[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 203 (Tuesday, October 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66630-66635]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23147]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90182; File No. SR-FICC-2020-009]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 and Order Granting Accelerated
Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and
2, To Introduce the Margin Liquidity Adjustment Charge and Include a
Bid-Ask Charge in the VaR Charges

October 14, 2020.
    On July 30, 2020, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ proposed rule change SR-
FICC-2020-009 to add two new charges to FICC's margin methodologies.\3\
On August 13, 2020, FICC filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change, to make clarifications and corrections to the proposed rule
change.\4\ The proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1,
was published for public comment in the Federal Register on August 20,
2020,\5\ and the Commission received no comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ FICC also filed the proposals contained in the proposed rule
change as advance notice SR-FICC-2020-802 with the Commission
pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
and Consumer Protection Act entitled the Payment, Clearing, and
Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (``Clearing Supervision Act''),
12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1), and Rule 19b-4(n)(1)(i) of the Act, 17 CFR
240.19b-4(n)(1)(i).
    \4\ Amendment No. 1 made clarifications and corrections to the
description of the proposed rule change and Exhibits 3 and 5 of the
filing. On August 13, 2020, FICC filed Amendment No. 1 to the
advance notice to make similar clarifications and corrections to the
advance notice.
    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89560 (August 14, 2020),
85 FR 51503 (August 20, 2020) (``Notice''). The advance notice, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, was published for public comment in the
Federal Register on September 4, 2020. Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 89718 (September 1, 2020), 85 FR 55341 (September 4,
2020) (File No. SR-FICC-2020-802). The comment period for the
advance notice, as modified by Amendment No. 1 closed on September
21, 2020, and the Commission received no comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 27, 2020, FICC filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule
change to provide additional data for the Commission to consider in
analyzing the proposed rule change.\6\ The proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, is hereinafter referred to as the
``Proposed Rule Change.'' On October 2, 2020, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act,\7\ the Commission designated a longer period
within which to approve, disapprove, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to approve or disapprove the Proposed Rule Change.\8\
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on
Amendment No. 2 from interested persons and, for the reasons discussed
below, to approve the Proposed Rule Change on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In Amendment No. 2, FICC updated Exhibit 3 to the proposed
rule change to include impact analysis data with respect to the
proposed rule change. FICC filed Exhibit 3 as a confidential exhibit
to the proposed rule change pursuant to 17 CFR 240.24b-2. On August
27, 2020, FICC filed Amendment No. 2 to the advance notice to
provide similar additional data for the Commission's consideration.
The advance notice, as amended by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, is
hereinafter referred to as the ``Advance Notice.'' On October 2,
2020, the Commission published notice of filing of Amendment No. 2
and notice of no objection to the Advance Notice. Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 90033 (September 28, 2020), 85 FR 62348
(October 2, 2020) (File No. SR-FICC-2020-802).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \8\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90083 (October 2, 2020),
85 FR 63610 (October 8, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    First, the Proposed Rule Change would revise the FICC Government
Securities Division (``GSD'') Rulebook (``GSD Rules'') and FICC
Mortgage-Backed Securities Division (``MBSD'') Clearing Rules (``MBSD
Rules,'' and together with the GSD Rules, the ``Rules'') \9\ to
introduce the Margin Liquidity Adjustment Charge (``MLA Charge'') as an
additional margin component. Second, the Proposed Rule Change would
revise the Rules, GSD Methodology Document--GSD Initial Market Risk
Margin Model (``GSD QRM Methodology Document''), and MBSD Methodology
and Model Operations Document--MBSD Quantitative Risk Model (``MBSD QRM
Methodology Document,'' and together with the GSD QRM Methodology
Document, the ``QRM Methodology Documents'') \10\ to add a bid-ask
spread risk charge (``Bid-Ask Spread Charge'') to the margin
calculations of GSD and MBSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Capitalized terms not defined herein are defined in the
Rules, available at https://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures.aspx.
    \10\ FICC filed the proposed changes to the QRM Methodology
Documents as confidential exhibits to the Advance Notice pursuant to
17 CFR 240.24b-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Background

    FICC serves as a central counterparty (``CCP'') and provider of
significant clearance and settlement services for cash-settled U.S.
Treasury and agency securities and the non-private label

mortgage-backed securities markets.\11\ FICC is comprised of two
divisions, GSD and MBSD. GSD provides real-time trade matching,
clearing, risk management, and netting for trades in U.S. government
debt issues, including repurchase agreements. MBSD provides real-time
automated trade matching, trade confirmation, risk management, netting,
and electronic pool notification to the mortgage-backed securities
market. GSD and MBSD maintain separate Rulebooks, margin methodologies,
and members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69838 (June 24,
2013), 78 FR 39027 (June 28, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its role as a CCP, a key tool that FICC uses to manage its
credit exposure to its respective GSD and MBSD members is by
determining and collecting an appropriate Required Fund Deposit (i.e.,
margin) for each member.\12\ The aggregate of all members' Required
Fund Deposits constitutes the respective GSD and MBSD Clearing Funds.
FICC would access the GSD or MBSD Clearing Fund should a defaulted
member's own Required Fund Deposit be insufficient to satisfy losses to
FICC caused by the liquidation of that member's portfolio.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See GSD Rule 4 (Clearing Fund and Loss Allocation) and MBSD
Rule 4 (Clearing Fund and Loss Allocation), supra note 9.
    \13\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each member's Required Fund Deposit consists of a number of
applicable components, which are calculated to address specific risks
that the member's portfolio presents to FICC.\14\ Generally, the
largest component of a member's Required Fund Deposit is the value-at-
risk (``VaR'') Charge, which is calculated using a risk-based margin
methodology that is intended to capture the risks related to the
movement of market prices associated with the securities in a member's
portfolio.\15\ The VaR Charge is designed to calculate the potential
losses on a portfolio over a three-day period of risk assumed necessary
to liquidate the portfolio, within a 99 percent confidence level.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See id.
    \15\ See GSD Rule 1 (Definitions), MBSD Rule 1 (Definitions),
GSD Rule 4 (Clearing Fund and Loss Allocation), and MBSD Rule 4
(Clearing Fund and Loss Allocation), supra note 9.
    \16\ See Notice, supra note 5 at 51504. Unregistered Investment
Pool Clearing Members are subject to a VaR Charge with a minimum
target confidence level assumption of 99.5 percent. See MBSD Rule 4,
Section 2(c), supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC states that it regularly assesses market and liquidity risks
as such risks relate to its margin methodologies to evaluate whether
margin levels are commensurate with the particular risk attributes of
each relevant product, portfolio, and market.\17\ FICC states that the
proposed MLA Charge and Bid-Ask Spread Charge are necessary for FICC's
margin methodologies to effectively account for risks associated with
certain types and attributes of member portfolios.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Notice, supra note 5 at 51504.
    \18\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Margin Liquidity Adjustment Charge

    FICC's current margin methodologies do not account for the risk of
a potential increase in market impact costs that FICC could incur when
liquidating a defaulted member's portfolio that contains a
concentration of large positions, as compared to the overall market, in
either (i) a particular security or group of securities sharing a
similar risk profile, or (ii) in a particular transaction type \19\
(e.g., mortgage pool transactions). In a member default, liquidating
such large positions within a potentially compressed timeframe \20\
(e.g., in a fire sale) could have an impact on the underlying market,
resulting in price moves that increases FICC's risk of incurring
additional liquidation costs. Therefore, FICC designed the MLA Charge
to address this specific risk.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See id.
    \20\ FICC's risk models assume the liquidation occurs over a
period of three business days. See Notice, supra note 5 at 51504-05.
    \21\ See Notice, supra note 5 at 51504-07.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MLA Charge would be based on comparing the market value of
member portfolio positions in specified asset groups \22\ to the
available trading volume of those asset groups in the market. If the
market value of a member's positions in a certain asset group is large
in comparison to the available trading volume of that asset group,\23\
then it is more likely that FICC would have to manage reduced
marketability and increased liquidation costs for those positions
during a member default scenario. Specifically, FICC's margin
methodologies assume for each asset group that a certain share of the
market can be liquidated without price impact.\24\ Aggregate positions
in an asset group which exceed this share are generally considered as
large and would therefore incur application of the MLA Charge to
anticipate and address those increased costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ For GSD, the asset groups would include the following, each
of which share similar risk profiles: (a) U.S. Treasury securities,
which would be further categorized by maturity--those maturing in
(i) less than one year, (ii) equal to or more than one year and less
than two years, (iii) equal to or more than two years and less than
five years, (iv) equal to or more than five years and less than ten
years, and (v) equal to or more than ten years; (b) Treasury-
Inflation Protected Securities (``TIPS''), which would be further
categorized by maturity--those maturing in (i) less than two years,
(ii) equal to or more than two years and less than six years, (iii)
equal to or more than six years and less than eleven years, and (iv)
equal to or more than eleven years; (c) U.S. agency bonds; and (d)
mortgage pools transactions.
    For MBSD, to-be-announced (``TBA'') transactions, Specified Pool
Trades and Stipulated Trades would be included in one mortgage-
backed securities asset group. Notice, supra note 5 at 51505.
    \23\ FICC determines average daily trading volume by reviewing
publicly available data from the Securities Industry and Financial
Markets Association (``SIFMA''), at https://www.sifma.org/resources/archive/research/statistics.
    \24\ FICC would establish the particular share for each asset
group or subgroup based on empirical research which includes the
simulation of asset liquidation over different time horizons. See
Notice, supra note 5 at 51504-05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine the market impact cost for each portfolio position in
certain asset groups (i.e., Treasuries maturing in less than one year
and TIPS for GSD, and in the mortgage-backed securities asset group for
MBSD), FICC would use the directional market impact cost, which is a
function of the position's net directional market value.\25\ To
determine the market impact cost for all other positions in a
portfolio, FICC would add together two components: (1) The directional
market impact cost, as described above, and (2) the basis cost, which
is based on the position's gross market value.\26\ FICC states that the
calculation of market impact cost for positions in Treasuries maturing
in less than one year, TIPS for GSD, and in the mortgage-backed
securities asset group for MBSD would not include basis cost because
basis risk is negligible for these types of positions.\27\ For all
asset groups, when determining the market impact costs, the net
directional market value and the gross market value of the positions
would be divided by the average daily volumes of the securities in each
asset group over a lookback period.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The net directional market value of an asset group within a
portfolio is calculated as the absolute difference between the
market value of the long positions in that asset group, and the
market value of the short positions in that asset group. For
example, if the market value of the long positions is $100,000, and
the market value of the short positions is $150,000, the net
directional market value of the asset group is $50,000. See Notice,
supra note 5 at 51505.
    \26\ To determine the gross market value of the positions in
each asset group, FICC would sum the absolute value of each CUSIP in
the asset group. See id.
    \27\ See id.
    \28\ Supra note 23; see Notice, supra note 5 at 51505.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC would then compare the calculated market impact cost to a
portion of the VaR Charge that is allocated to positions in each asset
group.\29\ If the ratio of the calculated

market impact cost to the one-day VaR Charge is greater than a
determined threshold, an MLA Charge, as described below, would be
applied to that asset group. Correspondingly, if the ratio of these two
amounts is equal to or less than this threshold, an MLA Charge would
not be applied to that asset group. The threshold would be based on an
estimate of the market impact cost that is incorporated into the
calculation of the one-day VaR charge.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ As noted earlier, FICC's margin methodologies use a three-
day assumed period of risk. For purposes of this calculation, FICC
would use a portion of the VaR Charge that is based on a one-day
assumed period of risk (the ``one-day VaR Charge''). Any changes to
what FICC determines would be the appropriate portion of the VaR
Charge would be subject to FICC's model risk management governance
procedures set forth in the Clearing Agency Model Risk Management
Framework (``Model Risk Management Framework''). See Securities
Exchange Act Release Nos. 81485 (August 25, 2017), 82 FR 41433
(August 31, 2017) (File No. SR-FICC-2017-014); 84458 (October 19,
2018), 83 FR 53925 (October 25, 2018) (File No. SR-FICC-2018-010);
88911 (May 20, 2020), 85 FR 31828 (May 27, 2020) (File No. SR-FICC-
2020-004).
    \30\ FICC states that it would review the method for calculating
the thresholds from time to time, and any changes would be subject
to FICC's model risk management governance procedures set forth in
the Model Risk Management Framework. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When applicable, an MLA Charge would be calculated as a proportion
of the product of (1) the amount by which the ratio of the calculated
market impact cost to a portion of the VaR Charge allocated to that
position exceeds the threshold, and (2) a portion of the VaR Charge
allocated to that asset group. For each portfolio, FICC would total the
MLA Charges for the positions in each asset group to determine a total
MLA Charge for the member. On a daily basis, FICC would calculate the
final MLA Charge for each member (if applicable), to be included as a
component of each member's Required Fund Deposit.
    In certain circumstances, FICC may be able to partially mitigate
the risks that the MLA Charge is designed to address by extending the
time period for liquidating a defaulted member's portfolio beyond the
three day period. Accordingly, the Proposed Rule Change also describes
a method that FICC would use to reduce a member's total MLA Charge when
the volatility charge component of the member's margin increases beyond
a specified point. Specifically, FICC would reduce the member's MLA
Charge where the market impact cost of a particular portfolio,
calculated as part of determining the MLA Charge, would be large
relative to the one-day volatility charge for that portfolio (i.e., a
portion of the three-day assumed margin period of risk). When the ratio
of calculated market impact cost to the one-day volatility charge is
lower, FICC would not adjust the MLA Charge. However, as the ratio gets
higher, FICC would reduce the MLA Charge. FICC designed this reduction
mechanism to avoid assessing unnecessarily large MLA Charges.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Notice, supra note 5 at 51505.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MLA Excess Amount for GSD Sponsored Members \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See GSD Rule 3A, supra note 9. Sponsored Membership at GSD
is a program that allows well-capitalized members to sponsor their
eligible clients into GSD membership. Sponsored membership at GSD
offers eligible clients the ability to lend cash or eligible
collateral via FICC-cleared delivery-versus-payment sale and
repurchase transactions. Sponsoring Members facilitate their
clients' GSD trading activity and act as processing agents on their
behalf for all operational functions including trade submission and
settlement with FICC. A Sponsored Member may be sponsored by one or
more Sponsoring Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For GSD, the calculation of the MLA Charge for a Sponsored Member
that clears through a single account sponsored by a Sponsoring Member
would be the same as described above. For a GSD Sponsored Member that
clears through multiple accounts sponsored by multiple Sponsoring
Members, in addition to calculating an MLA Charge for each account (as
described above), FICC would also calculate an MLA Charge for the
Sponsored Member's consolidated portfolio.
    If the MLA Charge of the consolidated portfolio is not higher than
the sum of all MLA Charges for each account of the Sponsored Member,
then the Sponsored Member would only be charged an MLA Charge for each
sponsored account, as applicable. However, if the MLA Charge of the
consolidated portfolio is higher than the sum of all MLA Charges for
each account of the Sponsored Member, the Sponsored Member would be
charged the amount of such difference (referred to as the ``MLA Excess
Amount''), in addition to the applicable MLA Charge.
    The MLA Excess Amount is designed to capture the additional market
impact cost that could be incurred when a Sponsored Member defaults,
and each of the Sponsoring Members liquidates positions associated with
that defaulted Sponsored Member. If large positions in the same asset
group are being liquidated by multiple Sponsoring Members, the market
impact cost to liquidate those positions could increase. The MLA Excess
Amount would address this additional market impact cost by capturing
any difference between the calculations of the MLA Charge for each
sponsored account and for the consolidated portfolio.

C. Bid-Ask Spread Charge

    The bid-ask spread refers to the difference between the observed
market price that a buyer is willing to pay for a security and the
observed market price at which a seller is willing to sell that
security. FICC faces the risk of potential bid-ask spread transaction
costs when liquidating the securities in a defaulted member's
portfolio. However, FICC's current margin methodologies do not account
for this risk of potential bid-ask spread transaction costs to FICC in
connection with liquidating a defaulted member's portfolio. Therefore,
FICC designed the Bid-Ask Spread Charge to address this deficiency in
its current margin methodologies.
    The Bid-Ask Spread Charge would be haircut-based and tailored to
different groups of assets that share similar bid-ask spread
characteristics.\33\ FICC would assign each asset group a specified
bid-ask spread haircut rate (measured in basis points (``bps'')) that
would be applied to the gross market value of the portfolio's positions
in that particular asset group. FICC would calculate the product of the
gross market value of the portfolio's positions in a particular asset
group and the applicable basis point charge to obtain the bid-ask
spread risk charge for these positions. FICC would total the applicable
bid-ask spread risk charges for each asset class in a member's
portfolio to calculate the member's total Bid-Ask Spread Charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ For GSD, the asset groups would include the following, each
of which share similar bid-ask spread risk profiles: (a) Mortgage
pools (``MBS''); (b) TIPS; (c) U.S. agency bonds; and (d) U.S.
Treasury securities, which would be further segmented into separate
classes based on maturities as follows: (i) Less than five years,
(ii) equal to or more than five years and less than ten years, and
(iii) equal to or more than ten years. Only the MBS asset group is
applicable to MBSD member portfolios.
    FICC would exclude Option Contracts in to-be-announced (``TBA'')
transactions from the Bid-Ask Spread Charge because, FICC states
that in the event of a member default, FICC would liquidate any
Option Contracts in TBAs in a member's portfolio at the intrinsic
value of the Option Contract and, therefore, does not face a
transaction cost related to the bid-ask spread. Notice, supra note 5
at 51506.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC determined the proposed initial haircut rates on an analysis
of bid-ask spread transaction costs using (1) the results of FICC's
annual member default simulation and (2) market data sourced from a
third-party data vendor. FICC's proposed initial haircut rates are
listed in the table below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Haircut
                         Asset group                             (bps)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MBS..........................................................        0.8
TIPS.........................................................        2.1
U.S. Agency Bonds............................................        3.8
U.S. Treasuries (maturing <5 years)..........................        0.6

U.S. Treasuries (maturing 5-10 years)........................        0.7
U.S. Treasuries (maturing 10+ years).........................        0.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC proposes to review the haircut rates annually. Based on
analyses of recent years' simulation exercises, FICC does not
anticipate that these haircut rates would change significantly year
over year. FICC may also adjust the haircut rates following its annual
model validation review, to the extent the results of that review
indicate the current haircut rates are not adequate to address the risk
presented by transaction costs from a bid-ask spread.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ All proposed changes to the haircuts would be subject to
FICC's model risk management governance procedures set forth in the
Model Risk Management Framework. See supra note 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, FICC would make technical changes to the QRM Methodology
Documents to re-number the sections and tables, and update certain
section titles, as necessary to incorporate the MLA Charge and Bid-Ask
Spread Charge into those documents.

D. Description of Amendment No. 2

    In Amendment No. 2, FICC updated Exhibit 3 to the Proposed Rule
Change to include impact analysis data with respect to the Proposed
Rule Change. Specifically, Amendment No. 2 includes impact studies for
various time periods detailing the average and maximum MLA and Bid-Ask
Charges for each member, by both percentage and amount. FICC filed
Exhibit 3 as a confidential exhibit to the Proposed Rule Change
pursuant to 17 CFR 240.24b-2.

II. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \35\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to such organization. After careful consideration, the
Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to FICC. In particular, the Commission finds that the
Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Sections 17A(b)(3)(F) \36\ of
the Act and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(4) and (e)(6) thereunder.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \37\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4) and (e)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency With Section 17A(b)(3)(F)

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the rules
of a clearing agency, such as FICC, be designed to promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions,
assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the
custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is
responsible, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
national system for the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.\38\ The Commission believes that the Proposed Rule
Change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    First, as described above in Section I.A and B, FICC's current
margin methodologies do not account for the potential increase in
market impact costs that FICC could incur when liquidating a defaulted
member's portfolio where the portfolio contains a concentration of
large positions in a particular security or group of securities sharing
a similar risk profile. In addition, as described above in Section I.C,
FICC's margin methodologies do not account for the risk of potential
bid-ask spread transaction costs when liquidating the securities in a
defaulted member's portfolio. FICC proposes to address these risks by
adding the MLA Charge and Bid-Ask Spread Charge, respectively, to its
margin methodologies.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ The Commission notes that the other clearing agencies it
regulates have charges to account for these types of risks in their
margin methodologies, and that addressing these types of risks has
received a great deal of industry focus in recent years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC designed the MLA Charge and Bid-Ask Spread Charge to ensure
that FICC collects margin amounts sufficient to manage FICC's risk of
incurring costs associated with liquidating defaulted member
portfolios. Based on its review of the Proposed Rule Change, including
confidential Exhibit 3 thereto,\40\ the Commission understands that the
proposed MLA Charge and Bid-Ask Spread Charge would generally provide
FICC with additional resources to manage potential losses arising out
of a member default. As discussed above, FICC designed the MLA Charge
and Bid-Ask Spread Charge, respectively, to reflect two distinct and
specific risks presented to FICC: (1) The risk associated with
liquidating a defaulted member's portfolio that holds concentrated
positions in securities sharing similar risk profiles; as well as (2)
the risks associated with the bid-ask spread costs relevant to the
securities in the defaulted member's portfolio. As a result, any margin
increases that result from the MLA and the Bid-Ask Spread Charges are
limited to address those respective risks. This targeted increase in
available financial resources should decrease the likelihood that
losses arising out of a member default stemming from the liquidation of
concentrated positions or bid-ask spreads would cause FICC to exhaust
its financial resources and threaten the operation of its critical
clearance and settlement services. Accordingly, the Commission believes
that the Proposed Rule Change should help FICC to continue providing
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions
in the event of a member default.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Specifically, the confidential Exhibit 3 submitted by FICC
includes, among other things, impact studies for various time
periods detailing the average and maximum MLA and Bid-Ask Spread
Charges for each member, by both percentage and amount, a detailed
methodology describing the calculation of the MLA and Bid-Ask Spread
Charges, and information regarding how FICC determined the
appropriate methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, as discussed above, in a member default scenario, FICC
would access its Clearing Fund should the defaulted member's own
Required Fund Deposit be insufficient to satisfy losses to FICC caused
by the liquidation of that member's portfolio. FICC proposes to add the
MLA Charge and Bid-Ask Spread Charge to its margin methodologies to
augment its ability to manage the potential costs of liquidating a
defaulted member's portfolio by collecting additional margin to cover
such costs. This, in turn, could reduce the possibility that FICC would
need to mutualize among the non-defaulting members a loss arising out
of the close-out process. Reducing the potential for loss mutualization
could, in turn, reduce the potential knock-on effects to non-defaulting
members, their customers, and FICC arising out of a member default.
Accordingly, the Commission believes the Proposed Rule Change would
promote the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the
custody or control of FICC or for which FICC is responsible, consistent
with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
    The Commission believes that the Proposed Rule Change should help
protect investors and the public interest by mitigating some of the
risks presented by FICC as a CCP. Because a defaulting member could
place stresses on FICC with respect to FICC's ability to meet its
clearance and settlement

obligations upon which the broader financial system relies, it is
important that FICC has strong margin methodologies to limit FICC's
credit risk exposure in the event of a member default. As described
above, the Proposed Rule Change would add two charges specifically
designed to address risks that are not currently addressed in FICC's
margin methodologies related to: (1) The potential costs that FICC may
incur when liquidating a portfolio that is concentrated in a particular
security or group of securities with a similar risk profile, and (2)
the potential costs that FICC may incur to cover the bid-ask spread
when liquidating a portfolio. These changes should help ensure that
FICC collects sufficient margin that is more commensurate with the
risks associated with the potential concentration and bid-ask spread
liquidation costs identified above, and thus more effectively cover its
credit exposures to its members. By collecting margin that more
accurately reflects the risk characteristics of such portfolios and the
bid-ask spreads of securities they contain (i.e., the potential
associated costs of liquidating such portfolios), FICC would be in a
better position to absorb and contain the spread of any losses that
might arise from a member default. Therefore, the Proposed Rule Change
is designed to reduce the possibility that FICC would need to call for
additional resources from non-defaulting members due to a member
default, which could inhibit the ability of these non-defaulting
members to facilitate securities transactions. Accordingly, the
Commission believes that the proposal is designed to protect investors
and the public interest by mitigating some of the risks presented by
FICC as a CCP.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78961 (September
28, 2016), 81 FR 70786, 70849 (October 13, 2016) (``While central
clearing generally benefits the markets in which it is available,
clearing agencies can pose substantial risk to the financial system
as a whole, due in part to the fact that central clearing
concentrates risk in the clearing agency.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, similar to other clearing agencies, FICC provides a
number of services that mitigate risk, reduce costs, and enhance
processing efficiencies for the securities markets, market
participants, issuers (including small issuers), and investors. By
reducing FICC's risk exposure to its members and thus the likelihood of
its failure, the Proposed Rule Change would help ensure that FICC would
continue to provide such services, which would benefit securities
markets, market participants, issuers (including small issuers), and
investors. As a result, FICC should be more resilient so that it can
satisfy its obligations as a CCP, which facilitates the protection of
investors by helping to ensure that investors receive the proceeds from
their securities transactions. Therefore, the Commission believes that,
in light of the potential benefits to investors arising from the
Proposed Rule Change and the overall improved risk management at FICC,
the Proposed Rule Change is designed to protect investors and the
public interest, consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.

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

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) requires that FICC establish, implement,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to effectively identify, measure, monitor, and manage its
credit exposures to participants and those arising from its payment,
clearing, and settlement processes, including by maintaining sufficient
financial resources to cover its credit exposure to each participant
fully with a high degree of confidence.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above in Section I.A and B, FICC's current margin
methodologies do not account for the risk of a potential increase in
market impact costs that FICC could incur when liquidating a defaulted
member's portfolio where the portfolio contains a large position in
securities sharing similar risk profiles. Additionally, as described
above, FICC's current margin methodologies do not account for the risk
of potential bid-ask spread transaction costs when liquidating the
securities in a defaulted member's portfolio. FICC proposes to address
such risks by adding the MLA Charge and Bid-Ask Spread Charge to its
margin methodologies. Adding these margin charges to FICC's margin
methodologies should better enable FICC to collect margin amounts
commensurate with the risk attributes of a broader range of its
members' portfolios than FICC's current margin methodologies.
Specifically, the MLA Charge should better enable FICC to manage the
risk of increased costs to FICC associated with the decreased
marketability of a defaulted member's portfolio where the portfolio
contains a large position in securities sharing similar risk profiles.
Additionally, since FICC's current margin methodologies do not account
for bid-ask spread transaction costs associated with liquidating a
defaulted member's portfolio, the Bid-Ask Spread Charge should enable
FICC to manage such risks and costs.
    The Commission believes that adding the MLA Charge and Bid-Ask
Spread Charge to FICC's margin methodologies should enable FICC to more
effectively identify, measure, monitor, and manage its credit exposures
in connection with liquidating a defaulted member's portfolio that may
give rise to (1) decreased marketability due to large positions of
securities sharing similar risk profiles, and (2) bid-ask spread
transaction costs. Accordingly, the Commission believes that adding the
MLA Charge and Bid-Ask Spread Charge to FICC's margin methodologies
would be consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) because these new margin
charges should better enable FICC to maintain sufficient financial
resources to cover FICC's credit exposure to its members fully with a
high degree of confidence.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Consistency With Rules 17Ad-22(e)(6)

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) requires that FICC establish, implement,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to cover its credit exposures to its participants by
establishing a risk-based margin system that, at a minimum, considers,
and produces margin levels commensurate with, the risks and particular
attributes of each relevant product, portfolio, and market.\44\ Rule
17Ad-22(e)(6)(v) requires that FICC establish, implement, maintain and
enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to cover
its credit exposures to its participants by establishing a risk-based
margin system that, at a minimum, uses an appropriate method for
measuring credit exposure that accounts for relevant product risk
factors and portfolio effects across products.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(i).
    \45\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above in Section I.A and B, FICC's current margin
methodologies do not account for the potential increase in market
impact costs when liquidating a defaulted member's portfolio where the
portfolio contains a large position in securities sharing similar risk
profiles. FICC proposes to address this risk by adding the MLA Charge
to its margin methodologies. To avoid excessive MLA Charges and ensure
margin requirements are commensurate with the relevant risks, FICC also
contemplates reducing a member's MLA Charge when FICC could otherwise
partially mitigate the relevant risks by extending the time period for
liquidating a defaulted member's portfolio beyond the three day period.

    Additionally, as described above in Section I.C, FICC's current
margin methodologies do not account for the risk of incurring bid-ask
spread transaction costs when liquidating the securities in a defaulted
member's portfolio. FICC proposes to address this risk by adding the
Bid-Ask Spread Charge to its margin methodologies. Adding the MLA
Charge and Bid-Ask Spread Charge to FICC's margin methodologies should
better enable FICC to collect margin amounts commensurate with the risk
attributes of its members' portfolios than FICC's current margin
methodologies. Specifically, the MLA Charge should better enable FICC
to manage the risk of increased costs to FICC associated with the
decreased marketability of a defaulted member's portfolio where the
portfolio contains a large position in securities sharing similar risk
profiles. Moreover, the proposal to reduce the MLA Charge when FICC
could otherwise partially mitigate the relevant risks demonstrates how
the proposal provides an appropriate method for measuring credit
exposure, in that it seeks to take into account the particular
circumstances related to a particular portfolio when determining the
MLA Charge. Additionally, since FICC's current margin methodologies do
not account for bid-ask spread transaction costs associated with
liquidating a defaulted member's portfolio, the Bid-Ask Spread Charge
should enable FICC to manage such risks.
    Accordingly, the Commission believes that adding the MLA Charge and
Bid-Ask Spread Charge to FICC's margin methodologies would be
consistent with Rules 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) and (v) because these new margin
charges should better enable FICC to establish a risk-based margin
system that (1) considers and produces relevant margin levels
commensurate with the risks associated with liquidating member
portfolios in a default scenario, including decreased marketability of
a portfolio's securities due to large positions in securities sharing
similar risk profiles and bid-ask transaction costs, and (2) uses an
appropriate method for measuring credit exposure that accounts for such
risk factors and portfolio effects.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) and (v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning whether Amendment No. 2 is consistent with the
Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

    Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
    Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include File Number
SR-FICC-2020-009 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2020-009. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the Proposed Rule Change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the Proposed
Rule Change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of FICC and FICC's website at
https://www.dtcc.com/legal.
    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-FICC-2020-009 and should be
submitted on or before November 10, 2020.

IV. Accelerated Approval of the Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 2

    The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(C)(iii) of the Act,\47\ to approve the Proposed Rule Change,
as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, prior to the thirtieth day after
the date of publication of Amendment No. 2 in the Federal Register. As
noted above, in Amendment No. 2, FICC updated the confidential Exhibit
3 to the Proposed Rule Change to include impact analysis data with
respect to the Proposed Rule Change. Specifically, Amendment No. 2
includes impact studies for various time periods detailing the average
and maximum MLA and Bid-Ask Charges for each member, by both percentage
and amount. The Commission believes that the member-level data in
Amendment No. 2 warrants confidential treatment. Amendment No. 2
neither modifies the Proposed Rule Change as originally published in
any substantive manner, nor does Amendment No. 2 affect any rights or
obligations of FICC or its members. Instead, Amendment No. 2 provides
the Commission with information necessary to evaluate whether the
Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the Act. Accordingly, the
Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(C)(iii) of
the Act,\48\ to approve the Proposed Rule Change, as modified by
Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, prior to the thirtieth day after the date of
publication of notice of Amendment No. 2 in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C)(iii).
    \48\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
Proposed Rule Change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, is
consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Act \49\ and the rules and
regulations promulgated thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\50\ that Proposed Rule Change SR-FICC-2020-009, as modified by
Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, be, and hereby is, approved on an accelerated
basis.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \51\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposals' impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-23147 Filed 10-19-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 72237]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30079]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Report of
Inspections Required by Airworthiness Directives

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. Airworthiness Directives are regulations issued to require
correct corrective action to correct unsafe conditions in aircraft,
engines, propellers, and appliances. Reports of inspections are often
needed when emergency corrective action is taken to determine if the
action was adequate to correct the unsafe condition. The respondents
are aircraft owners and operators.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by January 23, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0056.
    Title: Report of Inspections Required by Airworthiness Directives.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: Title 14 CFR part 39, Airworthiness Directives (AD),
authorized by Sec. Sec.  40113(a), 44701, and 44702 of Title 49 United
States Code, prescribes how the FAA issues ADs. The FAA issues ADs when
an unsafe condition is discovered on a specific aircraft type. If the
condition is serious enough and more information is needed to develop
corrective action, specific information may be required from aircraft
owners/operators. If it is necessary for the aircraft manufacturer or
airworthiness authority to evaluate the information, owners/operators
will be instructed to send the information to them.
    Respondents: Approximately 1,120 aircraft owners/operators.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 5 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 2,800 hours.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Kathy
DePaepe, Room 126B, Federal Aviation Administration, AES-200, 6500 S.
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 14, 2011.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2011-30079 Filed 11-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 210 (Friday, October 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 66912]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27743]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-1794]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approval; Impact of Ad Exposure Frequency on
Perception and Mental Processing of Risks and Benefit Information in
Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Ads

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
collection of information entitled ``Impact of Ad Exposure Frequency on
Perception and Mental Processing of Risks and Benefit Information in
Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Ads'' has been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 29, 2015, the Agency submitted a
proposed collection of information entitled ``Impact of Ad Exposure
Frequency on Perception and Mental Processing of Risks and Benefit
Information in Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Ads'' to OMB for
review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. 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.
OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB
control number 0910-0803. The approval expires on September 30, 2018. A
copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is
available on the Internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: October 26, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-27743 Filed 10-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: September 28, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 186)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 49345-49346]
[DOCID:fr28se09-16]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0886; Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-045-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; SOCATA Model TBM 700 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    It was noticed on assembly line an elongation of bolts
connecting power leads on R700 and R701 shunts. An incorrect
tightening torque value is likely to be the cause of the elongation.
    This condition, if left uncorrected could lead to heating,
electrical arcing or smokes and could result in an in-flight loss of
electrical power.

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 12,
2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0886;
Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-045-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
AD No.: 2009-0174, dated August 11, 2009 (referred to after this as
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    It was noticed on assembly line an elongation of bolts
connecting power leads on R700 and R701 shunts. An incorrect
tightening torque value is likely to be the cause of the elongation.
    This condition, if left uncorrected could lead to heating,
electrical arcing or smokes and could result in an in-flight loss of
electrical power.
    For the reason described above, this Airworthiness Directive
(AD) mandates the replacement of the power lead bolts on R700 and
R701 shunts.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    SOCATA has issued SOCATA Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-169,
dated May 2009. The actions described in this service information are
intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Differences between this Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 47 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 0.5 work-hour per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD
(warranty credit provided by manufacturer). The average labor rate is
$80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $50 per product
(warranty credit provided by manufacturer). Where the service
information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty,
we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do
not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may
incur costs higher than estimated here.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $4,230, or $90 per product.

Authority for this Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Socata: Docket No. FAA-2009-0886; Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-
045-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by November 12, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to TBM 700 airplanes, serial numbers 434
through 502, and serial numbers 504 and 505, certificated in any
category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 24: Electric
Power.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    It was noticed on assembly line an elongation of bolts
connecting power leads on R700 and R701 shunts. An incorrect
tightening torque value is likely to be the cause of the elongation.
    This condition, if left uncorrected could lead to heating,
electrical arcing or smokes and could result in an in-flight loss of
electrical power.
    For the reason described above, this Airworthiness Directive
(AD) mandates the replacement of the power lead bolts on R700 and
R701 shunts.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, within the next 100 hours time-in-
service after the effective date of this AD, or within the next 12
months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first,
replace the bolts of shunts R700 and R701 following SOCATA Mandatory
Service Bulletin SB 70-169, dated May, 2009.

FAA AD Differences

    Note:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using
any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify
your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight
Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI EASA AD No.: 2009-0174, dated August 11, 2009;
and SOCATA Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-169, dated May 2009, for
related information.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on September 21, 2009.
Scott A. Horn,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-23293 Filed 9-25-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 66 (Monday, April 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 19065]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07692]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13821-001]

ORPC Alaska 2, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On March 3, 2014, the ORPC Alaska 2, LLC, filed an application for
a successive preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the East
Foreland Tidal Energy Project (East Foreland project or project) to be
located in Cook Inlet near Nikiski in the Kenai Peninsula Borough,
Alaska. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to
grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during
the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit
holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter
upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express
permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A series
of 150-kilowatt TideGen[supreg] turbine-generator modules with a
combined capacity of no more than 5 megawatts; (2) a 1- to 8-mile-long,
13.5-kilovolt (kV) direct current submarine transmission cable from the
module site to an onshore station on the west coast of the Kenai
Peninsula; (3) an approximately 0.25-mile-long, 4.16- to 34.5-kV three-
phase alternating current terrestrial transmission line connecting the
onshore station to a substation site owned by Homer Electric
Association; and (4) appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual
generation of the East Foreland project would be up to 17.2 gigawatt-
hours.
    Applicant Contact: Monty Worthington, Director of Project
Development, ORPC Alaska 2, LLC, 725 Christensen Drive, Suite A,
Anchorage, AK 99501; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Sean O'Neill; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-13821-001.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13821) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: April 1, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-07692 Filed 4-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 114)]
[Notices]
[Page 33428-33429]
[DOCID:fr12jn08-62]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0117; A-1-FRL-8578-4]

Adequacy Status of the Connecticut 8-Hour Ozone Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budgets and Out-Year Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for
Transportation Conformity Purposes; Connecticut

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of adequacy.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is notifying the public that EPA has found that the 2008,
2009 and 2012 motor vehicle emissions budgets in the February 1, 2008
Connecticut 8-hour ozone State Implementation Plan revision are
adequate for transportation conformity purposes. The submittal includes
2008, 2009 and 2012 motor vehicle emission budgets for the Connecticut
portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT
(Southwest Connecticut) and the Greater Connecticut 8-hour ozone
nonattainment areas. As a result of our finding, Connecticut must use
these motor vehicle emission budgets for future conformity
determinations.

DATES: This finding is effective June 27, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald O. Cooke, Environmental
Scientist, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite
1100 (CAQ),

Boston, MA 02114-2023,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    Today's action is simply an announcement of a finding that we have
already made. EPA New England sent a letter to the Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection on June 2, 2008, stating that
the 2008, 2009 and 2012 motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) in the
Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island,
NY-NJ-CT (Southwest Connecticut) and the Greater Connecticut 8-hour
ozone nonattainment areas are adequate. Connecticut submitted the
budgets on February 1, 2008, as part of the 8-hour ozone attainment
demonstration and reasonable further progress plan for Southwest and
Greater Connecticut. This submittal was announced on EPA's conformity
Web site, and received no comments. (See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/
stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm. Once there, click on ``What SIP
submissions are currently under EPA adequacy review?'')
    The 2008, 2009, and 2012 MVEBs, in tons per summer day (tpsd), for
volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) for Southwest and Greater Connecticut, are as follows:

                                              2008, 2009 and 2012 Adequate Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Connecticut portion of the New York-              Greater Connecticut area
                                                                   Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT -------------------------------------------
                              Year                                            (Southwest CT) Area
                                                                 --------------------------------------------      VOC (tpsd)            NOX (tpsd)
                                                                       VOC (tpsd)            NOX (tpsd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2008.......................................................                  29.7                  60.5                  28.5                  54.3
Year 2009.......................................................                  27.4                  54.6                  26.3                  49.2
Year 2012.......................................................                  20.6                  38.2                  19.8                  34.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the
Clean Air Act. EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation
plans, programs, and projects conform to state air quality
implementation plans and establishes the criteria and procedures for
determining whether or not they do. Conformity to a SIP means that
transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations,
worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national
ambient air quality standards.
    The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's motor vehicle
emissions budgets are adequate for conformity purposes are outlined in
40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). We have described our process for determining the
adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in our July 1, 2004, preamble
starting at 69 FR 40038, and we used the information in these resources
while making our adequacy determination. Please note that an adequacy
review is separate from EPA's completeness review, and it also should
not be used to prejudge EPA's ultimate approval of the SIP. Even if we
find a budget adequate, the SIP could later be disapproved.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: June 4, 2008.
Robert W. Varney,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. E8-13224 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 13 (Tuesday, January 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3368-3369]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01056]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL14-18-000]

Gregory R. Swecker, Beverly F. Swecker v. Midland Power
Cooperative, Central Iowa Power Cooperative; Notice of Petition for
Enforcement

    Take notice that on January 10, 2014, Gregory R. and Beverly F.
Swecker (the Sweckers) filed a Petition for Enforcement, pursuant to
section 210(h) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978
(PURPA), requesting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) to exercise its authority and initiate enforcement action
against Midland Power Cooperative (Midland) and Central Iowa Power
Cooperative (CIPCO) for payment of excess electric energy and capacity
delivered to Midland at Midland and/or CIPCO's full avoided costs
rates.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically

should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention
to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 31, 2014.

    Dated: January 14, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-01056 Filed 1-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 242)]
[Notices]
[Page 76432-76433]
[DOCID:fr16de08-100]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59081; File No. SR-Phlx-2008-79)]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.; Order
Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Reduction of Option Limit Order Exposure Periods From Three Seconds to
One Second

December 11, 2008.

I. Introduction

    On November 10, 2008, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to reduce certain order exposure periods from
three seconds to one second. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on November 25, 2008.\3\ The Commission
received no comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed
rule change on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(l).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58949 (November 14,
2008), 73 FR 71709 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to reduce the exposure
time during which Order Entry Firms \4\ may not execute as principal
against orders they represent as agent from three seconds to one
second. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule
1080(c)(1), which currently provides that Order Entry Firms may not
execute as principal against orders on the limit order book they
represent as agent unless such agency orders are first exposed on the
limit order book for at least three seconds, the Order Entry Firm has
been bidding or offering on the Exchange for at least three seconds
prior to receiving an agency order that is executable against such
order, or the Order Entry Firm proceeds in accordance with the crossing
rules contained in Exchange Rule 1064.\5\ In addition, the Exchange
proposes to amend Exchange Rule 1080(c)(2), which provides that Order
Entry Firms must expose orders they represent as agent for at least
three seconds before such orders may be automatically executed, in
whole or in part, against orders solicited from members and non-member
broker-dealers to transact with such orders. Under the proposal, these
three-second exposure periods would be reduced to one second.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``Order Entry Firm'' means a member organization of
the Exchange that is able to route orders to the Exchange's AUTOM
system. See Exchange Rule 1080(c)(ii)(A)(1).
    \5\ Exchange Rule 1064 sets forth the procedures that must be
followed before an Options Floor Broker who holds orders to buy and
sell the same option series may cross such orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After carefully reviewing the proposed rule change, the Commission
finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act
and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\6\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\
which, among other things, requires that the rules of a national
securities exchange be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in regulating transactions in securities, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. The Commission also finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\8\ which requires
that the rules of an exchange not impose any burden on competition that
is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that, given the electronic environment of
Phlx XL, reducing each of these exposure periods from three seconds to
one second could facilitate the prompt execution of orders, while
continuing to provide market participants with an opportunity to
compete for exposed bids and offers. To substantiate that Phlx members
could receive, process, and communicate a response back to the Exchange
within one second, the Exchange stated that it distributed a survey to
its members that regularly participate in orders executed on Phlx XL
that would be affected by the proposal. Phlx stated that the survey
results indicated that it typically takes not more than 250
milliseconds for members to receive, process, and respond to orders
exposed on the limit order book. According to Phlx, members who
responded to the survey also indicated that reducing the exposure
period to one second would not impair their ability to participate in
orders affected by the proposal.\9\ Based on Phlx's statements
regarding the survey results, the Commission believes that market
participants should continue to have opportunities to compete for
exposed bids and offers within a one second exposure period.
Accordingly, the Commission believes that it is consistent with the Act
for Phlx to reduce the order handling and exposure times discussed
herein from three seconds to one second.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Phlx stated that all of the eight members that responded
to the timing questions indicated that reducing the crossing
exposure timer to one second would not impair their ability to
participate in orders affected by this proposal. See Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change
prior to the thirtieth day after publication for comment in the Federal
Register. The Commission notes that the proposed rule change was
noticed for a fifteen-day comment period, and no comments were
received. The Commission believes that the Exchange has provided
reasonable support for its belief that the Exchange's market
participants would continue to have an opportunity to compete for
exposed bids and offers if the exposure periods were reduced to one
second as proposed. Finally, the Commission also notes that the
proposed rule change is similar to recently approved proposals
submitted by the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated and the
International Securities Exchange, LLC.\10\ Therefore, the Commission
finds good cause, consistent with Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\11\ to
approve the proposed rule change on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 58088 (July 2,
2008), 73 FR 39747 (July 10, 2008) (SR-CBOE-2008-16) and 58224 (July
25, 2008), 73 FR 44303 (July 30, 2008) (SR-ISE-2007-94).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

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

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\12\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2008-79), be, and
hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-29731 Filed 12-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 190 (Friday, September 30, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 60820]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25212]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RD10-8-000]

North American Electric Reliability Corporation; Notice of
Technical Conference

    Take notice that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) will hold a staff-led Technical Conference to discuss
issues related to the interpretations of Reliability Standard CIP-006-2
in the above-referenced docket. The Technical Conference will be held
on Tuesday, October 25, 2011, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. (EST) in the
Commission Meeting Room at the Commission's headquarters at 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Technical Conference will be
open for the public to attend and advance registration is not required.
    The Technical Conference will explore the risks of leaving dial-up
intelligent electronic devices that are part of the Bulk-Power System
and that use non-routable protocols physically unprotected. The
Commission is interested in: (1) Information on the number of Bulk-
Power System assets that are networked using non-routable protocols;
(2) the proportion of those assets that are currently physically
unprotected; (3) the risks associated with leaving such assets
physically unprotected; and (4) methods for mitigating such risks.
    The Technical Conference will also explore monitoring physical
access not only when authorized personnel enter a controlled access
area, such as the physical security perimeter to critical cyber assets,
but also when authorized personnel leave the controlled access area.
The Commission is interested in the level of security attained by
monitoring both physical ingress and egress into controlled access
areas.
    Those interested in speaking at the conference should notify the
Commission by close of business October 7, 2011 by completing an online
form describing the topics that they wish to address: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/naerc-10-25-speaker-form.asp. Due
to time constraints, we may not be able to accommodate all those
interested in speaking. The Commission will issue a subsequent notice
that will provide the detailed agenda, including panel speakers.
    A free webcast of this event is available through http://www.ferc.gov. Anyone with Internet access who desires to view this
event can do so by navigating to www.ferc.gov's Calendar of Events and
locating this event in the calendar. The event will contain a link to
its webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical support for the
free webcasts. It also offers access to this event via television in
the DC area and via phone bridge for a fee.
    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>
with the requested accommodations.
    For further information please contact Sarah McKinley at (202) 502-
8368 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: September 26, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-25212 Filed 9-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P