[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 58 (Tuesday, March 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18417-18418]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06699]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Notice of Applications for Modification of Special Permit

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

ACTION: List of Applications for Modification of Special Permits.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR part 107,
Subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety has received the applications described herein. This
notice is abbreviated to expedite docketing and public notice. Because
the sections affected, modes of transportation, and the nature of
application have been shown in earlier Federal Register publications,
they are not repeated here. Requests for modification of special
permits (e.g. to provide for additional hazardous materials, packaging
design changes, additional mode of transportation, etc.) are described
in footnotes to the application number. Application numbers with the
suffix ``M'' denote a modification request. These applications have
been separated from the new application for special permits to
facilitate processing.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 10, 2013.

ADDRESSES:
    Address Comments To: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation
Washington, DC 20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the applications are
available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30,
1200 New

Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC or at http://regulations.gov.
    This notice of receipt of applications for modification of special
permit is published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal
hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR
1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 04, 2013.
Donald Burger,
Chief, General Approvals and Permits.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Regulation(s)     Nature of special permit
   Application No.           Docket No.            Applicant             affected                thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Modification Special Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14828-M..............  Croman Corporation     49 CFR 172.101       To modify the
                        White City, OR.        Column (9B),         special permit to
                                               172.204(c)(3),       authorize the
                                               173.27(b)(2)(3),     addition of
                                               175.30 and 175.75.   Division 1.2
                                                                    explosives.
14912-M..............  ITW Sexton Decatur,    49 CFR 173.304a and  To authorize the
                        AL.                    173.306 (a)(3)(ii).  addition of a
                                                                    Division 2.1
                                                                    material and
                                                                    require burst
                                                                    pressure of
                                                                    containers to not
                                                                    be below 480 psig.
15793-M..............  Northern Air Cargo     49 CFR 172.101       To reissue the
                        Anchorage, AK.         Column (9B).         special permit
                                                                    originally issued
                                                                    on an emergency
                                                                    basis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2013-06699 Filed 3-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-M


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 23832]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10335]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1969-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

North Carolina; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of North Carolina (FEMA-1969-DR), dated April 19, 2011,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: April 21, 2011.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of North Carolina is hereby amended to include the
following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely
affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of April 19, 2011.

    Craven, Currituck, Greene, Hertford, Hoke, Pitt, Robeson, and
Sampson Counties for Individual Assistance.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-10335 Filed 4-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 99 (Monday, May 23, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31249-31250]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10983]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0153]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget; OMB Control Number 1625-0101

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension
of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0101,
Periodic Gauging and Engineering Analyses for Certain Tank Vessels Over
30 Years Old; without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek
to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only
impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES: You may submit comments to the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before
June 22, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Comments to the Coast Guard should be submitted using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Search for
docket number [USCG-2022-0153]. Written comments and recommendations to
OIRA for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30
days of publication of this notice to https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
    Find this particular information collection by selecting
``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using
the search function.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available
from: Commandant (CG-6P), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S.
COAST GUARD, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave SE, STOP 7710, Washington,
DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy
Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions
on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an
application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a
Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains
information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's
likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity
of the Collection, and other important information describing the
Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments
will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this
Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG-2022-0153], and must be received by June 22,
2022.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all
public comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments to the Coast Guard will
be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will
include any personal information you have provided. For more about
privacy and submissions to the Coast Guard in response to this
document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020). For more about privacy and submissions to OIRA in
response to this document, see the https://www.reginfo.gov, comment-
submission web page. OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each
ICR. An OMB Notice of Action on each ICR will become available via a
hyperlink in the OMB Control Number: 1625-0101.

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (87 FR 13741, March 10, 2022)
required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That notice elicited no comments.
Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.

Information Collection Request

    Title: Periodic Gauging and Engineering Analyses for Certain Tank
Vessels Over 30 Years Old.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0101.
    Summary: The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 required the issuance of
regulations related to the structural integrity of tank vessels,
including periodic gauging of the plating thickness of tank vessels
over 30 years old. This collection of information is used to verify the
structural integrity of older tank vessels.
    Need: 46 U.S.C. 3703 authorizes the Coast Guard to prescribe
regulations related to tank vessels, including design, construction,
alteration, repair, and maintenance. 46 CFR 31.10-21a prescribes the
regulations related to periodic gauging and engineering analyses of
certain tank vessels over 30 years old.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of certain tank vessels.
    Frequency: Every 5 years.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 2,784
hours to 2,842 hours a year, due to an increase in the estimated annual
number of responses.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. et seq.,
chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: May 17, 2022.
Kathleen Claffie,
Chief, Office of Privacy Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2022-10983 Filed 5-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 232 (Monday, December 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62394-62395]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26144]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84661; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2018-055]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating To Modify Certain Routing Fees

November 27, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 13, 2018, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange''
or ``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGX'') is filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed
rule change to modify certain Routing Fees.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to amend pricing
for orders routed to Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., (``EDGA'') for
securities at or above $1.00, which yield fee codes A, I, RA and RR.\3\
Particularly, as of November 1, 2018, EDGA implemented pricing changes
for transactions that add and remove liquidity.\4\ The filing generally
proposes that orders that add liquidity will be assessed a fee of
$0.00300 per share and orders that remove liquidity will be provided a
rebate of $0.00240 per share. Based on the changes in pricing at EDGA,
the Exchange proposes the pricing changes described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee changes on
November 1, 2018 (SR-CboeEDGX-2018-050). On business date November
13, 2018, the Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted this
filing.
    \4\ See SR-CboeEDGA-2018-017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Exchange notes that orders routed to EDGA using ALLB
routing strategy (which yield fee code AA) and orders routed to EDGA
using DIRC routing strategy (which yield fee code RR) are currently
assessed $0.00030 per share. The Exchange proposes to eliminate this
fee and instead provide a rebate of $0.00240 per share for these
orders. Similarly, orders routed to EDGA (which yield fee code I) are
currently assessed $0.00290 per share, but the Exchange proposes to
eliminate the fee and instead provide a rebate of $0.00240 per share.
Lastly, the Exchange notes that orders routed to EDGA that add
liquidity (which yield fee code RA) are assessed $0.00030 per share.
The Exchange proposes to increase the rate from $0.00030 per share to
$0.00300 per share.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6 of the Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the objectives
of Section 6(b)(4),\6\ in particular, as it is designed to provide for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among its Members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes the proposed changes are reasonable because
they reflect a pass-through of the pricing changes by EDGA described
above. The Exchange further believes the proposed fee change is non-
discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all Members. The
Exchange lastly notes that routing through the Exchange is voluntary
and that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues or
providers of routing services if they deem fee levels to be excessive.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the
proposed routing fee changes will not impose an undue burden on
competition because the Exchange will uniformly assess the affected
routing fees on all Members.

Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if
they believe that alternatives offer them better value or if they view
the proposed fee as excessive. The Exchange also notes the proposed
changes to the EDGA-related routing fees are meant to pass through the
fees and rebates associated with executing orders on that market, and
is therefore not designed to have any significant impact on
competition. Further, excessive fees for participation would serve to
impair an exchange's ability to compete for order flow and members
rather than burdening competition.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any written comments from members or other interested parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \8\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2018-055 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2018-055. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2018-055
and should be submitted on or before December 24, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-26144 Filed 11-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 6, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39357-39358]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16740]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0198; FRL-9425-5]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Imperial
County Air Pollution Control District, Kern County Air Pollution
Control District, and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Imperial County
Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD), Kern County Air Pollution
Control District (KCAPCD), and Ventura County Air Pollution Control
District (VCAPCD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan
(SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions from architectural coating operations. We are proposing to
approve local rules to regulate these emission sources under the Clean
Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by August 5, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-0198, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Grounds, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3019<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal addresses the following local
rules: ICAPCD Rule 424, KCAPCD Rule 410.1A, and VCAPCD Rule 74.2.In the
Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register, we are
approving these local rules in a direct final action without prior
proposal because we believe these SIP revisions are not controversial.
If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in
subsequent action based on this proposed rule. Please note that if we
receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this
rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the
rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not
the subject of an adverse comment.
    We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone
interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not
receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further
information, please see the direct final action.

    Dated: May 19, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2011-16740 Filed 7-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3472-3474]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1364]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0085; FRL-9622-1]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; NESHAP for Radionuclides (Renewal); EPA ICR No.
1100.14

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to
submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection
Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is
scheduled to expire on July 31, 2012. Before submitting the ICR to OMB
for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects
of the proposed information collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 26, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA HQ-
OAR-2003-0085, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center,

Air and Radiation Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0085. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Philip Egidi, Radiation Protection
Division, Center for Waste Management and Regulations, (Mail code
6608J), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 343-2305; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How can I access the docket and/or submit comments?

    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0085, which is available for online viewing at
www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation
Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room
is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-
1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is
(202) 566-1742.
    Use www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft collection of
information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing
of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the
public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system,
select ``search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified in this
document.

What information is EPA particularly interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
    (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

What should I consider when I prepare my comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

What information collection activity or ICR does this apply to?

    Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0085.
    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
the following industries and associated NAICS Codes: Elemental
Phosphorous--325188; Phosphogypsum Stacks--212392; Underground Uranium
Mines--212291; and Uranium Mills--212291.
    Title: NESHAP for Radionuclides (40 CFR part 61, subparts B, K, R
and W) (Renewal).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1100.14, OMB Control No. 2060-0191.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on July 31,
2012. 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 OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed
either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate
means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if
applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR Part 9.
    Abstract: In the context of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857),
Section 114 authorizes the Administrator of EPA to require any person
who owns or operates any emission source or who is subject to any
requirements of the Act to: (1) Establish and maintain records, (2)
Make reports, install, use, and maintain monitoring equipment or
method, (3) Sample emissions in accordance with EPA-prescribed
locations, intervals and methods, and (4) Provide information as may be
requested. EPA's regional offices use the information collected to
ensure that

public health continues to be protected from the hazards of
radionuclides by compliance with health based standards. This
information is required for those facilities meeting the definition of
each Subpart. EPA's compliance monitoring activities vary widely. EPA
could issue a letter requesting information about compliance or could
conduct a full scale investigation, including on-site inspections.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 134
hours hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain,
or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 47.
    Frequency of response: Annual.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 134 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $1,358,000. This includes an
estimated burden cost of $666,000 and an estimated cost of $693,000 for
capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

Are there changes in the estimates from the last approval?

    There is a decrease of 14 hours per facility in the total estimated
respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This decrease reflects a reduction in the number of
facilities affected due to limited investment in uranium mining and a
moratorium on DOE uranium lease tracts for Subpart B; closure of a
conventional uranium mill in Subpart W; with no change in the number of
Subpart R and K facilities. Increased costs are due to inflation and
estimates of radium-226 sampling for phosphogypsum stacks that remove
material.

What is the next step in the process for this ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will
issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any
questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: January 17, 2012.
Alan D. Perrin,
Acting Director, Radiation Protection Division.
[FR Doc. 2012-1364 Filed 1-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 221 (Friday, November 15, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62537-62539]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24780]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0117]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Hypertension
Indication: Drug Labeling for Cardiovascular Outcome Claims

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by
December 16, 2019.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0670.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Domini Bean, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601

Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Hypertension Indication: Drug Labeling for Cardiovascular Outcome
Claims OMB Control Number 0910-0670--Extension

    This information collection request supports recommendations found
in Agency guidance. The document entitled, ``Guidance for Industry;
Hypertension Indication: Drug Labeling for Cardiovascular Outcome
Claims,'' available from our website at https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/hypertension-indication-drug-labeling-cardiovascular-outcome-claims, encourages the submission of
supplemental labeling and is intended to assist applicants in
developing labeling for outcome claims for drugs that are indicated to
treat hypertension, and to provide common labeling for antihypertensive
drugs except where differences are clearly supported by clinical data.
    With few exceptions, current labeling for antihypertensive drugs
includes only the information that these drugs are indicated to reduce
blood pressure; the labeling does not include information on the
clinical benefits related to cardiovascular outcomes expected from such
blood pressure reduction. However, blood pressure control is well
established as beneficial in preventing serious cardiovascular events,
and inadequate treatment of hypertension is acknowledged as a
significant public health problem. We believe that the appropriate use
of these drugs can be encouraged by making the connection between lower
blood pressure and improved cardiovascular outcomes more explicit in
labeling.
    As discussed in the guidance, we therefore recommend the following
information collection:
    1. Section IV.C of the guidance requests that the CLINICAL STUDIES
section of the Full Prescribing Information of the labeling should
include a summary of placebo or active-controlled trials showing
evidence of the specific drug's effectiveness in lowering blood
pressure. If trials demonstrating cardiovascular outcome benefits
exist, those trials also should be summarized in this section. Table 1
in section V of the guidance contains the specific drugs for which FDA
has concluded that such trials exist. If there are no cardiovascular
outcome data to cite, one of the following two paragraphs should
appear:
     ``There are no trials of [DRUGNAME] or members of the
[name of pharmacologic class] pharmacologic class demonstrating
reductions in cardiovascular risk in patients with hypertension,'' or
     ``There are no trials of [DRUGNAME] demonstrating
reductions in cardiovascular risk in patients with hypertension, but at
least one pharmacologically similar drug has demonstrated such
benefits.''
    In the latter case, the applicant's submission generally should
refer to table 1 in section V of the guidance. If the applicant
believes that table 1 is incomplete, it should submit the clinical
evidence for the additional information to Docket No. FDA-2008-D-0150.
The labeling submission should reference the submission to the docket.
We estimate that no more than one submission to the docket will be made
annually from one company, and that each submission will take
approximately 10 hours to prepare and submit. Recommendations for the
CLINICAL STUDIES section of the Full Prescribing Information of the
labeling are covered by FDA regulations at Sec. Sec.  201.56 and 201.57
(21 CFR 201.56 and 201.57) and require such labeling. The information
collection associated with these regulations is approved under OMB
control number 0910-0572.
    2. Section VI.B of the guidance requests that the format of the
cardiovascular outcome claim submitted to FDA in a prior approval
supplement include the following information:
     A statement that the submission is a cardiovascular
outcome claim supplement, with reference to the guidance and related
Docket No. FDA-2008-D-0150.
     Applicable FDA forms (e.g., 356h, 3397).
     Detailed table of contents.
     Revised labeling to include:
    [cir] Draft revised labeling conforming to the requirements in
Sec. Sec.  201.56 and 201.57, and
    [cir] Marked-up copy of the latest approved labeling, showing all
additions and deletions, with annotations of where supporting data (if
applicable) are located in the submission.
    We estimate that on average, 4 cardiovascular outcome claim
supplements will be submitted annually from 4 different companies, and
that each supplement will take approximately 20 hours to prepare and
submit. The guidance also recommends that other labeling changes (e.g.,
the addition of adverse event data) should be minimized and provided in
separate supplements, and that the revision of labeling to conform to
Sec. Sec.  201.56 and 201.57 may require substantial revision to the
ADVERSE REACTIONS or other labeling sections.
    3. Section VI.C of the guidance states that applicants are
encouraged to include the following statement in the drug's promotional
materials:
     ``[DRUGNAME] reduces blood pressure, which reduces the
risk of fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events, primarily strokes and
myocardial infarctions. Controlling high blood pressure should be part
of comprehensive cardiovascular risk management, including, as
appropriate, lipid control, diabetes management, antithrombotic
therapy, smoking cessation, exercise, and limited sodium intake. Many
patients will require more than one drug to achieve blood pressure
goals.''
    The inclusion of this statement in the promotional materials for
the drug is exempt from OMB review under 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2).
    In the Federal Register of July 16, 2019 (84 FR 33952), we
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received.
    We therefore estimate the burden of the information collection as
follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of
            Activity                 Number of     responses per   Total annual      Hours per      Total hours
                                    respondents     respondent       responses       response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submission to Docket No. FDA-                  1               1               1              10              10
 2008-D-0150....................
Cardiovascular Outcome Claim                   4               1               4              20              80
 Supplement Submission..........
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............              90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

Our estimate for the information collection reflects an overall
increase of burden. This increase corresponds to an increase in
submissions we have received over the last few years.

    Dated: November 6, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-24780 Filed 11-14-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 125 (Friday, June 30, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 29974]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13812]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Receipt of Noise Compatibility Program and Request for Review for
Hawthorne Municipal Airport, Hawthorne, California

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces that it is
reviewing a proposed noise compatibility program that was submitted for
Hawthorne Municipal Airport under the Aviation Safety and Noise
Abatement Act, (hereinafter referred to as ``the Act'') and 14 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part 150 by the City of Hawthorne, Los
Angeles County, California. This program was submitted subsequent to a
determination by FAA that associated noise exposure maps submitted
under 14 CFR part 150 for Hawthorne Municipal Airport were in
compliance with applicable requirements, effective April 11, 2014, 79
FR 24488-24489. The proposed noise compatibility program will be
approved or disapproved on or before December 20, 2017.

DATES:  The effective date of the start of FAA's review of the noise
compatibility program is June 23, 2017. The public comment period ends
August 22, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Victor Globa, Federal Aviation
Administration, Los Angeles Airports District Office, 15000 Aviation
Boulevard, Room 3000, Lawndale, California 90261, Telephone: 310/725-
3637. Comments on the proposed noise compatibility program should also
be submitted to the above office.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  This notice announces that the FAA is
reviewing a proposed noise compatibility program for Hawthorne
Municipal Airport which will be approved or disapproved on or before
December 20, 2017. This notice also announces the availability of this
program for public review and comment.
    An airport operator who has submitted noise exposure maps that are
found by FAA to be in compliance with the requirements of 14 CFR part
150, promulgated pursuant to the Act, may submit a noise compatibility
program for FAA approval which sets forth the measures the operator has
taken or proposes to reduce existing non-compatible uses and prevent
the introduction of additional non-compatible uses.
    The FAA has formally received the noise compatibility program for
Hawthorne Municipal Airport, effective on December 20, 2016. The
airport operator has requested that the FAA review this material and
that the noise mitigation measures, to be implemented jointly by the
airport and surrounding communities, be approved as a noise
compatibility program under section 47504 of the Act. Preliminary
review of the submitted material indicates that it conforms to 14 CFR
part 150 requirements for the submittal of noise compatibility
programs, but that further review will be necessary prior to approval
or disapproval of the program. The formal review period, limited by law
to a maximum of 180 days, will be completed on or before December 20,
2017.
    The FAA's detailed evaluation will be conducted under the
provisions of 14 CFR part 150, section 150.33. The primary
considerations in the evaluation process are whether the proposed
measures may reduce the level of aviation safety or create an undue
burden on interstate or foreign commerce, and whether they are
reasonably consistent with obtaining the goal of reducing existing non-
compatible land uses and preventing the introduction of additional non-
compatible land uses.
    Interested persons are invited to comment on the proposed program
with specific reference to these factors. All comments relating to
these factors, other than those properly addressed to local land use
authorities, will be considered by the FAA to the extent practicable.
Copies of the noise exposure maps and the proposed noise compatibility
program are available for examination at the following locations:

Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region Office,
Airports Division, Room 3012, 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Lawndale,
California 90261
Federal Aviation Administration, Los Angeles Airports District Office,
15000 Aviation Boulevard, Room 3000, Lawndale, California 90261
City of Hawthorne, Mr. Arnold Shadbehr, Interim City Manager/Director
of Public Works/City Engineer, 4455 West 126th Street, Hawthorne, CA
90250-4482

Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the
heading, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in Hawthorne, California, on June 23, 2017.
Brian Q. Armstrong,
Acting Director, Office of Airports, AWP-600, Western-Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 2017-13812 Filed 6-29-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 235 (Monday, December 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78892-78897]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26785]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90543; File No. SR-NSCC-2020-018]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed
Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend the Fee Structure

December 1, 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 November 16, 2020, National Securities Clearing Corporation
(``NSCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change. On November 30, 2020, NSCC
filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change, which revised a
portion of the rule text and corresponding description in the notice
relating to NSCC's current policy regarding the issuance of rebates to
Participants. NSCC filed the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder.\4\ The proposed rule change, as modified
by Amendment No. 1, is described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared primarily by NSCC. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change,
as modified by Amendment No. 1, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1

    The proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, consists
of amendments to Addendum A (Fee Structure) of the NSCC Rules &
Procedures (``Rules'') \5\ in order to (i) modify the Clearing Fund
Maintenance Fee (``Maintenance Fee''), (ii) modify the ``value out of
the net'' component of the Clearance Activity Fee, and (iii) replace
the description currently under the heading ``NSCC Pricing Policy''
with a description of NSCC's current policy regarding the issuance of
rebates to Members, as described in greater detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1

    In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included
statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, and discussed any comments it
received on the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.
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, as Modified by Amendment No. 1

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment
No. 1, is to amend Addendum A (Fee Structure) of the Rules in order to
(i) modify the Maintenance Fee, (ii) modify the ``value out of the
net'' component of the Clearance Activity Fee, and (iii) replace the
description currently under the heading ``NSCC Pricing Policy'' with a
description of NSCC's current policy regarding the issuance of rebates
to Members.
(i) Overview
    NSCC provides clearance and settlement services for trades executed
by its Members in the U.S. equity, corporate and municipal bond, and
unit investment trust markets.
    Members are assessed fees in accordance with Addendum A (Fee
Structure). The current Fee Structure covers a multitude of fees that
are assessed on Members based upon their activities and the services
utilized.
    NSCC operates a cost plus low margin pricing model and has in place
procedures to control costs and to regularly review pricing levels
against costs of operation. It reviews pricing levels against its costs
of operation typically during the annual budget process. The budget is
approved annually by the Board. NSCC's fees are cost-based plus a
markup, as approved by the Board or management (pursuant to authority
delegated by the Board), as applicable. This markup or ``low margin''
is applied to recover development costs and operating expenses, and to
accumulate capital sufficient to meet regulatory and economic
requirements.
Maintenance Fee
    NSCC implemented the Maintenance Fee in the current Fee Structure
in 2016 in order to (i) diversify NSCC's revenue sources, mitigating
NSCC's dependence on revenues driven by trading volumes, and (ii) add a
more stable revenue source that would contribute to NSCC's operating
margin by offsetting increasing costs and expenses.\6\ The fee is
charged to all NSCC Members and Limited Members that are required to
make deposits to the NSCC Clearing Fund (collectively, ``Contributing
Members'') in proportion to the Contributing Member's average, end of
day, monthly cash deposit to the Clearing Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78525 (August 9, 2016),
81 FR 54146 (August 15, 2016) (SR-NSCC-2016-002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Until June 2020, the Maintenance Fee had been calculated monthly,
in arrears, as the product of (A) 0.25 percent and (B) the average of
the Contributing Member's actual cash deposit to the NSCC Clearing Fund
as of the end of each day of the month, multiplied by the number of
days in that month and divided by 360. However, by its terms at the
time, the fee had been waived if the monthly rate of return on NSCC's
investment of the cash portion in the Clearing Fund was less than 0.25
percent for the month (``Waiver Provision'').
    In June 2020, NSCC modified the Maintenance Fee in three ways.\7\
First, NSCC removed the Waiver Provision. Second, instead of using a
fixed rate of 0.25 percent when calculating the Maintenance Fee, NSCC
calculated the fee using the corresponding month's average Interest
Rate on Excess Reserves (i.e., the IOER rate) that is determined by the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.\8\ Third, NSCC set a
ceiling of 0.25 percent and a floor of 0.00 percent on the IOER rate
used in the fee calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89141 (June 24, 2020),
85 FR 39253 (June 30, 2020) (SR-NSCC-2020-011) (``June Filing'').
    \8\ Policy Tools, Interest on Required Reserve Balances and
Excess Balances, https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reqresbalances.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Those three modifications were designed to help address an
immediate financial issue that NSCC was experiencing due to the
coronavirus global pandemic and overall reaction by the financial
markets, and, based on information at the time, to better position NSCC
going forward, with respect to its ability to fund its default
liquidity resources in various economic environments, as well as to
improve the overall functioning of the Maintenance Fee.\9\ However,
after completing NSCC's annual budgeting process that began in August
and finished in October 2020--in which NSCC evaluated its short- and
long-term financial position in consideration of expected Contributing
Member activity, revenues, cost of funding,\10\ market volatility, and
the financial markets more broadly, concerns remained around NSCC's net
income operating margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See June Filing, supra note 7 (discussing the rationale for
the three modifications made to the Maintenance Fee).
    \10\ See June Filing, supra note 7 (discussing NSCC's cost of
funding).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To help address this issue, NSCC proposes to further modify the
Maintenance Fee. Specifically, NSCC will no longer calculate the fee
using the corresponding month's average IOER rate but, instead, return
to using a fixed rate of 0.25 percent, which, consequently, would
render the current floor of 0.00 percent unnecessary. NSCC is using a
fixed rate of 0.25 percent so that Members will not be charged an
amount greater than what was possible under the original and current
calculation of the fee.
    NSCC believes that reverting to a fixed rate in calculating the
Maintenance Fee would have a number of benefits. For example, by using
a fixed rate, the fee would no longer fluctuate as the IOER rate
fluctuates, which should help Contributing Members better anticipate
the cost of the fee and, for NSCC, stabilize revenue generated from the
fee. Greater stability in the revenue generated from the fee would help
support NSCC's net income operating margin and, accordingly, its credit
ratings, which are key factors in NSCC's costs, expenses, and
funding.\11\ Additionally, the proposed change would help provide
consistent pricing between NSCC and its affiliate clearing agencies,
The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') and Fixed Income Clearing
Corporation (``FICC''),\12\ as both DTC and FICC have filed proposed
rule changes concurrently with this filing that would result in the
same calculation of their respective maintenance fees.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Not only could a downgrade to an NSCC credit rating
increase NSCC costs and expenses, but, more importantly, it could
reduce the overall availability of default liquidity resources to
NSCC if investors or lending banks reduce their current levels of
engagement with NSCC.
    \12\ The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (``DTCC'') is
the parent company of DTC, NSCC, and FICC. DTCC operates on a shared
services model for DTC, NSCC, and FICC. Most corporate functions are
established and managed on an enterprise-wide basis pursuant to
intercompany agreements under which it is generally DTCC that
provides a relevant service to DTC, NSCC, or FICC.
    \13\ See File No. SR-DTC-2020-014 and File No. SR-FICC-2020-014
available at https://www.dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clearance Activity Fee
    The ``value out of the net'' component of the Clearance Activity
Fee in the Fee Structure is a fee based on the daily aggregate market
value of all settling CNS positions after netting. It is currently
$2.12 per million dollars of settling value (i.e., the absolute value
of

the CNS Long Positions and Short Positions).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The current ``value out of the net'' component of the
Clearance Activity Fee was implemented in 2019 as part of fee
changes to address pricing complexity. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 84770 (December 10, 2018), 83 FR 64374 (December 14,
2018) (SR-NSCC-2018-011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the coronavirus global pandemic and overall reaction by the
financial markets, NSCC's cost of funding has risen sharply in 2020,
particularly for NSCC's key default liquidity resources. The unexpected
increases in cost and expense to secure and maintain those default
liquidity resources has added millions of dollars to NSCC's expense.
    As described above, after completing NSCC's 2020 annual budgeting
process--in which NSCC evaluated its short- and long-term financial
position in consideration of expected Member activity, revenues, cost
of funding, market volatility, and the financial markets more broadly,
concerns remained around NSCC's net income operating margin. In order
to address this issue and to better align cost with revenue, NSCC
proposes to modify the ``value out of the net'' component of the
Clearance Activity Fee from $2.12 per million dollars of settling value
to $2.56 per million dollars of settling value. Specifically, NSCC
anticipates that the proposed change would enable NSCC to offset the
increase in its cost and expense while generating a low net income
operating margin, consistent with NSCC's cost plus low margin pricing
model.
    NSCC believes modifying the ``value out of the net'' component of
the Clearance Activity Fee would further help support NSCC's net income
operating margin and, accordingly, its credit ratings, which, as
described above, are key factors in NSCC's costs, expenses, and
funding.
Rebate Policy
    NSCC is also proposing to amend Section VIII of the Fee Structure
to replace the description currently under the heading ``NSCC Pricing
Policy'' with a description of its current policy regarding the
issuance of rebates to Members. In connection with this change, the
proposed change would also amend the title of Section VIII to ``NSCC
Rebate Policy'' to better describe the policy in this section.
    Section VIII of the Fee Structure currently includes an outdated
description of NSCC's policy to adjust Members' invoices based on
NSCC's revenues. This description states that NSCC may adjust invoices
down in the form of a discount or up in the form of a surcharge, based
on its revenues. NSCC did historically provide its Members with a
discount on their invoices, but it does not have any record of
adjusting Members' invoices up, in the form of a surcharge, in the
past.
    NSCC views its practice of providing a rebate to its Members as a
corporate function, and not related to its operation as a self-
regulatory organization. An NSCC rebate is essentially a return of the
revenue that NSCC collects through the fees it charges Members for its
services (as set forth in Addendum A of the Rules). Rebates are not
related to the amounts Members deposit with NSCC as their Required Fund
Deposits, which are made up of risk-based margin charges calculated
pursuant to Procedure XV of the Rules. The determination to provide a
rebate is made at the corporation-level, based on a number of factors
and considerations, as described below, and is not a separate
determination made for each individual Member.
    Following the financial recession of 2008, NSCC ceased providing
such discounts in connection with the implementation of a financial
strategy to strengthen its financial position and health. As a result
of that strategy and improved financial markets, in 2019 NSCC
determined to reinstitute its practice of discounting Members'
invoices, in the form of a rebate, based on its financial performance.
In connection with this decision, NSCC is proposing to replace the
language under the heading ``NSCC Pricing Policy'' in Section VIII of
the Fee Structure to describe its current rebate practice. This
proposed change would not change NSCC's current rebate practice but
would provide Members with transparency into this practice and the
governance around rebates.
(ii) Proposed Fee Changes
    NSCC is proposing to change the Maintenance Fee in Subsection G
(Clearing Fund Maintenance Fee) of Section V (Pass-Through and Other
Fees) of the Fee Structure. Specifically, NSCC is proposing to modify
the Maintenance Fee by removing language regarding application of the
IOER rate and a floor of 0.00 percent.
    In addition, NSCC is proposing to change the Clearance Activity Fee
in Subsection A (Clearance Activity Fee) of Section II (Trade Clearance
Fees) of the Fee Structure. Specifically, NSCC is proposing to modify
the ``value out of the net'' component of the Clearance Activity Fee
from $2.12 per million of settling value to $2.56 per million of
settling value.
    Finally, NSCC is proposing to amend Section VIII of the Fee
Structure to replace the description currently under the heading ``NSCC
Pricing Policy'' with a description of its current policy regarding the
issuance of rebates to Members, as described above.
    First, in connection with this change, the proposed change would
also amend the title of Section VIII to ``NSCC Rebate Policy'' to
better describe the policy in this section.
    Second, the proposed language would describe that NSCC may provide
Members with a rebate of excess net income, and would define excess net
income as either income of NSCC or income related to one business line
of NSCC, after application of expenses, capitalization costs, and
applicable regulatory requirements. The language would also state that
a rebate is discretionary, to make it clear that NSCC is not obligated
to provide a rebate.
    Third, the proposed language would state that a rebate would be
approved by the Board. The proposed language would also state that, in
determining whether a rebate is appropriate, the Board would consider
one or more of the following, as appropriate: NSCC's regulatory capital
requirements,\15\ anticipated expenses, investment needs, anticipated
future expenses with respect to improvement or maintenance of NSCC's
operations, cash balances, financial projections, and appropriate level
of shareholders' equity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ NSCC manages its general business risk by holding
sufficient liquid net assets funded by equity to cover potential
general business losses so it can continue operations and services
as going concerns if those losses materialize, in compliance with
the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15). 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(15).
NSCC maintains a Clearing Agency Policy on Capital Requirements
which defines the amount of capital it must maintain for this
purpose and sets forth the manner in which this amount is
calculated. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89360 (July 21,
2020), 85 FR 45280 (July 27, 2020) (SR-NSCC-2020-014) (amending
original filing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, the proposed language would state that, if the Board
determined to issue a rebate, it would set a rebate period and a rebate
payment date, both of which are used to determine which Members are
eligible for a rebate. The proposed language would state that Members
that maintain their membership during all or a portion of the rebate
period and on the rebate payment date are eligible for a rebate.
    Finally, the proposed language would describe how rebates are
applied to the invoices of eligible Members. The proposed language
would state that rebates are applied to all eligible Members on a pro-
rata basis based on

such Members' gross fees paid to NSCC within the applicable rebate
period, excluding pass-through fees and interest earned on Required
Fund Deposits. The proposed language would also state that rebates are
applied to eligible Members' invoices on the rebate payment date as
either a reduction in fees owed or, if fees owed are lower than the
allocated rebate amount, a payment of such difference. The proposed
language would also note that rebate amounts may be adjusted for
miscellaneous charges and discounts.
(iii) Expected Member Impact
    The proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is
expected to increase NSCC's annual revenue by approximately $31.6
million.
    In general, NSCC anticipates that, as result of the proposed
changes, approximately 62% of impacted affiliated family of members
would have a fee increase of less than $1,000 per year, approximately
24% of impacted affiliated family of members would have a fee increase
between $1,000 to $100,000 per year, approximately 10% of impacted
affiliated family of members would have a fee increase of $100,000 to
$1 million per year, and approximately 4% of impacted affiliated family
of members would have a fee increase of $1 million or greater per year.
(iv) Member Outreach
    NSCC has conducted ongoing outreach to each Member in order to
provide them with notice of the proposed changes and the anticipated
impact for the Member. As of the date of this filing, no written
comments relating to the proposed changes have been received in
response to this outreach. The Commission will be notified of any
written comments received.
(v) Implementation Timeframe
    NSCC would implement this proposal on January 1, 2021. As proposed,
a legend would be added to the Fee Structure stating there are changes
that became effective upon filing with the Commission but have not yet
been implemented. The proposed legend also would include the date on
which such changes would be implemented and the file number of this
proposal, and state that, once this proposal is implemented, the legend
would automatically be removed.
2. Statutory Basis
    NSCC believes this proposal is consistent with the requirements of
the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a
registered clearing agency. Specifically, NSCC believes the proposed
changes to modify the Maintenance Fee and the ``value out of the net''
component of the Clearance Activity Fee are consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act \16\ and the proposed change to include a
description of NSCC's current policy regarding the issuance of rebates
to Members is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii),\17\ as
promulgated under the Act, for the reasons described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
    \17\ 17 CFR.17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act \18\ requires that the Rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its participants. NSCC believes that the proposed
changes to the Maintenance Fee and the ``value out of the net''
component of the Clearance Activity Fee are consistent with this
provision of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the proposal would modify the Maintenance Fee
to no longer calculate the fee using the corresponding month's average
IOER rate; rather, the calculation would revert to using a fixed rate
of 0.25 percent, thus, negating the need to maintain the current floor
of 0.00 percent.
    Because the proposed change would not alter how the Maintenance Fee
is currently allocated (i.e., charged) to Contributing Members, NSCC
believes the fee would continue to be equitably allocated. More
specifically, as mentioned above, the Maintenance Fee is and would
continue to be charged to all Contributing Members in proportion to the
Contributing Member's average monthly cash deposit to the Clearing
Fund. As such, and as is currently the case, Contributing Members that
make greater use of NSCC's guaranteed services or which have activity
in those services that present greater risk to NSCC would generally be
subject to a larger Maintenance Fee because such Contributing Members
would typically be required to maintain larger Clearing Fund deposits
pursuant to the Rules.\19\ Conversely, Contributing Members that use
NSCC's guaranteed services less or which have activity that presents
less risk would generally be subject to a smaller Maintenance Fee
because such Contributing Members would typically be required to
maintain smaller Clearing Fund deposits pursuant to the Rules.\20\ The
proposed change to the Maintenance Fee would not adjust that
allocation. For this reason, NSCC believes the Maintenance Fee would
continue to be equitably allocated among Contributing Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Rule 4 and Procedure XV, supra note 5.
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, NSCC believes that the Maintenance Fee would continue to
be a reasonable fee under the proposed change described above. For
example, by using a fixed rate, instead of a rate that fluctuates with
the IOER rate, Contributing Members should be better able to anticipate
the cost of the fee. Meanwhile, a fixed rate would not only improve
NSCC's ability to estimate revenue from the fee, but it also would
stabilize the revenue received from the fee. As described above,
greater stability in the revenue generated from the fee would help
support NSCC's net income operating margin and, accordingly, its credit
ratings, which are key factors in NSCC's costs, expenses, and funding.
Additionally, using a fixed rate of 0.25 percent would help ensure that
Contributing Members are not charged an amount greater than what was
possible under the original and current calculation of the fee. Lastly,
the proposed change would help establish consistent pricing between
NSCC and its affiliates, DTC and FICC, regarding each of their
respective Maintenance Fees, as concurrent proposals by DTC and FICC
would result in the same calculation.\21\ For this reason, NSCC
believes the Maintenance Fee would continue to be reasonable. Based on
the forgoing, NSCC believes the proposed rule change to the Maintenance
Fee is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See supra note 13.
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC believes the proposed rule change to the ``value out of the
net'' component of the Clearance Activity Fee would provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable fees. Because the proposed change
would not alter how the Clearance Activity Fee is currently allocated
(i.e., charged) to Members, NSCC believes the fee would continue to be
equitably allocated. More specifically, as mentioned above, the ``value
out of the net'' component of the Clearance Activity Fee is based on a
Member's daily aggregate market value of all settling CNS positions
after netting. As such, and as is currently the case, Members that make
greater use of NSCC's guaranteed services would generally be subject to
a larger Clearance Activity Fee because such Members would typically
have higher value of net positions after netting. Conversely, Members
that use NSCC's guaranteed services less would generally be subject to
a smaller Clearance Activity Fee

because such Members would typically have lower value of net positions
after netting. The proposed change to the ``value out of the net''
component of the Clearance Activity Fee would not adjust that
allocation. For this reason, NSCC believes the Clearance Activity Fee
would continue to be equitably allocated among Members.
    NSCC believes that the Clearance Activity Fee would continue to be
a reasonable fee under the proposed change described above. This is
because the proposed change to modify the ``value out of the net''
component of the Clearance Activity Fee is designed to offset NSCC's
increased costs and expenses while generating a low net income
operating margin. As described above, in determining the appropriate
level of the proposed change to modify the ``value out of the net''
component of the Clearance Activity Fee, NSCC considered a variety of
factors, including expected Member activity, revenues, cost of funding,
market volatility, and the financial markets more broadly. Based on
that consideration, NSCC believes the proposed change would allow NSCC
to assess a fee that is better aligned with NSCC's increased costs and
expenses. Having the ability to assess a fee that is better aligned
with NSCC's increased costs and expenses would further help support
NSCC's net income operating margin and, accordingly, its credit
ratings, which are key factors in NSCC's costs, expenses, and funding.
For this reason, NSCC believes the Clearance Activity Fee would
continue to be reasonable. Based on the forgoing, NSCC believes the
proposed rule change to the ``value out of the net'' component of the
Clearance Activity Fee is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the
Act.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii) under the Act requires that NSCC establish,
implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to provide sufficient information to enable
participants to identify and evaluate the risks, fees, and other
material costs they incur by participating in the covered clearing
agency.\24\ The proposed change would replace an outdated description
of NSCC's past practice of adjusting Members' invoices with an updated
description of its current rebate practice, which, when applicable,
results in a reduction to the amount of fees a Member owes to NSCC. By
updating the Fee Structure with a clear, transparent description of
NSCC's current rebate practice, the proposed change would provide
Members with sufficient information to evaluate the fees they may incur
by participating in NSCC. Therefore, NSCC believes the proposed change
would be consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(23)(ii).\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii).
    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NSCC does not believe that the proposed change to the Maintenance
Fee would have an impact on competition among Contributing Members. As
described above, the Maintenance Fee is charged ratably based on
Contributing Members' use of NSCC's guaranteed services, as reflected
in Contributing Members' deposits to the Clearing Fund. Thus, the fee
is designed to be reflective of each Contributing Member's individual
activity at NSCC. Additionally, NSCC does not believe reverting to a
fixed rate of 0.25 percent in calculating the Maintenance Fee would
have any impact on competition among Contributing Members because using
such a rate means that Contributing Members still cannot be assessed an
amount greater than what could have been assessed under the original
and current calculations of the fee.
    However, appreciating that the value of a dollar is not consistent
for each Contributing Member, if the change to no longer calculate the
fee using the corresponding month's average IOER rate would create a
competitive burden for a Contributing Member because the Contributing
Member could be assessed a higher fee at a time when that IOER rate is
lower than the proposed 0.25 percent fixed rate, NSCC believes such a
burden would not be significant, given that the amount assessed would
still be within the range of what could be assessed under the current
calculation. Moreover, NSCC believes that any such burden would be
necessary and appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as
permitted by Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The burden would be necessary because it is essential that NSCC
continue to offset some of its costs and expenses with stable revenue
generated from the Maintenance Fee, regardless of the economic
environment. As described above, not doing so could adversely affect
NSCC's credit ratings, which could further increase funding or,
possibly, decrease the availability of crucial liquidity resources for
NSCC. The burden would be appropriate because, as described above, the
Maintenance Fee is calculated, using a balanced formula, to assess a
fee that is reflective of the Contributing Member's use of NSCC's
guaranteed services, so that NSCC can defray some of its costs and
expenses in providing those services. More specifically, returning to a
fixed rate of 0.25 percent would be appropriate because it is the same
rate that was used prior to the change made in June 2020,\27\ and it is
currently the ceiling used in the existing calculation; thus, the new
calculation still would not use a rate any higher than it could have
previously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See June Filing, supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC believes the proposed rule change to modify the ``value out of
the net'' component of the Clearance Activity Fee may have an impact on
competition among its Members because the change would likely increase
the fees of those Members that utilize NSCC's guaranteed service when
compared to their fees under the current Fee Structure. NSCC believes
the proposed change could burden competition by negatively affecting
such Members' operating costs. While these Members may experience
increases in their fees when compared to their fees under the current
Fee Structure, NSCC does not believe the proposed change in and of
itself mean that the burden on competition is significant. This is
because even though the amount of the fee increase may seem significant
(e.g., from $2.12 to $2.56 per million of settling value), NSCC
believes the increase in fees would similarly affect all Members that
utilize NSCC's guaranteed services and would be reflective of each
Member's individual activity at NSCC, and therefore the burden on
competition would not be significant. Regardless of whether the burden
on competition is deemed significant, NSCC believes any burden that is
created by this proposed 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.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The burden would be necessary because it is essential that NSCC
continue to offset some of its costs and expenses with revenue
generated from the Clearance Activity Fee, regardless of the economic
environment. As described above, not doing so could adversely affect
NSCC's credit ratings, which could further increase funding or,
possibly, decrease the availability of crucial liquidity resources for
NSCC. The burden would be appropriate because, as described above, the
Clearance Activity Fee is calculated,

using a balanced formula, to assess a fee that is reflective of the
Member's use of NSCC's guaranteed services, so that NSCC can defray
some of its costs and expenses in providing those services. More
specifically, NSCC believes the proposed rule change to modify the
``value out of the net'' component of the Clearance Activity Fee would
be appropriate because it would allow NSCC to assess a fee that is
better aligned with NSCC's increased costs and expenses while
generating a low net income operating margin.
    NSCC does not believe the proposed change to describe its current
rebate practice would have any impact, or impose any burden, on
competition among its Members. As described above, this proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, would replace outdated
information currently in the Fee Structure with an updated description
of NSCC's current rebate practice. As described in the proposed
language, under its current practice, rebates are allocated to eligible
Members on a pro-rata basis based on such Members' gross fees paid to
NSCC within the applicable rebate period. Therefore, the current
practice is applied equally to all eligible Members. The proposed
change to provide Members with transparency into this practice would
not cause any increase or decrease in the rebates Members may receive.
Therefore, this proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1,
would not have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule
Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Received From Members,
Participants, or Others

    Written comments relating to this proposed rule change, as modified
by Amendment No. 1, have not been solicited or received. NSCC will
notify the Commission of any written comments received by NSCC.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1, and Timing for Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \29\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\30\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, the Commission
summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \30\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Act.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NSCC-2020-018 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2020-018. 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, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, between the Commission and any person, other than
those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of NSCC and on
DTCC's website (http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). All
comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting
comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2020-018 and should be
submitted on or before December 28, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-26785 Filed 12-4-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P