposit of a
Participant subject to a pro rata settlement charge, up to the
amount of the Participant's Settlement Charge Cap. Section 4 of Rule
4 also provides that if the Actual Participants Fund Deposit of a
Participant is applied pursuant to Section 4 of Rule 4, and, as a
result, the Actual Participants Fund Deposit of such Participant is
less than its Required Participants Fund Deposit, the Participant
must, upon the demand of DTC and within such time as DTC may
require, deposit to the Participants Fund the amount in cash needed
to eliminate any resulting deficiency in its Required Participants
Fund Deposit.

    The above provisions of Section 4 of Rule 4 were drafted as part of
the restructuring and revision of Rule 4 in connection to the Loss
Allocation Rule Change. The intention was that these new provisions
would track the historical principle of Section 4 of Previous Rule 4
that the Participants Fund may be applied to a loss or liability,
including a settlement gap, that could not be satisfied by charging the
Actual Participants Fund Deposit of a Participant pursuant to Section 3
of Rule 4. Nevertheless, because Section 4 of Rule 4 is now silent as
to the use of the Participants Fund to complete settlement when there
is a non-default gap, it could be construed as limiting the pro rata
application of the Participants Fund to fund a settlement gap to
default scenarios.
    On each Business Day, settlement occurs during a tight timeframe,
in conjunction with the Federal Reserve's National Settlement Service
(NSS) and Fedwire.\20\ If there is any problem with the receipt or
disbursement of funds for settlement, it would need to be addressed
quickly. The Participants Fund is designed as ready ``cash on hand''
for settlement and is, typically, the most available liquidity resource
for settlement. If the scope of the permitted use of the Participants
Fund to fund a settlement gap on a Business Day is not expressly stated
in Rule 4, there is a possibility that DTC's ability on a Business Day
to quickly and effectively respond to and resolve any settlement gap
could be adversely affected. Use of the Participants Fund needs to be
optimized during the tight timeframe because extensive settlement
delays might cause significant market disruptive effects. The proposed
rule change is designed to confirm, expressly, ready access to the
Participants Fund for settlement purposes, whatever the settlement gap
scenario.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Settlement Guide at 19-20, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the foregoing, in order to facilitate timely action by
DTC in connection with any settlement gap, DTC is proposing to amend
Section 4 of Rule 4 to provide expressly for the use of the
Participants Fund to fund settlement irrespective of whether the
settlement gap is a default gap or a non-default gap.
B. Technical and Clarifying Changes
    DTC believes that certain other amendments that were made pursuant
to the Loss Allocation Rule Change may have impacted the transparency
of Section 4 of Rule 4 with respect to use of the Participants Fund and
other resources for settlement. Therefore, as described below, DTC is
proposing to (i) clarify that a Participant's pro rata share of an
application of the Participants Fund would be the same whether there is
a default gap or a non-default gap, (ii) restore the express provision
for the optional use of a discretionary amount of existing retained
earnings of DTC to fund settlement, (iii) specifically state that DTC
may apply its available resources to fund settlement, in such order and
in such amounts as it determines, in its sole discretion, and (iv) make
ministerial changes for conformity and readability.
(iii) Proposed Rule Change
A. Section 4 of Rule 4
    Section 4 of Rule 4, Heading:
    In order to reflect that Section 4 of Rule 4 would address the
liquidity resources to fund settlement, including the application of
the Participants Fund to fund settlement when there is a default gap or
a non-default gap, DTC is proposing to replace the current heading of
Section 4 of Rule 4 ``Application of Participants Fund Deposits of Non-
Defaulting Participants'' with ``Liquidity Resources to Fund
Settlement; Application of Participants Fund.''
    Section 4 of Rule 4 (Proposed New First Paragraph):
    DTC is proposing to add a new opening paragraph to Section 4 of
Rule 4 that would reflect and summarize the purpose of the proposed
Section 4 of Rule 4. Specifically, DTC is proposing to add the
following paragraph: ``This Section sets forth liquidity resources
available to the Corporation to fund settlement on a Business Day, in
the event of a Participant Default or otherwise.''
    Section 4 of Rule 4, First Paragraph (Proposed Second Paragraph):
    DTC is proposing to:
    1. Streamline the language referring to a settlement gap resulting
from an unsatisfied Participant Default \21\ by

revising the text to state that, ``If, on a Business Day, there is a
Participant Default which is not satisfied pursuant to Section 3 of
this Rule by the application of the Actual Participants Fund Deposit of
a Participant, . . . '';
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The current default gap language is ``if there is a
Defaulting Participant and the amount charged to the Actual
Participants Fund Deposit of the Defaulting Participant pursuant to
Section 3 of this Rule is not sufficient to complete settlement.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Expressly address a non-default gap by adding the phrase `` . .
. or if Section 3 is not applicable, . . . '' into the description of
the circumstances in which DTC may apply the Participants Fund to fund
settlement; \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Section 3 of Rule 4 applies when there is a Participant
Default. If there is no Participant Default, Section 3 of Rule 4
does not apply. Therefore, if there is a settlement gap where
Section 3 of Rule 4 is inapplicable, such settlement gap could be
considered a non-default gap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Revise the language that refers to DTC's sole discretion to
apply its liquidity resources, including Participants Fund, to fund
settlement,\23\ to state, `` . . . in such order and in such amounts as
the Corporation shall determine, in its sole discretion, to the extent
necessary to fund settlement on the Business Day:''; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Rule 4 currently states: ``The Participants Fund shall
constitute a liquidity resource which may be applied by the
Corporation in such amounts as the Corporation shall determine, in
its sole discretion, to fund settlement . . . and/or apply such
other liquidity resources as may be available to the Corporation
from time to time, including the End-of-Day Credit Facility.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Enhance the transparency of Section 4 of Rule 4 with respect to
liquidity resources that may be available to DTC to fund settlement by
amending Section 4 of Rule 4 to provide DTC may apply:
    (a) the Actual Participants Fund Deposits of all Participants
(other than a Participant whose Actual Participants Fund Deposit is
exhausted pursuant to Section 3);
    (b) the existing retained earnings or undivided profits of DTC; or
    (c) any other liquidity resources as may be available to DTC from
time to time, including, but not limited to, the End-of-Day Credit
Facility.
    Specifically, with respect to (a), DTC is proposing to replace the
reference in the first paragraph of Section 4 of Rule 4 to ``non-
defaulting Participants'' with ``all Participants (other than a
Participant whose Actual Participants Fund Deposit is exhausted
pursuant to Section 3).'' The purpose of this change is to provide
expressly that (i) in the case of a non-default gap, all Participants
would be charged a pro rata share of the application of the
Participants Fund, and (ii) a Participant that cured its Participant
Default pursuant to Section 3 by the application of some, but not all,
of its Actual Participants Fund Deposit on that Business Day, would
still be subject to a pro rata share of the application of the
Participants Fund to fund settlement, up to the remaining balance of
its Actual Participants Fund Deposit, if there is (x) a default gap
(due to the default of another Participant) or (y) a non-default gap.
    With respect to (b), in order to enhance the transparency of
available resources to fund settlement, DTC is proposing to restore the
express provision for the optional use of a discretionary amount of
existing retained earnings of DTC \24\ that had appeared in previous
versions of Rule 4, including Section 4 of Previous Rule 4.\25\ With
respect to (c), DTC is proposing to insert the phrase ``but not limited
to,'' after ``including,'' in order to make clear that DTC may have
other liquidity resources available in addition to the End-of-Day
Credit Facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The retained earnings of DTC are reflected in its quarterly
condensed consolidated financial statements and annual financial
statements, available at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/financial-statements.
    \25\ As noted above, the loss allocation provisions of Rule 4
are not relevant to the application of liquidity resources to a
settlement gap on a given Business Day. As such, the optional use of
the existing retained earnings of DTC to fund settlement is separate
and distinct from calculation of, or application of, the Corporate
Contribution required in Section 5 of Rule 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, pursuant to the above proposed changes, the revised
paragraph would state:

    If, on a Business Day, there is a Participant Default which is
not satisfied pursuant to Section 3 of this Rule by the application
of the Actual Participants Fund Deposit of a Participant, or if
Section 3 is not applicable, then the Corporation shall apply, in
such order and in such amounts as the Corporation shall determine,
in its sole discretion, to the extent necessary to fund settlement
on the Business Day:
    (a) The Actual Participants Fund Deposits of all Participants
(other than a Participant whose Actual Participants Fund Deposit is
exhausted pursuant to Section 3);
    (b) the existing retained earnings or undivided profits of the
Corporation; or
    (c) any other liquidity resources as may be available to the
Corporation from time to time, including, but not limited to, the
End-of-Day Credit Facility.

    Section 4 of Rule 4, Second Paragraph (Proposed Fifth Paragraph):
    For conformity, DTC is proposing to modify this paragraph to
conform with the proposed changes to the third paragraph. Specifically,
pursuant to the proposed rule change, this paragraph would state: ``If
the Participants Fund is applied pursuant to paragraph (a) of this
Section, the Corporation shall promptly after the event notify each
Participant and the SEC of the amount of the Participants Fund applied
and the reasons therefor (``Settlement Charge Notice'').''
    In addition, to further streamline Section 4 of Rule 4, DTC is
proposing to move the proposed amended paragraph to follow the proposed
fourth paragraph.
    Section 4 of Rule 4, Proposed Third Paragraph:
    For enhanced transparency with respect to the governance relating
to a pro rata application of the Participants Fund, DTC is proposing to
add the following paragraph:
    A determination to apply the Participants Fund pursuant to this
Section shall be made by either the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Risk
Officer, Chief Financial Officer, a member of any management committee,
Treasurer or any Managing Director as may be designated by the Chief
Risk Officer from time to time. The Board of Directors (or an
authorized Committee thereof) shall be promptly informed of the
determination.
    Section 4 of Rule 4, Third Paragraph (Proposed Fourth Paragraph):
    Pursuant to the proposed rule change, DTC would revise this
paragraph \26\ to make clarifying changes that reflect that a
Participant's pro rata share of an application of the Participants Fund
would be the same whether there is a default gap or a non-default gap.
Specifically, DTC is proposing to (i) remove the references to ``non-
defaulting Participants,'' (ii) streamline the language by representing
the calculation of a pro rata share as a ratio, instead of a division
calculation, (iii) make conforming changes with the foregoing, and (iv)
for consistency and clarity, make ministerial word changes and replace
references to ``day'' with the defined term ``Business Day.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Currently, the paragraph states: ``Each non-defaulting
Participant's pro rata share of such application of the Participants
Fund (each, a ``pro rata settlement charge'') shall be equal to (i)
its Required Participants Fund Deposit, as such Required
Participants Fund Deposit was fixed on the Business Day of such
application less its Additional Participants Fund Deposit, if any,
on that day, divided by (ii) the sum of the Required Participants
Fund Deposits of all non-defaulting Participants, as such Required
Participants Fund Deposits were fixed on that day, less the sum of
the Additional Participants Fund Deposits, if any, of such non-
defaulting Participants on that day.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, DTC is proposing that this paragraph be revised to state:
``The pro rata share of the Actual Participants Fund Deposit of any
Participant applied pursuant to paragraph (a) shall be equal to the
ratio of (i) the Required Participants Fund Deposit of the Participant,
as fixed on the Business

Day on which such charge is made less its Additional Participants Fund
Deposit, if any, on that Business Day, to (ii) the sum of the Required
Participants Fund Deposits, as fixed on the Business Day on which such
charge is made, of all Participants so charged on that Business Day,
less the sum of the Additional Participants Fund Deposits, if any, of
those Participants on that Business Day. The amount so charged to the
Actual Participants Fund Deposit of a Participant shall constitute a
``pro rata settlement charge'' with respect to that Participant.''
    Section 4 of Rule 4, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Paragraphs
(Proposed Paragraphs Six, Seven, Eight and Nine):
    There would be no changes to these paragraphs. The proposed rule
change would not affect the Settlement Charge Termination Notification
Period, the Settlement Charge Cap, nor the right of DTC to retain the
entire amount of the Actual Participants Fund Deposit of a Participant
subject to a pro rata settlement charge, up to the amount of the
Participant's Settlement Charge Cap. The proposed rule change would not
affect the requirement that if the Actual Participants Fund Deposit of
a Participant is applied pursuant to Section 4 of Rule 4, and, as a
result, the Actual Participants Fund Deposit of such Participant is
less than its Required Participants Fund Deposit, the Participant must,
upon the demand of DTC and within such time as DTC would require,
deposit to the Participants Fund the amount in cash needed to eliminate
any resulting deficiency in its Required Participants Fund Deposit.
B. Section 1(f) of Rule 4
    Section 1(f) of Rule 4 currently states, in relevant part: ``The
Actual Participants Fund Deposits of Participants to the Participants
Fund shall be held by the Corporation and may be used or invested as
provided in these Rules and as specified in the Procedures. The Actual
Participants Fund Deposits of Participants may be used (i) to satisfy
the obligations of Participants to the Corporation, as provided in
Section 3 of this Rule, (ii) to fund settlement among non-defaulting
Participants, as provided in Section 4 of this Rule and (iii) to
satisfy losses and liabilities of the Corporation incident to the
business of the Corporation, as provided in Section 5 of this Rule.''
    In conformity with the proposed changes to Section 4 of Rule 4, DTC
is proposing a ministerial change of removing the word ``non-
defaulting'' from Section 1(f) of Rule 4.
2. Statutory Basis
    DTC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a registered clearing agency. Specifically, DTC believes
that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
of the Act \27\ and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1) 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)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the Rules
be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement
of securities transactions.\29\ The proposed rule changes to (i) amend
Rule 4 to provide expressly that the Participants Fund may be used by
DTC to fund a settlement gap, whether it is a default gap or a non-
default gap, and (ii) make other technical changes to provide enhanced
transparency with respect to use of the Participants Fund and other
resources for settlement, are intended to enhance the overall
efficiency and effectiveness of end-of-day settlement in circumstances
where there is a settlement gap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change would amend Section 4 of Rule 4 to provide
expressly for the pro rata application of the Participants Fund to any
settlement gap, including a non-default gap. As noted above, if there
were a question as to DTC's right to apply the Participants Fund to a
non-default gap, DTC's ability on a Business Day to quickly and
effectively respond to and resolve any such settlement gap and complete
settlement might be adversely affected, which could interfere with the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions.
    The proposed rule change would also make other technical and
clarifying amendments in order to provide enhanced transparency with
respect to use of the Participants Fund and other resources for
settlement. The proposed amendments would (i) clarify that a
Participant's pro rata share of an application of the Participants Fund
would be the same whether there is a default gap or a non-default gap,
(ii) restore the express provision for the optional use of a
discretionary amount of existing retained earnings of DTC to fund
settlement, (iii) specifically state that DTC may apply its available
resources to fund settlement, in such order and in such amounts as it
determines, in its sole discretion, and (iv) make ministerial changes
for conformity and readability. Without the foregoing changes, DTC's
rights with respect to the manner and use of its liquidity resources to
fund settlement might not be promptly ascertainable, particularly in a
time of stress.
    Therefore, the proposed rule change is designed to enhance the
overall efficiency and effectiveness of settlement on a Business Day in
circumstances where there is a settlement gap by facilitating timely
action by DTC to complete settlement on a Business Day when there is a
settlement gap, including, but not limited to, in situations where
Section 3 of Rule 4 is not applicable. The ability of DTC to take
timely action to fund a settlement gap, including, but not limited to,
the pro rata application of the Participants Fund, would allow DTC to
continue to support end-of-day net funds settlement in connection with
book-entry transfers of securities on each Business Day, thereby
promoting the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions, consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act, cited above.
    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1) under the Act requires that DTC establish,
implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to provide for a well-founded, clear, transparent,
and enforceable legal basis for each aspect of its activities in all
relevant jurisdictions.\30\ As discussed above, changes to Section 4 of
Previous Rule 4 might be construed as narrowing the scope of use of the
Participants Fund for settlement to a default gap, even though the
Participants Fund is a liquidity resource that is available to fund any
settlement gap. By amending Rule 4 to provide expressly that the
Participants Fund continues to be a liquidity resource that may be used
by DTC to fund a settlement gap to complete settlement on a Business
Day, whether the settlement gap is the result of a Participant Default
or otherwise, the proposed rule change is designed to provide an
expressly clear, transparent and enforceable legal basis for the
application of the Participants Fund to a settlement gap, whether or
not caused by a Participant Default, consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1)
under the Act, cited above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    DTC believes that the proposed rule change to amend certain
provisions of

Rule 4 to reflect expressly that the Participants Fund continues to be
a liquidity resource to fund a settlement gap on a Business Day,
whether there is a default gap or a non-default gap, could impose a
burden on competition.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the Participants Fund is designed to be one of the
foundational liquidity resources available to DTC to fund a settlement
gap to complete settlement on a Business Day. The proposed rule change
would enhance DTC's ability to quickly and effectively use the pro rata
application of the Participants Fund to respond to a non-default gap on
a Business Day. DTC recognizes, however, that a pro rata application of
the Participants Fund to fund a settlement gap, including a non-default
gap, could potentially result in a deficiency in the Required
Participants Fund Deposit of one or more Participants, which could
potentially impose a burden on competition. Under Rule 4, in the event
of a deficiency in the Required Participants Fund Deposit of a
Participant after a pro rata application of the Participants Fund to a
settlement gap, the Participant, upon the demand of DTC and within such
time as DTC may require, would be required to deposit into the
Participants Fund the amount of cash needed to eliminate the
deficiency.\32\ While the proposed rule change does not change or
affect this long-standing replenishment obligation,\33\ DTC
acknowledges that such demand for additional capital on a Participant
could be a competitive burden for the Participant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See supra note 19.
    \33\ See DTC CA-1 Application for Permanent Registration as a
Clearing Agency, dated December 15, 1980 (File 600-1) at page 589
(``Rule 4 . . . Section 5. If a pro rata charge is made against a
Participant's contribution to the Participants Fund pursuant to
Section 4 of this Rule, such Participant shall immediately upon
demand, which shall be made by the Corporation as soon as
practicable after such charge, make good the deficiency in the
amount of its contribution resulting from such pro rata charge. . .
.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTC does not believe that any burden imposed by the proposed rule
change would be significant. First, if DTC were to use a pro rata
application of the Participants Fund to fund a non-default gap, it
would not necessarily result in a deficiency to the Required
Participants Fund Deposit of any Participant. Whether there would be
any deficiencies would depend on the facts and circumstances on that
Business Day, including, but not limited to, the amount of funds a
Participant has on deposit in the Participants Fund that is in excess
of its Required Participants Fund Deposit, as well as the aggregate
amount of the pro rata application of the Participants Fund to fund the
settlement gap. Second, the Required Participants Fund Deposit of a
Participant is itself based on the amount of activity of the
Participant, and therefore any burden on a Participant from the
requirement to replenish its Required Participants Fund Deposit would
be proportional to the volume of its business activity at DTC.
    Regardless of whether the potential burden on competition is
significant, DTC believes that any burden on competition that may be
created by the proposed rule change would be necessary and appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as permitted by Section
17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTC believes that any burden on competition created by the proposed
rule change would be necessary to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions, consistent with
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\35\ As noted above, if the scope of
the permitted use of the Participants Fund to fund a settlement gap on
a Business Day could be construed as limited to a default settlement
gap, DTC's ability on a Business Day to quickly and effectively respond
to and resolve any settlement gap could be adversely affected by the
perceived limitation on use of the Participants Fund. This, in turn,
could cause settlement delays that might interfere with the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.
Therefore, DTC believes any burden that may be created by the proposed
rule change would be necessary in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act, as permitted by Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, DTC believes that any burden on competition resulting
from the proposed rule change would be appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act, as permitted by Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the
Act.\37\ First, The Participants Fund is designed as ready ``cash on
hand'' for settlement and is, typically, the most available liquidity
resource for settlement. The proposed rule change is designed to
enhance DTC's ability to use this readily available resource to fund a
non-default gap and to continue to support end-of-day net funds
settlement. Second, as noted above, any competitive burden imposed on
Participants would be proportional to their activity at DTC. Therefore,
DTC believes any burden that may be created by the proposed rule change
would be appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as
permitted by Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Id.
    \38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change to make
technical and clarifying amendments to provide enhanced transparency
with respect to use of the Participants Fund and other resources for
settlement would have an impact on competition.\39\ The proposed rule
change would (i) clarify that a Participant's pro rata share of an
application of the Participants Fund would be the same whether there is
a default gap or a non-default gap, (ii) restore the express provision
for the optional use of a discretionary amount of existing retained
earnings of DTC to fund settlement, (iii) specifically state that DTC
may apply its available resources to fund settlement, in such order and
in such amounts as it determines, in its sole discretion, and (iv) make
ministerial changes for conformity and readability. Taken together,
these proposed rule changes would provide a more transparent framework
for the use of DTC's available liquidity resources to fund a settlement
gap, as determined by DTC in its sole discretion, and would not change
the rights or obligations of Participants in connection thereto.
Therefore, DTC believes that the proposed rule change to make technical
and clarifying changes to provide enhanced transparency with respect to
use of the Participants Fund and other resources for settlement would
not have an impact on competition.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Id.
    \40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Written comments relating to this proposed rule change have not
been solicited or received. DTC will notify the Commission of any
written comments received by DTC.

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-DTC-2020-011 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-DTC-2020-011. 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 DTC 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-DTC-2020-011 and should be submitted on
or before October 19, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\41\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-21290 Filed 9-25-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P