[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 9, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37276-37282]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16715]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81302; File No. SBSDR-2016-02]

Security-Based Swap Data Repositories; DTCC Data Repository
(U.S.), LLC; Notice of Filing of Amended Application for Registration
as a Security-Based Swap Data Repository

August 3, 2017.

I. Introduction

    On April 28, 2017, DTCC Data Repository, LLC (``DDR'') filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'')
an amended application pursuant to Section 13(n)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Exchange Act Rule 13n-1
thereunder,\2\ seeking registration as a security-based swap data
repository (``SDR'') for security-based swap (``SBS'') transactions in
the equity, credit, and interest rate \3\ derivatives asset classes
(``Amended Form SDR'').\4\ DDR filed its initial application with the
Commission (``Initial Form SDR'') on April 6, 2016, as amended on April
25, 2016, and notice thereof was published in the Federal Register on
July 7, 2016, to solicit comment from interested persons.\5\ The
Commission received five comment letters to date on DDR's Initial Form
SDR.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78m(n)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.13n-1.
    \3\ DDR seeks to include in its application the ``interest
rates'' asset class based on feedback from potential DDR
participants who have identified certain types of transactions which
will be reported through the interest rate infrastructure within the
industry and that the industry participants have identified as
falling under the definition of a SBS. The Commission notes that
DDR's application is for registration as a SBS data repository,
which the Exchange Act defines as a ``person that collects and
maintains information or records with respect to transactions or
positions in, or the terms and conditions of, security-based swaps
entered into by third parties for the purpose of providing a
centralized recordkeeping facility for security-based swaps.'' 15
U.S.C. 78c(a)(75).
    \4\ DDR filed its Amended Form SDR, including the exhibits
thereto, electronically with the Commission. The descriptions set
forth in this notice regarding the structure and operations of DDR
have been derived, excerpted, and/or summarized from information in
DDR's Amended Form SDR application, which outlines the applicant's
policies and procedures designed to address its statutory and
regulatory obligations as an SDR registered with the Commission.
DDR's Amended Form SDR and non-confidential exhibits thereto are
available on https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=dtcc&owner=exclude&action=getcompany. In addition, the
public may access copies of these materials in redlined form on the
Commission's Web site at: https://www.sec.gov/rules/other/2017/34-81302.pdf. DDR's Form SDR application also constitutes an
application for registration as a securities information processor.
See Exchange Act Release No. 74246 (Feb. 11, 2015), 80 FR 14438,
14458 (Mar. 19, 2015) (``SDR Adopting Release'').
    \5\ See Exchange Act Release No. 78216 (June 30, 2016), 81 FR
44379 (July 7, 2016) (``DDR Notice Release'').
    \6\ See letters from Jennifer S. Choi, Associate General
Counsel, Investment Company Institute (August 5, 2016); Tara Kruse,
Director, Co-Head of Data, Reporting and FpML, International Swaps
and Derivatives Association, Inc. (August 8, 2016); Andrew Rogers,
Director and Global Head of Reference Data, IHS Markit (Aug. 8,
2016); Katherine Delp, DDR Business Manager, DTCC Data Repository
(U.S.) LLC (September 1, 2016); Timothy W. Cameron, Asset Management
Group--Head, and Laura Martin, Asset Management Group--Managing
Director and Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association (August 5, 2016. Copies of all comment
letters are available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sbsdr-2016-01/sbsdr201601.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DDR submitted its Amended Form SDR with both technical and
substantive changes, including, but not limited to, revisions to
several important policies and procedures. DDR's Amended Form SDR
described herein includes \7\ substantive amendments to DDR's policies
and procedures relating to fees and fee policies, calculation of
positions, resolution of disputes, termination and disciplinary
procedures, access to and use of data, and compliance with Regulation
SBSR. The Commission seeks comment from interested parties on the
Amended Form SDR, the changes discussed in this notice, as well as any
other changes DDR made in its Amended Form SDR, and is publishing DDR's
revisions in its Amended Form SDR with a 21-day comment period.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ DDR is amending, replacing or eliminating a number of its
exhibits not discussed in this notice. Please see Amended Form SDR
to view all changes to DDR's Amended Form SDR, available at https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=dtcc&owner=exclude&action=getcompany and https://www.sec.gov/rules/other/2017/34-81302.pdf.
    \8\ The Commission intends to address any comments received for
this notice, as well as those comments previously submitted
regarding the Initial Form SDR, when the Commission makes a
determination of whether to register DDR as an SDR pursuant to Rule
13n-1(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

A. SDR Registration, Duties and Core Principles, and Regulation SBSR

    Section 763(i) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act of 2010 added Section 13(n) to the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act''), which makes it ``unlawful for any
person, unless registered with the Commission, directly or indirectly,
to make use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate
commerce to perform the function of a security-based SDR.'' To be
registered and maintain registration, each SDR must comply with certain
requirements and ``core principles'' described in Section 13(n) as well
as any requirement that the Commission may impose by rule or
regulation.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78m(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exchange Act Rules 13n-1 through 13n-12 (``SDR Rules''), establish
the procedures and Form SDR by which an SDR shall register with the
Commission and certain ``duties and core principles'' to which an SDR
must adhere.\10\ Among other requirements, the SDR Rules require an SDR
to collect and maintain complete and accurate SBS data and make such
data available to the Commission and other authorities so that relevant
authorities will be better able to monitor the buildup and
concentration of risk exposure in the SBS market.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.13n-1 through 13n-12. See also SDR Adopting
Release, 80 FR 14438.
    \11\ See id. at 14450.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Concurrent with the Commission's adoption of the SDR rules, the
Commission adopted,\12\ and later amended,\13\ Exchange Act Rules 900
to 909 (``Regulation SBSR''),\14\ which, among other things, provide
for the reporting of SBS trade data to registered SDRs, and the public
dissemination of SBS transaction, volume, and pricing information by
registered SDRs. In addition, Regulation SBSR requires each registered
SDR to register with the Commission as a securities information
processor (``SIP'').\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74244 (Feb. 11,
2015), 80 FR 14563 (Mar. 19, 2015).
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78321 (July 14,
2016), 81 FR 53546 (Aug. 12, 2016).
    \14\ See 17 CFR 242.900 to 242.909; see also Exchange Act
Release No. 74244 (Feb. 11, 2015), 80 FR 14563 (Mar. 19, 2015)
(``Regulation SBSR Adopting Release'').
    \15\ See Regulation SBSR Adopting Release, 80 FR at 14567.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Standard for Granting SDR Registration

    To be registered with the Commission as an SDR and maintain such
registration, an SDR is required (absent an exemption) to comply with
the requirements and core principles described in Exchange Act Section
13(n), as well as with any requirements that the Commission adopts by
rule or

regulation.\16\ Exchange Act Rule 13n-1(c)(3) provides that the
Commission shall grant the registration of an SDR if it finds that the
SDR is so organized, and has the capacity, to be able to (i) assure the
prompt, accurate, and reliable performance of its functions as an SDR;
(ii) comply with any applicable provisions of the securities laws and
the rules and regulations thereunder; and (iii) carry out its functions
in a manner consistent with the purposes of Section 13(n) of the
Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.\17\ The
Commission shall deny registration of an SDR if it does not make any
such finding.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Exchange Act Section 13(n)(3), 15 U.S.C. 78m(n)(3).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.13n-1(c)(3).
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether an applicant meets the criteria set forth in
Exchange Act Rule 13n-1(c), the Commission will consider the
information the applicant includes on its Form SDR, as well as any
additional information obtained from the applicant. For example, Form
SDR requires an applicant to provide a list of the asset class(es) for
which the applicant is collecting and maintaining data or for which it
proposes to collect and maintain data, a description of the functions
that it performs or proposes to perform, general information regarding
its business organization, and contact information.\19\ This, and other
information reflected on the Form SDR, will assist the Commission in
understanding the basis for registration as well as the SDR applicant's
overall business structure, financial condition, track record in
providing access to its services and data, technological reliability,
and policies and procedures to comply with its statutory and regulatory
obligations.\20\ Furthermore, the information requested in Form SDR
will enable the Commission to assess whether the SDR applicant would be
so organized, and have the capacity to comply with the applicable
provisions of federal securities laws and the rules and regulations
thereunder, and ultimately whether to grant or deny an application for
registration.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See SDR Adopting Release, 80 FR at 14459.
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ See SDR Adopting Release, 80 FR at 14458-59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. DDR's Amended Form SDR

    As discussed in more detail below, in its Amended Form SDR, DDR
filed a number of amendments to the following provisions.

A. User Fee Schedule and Policies

    Section 13(n)(7)(A) of the Exchange Act provides that an SDR shall
not (i) adopt any rule or take any action that results in any
unreasonable restraint of trade; or (ii) impose any material anti-
competitive burden on the trading, clearing or reporting of
transactions.\22\ Exchange Act Rule 13n-4(c)(1)(i) requires each SDR to
ensure that any dues, fees, or other charges that it imposes, and any
discounts or rebates that it offers, are fair and reasonable and not
unreasonably discriminatory.\23\ The rule also requires such dues,
fees, other charges, discounts, or rebates to be applied consistently
across all similarly situated users of the SDR's services.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 7 U.S.C. 24a-(f)(1)(A), (B).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.13n-3(c)(1)(i). See also SDR Adopting Release,
80 FR at 14479.
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its Amended Form SDR, DDR revises its fees in Exhibit M and
provides additional information about the policies associated with
DDR's fees and the assessment of its fees in both Exhibit M and Exhibit
GG3 ``Guide to Security-Based Swap Data Repository Process''
(``Guide''). The revisions to the fees detailed in Exhibit M consist of
four substantive changes.
    First, DDR states that it is eliminating the ``Variable Monthly
Maintenance Fee'' and establishing a new monthly ``Position Maintenance
Fee.'' This monthly fee will be imposed on a party who has signed a DDR
user agreement (herein referred to as ``User'') based on the aggregate
number of positions open on any day during the month.\25\ Derivatives
clearing organizations, as defined in Section 1(a)(15) of the Commodity
Exchange Act \26\ (``Clearer''), are not considered a User for purposes
of the position maintenance fee. The following applies to Position
Maintenance Fees:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ For examples of DDR's application of the position
maintenance fee, see DDR's Amended Form SDR, Exhibit M, Annex A.
    \26\ 7 U.S.C. 1(a)(15).

     There are no Position Maintenance Fees for less than
five hundred (500) aggregate positions during any month, which shall
be determined in the aggregate for entities billed on the same
invoice;
     For a position count of five hundred (500) or more
aggregate positions during any month, which shall be determined in
the aggregate for entities billed on the same invoice, the
applicable Position Maintenance Fees shall apply; and
     Position Maintenance Fees shall be based on the
position count during the month even if liquidated prior to month
end.

Responsibility for Position Maintenance Fees is as follows:

     For Cleared Positions, the non-Clearer counterparty
shall be responsible for Position Maintenance Fees. As used herein,
``Cleared Position'' means a position where a Clearer is a
counterparty;
     For a position submitted by a swap execution facility
(``SEF'') or designated contract market (``DCM''), the User, who is
not the SEF or DCM, for whom or on behalf of whom the trade is
submitted shall be responsible for Position Maintenance Fees; and
     For all other positions submitted by, for or on behalf
of a User where the submission specifies a ``reporting obligation
value of SEC,'' \27\ the User shall be responsible for Position
Maintenance Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ We understand that DDR uses the term ``reporting obligation
value of SEC'' to refer to the field that DDR requires Users to
complete to identify that the trade is being submitted to DDR
pursuant to Regulation SBSR.

    Second, DDR is eliminating the ``Monthly Access Fee'' and
establishing a new annual ``Account Management Fee.'' This annual fee
of $1,200.00 will replace the Monthly Access Fee of $200.00 ($2,400.00
annualized) and will apply to all account holders, excluding regulators
and Clearers. The Account Management Fee is in addition to, and not in
place of, applicable Position Maintenance Fees and will not serve to
reduce in any way the amount of the Position Maintenance Fees.
    Third, Users will now have the option to elect to enter into a
three-year commitment (``Long Term Commitment''), which reduces the
applicable position maintenance fee and account management fee by 10
percent, exclusive of tax, for a three-year period following the Long
Term Commitment election. If the Long Term Commitment is ``improperly''
terminated prior to the end of the applicable Long Term Commitment
period, the User will be subject to an early termination fee equal to:
(a) The difference between the total amount of fees due after
application of the Long Term Commitment incentive and the total amount
of fees that would have been due during the applicable portion of the
Long Term Commitment period had no incentive been provided (``Total
Incentive Provided''); plus (b) the greater of 5 percent of the Total
Incentive Provided or $500.00.
    Finally, DDR is establishing a late fee. In the event all or any
undisputed portion of the a User's invoice becomes ninety days or more
past due, the User will be subject to a late fee equal to 5% of the
past due balance. The late fee will continue to be assessed on a
monthly basis until the full amount of the past due balance is paid.
    In its Amended Form SDR, DDR also adds a new description to the
Guide to provide further detail on User fees.\28\ DDR states that all
account holders, excluding regulators and Clearers, will

be subject to an annual Account Management Fee, regardless of whether
they are a reporting side or party (``Reporting Party'') or non-
reporting side or counterparty (``Non-Reporting Counterparty''). This
fee is assessed at the organization level. Accordingly, a fund manager
or corporate parent with several funds or subsidiary entities on-
boarded under its organization as subaccounts will owe one account
management fee. Alternatively, each fund or entity could be setup with
its own billing profile and account (i.e., not a subaccount). In this
case, DDR explains, each fund or entity, as the account holder for its
own account, will be charged the account management fee. In addition to
the Account Management Fee, a party who has signed a DDR user
agreement, excluding regulators and Clearers, may be subject to
Position Maintenance Fees. Further, a party that is not on-boarded with
DDR is not subject to any DDR fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ DDR provides a fee schedule for DDR Users on its Web site
at http://www.dtcc.com/derivatives-services/global-trade-repository/gtr-us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Policies and Procedures for Calculation of Positions

    Exchange Act Rule 13n-5(b)(2) requires an SDR to establish,
maintain, and enforce written policies reasonably designed to calculate
positions for all persons with open security-based swaps for which the
SDR maintains records.\29\ Position information is important to
regulators for risk, enforcement, and examinations purposes, and can be
useful to counterparties in evaluating their own risk.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 240.13n-5(b)(2).
    \30\ See Exchange Act Release No. 63347 (Nov. 19, 2010), 75 FR
77306 (Dec. 10, 2010), corrected at 75 FR 79320 (Dec. 20, 2010) and
76 FR 2287 (Jan. 13, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its Amended Form SDR, DDR's Guide provides an updated
description of how it calculates positions for open SBS. In order to
calculate Positions, DDR states that it requires reporting parties to
provide all necessary information in order to establish the trade state
for a specific swap (``Trade State''). Upon request, based on the data
attributes available in DDR's databases, DDR is able to utilize the
Trade States to allow for the calculation of specific positions based
on one or more of the following attributes: (i) Underlying instrument,
index, or reference entity; (ii) counterparty; (iii) asset class; (iv)
long risk of the underlying instrument, index, or reference entity; and
(v) short risk of the underlying instrument, index, or reference
entity.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See also Rule 13n-5(a)(2) defining ``position'' as the
gross and net notional amounts of open SBS attributes, including,
but not limited to, the (i) underlying instrument, index or
reference entity; (ii) counterparty; (iii) asset class; (iv) long
risk of the underlying instrument, index or reference entity; and
(v) short risk of the underlying instrument, index, or reference
entity. 17 CFR 240.13n-5(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Policies and Procedures Regarding Denial of a User Application,
Restrictions on Use and Assessment of Costs, and Certain ``Disciplinary
Actions''

    As part of its Amended Form SDR, DDR is modifying Section 10 of
Exhibit HH2,\32\ DDR's Rulebook (``Rulebook''), to address the denial
of a User application; the restriction of use of DDR's systems and
assessment of certain costs; and procedures for certain ``disciplinary
actions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ In its Initial Form SDR, DDR filed Exhibit HH1 as its
Rulebook. In its Amended Form SDR, DDR has deleted Exhibit HH1 and
filed its Rulebook as Exhibit HH2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Denial of User Application (Notification to the Commission Under
Section 11A of the Exchange Act)
    Rule 909 of Regulation SBSR requires each registered SDR to
register as a SIP, \33\ and as such, Exchange Act Section
11A(b)(5),\34\ the provision governing access to services of a SIP,
also governs denials of access to services by an SDR.\35\ Section
11A(b)(5) provides that if any SIP prohibits or limits any person in
respect of access to services offered, directly or indirectly, the SIP
shall promptly file notice with the Commission.\36\ Accordingly, an SDR
must promptly notify the Commission if it prohibits or limits access to
any of its services to any person.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 17 CFR 242.909.
    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(b)(5).
    \35\ See 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(b)(5). See also SDR Adopting Release,
80 FR at 14482.
    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Section 10.2.1 of DDR's revised Rulebook, DDR supplements its
discussion in this section of the Initial Form SDR by providing that in
the case of a denial of an application to become a User, DDR will
furnish the Commission with notice of the denial in such form and
containing such information as prescribed by the Commission (``SIP
Denial Notice''). Further, DDR states that such notice will be subject
to review by the Commission on its own motion, or upon application by
the denied application pursuant to Section 11A of the Exchange Act. If
the Commission does not dismiss the proceeding to review the SIP Denial
Notice or if the Commission by order sets aside the SIP Denial Notice
and requires DDR to permit the applicant access to all or any SDR
services offered by DDR as a SIP, then DDR will comply with such order
or will take such further action as may be afforded DDR under
applicable law. Further, DDR states the written statement setting forth
the grounds for the application denial determination will inform the
applicant of its right to request a DDR hearing pursuant to DDR's Rule
<IP_ADDRESS>.
2. Restrictions on Use and Assessment of Costs \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ DDR renamed Rule 10.4 from ``Sanctions from Disciplinary
Proceedings'' to ``Other Disciplinary Actions'' and renamed Rule
10.4.1 from ``Imposition of Sanctions'' to ``Restriction of Use and
Costs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its Amended Form SDR, DDR also revises Section 10.4.1(a) of its
Rulebook to provide that DDR's ``Senior Officer'' \38\ and CCO may
temporarily deny access to or otherwise impose restrictions on the use
of the DDR system on a User, or take such other actions as DDR deems
reasonably necessary to protect its systems and other Users for any one
of the following reasons: (i) A violation of DDR rules (including
failure to pay fees when due); (ii) any neglect or refusal by the User
to comply with any applicable order or direction of DDR; or (iii) any
error, delay or other conduct that materially and adversely affects the
operations of DDR. The reasons underlying a disciplinary action
enumerated in Section 10.4.1(a) remain unchanged from DDR's Initial
Form SDR. DDR further revises Section 10.4.1(a) to add that in addition
to the limits to the activities, functions, or operations imposed on
Users in the event of an occurrence of a Subject Event, and in addition
to any other action taken by DDR, DDR may assess the User with all
costs incurred by DDR in connection with the Subject Event and may
apply any deterrent charges that DDR deems necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ DDR made a number of conforming changes throughout several
exhibits to replace the chief executive officer position with a
``senior officer'' position. See, among others, Exhibit F of DDR's
Amended Form SDR. The term ``senior officer'' is defined under
Exchange Act Rule 13n-11(b)(8) as the chief executive officer or
other equivalent officer. 17 CFR 240.13n-11(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Procedures for ``Disciplinary Proceedings''
    In Section 10.4.2(a) of its Rulebook, DDR provides additional
clarification on its procedures for disciplinary actions taken pursuant
to Rule 10.4.1. The amended text states that before any disciplinary
action is taken under Section 10.4.1, DDR will furnish the User with a
concise written statement of the ``charges.'' However, DDR adds, no
prior written statement shall be required to be provided if the action
is being taken by DDR is in response to protecting the security of
data, the DDR system or other Users. In those circumstances, a written
statement shall

``promptly'' follow the DDR action. The other provisions of Section
10.4.2 remain unchanged.

D. Access To and Use of Data

    Exchange Act Sections 13(n)(5)(G) and (H) conditionally require
SDRs to make SBS data available to certain named authorities and other
persons that the Commission has deemed to be appropriate. In 2016, the
Commission adopted Exchange Act Rules 13n-4(b)(9), (b)(10) and (d) to
implement this data access requirement.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Exchange Act Release No. 78716 (Aug. 29, 2016), 81 FR
60585 (Sep. 2, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Access to U.S. Data by Regulators
    In addition to renaming this section to ``Access to Data by Other
Regulators and Entities'' in its Amended Form SDR, DDR amends Section
6.5 of its Rulebook \40\ to require that any entity authorized by
applicable law to receive access to data held by DDR shall: (a) Have
entered into a memorandum of understanding, as required under
applicable law, (b) file a request for access with DDR, wherein the
entity specifically describes the data sought and certifies in a manner
acceptable to DDR that the entity is acting within the scope of its
jurisdiction and confidentiality agreement, and (c) provide any
additional information required by DDR to fulfill the request.\41\
Section 6.5.1 further states that DDR will provide access to the
requested security-based swap data (or swap data), following notice to
the Designated Regulator and the satisfaction of the requirements of
Section 6.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ In its Initial Form SDR, DDR included the discussion of
regulator access to data in Section 6.5 of Exhibit HH1. However, in
its Amended Form SDR, DDR has retitled Exhibit HH1 as Exhibit HH2.
    \41\ See Rulebook, Section 6.5. The term ``applicable law'' is
defined in DDR's Rulebook, Section 12, as any and all applicable
laws and regulations, judicial orders and decisions and rules,
regulations, interpretations and protocols, as amended from time to
time in a jurisdiction in which DDR is registered, designated,
recognized or otherwise licensed as a trade repository.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Denial of Access to Data
    In its Amended Form SDR, DDR adds new Section 6.7 of its Rulebook
to describe the process by which DDR may deny access to data requested
pursuant to Section 6.2 through 6.6, the provisions that describe
access by designated regulators (Section 6.2), DDR use of SBS data
information (Section 6.3), access by third party service providers
(Section 6.4), access by ``other'' regulators (Section 6.5), and access
to systems and data generally (Section 6.6). DDR states in new Section
6.7 that the party making the request for access to data pursuant to
Section 6.2 through 6.6 of the Rulebook shall be notified of the
grounds for the denial and as such, is responsible to address the
issues identified in the denial notice and resubmit the application in
accordance with the applicable provisions of Section 6 of Exhibit HH2.

E. Certain Policies and Procedures Related to Compliance With
Regulation SBSR

    As part of its Amended Form SDR, DDR revises several aspects of its
application that relate to compliance with Regulation SBSR. As
discussed below, DDR provides additional detail to clarify how it
intends to support the reporting of SBS information and the manner in
which it will publicly disseminate SBS transaction, volume, and pricing
information.
1. Policies and Procedures for Reporting SBS Transactions
    Rule 907 of Regulation SBSR requires an SDR to establish and make
publicly available certain policies and procedures, which include the
specific data elements that must be reported, acceptable data formats,
and the procedures for reporting life cycle events and error
corrections.\42\ As discussed below, DDR expands the discussion in the
Guide and Rulebook related to the reporting of SBS transactions,
including historical SBS, SBS that have been submitted to clearing, and
the reporting of life cycle events and error corrections. DDR also
provides further detail on its policies and procedures related to UIC
reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 17 CFR 240.907.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the revisions in the Guide and Rulebook, DDR also
revises Exhibits GG2, GG4, and GG6, which contain data fields, required
formats and validations for the data Users must submit. In its revised
Exhibits GG2, GG4, and GG6, DDR provides additional information on
acceptable data value formats and validation rules. DDR continues to
require separate messages for public dissemination (``PPD Messages'')
and for updating the position record. In its Guide, DDR also requires
that PPD Messages be sent at the same time as position messages (i.e.,
Primary Economic Terms (``PET''), Confirmation, and/or Snapshot
messages). For more information on the content of Exhibits GG2, GG4,
and GG6, interested persons may review those exhibits.
a. Policies and Procedures for Reporting Historical SBS
    In its Amended Form SDR, DDR expands the discussion in its Guide
related to the reporting of historical SBS to clarify how Users must
report such transactions. The Guide now states that Users must specify
a transaction as ``historical,'' \43\ ``historical expired,'' \44\ or
``backload,'' \45\ when applicable. DDR states in its Guide that it
will apply relaxed validation standards to these three categories of
trades and provides additional detail on these validation standards in
Exhibits GG2, GG4 and GG6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ DDR's Guide describes ``Historical'' SBS as ``Transitional
SBS executed after July 21, 2010 but Expired or Terminated before
Compliance Date.'' For reporting transitional security-based swaps
that have expired or terminated before the compliance date for
Regulation SBSR, users are required to specify ``historical'' as the
transaction type when submitting the trade record.
    \44\ DDR's Guide describes ``Historical Expired'' SBS as ``Pre-
enactment SBS executed before July 21, 2010 but Expired or
Terminated before Compliance Date.'' For reporting pre-enactment
security-based swaps that have expired or terminated before the
compliance date for Regulation SBSR, users are required to specify
``historical expired'' as the transaction type when submitting the
trade record.
    \45\ DDR's Guide describes ``Backload'' SBS as ``Pre-enactment
SBS or Transitional SBS in Existence on or after Compliance Date
(post-compliance).'' For reporting pre-enactment or transitional
security-based swaps in existence on or after the compliance date
for Regulation SBSR, users are required to specify ``backload'' as
the transaction type when submitting the trade record.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Policies and Procedures for SBS Submitted to Clearing
    DDR includes new information on how it will process trades
submitted for clearing in its revised Guide, including how clearing
agencies must report whether an ``alpha transaction'' \46\ has been
accepted or rejected for clearing. The Guide now states the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ In the agency model for clearing, which is the predominant
clearing model in the United States, a swap that is submitted to
clearing is typically referred to as an ``alpha.'' If such a swap is
accepted by a clearing agency, it is terminated and replaced with
two new swaps, the ``beta'' and ``gamma.''

    DDR requires each User to indicate whether a trade will be
submitted for clearing. Once a trade has been accepted for clearing,
the clearing agency will send an ``exit'' message for the alpha. DDR
views a clearing agency's exit message as the acceptance message of
the trade for clearing. The exit message removes the alpha trade in
deference to the beta and gamma trades. If an alpha trade is
rejected for clearing, DDR requires the clearing agency to send DDR
a ``rejection'' message. The rejection message will not modify the
trade that was rejected for clearing by exiting or changing the
terms of that trade. The reporting party is responsible for exiting
or amending a trade that is rejected for clearing. Both acceptance
and rejection messages will be rejected by the

DDR System if the alpha has not already been accepted and processed
by DDR. This provides a control to ensure reporting is occurring in
the order that is required e.g., a rejection message will not be
processed prior to the processing of the alpha message.
c. Policies and Procedures for Reporting Life Cycle Events and
Correcting Errors
    In its revised Guide, DDR clarifies how Users must submit life
cycle events versus how Users submit error corrections, providing
examples for both submission types. The new examples in the Guide
provide that, for reporting life cycle events, Users specify a ``New''
action type and an ``Amendment'' transaction type, \47\ whereas for
submitting error corrections Users must specify a ``Modify'' action
type with a ``Trade'' transaction type in their message to DDR.\48\ As
previously noted, trades subject to public dissemination require two
reports: A PPD Message and a position message. Accordingly, reporting
life cycle events or submitting error corrections also may require two
reports to ensure that the information disseminated publicly is
consistent with position information.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ DDR's revised Guide also states that Users must report a
novation, partial termination, exit, or new trade using the ``New''
action type.
    \48\ DDR's revised Guide also states that Users must report
cancelations using the Modify action type.
    \49\ As stated in its Guide and Section 1.3 of its Rulebook, DDR
requires Users to review their daily reports to identify any errors
on the trade details or missing information and promptly correct
such error or provide such missing information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Applying, Identifying and Establishing Certain Flags
    Exchange Act Rule 907(a)(4) requires an SDR to have policies and
procedures for identifying and establishing flags to denote
characteristics or circumstances associated with the execution or
reporting of an SBS that could, in the SDR's reasonable estimation,
cause a person without knowledge of these characteristic(s) or
circumstance(s), to receive a distorted view of the market and for
applying and directing users to apply such flags, as applicable.\50\ In
its Amended Form SDR, DDR expands the list of flags Users may submit in
Exhibits GG2, GG4 and GG6.\51\ In addition, DDR outlines its policies
and procedures for identifying the need for and establishing new flags
in the Guide:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ 17 CFR 240.907(a)(4).
    \51\ Interested persons should refer to Exhibits GG2, GG4, and
GG6 for further information about flags.

    Prior to the dissemination of a SBS that is newly required to be
reported, DDR will ascertain if a new flag is necessary by
considering, among other things, identifying characteristic(s) of a
security-based swap, or circumstances associated with the execution
or reporting of the security-based swap, that could, in the fair and
reasonable estimation of the registered security-based swap data
repository, cause a person without knowledge of these
characteristic(s) or circumstance(s), to receive a distorted view of
the market. DDR then will determine whether to establish flags to
denote such characteristic(s) or circumstance(s) and will direct
participants that report security-based swaps to apply such flags,
as appropriate, in their reports to the registered security-based
swap data repository.
3. Unique Identification Codes
    Rule 903 of Regulation SBSR requires a registered SDR to use Unique
Identification Codes (``UICs'').\52\ The following UICs are
specifically required by Regulation SBSR: Counterparty ID, product ID,
transaction ID, broker ID, execution agent ID, branch ID, trading desk
ID, trader ID, platform ID, and ultimate parent ID.\53\ Rule 903(b) of
Regulation SBSR provides that a registered SDR may permit required data
elements to be reported using codes if the information necessary to
interpret such codes is widely available to users on a non-fee
basis.\54\ DDR's Guide provides additional detail with respect to
assigning and reporting certain UICs. DDR's Guide now states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ 17 CFR 240.903.
    \53\ See 17 CFR 240.900 (defining UIC as ``a unique
identification code assigned to a person, unit of a person, product,
or transaction'' and further defining those items for which a UIC is
to be assigned).
    \54\ 17 CFR 240.903(b).

    As prescribed by regulation and the DDR Rulebook, all market
participants must provide identifier information in the manner and
form requested by DDR. It shall be the responsibility of each
Reporting Party to maintain, or cause the relevant Market
Participant to maintain, the identifiers described below (including,
but not limited to an internal mapping of static data) and to ensure
they are current and accurate. Users are required to notify DDR of
any changes to information they provided through the on-boarding
process, including but not limited to identifiers and any relevant
internal mapping of static data. Upon the written request of DDR, a
Reporting Party must promptly provide such identifier information,
including any internal mapping, in the manner and form requested by
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DDR.

    Regarding transaction ID, the Guide now states that DDR endorses
the Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures of the
International Organization of Securities Commissions (``CPMI-IOSCO'')
guidance for a global unique transaction identifier and that firms are
required to provide this when reporting transaction IDs to DDR, rather
than creating their own transaction IDs as the Guide previously
provided.
    With respect to product ID, the Guide now states that ``DDR accepts
a taxonomy on a product classification system'' utilizing proprietary
identifiers that include Committee on Uniform Security Identification
Procedures (CUSIP) numbers,\55\ International Securities Identification
Numbering (ISIN) codes,\56\ and Markit Reference Entity Database (RED)
codes.\57\ DDR further states the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ CUSIP numbers are nine character alphanumeric codes that
uniquely identify securities. The CUSIP system is owned by the
American Bankers Association and managed by Standard & Poor's. See
https://www.cusip.com/cusip/about-cgs-identifiers.htm.
    \56\ ISIN codes are twelve character alphanumeric codes that
uniquely identify securities. In the U.S., ISIN codes are extended
versions of CUSIP numbers. See http://www.isin.org/about/.
    \57\ Markit RED codes ``are standard identifiers that are used
to link the legal relationship between reference entities that trade
in the credit default swap market and their associated reference
obligations, known as ``pairs''.'' Markit RED codes use a six
character alphanumeric code to identify a reference entity and a
nine character code to identify the pair. See http://www.isda.org/c_and_a/pdf/CreditDerivProcessFAQs.pdf. See also http://www.markit.com/Product/Reference-Data-CDS.

    DDR will rely on the above referenced classification systems
until such time as an internationally recognized standard-setting
system is recognized by the SEC. DDR requires information sufficient
to identify the data and calculate price as required by Applicable
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation or the data must be flagged as a customized swap.

    Regarding parent and affiliate information, DDR amends Section
<IP_ADDRESS> of its Rulebook to allow non-Users to report ultimate parent
and affiliate information by emailing such information to DDR. However,
DDR states that ``this is not a preferred submission method because
information provided by email does not have the protections and
validations'' as a submission by an on-boarded User, further explaining
that non-Users cannot directly verify the accuracy of the information
submitted to DDR without onboarding. In Section <IP_ADDRESS> of its Rulebook
DDR describes the process for submission of parent and affiliate
information for non-Users as follows:

    A Non-User may provide its Ultimate Parent ID, Affiliate ID and
an email contact directly to DDR by emailing such information to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The subject line of the email must state
``Non-User SEC Requirements''. The body of the email must state the
Non-User's legal name, email contact information, ``Ultimate Parent
ID--[insert LEI]'' and ``Affiliate ID [insert one LEI for each
affiliate]''. The Non-User is responsible for ensuring the continued
accuracy of this information. DDR will not verify the accuracy of
the information provided by the Non-User. DDR may use the email
contact information to contact the Non-User as described below. All
Non-User information provided pursuant to this

paragraph will not be included in the automated DDR System, but will
be provided to the SEC upon request.
4. Reporting Missing UIC Information and Missing UIC Reports
    Rule 906(a) of Regulation SBSR requires SDRs to identify any SBS
reported to it for which the SDR does not have the counterparty ID and
(if applicable) the broker ID, branch ID, execution agent ID, trading
desk ID, and trader ID of each direct counterparty.\58\ Once a day,
SDRs are required to send a report to each participant of the SDR or,
if applicable, an execution agent, identifying, for each SBS to which
that participant is a counterparty, the SBS for which the SDR is
missing UIC information.\59\ DDR amends Section <IP_ADDRESS> of its Rulebook
to clarify that Users will be sent a position report, which can be used
to identify missing UICs, via their DDR account portal or direct
computer-to-computer secure file transfer protocol (SFTP) link. DDR
also explains that it will attempt to send missing UIC reports to a
non-User's email address not only if it is available in the static data
maintained by the DTCC trade repositories but also if it has been
provided to DDR at its specified email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See 17 CFR 240.906(a).
    \59\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Policies and Procedures for Conducting Public Dissemination of SBS
Data
    In its Amended Form SDR, DDR provides a new exhibit, GG7
(``Dissemination FAQs''), which describes how DDR intends to conduct
its public dissemination of SBS trade data, including what fields will
be publicly disseminated. For more information on the contents of the
Dissemination FAQs, interested persons may review the exhibit.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning DDR's Amended Form SDR, including whether DDR has
satisfied the requirements for registration as an SDR. Commenters are
requested, to the extent possible, to provide empirical data and other
factual support for their views. As detailed below, the Commission
seeks comment on a number of issues, including whether certain policies
and procedures are ``reasonably designed,'' which may involve, among
other things, being sufficiently detailed. In addition, the Commission
seeks comment on the following:

    1. Exchange Act Rule 13n-4(c)(1)(i) requires that each SDR
ensure that any dues, fees, or other charges imposed by, and any
discounts or rebates offered by, a SDR are fair and reasonable and
not unreasonably discriminatory. The rule also requires such dues,
fees, other charges, discounts, or rebates to be applied
consistently across all similarly situated users of the SDR's
services. Please provide your views as to whether DDR's revised
approach to proposed dues, fees, or other charges, discounts or
rebates and the process for setting dues, fees, or other charges,
discounts or rebates are fair and reasonable and not unreasonably
discriminatory. In particular, please provide your views on whether
the Long Term Commitment arrangement (providing for a 10 percent
reduction in the Position Maintenance and Account Management Fee)
and charging the Account Management Fee on an ``organizational
level'' is fair and reasonable and not unreasonably discriminatory.
Considering that SDR fees constitute a potential cost of trading
security-based swaps, please also provide your views as to whether
the proposed fees will affect market participants' incentives to
engage in security-based swap transactions given that fees incurred
by users of DDR could be passed on to non-users. Please also provide
your views as to whether the structure and level of the proposed
fees will influence current market practice and structure in the
security-based swap market, particularly in respect of mode of
execution (i.e., platform-based versus over-the-counter) and post-
trade processing (i.e., clearance and settlement).
    2. Further, does the revised approach provide enough clarity to
determine the applicable fees for all types of market participants?
For example, does the definition of Clearer, currently defined as a
DCO in DDR's Exhibit M, adequately contemplate all potential
entities that may in the future fill this role, such as a clearing
agency, as that term is defined in Section 3(a)(23) of the Exchange
Act? What impact do commenters believe the structure and level of
the proposed fees will have on market participants' ability to
comply with the reporting requirements of Regulation SBSR? In
particular, what impact do commenters believe the proposed fees will
have on those participants that are not Security-Based Swap Dealers
or Major Security-Based Swap Participants (as defined in Section 3
of the Exchange Act)?
    3. Exchange Act Rule 13n-5(b)(2) requires an SDR to establish,
maintain, and enforce written policies reasonably designed to
calculate positions for all persons with open security-based swaps
for which the SDR maintains records. Please provide your views on
whether DDR's policies and procedures are reasonably designed to
calculate such positions. Do commenters believe that methodology
would result in complete and accurate positions? What changes, if
any, should be made?
    4. Exchange Act Rule 13n-4(c)(1)(iv) requires that each SDR
establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to review any prohibition or limitation of any
person with respect to access to services offered, directly or
indirectly, or data maintained by the SDR and to grant such person
access to such services or data if such person has been
discriminated against unfairly. Please provide your views as to
whether DDR's revised policies and procedures are reasonably
designed to provide a mechanism for Users to effectively address
resolution of disputes, termination and ``disciplinary'' issues. In
particular, please provide your view on DDR's disciplinary policies
and procedures as it relates to the following circumstances: (i) To
the denial of a User application, (ii) restrictions on the use and
assessment of certain costs, and (iii) procedures for disciplinary
actions, as set forth in Section 10 of DDR's Rulebook.
    5. Exchange Act Sections 13(n)(5)(G) and (H) and Exchange Act
Rules 13n-4(b)(9), (b)(10) and (d) conditionally require SDRs to
make SBS data available to certain authorities. Please provide your
views regarding the proposed approach of DDR's Amended Form SDR to
that data access requirement. Among other matters, commenters may
wish to address the part of the proposal that would condition access
on authorities certifying that they are acting within the scope of
their jurisdiction (as well as certifying consistency with an
applicable memorandum of understanding). What, if any, changes
should be made?
    6. Exchange Act Rule 13n-5(b)(3) requires every SDR to
establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to ensure that the transaction data and
positions that it maintains are complete and accurate. Please
provide your views as to whether DDR's revised policies and
procedures are reasonably designed to ensure that the transaction
data and positions that it maintains are complete and accurate, as
required by Exchange Act Rule 13n-5(b)(3). What, if any, changes
should be made?
    7. Regulation SBSR imposes duties on various market participants
to report SBS transaction information to a registered SDR. Please
provide your views as to whether the revised DDR application and the
associated policies and procedures provide sufficient information to
participants, as defined by Rule 900(u) of Regulation SBSR, about
how they would discharge these regulatory duties when reporting to
DDR. If applicable, please describe in detail what additional
information you believe is necessary to allow a participant to
satisfy any reporting obligation that it might incur under
Regulation SBSR.
    8. Rule 901(c) of Regulation SBSR requires reporting of product
ID, if available, in lieu of various data elements for standardized
contracts. Please provide your views as to whether the product
taxonomy proposed by DDR is sufficiently precise to identify a
``product,'' as defined in Rule 900(aa) of Regulation SBSR, so as to
distinguish between standard and custom versions of all types of SBS
contracts. Further, do commenters believe that market participants
would benefit from the disclosure of product IDs available for use
on DDR?
    9. Rule 903(b) of Regulation SBSR requires in part that an SDR
may permit required data

elements to be reported using codes if the information necessary to
interpret such codes is widely available to users on a non-fee
basis. Notwithstanding this requirement, DDR has proposed to rely on
proprietary classification systems such as CUSIP numbers, ISIN
codes, and/or Markit RED codes to identify specific securities,
reference entities, or reference obligations, which may subject
market participants to fees and usage restrictions in contravention
of Rule 903(b). Please provide your views as to whether the approach
proposed by DDR would be an appropriate means of reporting that
information, or whether use of those proprietary classification
systems would unduly increase the cost of compliance with reporting
information pursuant to Regulation SBSR or impair access to publicly
disseminated data.
    10. Rule 901(d)(5) of Regulation SBSR requires reporting sides
to report any additional data elements included in the agreement
between the counterparties that are necessary to determine the
market value of the transaction, to the extent not already provided.
Please provide your views as to whether DDR has sufficiently
explained how Users can satisfy this requirement and whether DDR's
policies and procedures should include specific data categories
necessary to determine the market value of a custom basket of
securities that underlie an SBS (e.g. components and risk weights of
the basket). What, if any, changes should be made? Why?
    11. Rule 901(e) of Regulation SBSR requires reporting sides to
report life cycle events, and any adjustments due to life cycle
events that results in a change to previously reported primary or
secondary trade information. Please provide your views as to whether
DDR has provided sufficient information in its Amended Form SDR to
explain how a User would report life cycle events under Rule 901(e)
of Regulation SBSR. Please describe any additional information that
you feel is necessary. In addition, do commenters believe that DDR
has provided sufficient information distinguishing the process of
reporting of a life cycle event from the reporting of a correction
to erroneous trade information? What changes, if any, should be
made?
    12. Rule 907(a)(4) of Regulation SBSR requires an SDR to have
policies and procedures for identifying and establishing flags to
denote characteristics or circumstances associated with the
execution or reporting of an SBS that could, in the SDR's reasonable
estimation, cause a person without knowledge of these
characteristic(s) or circumstance(s), to receive a distorted view of
the market, and for applying and directing users to apply such
flags, as applicable. Please provide your views as to whether DDR's
revised policies and procedures for developing condition flags as
required by Rule 907(a)(4) of Regulation SBSR are consistent with
the goal of preventing market participants from receiving a
distorted view of the market. Are there additional condition flags
that you believe DDR should establish? If so, please describe such
condition flags and explain why you believe that they are
appropriate under Rule 907(a)(4).
    13. Please provide your views on whether DDR's proposed
methodology regarding the processing of cleared trades is sufficient
to prevent market participants from receiving a distorted view of
the market in all cases. In particular, please provide your views as
to whether DDR's process of only accepting clearing agency
acceptance and rejection messages in the event that DDR receives
such messages prior to the receipt of the corresponding alpha trade
report from the reporting side is likely to present problems with
alpha transactions lacking a corresponding disposition message. How,
if at all, would this impact the completeness and accuracy of the
SBS transaction data and positions?
    14. Rule 903(a) of Regulation SBSR provides, in relevant part,
that if no system has been recognized by the Commission, or a
recognized system has not assigned a UIC to a particular person,
unit of a person, or product, the registered SDR shall assign a UIC
to that person, unit of person, or product using its own
methodology. Please provide your views as to whether the revised
approach regarding UICs as described DDR's Amended Form SDR is
appropriate in light of the requirements of Rule 903(a) of
Regulation SBSR. Why or why not? In particular, please provide your
views concerning the approach proposed by DDR for the creation and
use of transaction IDs consistent with the CPMI-IOSCO guidance for a
global unique transaction identifier. How, if at all, should this
methodology be changed?
    15. Rule 906(a) of Regulation SBSR requires an SDR to send a
daily report to each participant of that SDR (or the participant's
execution agent), identifying, for each SBS to which that
participant is a counterparty, any SBS for which the SDR lacks
required UIC information. Please provide your views as to whether
DDR's revised policies and procedures for satisfying the
requirements of Rule 906(a) are appropriate. Why or why not? What
changes, if any, should be made?
    16. Rule 907 of Regulation SBSR generally requires that an SDR
have policies and procedures with respect to the reporting and
dissemination of data. Please provide your views as to whether DDR
has provided sufficient information in its Amended Form SDR
(including through the publication of its new Exhibit GG7) to
explain the manner in which DDR intends to publicly disseminate SBS
transaction information under Rule 902 of Regulation SBSR. If not,
what additional information do you think that DDR should provide
about how it intends to effect public dissemination of SBS
transactions?
    17. Please provide your views as to whether DDR's Amended Form
SDR includes sufficient information about how an agent could report
SBS transaction information to DDR on behalf of a principal (i.e., a
person who has a duty under Regulation SBSR to report). Why or why
not? If not, please describe any additional information that you
believe is necessary.
    18. Please provide your views about DDR's policies and
procedures for contacting counterparties who are not Users. What
changes, if any, should be made?

Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SBSDR-2016-02 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SBSDR-2016-02.

    To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method of submission. The Commission
will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml).
    Copies of the Form SDR, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the Form SDR that are filed with the
Commission, and all written communications relating to the Form SDR
between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be
withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the
Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m.
    All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SBSDR-2016-02 and
should be submitted on or before August 30, 2017.

    By the Commission.

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-16715 Filed 8-8-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


	SIP SUBMITTAL COMPLETENESS CRITERIA CHECKLIST

	(in accordance with 40 CFR Part 51 - App. V)

   SIP Submitted by:  Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

     Date Submitted:   December 14, 2006

            Subject:         Redesignation of the Franklin County, PA 8-hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the  		          Area’s Maintenance Plan

Completeness Review

			s/s

Completed by:           Christopher Cripps

     Date Completed:   December 21, 2006

Administrative Materials

	ACCEPTABLE

	EPA REQUIREMENT

	STATE SUBMITTAL

(X)

1. A formal letter of submittal from the Governor or his designee, requesting EPA approval of the plan or revision thereof.

1. Letter was submitted on December 14, 2006 on behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from Kathleen McGinty, Secretary, PADEP to Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, EPA Region III.

 X

2. Evidence that the State has adopted the plan in the State code or body of regulations; or issued the permit, order, consent agreement in final form.  That evidence shall include the date of adoption or final issuance as well as the effective date of the plan, if different from the adoption/issuance date.

2.  N/A   Not a regulatory change.  The submittal is a request for redesignation and a maintenance plan and a 2002 base-year inventory that is effective November, 2006.

 X

3. Evidence that the State has the necessary legal authority under State law to adopt and implement the plan.

3.  State has legal authority to adopt this maintenance plan under Section 5 of the Air Pollution Control Act.

X

4. A copy of actual regulation, or document submitted for approval and incorporation by reference into the plan, including indication of the changes made to the existing approved plan, where applicable.  The submittal shall be a copy of the official State regulation/document signed, stamped, dated by the appropriate State official indicating that it is fully enforceable by the State.  The effective date of the regulation/document shall, whenever possible, be indicated in the document itself.

4.   See number 2 above.

X

5. Evidence that the State followed all of the procedural requirements of the State's laws and constitution in conducting and completing the adoption/issuance of the plan.

5.  PADEP provided proof that the notice of public hearing was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on October 7, 2006 (36 Pa.B. 6159).  ).  Notice of public hearing was given to the public in the October 7, 2006 edition of the Public Opinion.

 X

6. Evidence that public notice was given of the proposed change consistent with procedures approved by EPA, including the date of publication of such notice.

6. PADEP provided proof that the notice of public hearing was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on October 7, 2006 (36 Pa.B. 6159).  Notice of public hearing was given to the public in the October 7, 2006 edition of the Public Opinion.

 X

7. Certification that public hearings were held in accordance with the information provided in the public notice and the State's laws and constitution, if applicable.

7.  See letter submitted on December 14, 2006 on behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from Kathleen McGinty, Secretary, PADEP to Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, EPA Region III.

 X

8. Compilation of public comments and the State's response thereto.

8.  December 14, 2006 letter from Kathleen McGinty, Secretary, PADEP to Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, EPA Region III certifies that no comments were received.

 X

Technical Materials

	EPA REQUIREMENT

	STATE SUBMITTAL

(X)

1. Identification of all regulated pollutants affected by the plan.

1.  8-Hour Ozone

 X

2. Identification of the locations of affected sources including the EPA attainment/nonattainment designation of the locations and the status of the attainment plan for the affected area(s).

2.  Applies to the Franklin County Nonattainment Area which is comprised of Franklin County.

 X

3. Quantification of the changes in plan allowable emissions from the affected sources; estimates of changes in current actual emissions from affected sources or, where appropriate, quantification of changes in actual emissions from affected sources through calculations of the differences between certain baseline levels and allowable emissions anticipated as a result of the revision.

3.  A 2002 base-year emissions inventory was submitted along with a maintenance plan as SIP revisions.  Attainment inventory and projected inventories submitted in the maintenance plan.

 X

4. The State's demonstration that the national ambient air quality standards, prevention of significant deterioration increments, reasonable further progress demonstration, and visibility, as applicable, are protected if the plan is approved and implemented.

4.  The state has developed a current and projected (2002, 2004, 2009, and 2018) emissions inventories showing attainment and maintenance of the national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).  This portion of the maintenance plan shows how the NAAQS will be protected since emission levels are expected to remain at or below the levels needed for attainment.

X

5. Modeling information required to support the proposed revision, including input data, output data, models used,  ambient monitoring data used, meteorological data used, justification for use of offsite data (where used), modes of models used, assumptions, and other information relevant to the determination of adequacy of the modeling analysis.

5.  All necessary data and evidence is present for this action.  The plan relies upon documentation disseminated by EPA which reported the results of EPA’s own modeling conducted for the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) rulemaking.  .

X

6. Evidence, where necessary, that emission limitations are based on continuous emission reduction technology.

6   The maintenance plan relies upon Federal regulations and regulations already in the approved Pennsylvania SIP.

X

7. Evidence that the plan contains emission limitations, work practice standards and recordkeeping/reporting requirements, where necessary, to ensure emission levels.

7.  Evidence is shown that PADEP will do periodic emission inventory updates and analysis.  See also number six.

X

8. Compliance/enforcement strategies, including how compliance will be determined in practice.

8  PADEP will continue to monitor ambient air quality in Franklin County, and to review the emissions inventory.  If an exceedance or growth in the emissions inventory occurs, contingency measures will be triggered.

X

9. Special economic and technological justifications required by any applicable EPA policies. (If a policy is not appropriate, explain why.)

9.  N/A

X

10. A Section 107 request must be accompanied by a maintenance plan demonstrating maintenance to the relevant NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation.

10.  The Maintenance Plan was submitted to EPA Region III on December 14, 2006.  This plan demonstrates maintenance for 2006-2018.

X


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 63301]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25394]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13563-001]

Juneau Hydropower, Inc.; Notice of Draft License Application and
Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment (PDEA) and Request for
Preliminary Terms and Conditions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Major Unconstructed Project.
    b. Project No.: 13563-001.
    c. Date Filed: August 31, 2012.
    d. Applicant: Juneau Hydropower, Inc.
    e. Name of Project: Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: At the confluence of Sweetheart Creek and Gilbert Bay,
about 30 air miles and 33 nautical miles southeast of the City of
Juneau, Alaska. The project would occupy 1,882 acres of federal lands
within the Tongass National Forest, administered by the U.S. Forest
Service.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Duff Mitchell, Business Manager, Juneau
Hydropower, Inc., P.O. Box 22775, Juneau, AK 99802;<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Jennifer Harper,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Status of Project: With this notice the Commission is soliciting
(1) preliminary terms, conditions, and recommendations on the
Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment (PDEA), and (2) comments on
the Draft License Application (DLA).
    k. Deadline for filing: November 29, 2012.
    All comments on the PDEA and DLA should be sent to the addresses
noted above in Item (h), and filed with FERC. Comments may be filed
electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Web site 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>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659. Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic
filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an
original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    All comments must include the project name and number and bear the
heading Preliminary Comments, Preliminary Recommendations, Preliminary
Terms and Conditions, or Preliminary Prescriptions.
    l. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    Juneau Hydropower, Inc. has mailed a copy of the PDEA and DLA to
interested entities and parties. Copies of these documents are
available for review at the Juneau Public Library, 292 Marine Way,
Juneau, Alaska 99801; or at the Juneau Hydropower, Inc. Web site,
www.juneauhydro.com.
    m. With this notice, we are initiating consultation with the Alaska
State Historic Preservation Officer as required by Section 106,
National Historic Preservation Act, and the regulations of the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation, 36 CFR Sec.  800.4.

    Dated: October 10, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-25394 Filed 10-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 10, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30135-30139]
[FR Doc No: 2023-09879]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2021-N-0973]

Revocation of Three Authorizations of Emergency Use of In Vitro
Diagnostic Devices for Detection and/or Diagnosis of COVID-19;
Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
revocation of the Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) (the
Authorizations) issued to Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., for the
OmniPATH COVID-19 Total Antibody ELISA Test; Detect, Inc., for the
Detect Covid-19 Test; and Cepheid, for the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/
RSV. FDA revoked these Authorizations under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) as requested by each Authorization holder. The
revocations, which include an explanation of the reasons for each
revocation, are reprinted at the end of this document.

DATES: The Authorization for the Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.'s
OmniPATH COVID-19 Total Antibody ELISA Test is revoked as of April 13,
2023. The Authorization for the Detect, Inc.'s Detect Covid-19 Test is
revoked as of April 14, 2023. The Authorization for the Cepheid's Xpert
Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV is revoked as of April 17, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for a single copy of the revocations
to the Office of Policy, Center for Devices and Radiological Health,
Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm.
5431, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive
label to assist that office in processing your request or include a fax
number to which the revocations may be sent. See the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for electronic access to the revocations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Sapsford-Medintz, Office of
Product Evaluation and Quality, Center for Devices and Radiological
Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
66, Rm. 3216, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER> (this is not a
toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 564 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3) as amended by the
Project BioShield Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-276) and the Pandemic and
All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013 (Pub. L. 113-5)
allows FDA to strengthen the public health protections against
biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents. Among
other things, section 564 of the FD&C Act allows FDA to authorize the
use of an unapproved medical product or an unapproved use of an
approved medical product in certain situations. On October 2, 2020, FDA
issued the Authorization to Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., for the
OmniPATH COVID-19 Total Antibody ELISA Test, subject to the terms of
the Authorization. Notice of the issuance of this Authorization was
published in the Federal Register on April 23, 2021 (86 FR 21749), as
required by section 564(h)(1) of the FD&C Act. On October 28, 2021, FDA
issued the Authorization to Detect, Inc., for the Detect Covid-19 Test,
subject to the terms of the Authorization. Notice of the issuance of
this Authorization was published in the Federal Register on March 22,
2022 (87 FR 16198), as required by section 564(h)(1) of the FD&C Act.
On September 24, 2020, FDA issued the Authorization to Cepheid, for the
Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV, subject to the terms of the
Authorization. Notice of the issuance of this Authorization was
published in the Federal Register on April 23, 2021 (86 FR 21751), as
required by section 564(h)(1) of the FD&C Act. Subsequent updates to
the Authorizations were made available on FDA's website. The
authorization of a device for emergency use under section 564 of the
FD&C Act may, pursuant to section 564(g)(2) of the FD&C Act, be revoked
when the criteria under section 564(c) of the FD&C Act for issuance of
such authorization are no longer met (section 564(g)(2)(B) of the FD&C
Act), or other circumstances make such revocation appropriate to
protect the public health or safety (section 564(g)(2)(C) of the FD&C
Act).

II. Authorization Revocation Requests

    In a request received by FDA on April 10, 2023, Thermo Fisher
Scientific Inc., requested the withdrawal of, and on April 13, 2023,
FDA revoked, the Authorization for the Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.'s
OmniPATH COVID-19

Total Antibody ELISA Test. Because Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.,
notified FDA that it is no longer manufacturing or producing the
OmniPATH COVID-19 Total Antibody ELISA Test and requested FDA withdraw
the Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.'s, OmniPATH COVID-19 Total Antibody
ELISA Test, FDA has determined that it is appropriate to protect the
public health or safety to revoke this Authorization.
    In a request received by FDA on March 16, 2023, Detect, Inc.,
requested revocation of, and on April 14, 2023, FDA revoked, the
Authorization for the Detect, Inc.'s Detect Covid-19 Test. Because
Detect, Inc., indicated to FDA that as of February 1, 2023, there are
no viable/nonexpired Detect Covid-19 Tests in distribution in the
United States and requested FDA revoke the Authorization for the Detect
Covid-19 Test, FDA has determined that it is appropriate to protect the
public health or safety to revoke this Authorization.
    In a request received by FDA on March 7, 2023, Cepheid, requested
revocation of, and on April 17, 2023, FDA revoked, the Authorization
for the Cepheid's Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV. Because Cepheid,
indicated to FDA that they have stopped sales of the authorized product
and requested FDA revoke the Authorization for the Cepheid's Xpert
Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV, FDA has determined that it is appropriate to
protect the public health or safety to revoke this Authorization.

III. Electronic Access

    An electronic version of this document and the full text of the
revocations are available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov/.

IV. The Revocations

    Having concluded that the criteria for revocation of the
Authorizations under section 564(g)(2)(C) of the FD&C Act are met, FDA
has revoked the EUA of Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.'s OmniPATH COVID-
19 Total Antibody ELISA Test; Detect, Inc's Detect Covid-19 Test; and
of Cepheid's Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV. The revocations in their
entirety follow and provide an explanation of the reasons for each
revocation, as required by section 564(h)(1) of the FD&C Act.
BILLING CODE 4161-01-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10MY23.000

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10MY23.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10MY23.002

    Dated: May 4, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-09879 Filed 5-9-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4161-01-C


[Federal Register: July 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 147)]
[Notices]
[Page 44302-44303]
[DOCID:fr30jy08-115]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58216; File No. SR-ISE-2008-57]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Fee Waivers

July 23, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 17, 2008, International Securities Exchange, LLC (the ``ISE''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the
Exchange. The ISE filed the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of
the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the
proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The ISE is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees by adopting
additional fee waivers related to the execution on ISE of public
customer orders exposed to members before those orders are sent out for
execution on another exchange through the intermarket linkage
(``Linkage''). The text of the proposed rule change is available at the
Exchange, http://www.ise.com, and 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 self-regulatory organization
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 self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Before a Primary Market Maker (``PMM'') sends a customer order
through the Linkage when ISE is not at the national best bid or offer
(``NBBO''), the Exchange exposes these customer orders to all its
members to give them an opportunity to match the NBBO.\5\ This exposure
is intended to allow ISE to retain more flow by giving these customer
orders additional opportunity to be executed at the NBBO at ISE, which
also reduces PMM costs by reducing the number of Linkage orders they
must send to other exchanges on behalf of customer orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58038 (June 26,
2008), 73 FR 38261 (July 3, 2008) (SR-ISE-2008-50) (Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the
Exposure of Public Customer Orders to all ISE Members).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, before the PMM sends a Linkage Order on behalf of a
public customer, the public customer order is exposed at the NBBO price
for a period established by the Exchange not to exceed one second.
During this exposure period, Exchange members may enter responses up to
the size of the order being exposed in the regular trading increment
applicable to the option. If at the end of the exposure period, the
order is executable at the then-current NBBO and the ISE is not at the
then-current NBBO, the order is executed against responses that equal
or better the then-current NBBO. The exposure period is terminated if
the exposed order becomes executable on the ISE at the prevailing NBBO
or if the Exchange receives an unrelated order that could trade against
the exposed order at the prevailing NBBO price. If, after an order is
exposed, the order is not executed in full on the Exchange at the then-
current NBBO or better, and it

is marketable against the then-current NBBO, the PMM sends a Linkage
Order on the customer's behalf for the balance of the order as provided
in Rule 803(c)(2)(ii). If the balance of the order is not marketable
against the then-current NBBO, it is placed on the ISE book.
    ISE currently charges a customer fee in options on Premium Products
\6\ and in Second Market \7\ options; customer fees on all other
options are currently waived by the Exchange. To encourage ISE members
to respond to the exposure of these public customer orders, the
Exchange proposes to waive customer fees in options on Premium Products
and in Second Market options incurred by members who step up and match
or improve the NBBO during the exposure period so these public customer
orders can be executed on the Exchange.\8\ With this filing, the
Exchange is also proposing to clarify on its Schedule of Fees that the
fee waiver is applicable to orders exposed pursuant to Supplementary
Material .02 to ISE Rule 803 rather than to Linkage Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Premium Products is defined in the Schedule of Fees as the
products enumerated therein.
    \7\ See ISE Rule 900.
    \8\ ISE recently adopted fee waivers for Firm Proprietary, ISE
Market Maker and Payment for Order Flow fees incurred by members who
step up and match or improve the NBBO during the exposure period.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58164 (July 15, 2008), 73 FR
42638 (July 22, 2008) (SR-ISE-2008-56). This filing extends that
waiver to apply to customer orders in Premium Products and in Second
Market options. The Exchange represents that, since July 1, 2008,
the date SR-ISE-2008-56 was filed and became operative, no customer
orders have responded during the exposure period and thus, no
customer orders were deprived of the proposed fee waiver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the
requirement under Section 6(b)(4) that an exchange have an equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members
and other persons using its facilities. In particular, the proposed
rule change will allow ISE to retain more flow by giving these customer
orders additional opportunity to be executed at the NBBO at ISE and
will also reduce PMM costs by reducing the number of Linkage orders
they must send to other exchanges.

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

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 unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) thereunder,\10\ because it establishes or changes a due, fee,
or other charge imposed on members by ISE. Accordingly, the proposal is
effective upon filing with the Commission. At any time within 60 days
of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily
abrogate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2008-57 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-ISE-2008-57. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 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; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2008-57 and should be
submitted on or before August 20, 2008.

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-17411 Filed 7-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 210 (Friday, October 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 66898]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27732]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9023-7]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www2.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 10/19/2015 Through 10/23/2015
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: http://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-nepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20150295, Draft, NPS, REG, Revision of 9B Regulations Governing
Non-Federal Oil and Gas Activities, Comment Period Ends: 12/28/2015,
Contact: Michael B. Edwards<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150296, Final, FEMA, OR, Southern Flow Corridor Project,
Review Period Ends: 11/30/2015, Contact: Mark Eberlein<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150297, Final, USA, HI, Schofield Generating Station Project
U.S. Army Garrison-Hawaii, Review Period Ends: 11/30/2015, Contact:
Lisa Graham<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150298, Draft, USACE, MS, Proposed Port of Gulfport Expansion
Project, Comment Period Ends: 12/14/2015, Contact: Philip Hegji 251-
690-3222.
EIS No. 20150299, Final, NRC, WI, Construction Permit for the SHINE
Medical Radioisotope Production Facility, Final Report, NUREG-2183,
Review Period Ends: 11/30/2015, Contact: Michelle Moser<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150300, Draft, USACE, GA, Glades Reservoir Water Supply
Project, Comment Period Ends: 12/29/2015, Contact: Richard W. Morgan
912-652-5139.
EIS No. 20150301, Draft, USFWS, CA, Delta Research Station Project:
Estuarine Research Station and Fish Technology Center, Comment Period
Ends: 12/14/2015, Contact: Barbara Beggs<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150302, Draft, NPS, WY, Moose-Wilson Corridor Draft
Comprehensive Management Plan, Comment Period Ends: 12/29/2015,
Contact: Chris Church<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150303, Final, AFS, BLM, NV, Greater Sage Grouse Bi-State
Distinct Population Segment Forest Plan Amendment, Review Period Ends:
11/30/2015, Contact: James Winfrey<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 27, 2015.
Karin Leff,
Acting Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2015-27732 Filed 10-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P