[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 1238]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00152]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93893; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2021-57]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To
Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To
List and Trade Shares of the NYDIG Bitcoin ETF Under NYSE Arca Rule
8.201-E

January 4, 2022.
    On June 30, 2021, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to list and trade
shares of the NYDIG Bitcoin ETF under NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E
(Commodity-Based Trust Shares). The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on July 19, 2021.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92395 (July 13,
2021), 86 FR 38129. Comments on the proposed rule change can be
found at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2021-57/srnysearca202157.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 23, 2021, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the
Commission designated a longer period within which to approve the
proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule
change.\5\ On September 29, 2021, the Commission instituted proceedings
under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \6\ to determine whether to
approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92722, 86 FR 48268
(Aug. 27, 2021).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93191, 86 FR 55090
(Oct. 5, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \8\ provides that, after initiating
proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order approving or
disapproving the proposed rule change not later than 180 days after the
date of publication of notice of filing of the proposed rule change.
The Commission may extend the period for issuing an order approving or
disapproving the proposed rule change, however, by not more than 60
days if the Commission determines that a longer period is appropriate
and publishes the reasons for such determination. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on July 19,
2021.\9\ The 180th day after publication of the proposed rule change is
January 15, 2022. The Commission is extending the time period for
approving or disapproving the proposed rule change for an additional 60
days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \9\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the
proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the
proposed rule change and the issues raised in the comments that have
been submitted in connection therewith. Accordingly, the Commission,
pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\10\ designates March 16, 2022,
as the date by which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove
the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NYSEArca-2021-57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-00152 Filed 1-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 212 (Friday, November 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 61371]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24134]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-433, OMB Control No. 3235-0489]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Rule 17a-6

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information provided for in Rule 17a-6 (17 CFR 240.17a-6)
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
    Rule 17a-6 permits national securities exchanges, national
securities associations, registered clearing agencies, and the
Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (``MSRB'') (collectively,
``SROs'') to destroy or convert to microfilm or other recording media
records maintained under Rule 17a-1, if they have filed a record
destruction plan with the Commission and the Commission has declared
such plan effective.
    There are currently 35 SROs: 24 national securities exchanges, 1
national securities association, the MSRB, and 9 registered clearing
agencies. Of the 35 SROs, only 2 SRO respondents have filed a record
destruction plan with the Commission. The staff calculates that the
preparation and filing of a new record destruction plan should take 160
hours. Further, any existing SRO record destruction plans may require
revision, over time, in response to, for example, changes in document
retention technology, which the Commission estimates will take much
less than the 160 hours estimated for a new plan. The Commission
estimates that each SRO that has filed a destruction plan will spend
approximately 30 hours per year making required revisions. Thus, the
total annual time burden is estimated to be approximately 60 hours per
year based on two respondents (30 x 2). The approximate internal
compliance cost per hour is $428, resulting in a total internal cost of
compliance for these respondents of approximately $25,680 per year (60
hours at $428 per hour).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
to (i) www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and (ii) David Bottom,
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o John R. Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or by
sending an email to: [email protected].

    Dated: November 1, 2021.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-24134 Filed 11-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


EPA Response to Commerce questions on Ozone RIA

We asked that EPA present a list of controls in the main text of the
report instead of the appendix.  Doing so would make the exposition
easier to follow.  We believe it is in EPA’s interest to make their
RIA as easy to understand as possible.

	List of controls that were used are provided in tables 3.1-3.3. Details
of the 	controls are in the appendix, so as not to overwhelm the body of
the RIA with too 	much detail.

EPA should also clarify in the text how they are using OIRA recommended
interest rates.

	EPA is using the 3% and 7% discount rates for engineering costs as
indicated in 	OMB Circular A-4.  This is covered in section 5.1.2 with
the following text:

The total annualized cost of control in each sector in the control
scenario is provided in Table 5.1.  These numbers reflect the
engineering costs across sectors annualized at a discount rate of 7% and
3%, consistent with the guidance provided in the Office of Management
and Budget’s (OMB) (2003) Circular A-4.  However, it is important to
note that it is not possible to estimate both 7% and 3% discount rates
for each source (see section 5.1.3). In Table 5.1, an annualized control
cost is provided to allow for comparison across sectors, and between
costs and benefits.  A 7% discount rate was used for control measures
applied to non-EGU point, area, and mobile sources.   Costs from EGU
sources, which are calculated using the IPM model and variable interest
rates, are captured in this table at an annualized 7% discount rate.

Total annualized costs were calculated using a 3% discount rate for
controls which had a capital component and where equipment life values
were available.  In this RIA, the non-EGU point source sector was the
only sector with available data to perform a sensitivity analysis of our
annualized control costs to the choice of interest rate.  Sufficient
information on annualized capital calculations was not available for
area source and mobile controls to provide a reliable 3 percent discount
rate estimate. As such, the 3% value in figure 5.1 is representative of
the sum of the non-EGU Point Source sector at a 3% discount rate, and
the EGU, mobile, and Area Source sector at a 7% discount rate.  It is
expected that the 3% discount rate value is overestimated due to the
addition of cost sectors at a higher discount rate.   With the exception
of the 3 % Total Annualized Cost estimate on Table 5.1, cost estimates
presented throughout this and subsequent chapters are based on 7%
discount rate.

On extrapolated costs:  Regardless of where the economic impact
assessment is, it needs to incorporate whatever assessments of
extrapolated costs that EPA has estimated.  It is not appropriate to
separate out extrapolated costs from other costs in the analysis.  We
look forward to seeing the new version of this analysis before the rule
goes public.

	The modeled control costs and the extrapolated costs are very different
in terms of 	methodology and level of uncertainty.  The EIA has been
deleted from the RIA 	entirely.

On the size of the impact being small:  The estimated costs of the rule,
depending on what estimate you are looking at, is $7 billion.
Economically significant rules are those whose economic effect is $100
million or more.  The impact of this rule is 70 times that threshold.
It is one of the most expensive rules being considered this year.  The
costs should not be characterized as small.

EPA did not address the question, “what are the total compliance costs
of this rule compared to the similar analysis done on the PM NAAQS?”
Please include this comparison in the text to allow the compliance cost
of the present rule to be put in its proper context.

	This has been address in edits to Chapter 8:

Tightening the ozone standards can incur significant, but uncertain,
costs

An engineering cost comparison demonstrates that the cost of the 0.070
ppm Ozone NAAQS control strategy ($3.9 billion per year) is only
slightly higher than the Clean Air Interstate Rule ($3.6 billion per
year) and roughly one and half to just over four times higher than the
PM NAAQS 15/35 control strategy with annual engineering costs of $850
million. It should be noted that for the Ozone NAAQS $3.9 billion
represent the cost of partial attainment.  Full attainment using
extrapolation methods are expected to increase total costs
significantly.  Yet, the magnitude and distribution of costs across
sectors and areas is highly uncertain.  Our estimates of costs for a set
of modeled NOx and VOC controls comprise only a small part of the
estimated costs of full attainment.  These estimated costs for the
modeled set of controls are still uncertain, but they are based on the
best available information on control technologies, and have their basis
in real, tested technologies.  Estimating costs of full attainment
required significant extrapolation of the cost curve for known
technologies, and was based on generalized relationships between
emissions and ozone levels.  Based on air quality modeling sensitivity
analyses, there is clearly significant spatial variability in the
relationship between local and regional NOx emission reductions and
ozone levels across urban areas.  However, because we were unable to
analyze all of the urban areas that are expected to need reductions, we
used the same ratio of ozone to emissions throughout the U.S.  This
introduces significant uncertainty into the calculation of the emissions
reductions that might be needed to reach full attainment.  In addition,
because VOCs are generally much less effective than NOx in achieving
ozone reductions at key monitors (with the exception of California), we
did not use any VOC control data in the extrapolation to full
attainment.  This meant that in some areas, we assumed the need for more
expensive NOx controls than might be required if a specific area chose
to use a combination of NOx and VOC controls.  However, VOC controls
would have to be very inexpensive relative to NOx controls on a per ton
basis in order for VOC controls to be a cost-effective substitute for
NOx reductions.  Extrapolating costs by applying a cost-curve based on
known technologies also introduces uncertainties.  For some locations,
the extrapolation requires only a modest reduction beyond known
controls.  In these cases, the extrapolation is likely reasonable and
not as prone to uncertainties.  However, for areas where the bulk of air
quality improvements were derived from extrapolated emissions reductions
that go well beyond the area of the known controls, the increasing
marginal costs can suggest a cost per ton which stretches credibility.
For example, in California, extrapolation to full attainment results in
a marginal cost for the last ton of NOx of $89,645 in Los Angeles and
$74,495 in Kern County, which are five to six times larger than the
marginal cost at the last known cost effective control.  Economic theory
would suggest that as marginal costs rise, research and development to
produce new, more cost effective technologies will also increase,
leading to a downward shift in the overall cost curve.  We did not
assume any shift in the cost curve to reflect technological innovation,
instead we provide a sensitivity analysis by showing estimates assuming
a high and low fixed cost per ton.  We are likely overstating costs in
the future when using the marginal cost and high fixed estimates.

On the EMPAX model:  Sensitivity analysis should show to what extent the
competitiveness results of the model run are driven by assumptions about
Armington and supply elasticities.  Rather than making a qualitative
statement about the relative conservative assumptions of the model, it
would be more informative for EPA to show how the results change in
response to changing key assumptions.

	The Economic Impact Analysis has been removed from the RIA, including
any 	reference to the EMPAX model.

On location issues:  EPA states that environmental regulations are not
important factors in location decisions.  Does EPA have empirical
studies that support this statement?  If not, EPA needs to run
sensitivity analysis to reflect how their assumptions of supply
elasticities drive the results of the model.

	The statement EPA is trying to make is that environmental cost is not
the only 	factor in industry location decisions.  They are one of many
important factors in 	industry location decisions.  This is in response
to comments from DOC that the 	environmental expenditures will ‘cause
industries to locate abroad’.  That	comment does not appear to
incorporate market conditions both abroad and 	domestic (labor, capital,
and perhaps foreign exchange) which may have a bigger 	influence than
environmental expenditures.  The comment also appears to assume 	that
the environmental expenditures will significantly alter the capital
labor ratio 	in the affected industries.  Other equally important
factors that need to be taken 	into account in location decisions are
tax incentives and environmental 	regulations in the relevant foreign
countries as well as overall economic and 	political stability of the
country.

Technological advance:  Despite philosophical objections, it would be
useful to run a model that assumes no technological advance to serve as
a worst case compliance cost scenario.  It will help put in context the
additional runs done for sensitivity analysis.

	No.

On the marginal cost econometric estimations:  DOC looks forward to
receiving the data and a description of their econometric method from
EPA.

Other DOC Comments:  We received no responses to the following comments:

Appendix 3, 3.2 Mobile Controls/Rules used in baseline and control
scenarios:

3.3[SIC].2 Implement Continuous Inspection and Maintenance Using Remote
Onboard Diagnostics (OBD)

Comment: The prior section limited consideration to Class 6 and above
trucks.  For clarity, some note should made early in the first paragraph
of this section that light vehicles are the expected target of OBD for
this analysis.

	See edit in appendix 3 (page 3a-13, section 3.2.2)

3.2.4 Commuter Programs

We used the findings from a recent Best Workplaces for Commuters survey,
which was an EPA sponsored employee trip reduction program, to estimate
the potential emissions reductions from this measure.   The BWC survey
found that, on average, employees at workplaces with comprehensive
commuter programs emit 15% fewer emissions than employees at workplaces
that do not offer a comprehensive commuter program.

Question:  Is it appropriate to assume that these results will carry
over to a larger universe of participants?  Is current participation in
BWC programs self-selected for highest possible results?  The take-up
rate should necessarily be lower as organizations become smaller and
populations become more dispersed since time costs of travel increase
and opportunities for pooling decrease. The study found that benefits
packages that don’t include financial incentives reduce emissions
about 7%.

We believe that getting 10-25% of the workforce involved in commuter
programs is realistic.

	EPA believes that the BWC survey methodology addresses these questions
through the selection process for the cities and companies that were
included in 	the analysis.  The four metro areas selected for the study
(Denver, Washington, 	DC, San Francisco, and Houston) cover a range of
different types of commuter 	patterns that are representative of other
metropolitan areas.  In addition, the BWC 	companies that participated
in the study were randomly selected and represented a 	range of
different size and types of companies.  We agree that the participation
rate could decline after the larger companies enroll, which is why we
limited the 	participation rate to 10-25% of the workforce.

Question:  What criteria were used to determine the likelihood of
workforce involvement?

	These rates were chosen based on the cost-effectiveness of the control
strategy 	and the need for additional reductions from the mobile source
sector.  See above 	response for more information.

Appendix 5, 5.3 Cost information for Onroad and Nonroad Mobile Sources:

Eliminating Long Duration Truck Idling, TSE

Since TSE technology can completely eliminate long duration idling at
truck spaces (i.e. a 100% fuel savings), this translates into 2,920
gallons of fuel saved per year per space. At current diesel prices
($2.90/gallon), this fuel savings translates into $8,468.

Comment:  While TSE technology can greatly improve efficiency, it does
not eliminate fuel consumption.  The electricity used to provide power
has fuel requirements and some associated emissions.

	This is explained in our Guidance for Quantifying and Using Long
Duration 	TruckIdling Emission Reductions in State Implementation Plans
and 	Transportation Conformity:

	In the case of stationary TSE, for the purpose of this guidance, it may
be 	presumed that all emissions from power plants (including any
increase in 	demand resulting from a TSE project) will be accounted for
in projections of, 	or limits on, overall power plant  emissions in the
SIP's emission inventory. 	Therefore, related TSE emissions at power
plants should not be considered 	when quantifying the emission
reductions associated with a TSE project

Commuter Programs

We chose to apply the resulting average cost-effectiveness estimate to
one pollutant – NOx – in order to be able to compare commuter
reduction programs to other Nox reduction strategies. TRB reported the
cost-effectiveness of each measure, however, as a $/ton reduction of
both VOC and Nox by applying the total cost of the program to a 1:4
weighted sum of VOC and Nox [[total emissions reduction = (VOC * 1) +
(Nox * 4)).  There was not enough information in the TRB study to
isolate the $/ton cost-effectiveness for just Nox reductions, so we used
the combined Nox and VOC estimate.

Question:  Wouldn’t any calculation that reduces the result
necessarily make the results more accurate (such as dividing the result
in half or subtracting by the weighted value of VOC)?  Since the
cost-effectiveness could not be isolated, the cost-effectiveness of
controlling VOC could have contributed anywhere from 1 to 99 percent of
the reported result.  The combined estimate is the only one likely to be
biased.  TRB would have made no mention of VOC or reported it as such if
the results of any portion were 100% due to the cost-effectiveness of
controlling NOx.

	The 1:4 ratio of VOC:NOx used by TRB is related to the relative health
impact of 	these pollutants, and is not related to the proportion of one
pollutant or another 	that is reduced by the different control
strategies. Without knowing the actual 	emissions of each pollutant(NOx
and VOC), which could not be calculated from 	the available data in the
TRB report, we are not able to derive a better estimate 	than we have
presented in the RIA.  EPA will evaluate alternative approaches for
addressing the VOC to NOx ratio as part of the final RIA.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 179 (Thursday, September 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63538-63541]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22156]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78807; File No. SR-FICC-2016-006]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Describe the Backtesting
Charge and the Holiday Charge That May Be Imposed on Members

September 9, 2016.
    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 2, 2016, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'')
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. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The proposed rule change consists of amendments to the Government
Securities Division (``GSD'') Rulebook (the ``GSD Rules'') and the
Mortgage-Backed Securities Division (``MBSD'') Clearing Rules (the
``MBSD Rules'') \3\ in order to include two margin charges (the
``Backtesting Charge'' and ``Holiday Charge'' as further described
below) that may be imposed on Netting Members of GSD and Clearing
Members of MBSD (for purposes of this filing, GSD Netting Members and
MBSD Clearing Members will be referred to as ``Members'' and each of
the GSD and the MBSD shall be referred to as a ``Division'' and
together as the ``Divisions''). The Backtesting Charge is assessed for
those Members whose portfolios experience backtesting deficiencies over
the prior 12-month period, as described further below. The Backtesting
Charge is calculated by each Division to mitigate exposures to the
Division caused by settlement risks that may not be adequately captured
by the Division's portfolio volatility model. The Holiday Charge is
applied to all Members on the Business Day prior to any day on which
the Corporation is closed, but the day is not observed as a holiday by
the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and the bond
markets are open (``Holiday''). The Holiday Charge addresses the risk
exposure that a Member's portfolio on the applicable Holiday poses to
the Corporation. The proposed rule change would amend GSD Rule 1
(Definitions) and MBSD Rule 1 (Definitions) to add the Backtesting
Charge and the Holiday Charge as defined terms, including the manner
and circumstances in which FICC calculates and imposes such charges,
and would amend Section 1b of GSD Rule 4 (Clearing Fund and Loss
Allocation) and Section 2(c) of MBSD Rule 4 (Clearing Fund and Loss
Allocation) to include these charges as additional components of the
Required Fund Deposit when applicable. FICC is filing this proposed
rule change in order to provide transparency in the GSD Rules and MBSD
Rules with respect to these existing charges, as described in greater
detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The GSD Rules and MBSD Rules are available at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures. Capitalized terms used
herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meaning assigned to
such terms in the GSD Rules and MBSD Rules, as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 provides transparency in the GSD Rules and
MBSD Rules with respect to the Backtesting Charge and Holiday Charge,
two margin charges that each Division may temporarily impose on a
Member as part of such Member's Required Fund Deposit.
    A Division may impose the Backtesting Charge on a Member when the
Division has observed deficiencies in the backtesting of such Member's
Required Fund Deposit over the prior 12-month period, such that the
Division determines the VaR Charge being calculated for that Member may
not fully address the projected liquidation losses estimated from that
Member's settlement activity.
    The Holiday Charge addresses the risk exposure that occurs on
Holidays when the Divisions are unable to collect Clearing Fund from
Members. The Divisions impose the Holiday Charge on all Members to
cover the additional day of exposure that is not contemplated in the
prior day's VaR Charge.
(i) Background
A. Backtesting and the Required Fund Deposit
    The GSD's Clearing Fund and the MBSD's Clearing Fund each address
potential Member exposure through a number of risk-based component
charges (as margin) calculated and assessed daily. Each of the
component charges collectively constitute [sic] a Member's Required
Fund Deposit with respect to each Division. The objective of the
Required Fund Deposit is to mitigate potential losses to FICC
associated with liquidation of the Member's portfolio in the event that
the GSD and/or the MBSD ceases to act for

a Member (hereinafter referred to as a ``default''). FICC determines
Required Fund Deposit amounts in both the GSD and the MBSD using risk-
based margin methodologies that are intended to capture market price
risk. The methodologies for each Clearing Fund use historical market
moves to project or forecast the potential gains or losses on the
liquidation of a defaulting Member's portfolio, assuming that a
portfolio would take three days to liquidate or hedge in normal market
conditions. The projected liquidation gains or losses are used to
determine the Member's Required Fund Deposit in each Division, which is
calculated to cover projected liquidation losses at a 99 percent
confidence level. The aggregate of all Members' Required Fund Deposits
in each Division constitutes the Division's Clearing Fund, which the
Division would be able to access should a defaulting Member's own
Required Fund Deposit be insufficient to satisfy losses to the Division
caused by the liquidation of that Member's portfolio.
    FICC employs daily backtesting to determine the adequacy of each
Member's Required Fund Deposit. FICC compares the Required Fund Deposit
\4\ for each Member with the simulated liquidation gains/losses using
the actual positions in the Member's portfolio, and the actual
historical security returns. FICC investigates the cause(s) of any
backtesting deficiencies. As a part of this investigation, FICC pays
particular attention to Members with backtesting deficiencies that
bring the results for that Member below the 99 percent confidence
target (i.e., greater than two backtesting deficiency days in a rolling
twelve-month period) to determine if there is an identifiable cause of
repeat backtesting deficiencies. FICC also evaluates whether multiple
Members may experience backtesting deficiencies for the same underlying
reason.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For backtesting comparisons, FICC uses the Required Fund
Deposit amount, without regard to the actual collateral posted by
the Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While multiple factors may contribute to a Member's backtesting
deficiency, FICC has observed that some Members with position increases
after the intraday calculation of their Required Fund Deposit may incur
backtesting deficiencies due to the additional exposure that is not
mitigated until the collection of the Required Fund Deposit on the next
Business Day.
B. Calculation of the Backtesting Charge
    The objective of the Backtesting Charge is to increase Required
Fund Deposits for Members that are likely to experience backtesting
deficiencies on the basis described above by an amount sufficient to
maintain such Member's backtesting coverage above the 99 percent
confidence threshold. Because the settlement activity and size of the
backtesting deficiencies varies among impacted Members, FICC must
assess a Backtesting Charge that is specific to each impacted Member.
To do so, FICC examines each impacted Member's historical backtesting
deficiencies observed over the prior 12-month period to identify the
three largest backtesting deficiencies that have occurred during that
time (for GSD Netting Members only, excluding any backtesting
deficiencies attributable to the Blackout Period). The presumptive
Backtesting Charge amount equals that Member's third largest historical
backtesting deficiency, subject to adjustment as further described
below. FICC believes that applying an additional margin charge equal to
the third largest historical backtesting deficiency would bring the
Member's historically-observed backtesting coverage above the 99
percent target.\5\ If assessed, the resulting Backtesting Charge is
added to the VaR Charge for such Member determined pursuant to each
Division's risk-based margining methodology. The Backtesting Charge is
imposed on a daily basis for a one-month period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Each occurrence of a backtesting deficiency reduces a
Member's overall backtesting coverage by 0.4 percent (1 exception/
250 observation days). Accordingly, an increase equal to the third
largest backtesting deficiency would bring backtesting coverage up
to 99.2 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This charge is only applicable to those Members whose overall 12-
month trailing backtesting coverage falls below the 99 percent coverage
target (for GSD Netting Members only, excluding Blackout Period
deficiencies).
    Although the third largest historical backtesting deficiency for a
Member is used as the Backtesting Charge in most cases, each Division
retains discretion to adjust the charge amount based on other
circumstances that may be relevant for assessing whether an impacted
Member is likely to experience future backtesting deficiencies and the
estimated size of such deficiencies. Examples of relevant circumstances
that would be considered in calculating the final, applicable
Backtesting Charge amount include material differences in the three
largest backtesting deficiencies observed over the prior 12-month
period, variability in the net settlement activity after the collection
of the Member's intraday Required Fund Deposit, seasonality in observed
backtesting deficiencies and observed market price volatility in excess
of the Member's historical VaR Charge(s). Based on FICC's assessment of
the impact of these circumstances on the likelihood of, and estimated
size of, future backtesting deficiencies for a Member, FICC may, in its
discretion, adjust the Backtesting Charge for such Member in an amount
that FICC determines to be more appropriate for maintaining such
Member's backtesting results above the 99 percent coverage threshold
(including a reasonable buffer).
C. Communication With Members and Imposition of the Backtesting Charge
    If FICC determines that a Backtesting Charge should apply to a
Member that was not assessed a Backtesting Charge during the
immediately preceding month or that the Backtesting Charge applied to a
Member during the previous month should be increased, the applicable
Division will notify the Member on or around the 25th calendar day of
the month prior to the assessment of the Backtesting Charge, or prior
to the increase to the Backtesting Charge.
    Each Division imposes the Backtesting Charge as an additional
charge applied to each impacted Member's Required Fund Deposit on a
daily basis for a one month period, and reviews each applied
Backtesting Charge each month. If an impacted Member's trailing 12-
month backtesting coverage exceeds 99 percent (without taking into
account historically-imposed Backtesting Charges), the Backtesting
Charge is removed.
D. Holidays and the Required Fund Deposit
    As described above, FICC determines its Members' Required Fund
Deposit amounts in each Division using a risk-based margin methodology
that is intended to capture market price risk, assuming that a
portfolio would take three days to liquidate or hedge in normal market
conditions.
    The Holiday Charge may be applied on the Business Day prior to any
Holiday. This charge approximates the exposure that a Member's trading
activity on the applicable Holiday could pose to the Division. Since
the Divisions cannot collect margin on the Holiday, the Holiday Charge
is due on the Business Day prior to the applicable Holiday.
E. Calculation and Notification of the Holiday Charge
    FICC would determine the appropriate methodology for calculating
the Holiday Charge in advance of each applicable Holiday. Potential
methodologies for calculating the Holiday Charge include, for example,
time scaling of the VaR Charge \6\ or

application of stress scenarios that cover potential market price risk
exposure that may not be appropriately covered by scaling the VaR
Charge. FICC would establish a methodology for calculating each Holiday
Charge that would take into consideration the market conditions
prevailing at that time in order to permit FICC to calculate a Holiday
Charge that appropriately estimates the risk that may be presented to
FICC on the applicable Holiday, when Members' Required Fund Deposit
cannot be collected. The Holiday Charge would represent a percentage
increase of the VaR Charge on the Business Day prior to the Holiday,
and such percentage increase applies uniformly to all Members. This
means that if the Holiday Charge is levied, the same methodology (i.e.,
formula) is applied to all Members (that is, the Holiday Charge is not
a set dollar amount applied to all Members).
    Members would be notified of the applicable methodology by an
Important Notice issued no later than 10 Business Days prior to the
application the Holiday Charge, and the charge is collected on the
Business Day prior to the applicable Holiday. The Holiday Charge is
removed from the Required Fund Deposit on the Business Day following
the Holiday.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15SE16.006

Statutory Basis
    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the rules
of a clearing agency be designed to assure the safeguarding of
securities and funds that are within the custody or control of the
clearing agency.\7\ Rule 17Ad-22(b)(1) under the Act requires a
clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to measure its credit
exposures to its participants at least once a day and limit its
exposures to potential losses from defaults by its participants under
normal market conditions, so that the operations of the clearing agency
would not be disrupted and non-defaulting participants would not be
exposed to losses that they cannot anticipate or control.\8\ Rule 17Ad-
22(b)(2) under the Act requires a clearing agency to maintain and
enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to use
margin requirements to limit its credit exposures to participants under
normal market conditions.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(1).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By incorporating the Backtesting Charge and the Holiday Charge into
the GSD Rules and the MBSD Rules, the proposed change addresses
exposure that could subject FICC to potential losses under normal
market conditions in the event that a Member defaults. Specifically,
the proposed change seeks to remedy potential situations that are
described above where the Divisions could be undermargined by requiring
additional margin. Therefore, FICC believes the proposed rule change
enhances the safeguarding of securities and funds that are in the
custody or control of FICC, consistent with Section 17(b)(3)(F) of the
Act.
    The Backtesting Charge is calculated and imposed to cover credit
exposures estimated by FICC based on historical backtesting
deficiencies with the goal of maintaining each Member's Required Fund
Deposit in each Division above the 99 percent coverage threshold. This
management of FICC's credit exposures to Members is consistent with
Rule 17Ad-22(b)(1) under the Act. Further, the charge is part of the
Members' Required Fund Deposits designed to maintain the coverage of
credit exposures in each Division at a confidence level of at least 99
percent, which limits FICC's exposures to Members under normal market
conditions. The proposed Backtesting Charge seeks to address
backtesting deficiencies that could potentially leave the GSD and/or
the MBSD undermargined by using the risk-based methodology described
above to limit its credit exposure to Members. It therefore is also
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2) under the Act.
    The Holiday Charge is calculated and imposed to cover credit
exposures that result from market price moves that occur on a Holiday
and are not incorporated in each Member's Required Fund Deposit. This
management of FICC's credit exposures to Members is consistent with
Rules 17Ad-22(b)(1) and 17Ad-22(b)(2) under the Act.

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

    FICC does not believe that either the Backtesting Charge or the
Holiday Charge impose any burden on competition that is not necessary
or appropriate.\10\ These charges are necessary for FICC to limit its
exposure to potential losses from defaults by Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Backtesting Charge is imposed on each Member on an
individualized basis in an amount reasonably calculated to maintain its
Required Fund Deposit above each Division's 99 percent coverage
threshold. FICC employs reasonable methods to calculate and impose an
individualized charge in an amount designed to maintain each impacted
Member's future backtesting coverage above the 99 percent coverage
threshold in each Division, including a reasonable buffer.
    Because the market price movements that occur on Holidays are
related to the behavior of the market as a whole, the impact of such
price movements on FICC's risk is considered general market price risk.
Therefore, the Holiday Charge is imposed on all Members on a uniform
basis in an amount reasonably calculated to mitigate the market price
changes that could occur on a Holiday when the Corporation is closed.
The Holiday Charge would represent a percentage increase of the VaR
Charge on the Business Day prior to the Holiday, and such percentage
increase applies uniformly to all Members in each Division. This means
that if the Holiday Charge is levied, the same methodology (i.e.,
formula) is applied to all Members (that is, the Holiday Charge is not
a set dollar amount applied to all Members).
    FICC believes, any burden on competition imposed by the addition of
these two charges to the GSD Rules and MBSD Rules would be necessary
and appropriate to limit FICC's exposures to

the risks being mitigated by such charges.

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

    FICC has not received any written comments relating to this
proposal. FICC will notify the Commission of any written comments
received.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     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-FICC-2016-006 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-FICC-2016-006. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of FICC and on
DTCC's Web site (http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2016-006 and should be
submitted on or before October 6, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-22156 Filed 9-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 88 (Tuesday, May 7, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 19984]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09283]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-658, OMB Control No. 3235-0716]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Form C

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Form C (17 CFR 239.900) is used by issuers offering securities in
reliance on the crowdfunding exemption in Section 4(a)(6) (15 U.S.C.
77d(a)(6)) of the Securities Act of 1933 (``Securities Act'') (15
U.S.C. 77a et seq.) Form C will also be used by issuers that have
completed transactions in reliance on Section 4(a)(6) to file annual
reports or to provide notice of the termination of reporting
obligations.. The information collected is intended to create a
framework for the filing and disclosure requirements of Title III
Section 4A of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (Pub. L. 112-106,
126 Stat. 306) to implement the exemption from Securities Act
registration for offerings made in reliance on Section 4(a)(6). Form C
takes approximately 48.96969 hours per response and is filed by
approximately 5,852 respondents. We estimate that 75% of the 48.96969
hours per response (36.72727 hours) is prepared by the issuer for a
total annual reporting burden of 214,928 hours (36.72727 hours per
response x 5,852 responses).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following website, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Charles Riddle, Acting Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o
Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30
days of this notice.

    Dated: May 2, 2019.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-09283 Filed 5-6-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 68 (Monday, April 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 15139]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07134]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP18-39-000; CP18-40-000]

Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Questar
Southern Trail Pipeline Company Southern Trail Pipeline Abandonment
Project; Navajo Tribal Utility Authority

    On December 22, 2017, Questar Southern Trail Pipeline Company
(Questar) filed an application in Docket No. CP18-39-000 requesting
permission pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act to abandon
all of its certificated facilities, part by sale to Navajo Tribal
Utility Authority and part in place. The proposed Southern Trail
Pipeline Abandonment Project (Project) includes the abandonment of
about 488 miles of natural gas pipeline and related facilities located
in California, Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico.
    On December 22, 2017, the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority filed a
related application in Docket No. CP18-40-000 requesting a service area
determination pursuant to section 7(f) of the Natural Gas Act to
utilize those acquired facilities to provide to its own service.
    On January 3, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Applications for the
proposals. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing
federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary
reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal
authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission
staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant
notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion
of the EA for the Project.

Schedule for Environmental Review

Issuance of EA--April 25, 2018
90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline--July 24, 2018

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be
provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the
Project's progress.

Project Description

    Questar proposes to abandon about 488 miles of natural gas pipeline
and related facilities located in California, Arizona, Utah, and New
Mexico. About 220 miles proposed for abandoned in place are in San
Bernardino County, California and Mohave, Yavapai, Coconino and Apache
Counties, Arizona. About 268 miles would be abandoned by sale are in
Coconino, Navajo and Apache Counties, Arizona; San Yuan County, New
Mexico and San Yuan County, Utah.

Background

    On February 8, 2018, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Southern Trail
Pipeline Abandonment Project (Project) and Request for Comments on
Environmental Issues (NOI). The NOI was sent to affected landowners;
federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. In response to
the NOI, the Commission received comments from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and one landowner (Atkinson Trading Company). The
primary issues raised by the commentors are purpose and need; water
resources; fish and wildlife; cultural resources and tribal
consultation; air quality and noise; impacts on landowners, including
eminent domain; cumulative impacts; and alternatives.

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to
keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets,
the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can
reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by
automatically providing you with notification of these filings,
document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov). Using the eLibrary link, select General
Search from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and Docket
Number excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP18-39 and CP18-40), and
follow the instructions. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the
helpline can be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at
[email protected]. The eLibrary link on the FERC website also
provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: April 3, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-07134 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P