[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 195 (Friday, October 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69874-69877]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24283]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79029; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-83]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing of
Partial Amendment No. 2 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Partial Amendment No. 2, To Amend
Rule 67--Equities Relating to the Tick Size Pilot Program

October 3, 2016.

I. Introduction

    On August 25, 2016, NYSE MKT LLC (``Exchange'' or ``NYSE MKT'')
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
(1) change system functionality to implement the Plan to Implement a
Tick Size Pilot Program (``Plan'' or ``Pilot'') \3\ submitted to the
Commission pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS \4\ under the Act,
(2) clarify the operation of certain exceptions to the Trade-at
Prohibition \5\ on Pilot Securities in the Test Group Three, (3) amend
the Limit Up/Limit Down (``LULD'' price controls set forth in Exchange
Rule 80C--Equities regarding the Regulation NMS Plan to Address
Extraordinary Market Volatility (``LULD Plan''),\6\ and (4) amend the
Exchange's Trading Collars calculation in Exchange Rule 1000-Equities.
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on September 15, 2016.\7\ The Commission received two comment
letters on the proposal.\8\ On September 27, 2016, the

Exchange filed Partial Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change
(``Amendment No. 1''). On September 30, 2016, the Exchange withdrew
Amendment No. 1 and filed Partial Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule
change (``Amendment No. 2'').\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74892 (May 6, 2015),
80 FR 27513 (May 13, 2015) (``Approval Order''). Unless otherwise
specified, capitalized terms used in this order are defined as set
forth in the Plan.
    \4\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \5\ Exchange Rule 67(e)(4)(A)--Equities defines the ``Trade-at
Prohibition'' to mean the prohibition against executions by a
Trading Center of a sell order for a Pilot Security at the price of
a Protected Bid or the execution of a buy order for a Pilot Security
at the price of a Protected Offer during regular trading hours. See
also Plan Section I(LL) and Plan Section VI(D).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012) (File No. 4-631).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78803 (September 9,
2016), 81 FR 63552.
    \8\ See Letters from Eric Swanson, EVP, General Counsel, Bats
Global Markets, Inc., Elizabeth K. King, General Counsel and
Corporate Secretary, New York Stock Exchange; and Thomas A. Wittman,
EVP, Global Head of Equities, Nasdaq, Inc., dated September 9, 2016
(``Comment Letter No. 1''); and Eric Swanson, EVP, General Counsel,
Bats Global Markets, Inc., dated September 12, 2016 (``Comment
Letter No. 2'').
    \9\ In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange proposes to: (1) Specify
that in all Pilot Securities, d-Quotes to buy (sell) would not
exercise discretion if (A) exercising discretion would result in an
execution equal to or higher (lower) than the price of a protected
offer (bid) or (B) the price of a protected bid (offer) is equal to
or higher (lower) than the filed price of the d-Quote; and (2)
correct cross references.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This order provides notice of Amendment No. 2 and approves the
proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 2, on an accelerated basis.

II. Description of the Amended Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 67--Equities to (1)
change system functionality to implement the Plan; (2) clarify the
operation of certain exceptions to the Trade-at Prohibition on Pilot
Securities in Test Group Three; (3) amend the LULD price controls set
forth in Exchange Rule 80C--Equities; and (4) amend the Exchange's
trading collar calculation set forth in Exchange Rule 1000 Equities.

A. Amendments to Exchange Systems Functionality To Implement the Plan

1. Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Orders \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See proposed Exchange Rule 67(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to accept Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Orders
(``TAISO'') in all securities, and that TAISOs must be designated as
immediate or cancel (``IOC''), may include a minimum trade size, and do
not route. The Exchange would immediately and automatically execute a
TAISO against the displayed and non-displayed bid (offer) up to its
full size in accordance with and to the extent provided by Exchange
Rules 1000--Equities--1004--Equities and will then sweep the Exchange's
book as provided in Rule 1000(e)(iii)--Equities. Any portion of the
TAISO that is not executed would be immediately and automatically
cancelled. The Exchange proposes to accept TAISOs before the Exchange
opens and they would be eligible to participate in the opening
transaction at its limit price. TAISOs would not be accepted during a
trading halt or pause for participation in a reopening transaction.
Finally, the Exchange would not allow TAISOs to be entered as e-Quotes,
d-Quotes, or g-Quotes.
2. Pilot Securities in Test Groups One, Two, and Three \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See proposed Exchange Rule 67(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes that references in Exchange rules to the
minimum price variation (``MPV'') would mean the quoting minimum price
variation specified in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of Exchange Rule
67.\12\ The Exchange proposes that pre-opening indications,\13\ would
be published in $0.05 pricing increments for Pilot Securities in Test
Groups One, Two, and Three.\14\ Mid-Point Passive Liquidity (``MPL'')
Orders, which are undisplayed limit orders that automatically execute
at the mid-point of the protected best bid (``PBB'') and the protected
best offer (``PBO''),\15\ must be entered with a limit price in a $0.05
pricing increment.\16\ Trading collars that are not in the trading MPV
for the security would be moved to the nearest price in the trading MPV
for the security.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See proposed Exchange Rule 67(f)(2)(A).
    \13\ Rule 15(a)--Equities provides that pre-opening indications
will include the security and the price range within which the
opening price is anticipated to occur and will be published via the
securities information processor and proprietary data feeds.
    \14\ See proposed Exchange Rule 67(f)(2)(B).
    \15\ See Rule 13(d)(1)(A)--Equities.
    \16\ See proposed Exchange Rule 67(f)(2)(C).
    \17\ See proposed Exchange Rule 67(f)(2)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Pilot Securities in Test Groups Two and Three \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See proposed Exchange Rule 67(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes that Retail Price Improvement Orders
(``RPI'') for Pilot Securities in Test Groups Two and Three must be
entered with a limit price and an offset in a $0.005 pricing increment.
4. Pilot Securities in Test Group Three \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See proposed Exchange Rule 67(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes procedures for handling, executing, re-
pricing and displaying of certain order types and order type
instructions applicable to Pilot Securities in Test Group Three.
a. Change in Priority \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See proposed Exchange Rule 67(f)(4)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes that an incoming automatically executing
order to sell (buy) will trade with displayable bids (offers) and route
to protected bids (offers) before trading with an unexecuted Market
Order held undisplayed at the same price. After trading or routing, or
both, any remaining balance of such an incoming automatically executing
order would satisfy any unexecuted Market Orders in time priority
before trading with non-displayable interest on parity.
b. ISOs \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See proposed Exchange Rule 67(f)(4)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes that, on entry, Day ISOs would be eligible
for the TAISO exception set forth in proposed Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(ix). In
addition, an IOC ISO to buy (sell) would not trade with non-displayed
interest to sell (buy) that is the same price as a protected offer
(bid) unless the limit price of such IOC ISO is higher (lower) than the
price of the protected offer (bid).
c. Non-Displayed Resting Orders \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See proposed Exchange Rule 67(f)(4)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes restrictions applicable to resting non-
displayed interest, i.e., a resting order to buy (sell) that is not
displayed at the price at which it is eligible to trade. Resting non-
displayed interest on the Exchange could include Non-Display Reserve
Orders,\23\ Non-Display Reserve e-Quotes,\24\ the reserve interest of
Minimum Display Reserve Orders and Minimum Display Reserve e-
Quotes,\25\ and pegging interest that is not displayed.\26\ The
proposed rule changes are intended to assure that these orders would
not price match a protected quotation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ A ``Non Displayed Reserve Order'' is a Limit Order that is
not displayed, but remains available for potential execution against
all incoming automatically executing orders until executed in full
or cancelled. See Rule 13(d)(1)(A)--Equities.
    \24\ See Rule 70(f)(ii)--Equities.
    \25\ A ``Minimum Display Reserve Order'' is a Limit Order that
will have a portion of the interest displayed when the order is or
becomes the Exchange BBO and a portion of the interest (``reserve
interest'') that is not displayed. See Rules 13(d)(2)(C)--Equities
and 70(f)(i)--Equities.
    \26\ See Rule 13(f)(1)(A)--Equities (Pegging interest includes
non-displayable interest to buy or sell at a price to track the
same-side PBBO). d-Quotes enable Floor brokers to enter
discretionary instructions as to the price at which the d-Quote may
trade and the number of shares to which the discretionary price
instructions apply. Executions of d-Quotes within a discretionary
pricing instruction range are considered non-displayable interest
for purposes of Rule 72--Equities. See Rule 70.25(a)(ii)--Equities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Exchange proposes that resting non-displayed interest to
buy (sell) would not trade at the price of a protected offer (bid).
Second, a resting non-displayed order to buy (sell) would not trade at
the price of a protected bid (offer) unless the incoming order to sell
(buy) is a TAISO, Day ISO, or IOC ISO that has a limit price lower
(higher) than the price of the non-displayed interest. Finally, the
Exchange proposes that resting non-displayed interest will be either
routed, cancelled, or re-priced, consistent with the terms of the
order.

d. Block Size Exception to the Trade-at Prohibition \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See proposed Exchange Rule 67(f)(4)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes that only buy and sell orders that are
entered into the Cross Function pursuant to Supplementary Material .10
to Rule 76--Equities and that satisfy the Block Size definition would
be eligible for the Block Size exception to the Trade-at Prohibition.
e. Self-Trade Prevention Modifiers \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See proposed Exchange Rule 67(f)(4)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes that incoming orders designated with a
specific self-trade prevention (``STP'') Modifier, STPN, would cancel
before routing or trading with non-displayed orders if the opposite-
side resting interest marked with an STP modifier with the same market
participant identifier (``MPID'') is a displayed order.
f. G-Quotes and Buy Minus/Zero Plus Orders \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See proposed Exchange Rule 67(f)(4)(G).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to reject g-Quotes and Buy Minus/Zero Plus
Orders.
5. d-Quotes \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See proposed Exchange Rule 67(f)(5). See also Amendment No.
2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes that in all Pilot Securities, d-Quotes to buy
(sell) would not exercise discretion if (i) exercising discretion would
result in an execution equal to or higher (lower) than the price of a
protected offer (bid), or (ii) the price of a protected bid (offer) is
equal to or higher (lower) than the filed price of the d-Quote.

B. Operation of Certain Exceptions to the Trade-at Prohibition on Pilot
Securities in Test Group Three

1. TAISOs \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See proposed Exchange Rule 67(a)(1)(D) and proposed
Exchange Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(x).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to add the phrase ``or Intermarket Sweep
Orders'' to the definition of TAISO as well as to the TAISO exception
to the Trade-at Prohibition to clarify that ISOs may be routed to
execute against the full displayed size of the Protected Quotation that
was traded at.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The Exchange also proposes to add the word ``display'' to
Exchange Rule 67(a)(1)(D) to correct a previous omission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Block Size Exemption to Trade-at Prohibition \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See proposed Exchange Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Block Size exception to the
Trade-at Prohibition to allow execution on multiple Trading Centers to
comply with Regulation NMS.

C. LULD Price Bands

    The Exchange proposes to add a new subsection (8) to Rule 80C(a)--
Equities that would specify that, after the Exchange opens or reopens
an Exchange-listed security but before receiving Price Bands from the
Securities Information Processor (``SIP'') under the LULD Plan, the
Exchange would calculate Price Bands based on the first Reference Price
provided to the SIP and, if such Price Bands are not in the MPV for the
security, round such Price Bands to the nearest price at the applicable
MPV.

D. Trading Collars Rounding \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See proposed Exchange Rule 1000--Equities (c)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes that Trading Collars for both buy and sell
orders that are not in the MPV for the security would be rounded down
to the nearest price at the applicable MPV.

III. Summary of Comment Letters

    Both comment letters express support for the proposed rule change
and suggest that the Commission should approve the proposal. In Comment
Letter No. 1, the commenters stated that if the proposal is approved as
proposed, then NYSE would be able to meet the October 3, 2016
implementation date. Further, in Comment Letter No. 1, the commenters
stated their belief that the requirements from the Commission have been
unclear. In Comment Letter No. 2, the commenter questioned Commission
staff's authority.

IV. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    After careful review of the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 2, and the comment letters, the Commission finds that the
proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 2, is consistent with the
requirements of the Act, Rule 608 of Regulation NMS,\35\ and the rules
and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities
exchange.\36\ Specifically, the Commission finds that the rule change
is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires that the
rules of a national securities exchange be designed, among other
things, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and to protect investors and the public interest; and
are not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \36\ In approving this rule change, the Commission has
considered the rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in the Approval Order, the Plan is by design, an
objective, data-driven test to evaluate how a wider tick size would
impact trading, liquidity, and market quality of securities of smaller
capitalization companies. In addition, the Plan is designed with three
Test Groups and a Control Group, to allow analysis and comparison of
incremental market structure changes on the Pilot Securities and is
designed to produce empirical data that could inform future policy
decisions. As such, any proposed changes targeted at particular Test
Groups during the Pilot Period should be necessary for compliance with
the Plan.
    The Exchange proposes changes to modify how the Exchange will
handle orders during the Pilot Period. Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to accept TAISOs in all securities. In addition, the Exchange
proposes to make changes to d-Quotes for all Pilot Securities by
limiting instances when d-Quotes would exercise discretion.\37\
Further, for Pilot Securities in the Test Groups, the Exchange proposes
to specify references to the MPV, provide that pre-opening indications
would be published in $0.05 increments, require that MPL Orders with a
limit price must be entered in a $0.05 increment, and clarify how
Trading Collars that are not in the trading MPV would be handled. The
Exchange also proposes to specify that Retail Price Improvement Orders
must be entered with a limit price and an offset in a $0.005 pricing
increment in Test Groups Two and Three.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Amendment No. 2. The Exchange originally proposed to
limit d-Quotes from exercising discretion only in Test Group Three.
In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange proposes to apply the proposed
limitation of discretion to all Pilot Securities. The Commission
believes that the amendment to apply the proposed changes to the
exercise of discretion by d-Quotes to all Pilot Securities modifies
the proposal so that it does not have an unnecessary disparate
impact on the different Test Groups and the Control Group. Thus, the
Commission believes that the Exchange's proposal is consistent with
the Pilot. The Exchange has committed to make the systems changes
necessary to implement Amendment No. 2 no later than November 7,
2016. See Email from Clare Saperstein, Exchange to Kelly Riley, SEC
date October 2, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes changes for Pilot Securities in Test Group
Three to comply with the Trade-at Prohibition, including a different
priority for execution of resting orders, how certain ISOs would be
handled in Test Group

Three, how resting non-displayed orders would trade, how order with a
STPN Modifier would be handled, and that g-Quotes and Buy Minus/Zero
Plus orders will be rejected. The Exchange also proposes to only permit
buy and sell orders that are entered into the Cross Function pursuant
to Supplementary Material .10 to Rule 76 to be eligible for the Block
Size order exception to the Trade-at Prohibition.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ The Commission notes that the orders entered into the Cross
Function for purposes of relying on the Block Size exception must
satisfy the provisions of the exception, including that it may not
be an aggregation of non-block orders, or broken into orders smaller
than Block Size prior to submitting the order the Trading Center for
execution. See Exchange Rule 67(e)(4)(C)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend provisions related to
two exceptions to the Trade-at Prohibition. First, the Exchange
proposes amend the TAISO definition to reflect that ISOs may be routed
to the full displayed size of a Protected Quotation that is traded-at
and to make the corresponding change to the specific trade-at
exception. Second, the Exchange proposes to amend the exception for
Block Size orders to allow an order of Block Size to be executed on
multiple Trading Centers.
    The Commission believes that these changes are reasonably designed
to comply with the Plan. Further, the Commission believes that the
proposed changes that are targeted at particular Test Groups are
necessary for compliance with the Plan. Accordingly, the Commission
finds that these changes are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
\39\ and Rule 608 of Regulation NMS \40\ because they implement the
Plan and clarify Exchange Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \40\ 17 CFR 242.608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange proposes to adopt a rule to specify how
the Exchange will calculate LULD Price Bands after the Exchange opens
or reopens. The Commission believes that this change should help to
ensure that trading does not occur outside of Price Bands when LULD is
in effect.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to specify that Trading Collars that
are not in the MPV would be rounded down to the nearest price. The
Commission believes that this change should provide clarity in the
Exchange's rules.
    For these reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and Rule 608 of Regulation NMS.

V. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment No. 2

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 2
is consistent with the Exchange 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-NYSEMKT-2016-83 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-NYSEMKT-2016-83. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
    Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549-1090, on official business days between the hours of 10:00
a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing will also 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-NYSEMKT-2016-83 and should
be submitted on or before October 28, 2016.

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

    The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, prior to the thirtieth day
after the date of publication of notice of Amendment No. 2 in the
Federal Register. As described above, the Exchange proposes to amend
its rules to comply with the Plan and clarify other rules related to
LULD and Trading Collars.
    The Commission believes that the proposals related to LULD Price
Bands and Trading Collars should provide clarity on instances where
they are not in the MPV. The Commission believes that the proposals
related to the Pilot are designed to ensure compliance with the Plan.
The Commission notes that the Pilot is scheduled to start on October 3,
2016, and accelerated approval would ensure that the rules of the
Exchange would be in place for the start of the Pilot. Accordingly, the
Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\41\ to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment
No. 2, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered that, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\42\ the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEMKT-2016-83), as modified by
Amendment No. 2, be and hereby is approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Id.
    \43\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\43\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-24283 Filed 10-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6496-6497]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01139]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL17-34-000]

Alcoa Corporation; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on December 22, 2016, pursuant to section
385.207(a)(4) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a) (2016),
and sections 366(b)(1), 366.3(d), and 366.4(b)(3) of Commission's
regulations under the Public Utility Holding Company Act of

2005 (PUHCA 2005), Alcoa Corporation (Petitioner) filed a petition for
declaratory order requesting that the Commission grant their petition
and declare them exempt from the Commission's regulations under PUHCA
2005, all as more fully explained in the petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceeding
must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. 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.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceeding are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also 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 February 2, 2017.

    Dated: January 12, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-01139 Filed 1-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 4, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62638-62641]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26266]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84667; File No. SR-ICEEU-2018-010]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice
of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Amendments to the ICE
Clear Europe CDS Risk Policy (the ``CDS Risk Policy''), CDS Clearing
Back-Testing Policy (the ``Back-Testing Policy'') and CDS Stress-
Testing Policy (the ``Stress-Testing Policy'') (Collectively, the ``CDS
Policies'')

November 28, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 13, 2018, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear Europe'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule changes described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by ICE Clear Europe. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    ICE Clear Europe proposes to modify and update certain provisions
of its risk policies related to CDS Contracts.

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, ICE Clear Europe 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. ICE Clear Europe has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

(a) Purpose
    ICE Clear Europe proposes to modify and update certain provisions
of its risk policies related to CDS Contracts.
CDS Risk Policy
    The proposed amendments to the CDS Risk Policy incorporate an
overall Board risk appetite and limit framework, on terms consistent
with other existing Clearing House policies, including the existing
Stress-Testing Policy. The framework contemplates use of Board-level
risk appetite statements, risk appetite metrics and management risk
limits, and is subject to review at least annually.
    The proposed amendments specifically address periodic reviews of
margin requirements and the related margin methodology and parameters.
Under the revised policy, the clearing risk department is required to
perform such a review at least monthly, consistent with applicable
legal requirements. The results of the monthly review will be presented
by the head of first line clearing risk to the Clearing House's Model
Oversight Committee (``MOC''). The head of first line clearing risk
reports to the President of ICE Clear Europe and manages ICE Clear
Europe's first line clearing risk team including default management,
liquidity risk, market risk and counterparty risk. At the end of each
quarter, the clearing risk department will share its monthly reviews
from the quarter with the Risk Oversight Department (``ROD''), which
performs a second-line review. The head of second line clearing risk
then will present the results of this quarterly review to the MOC. The
head of second line clearing risk is the Chief Risk Officer and reports
to the President and the senior independent director of ICE Clear
Europe. The amendments also clarify that proposed margin methodology
changes resulting from the review process are presented by the clearing
risk department to the Board for approval.
    The amendments specify in further detail the timing of back-testing
and stress-testing. Consistent with applicable law, these amendments
require that: (a) ICE Clear Europe's clearing risk department conduct
back-testing at least once each day using standard predetermined
parameters and assumptions; and (b) ICE Clear Europe conducts
sensitivity analyses of its margin models and review parameters and
assumptions for back-testing on at least a monthly basis, and more
frequently than monthly when the relevant products cleared or markets
served display high volatility or become less liquid or when the size
or concentration of positions held by Clearing Members increases or
decreases significantly.
    With respect to stress testing, the amendments require that the
clearing risk department conduct stress-testing at least once each day
using standard predetermined parameters and assumptions, which are
reviewed on at least a monthly basis and more frequently when the
relevant products cleared or markets served display high volatility or
become less liquid or when the size or concentration of positions held
by Clearing Members increases or decreases significantly.
    The proposed amendments also update certain details regarding
policy governance and reporting. The amendments specify that the models
used to support the policy objectives of the policy are subject to an
annual independent validation and governance oversight which may be
performed by an independent member of the ROD or an external validator.
The CDS Risk Policy owner, who is the CDS Risk Director and part of the
clearing risk department, is responsible for ensuring that the policy
remains up-to-date and is reviewed, with the support of the ROD. The
amendments further specify the role of the clearing risk department and
ROD with respect to policy adherence and the role of the Risk Working
Group (``RWG'') (which consists of risk personnel of Clearing Members,
and provides guidance on risk management matters, including review of
margin and stress testing parameters), Trading Advisory Committee
(``TAC'') (which advises on pricing processes) and MOC (which is
responsible for overall model risk management of the Clearing House,
and for oversight of the periodic reviews described above, as discussed
further below). The policy includes further detail as to the
composition and role of the RWG and MOC. The amendments also address
escalation and reporting of any deviations from the policy, as well as
compliance with regulatory reporting and filing requirements.
    Certain changes have also been made to update references to various
committees and departments of ICE Clear Europe, to correct
typographical and similar errors, to update cross-references, and to
remove an unnecessary reference to ICE Clear Credit.
Back-Testing Policy
    The proposed amendments to the Back-Testing Policy include the risk
appetite and limit framework also proposed to be included in the CDS
Risk Policy, as discussed above. The amendments also include the same
additional provisions relating to the timing of back-testing and
related sensitivity analysis discussed above in the context of the CDS
Risk Policy. In addition, the amendments clarify the meaning of certain
confidence levels

used in the back-testing process, as levels representing the confidence
to which models are expected to perform. The amendments also remove a
reference to the 99% quantile used before EMIR implementation. In the
guidelines relating to remediation of poor back-testing, the amendments
state explicitly that portfolio back-testing is done using a confidence
level of 99.5% or higher.
    As with the amendments to the CDS Risk Policy, the amendments
update the provisions regarding policy governance and reporting. The
Back-Testing Policy specifies that the models used to support the
objectives of the policy are subject to an annual independent
validation and governance oversight which may be performed by an
independent member of the ROD or an external validator. The Back-
Testing Policy owner, who is the CDS Risk Director and part of the
clearing risk department, is responsible for ensuring that it remains
up-to-date and is reviewed, with the support of the ROD. The clearing
risk department, with the support of the ROD, is responsible for
adherence to the policy and relevant appetite metrics. The amendments
also address escalation and reporting of any deviations from the
policy, as well as compliance with regulatory reporting and filing
requirements.
    Various other changes have also been made to update references to
various committees and departments of ICE Clear Europe, to correct
typographical and similar errors and to update cross-references.
Stress-Testing Policy
    The Stress-Testing Policy is being amended to include the same
provisions relating to the timing of stress testing discussed above in
the context of the CDS Risk Policy. Other changes to the Stress-Testing
Policy are made to reflect the role of the Board Risk Committee, in
addition to the CDS Risk Committee, in reviewing and overseeing stress-
testing, in order to ensure that both committees are sufficiently
informed to advise the Board on the safety and soundness of the risk
management approach and to provide a mechanism for management and the
committees to test the level of protection offered in potential
scenarios they believe are plausible.
(b) Statutory Basis
    ICE Clear Europe believes that the changes described herein are
consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \3\ and the
regulations thereunder applicable to it. Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act \4\ in particular requires, among other things, that the rules of
the clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent
applicable, derivative agreements, contracts and transactions, to
assure the safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody or
control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible and the
protection of investors, and, in general, protect investors and the
public interest. The proposed amendments are designed to modify key CDS
risk management policies to state more clearly certain risk management
requirements for CDS Contracts, including the timing of periodic review
of margin requirements and related risk parameters, stress-testing and
back-testing. The amendments also adopt various enhancements to the
review and governance processes for those policies. In ICE Clear
Europe's view, the amendments will enhance overall risk management of
the Clearing House, and thereby promote the prompt and accurate
clearance of transactions and further the public interest in sound
operation of clearing agencies, within the meaning of Section
17A(b)(3)(F).\5\ The amendments are not intended to effect, and are
thus consistent with, the Clearing House's existing provisions relating
to the safeguarding of funds and securities in the custody or control
of the Clearing House or for which it is responsible, within the
meaning of that section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICE Clear Europe also believes that the amendments are consistent
with specific requirements of Rule 17Ad-22.\6\ Rules 17Ad-
22(e)(4)(vi)(A) \7\ and (e)(6)(vi)(A) \8\ require clearing agencies to
implement reasonably designed policies and procedures to conduct
stress-testing of their total financial resources and back-testing of
their margin model at least once each day using standard predetermined
parameters and assumptions. In compliance with these requirements,
proposed amendments to the CDS Policies specify that ICE Clear Europe
must conduct stress-testing of its total financial resources and back-
testing of its margin model at least once each day using all standard
predetermined parameters and assumptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(vi)(A). The rule states that
``[e]ach covered clearing agency shall establish, implement,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to, as applicable:
    (4) Effectively identify, measure, monitor, and manage its
credit exposures to participants and those arising from its payment,
clearing, and settlement processes, including by:
    (vi) Testing the sufficiency of its total financial resources
available to meet the minimum financial resource requirements under
paragraphs (e)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section, as applicable,
by:
    A. Conducting stress testing of its total financial resources
once each day using standard predetermined parameters and
assumptions''.
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi)(A). The rule states that
``[e]ach covered clearing agency shall establish, implement,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to, as applicable:
    (6) Cover, if the covered clearing agency provides central
counterparty services, its credit exposures to its participants by
establishing a risk-based margin system that, at a minimum:
    (vi) Is monitored by management on an ongoing basis and is
regularly reviewed, tested, and verified by:
    A. Conducting backtests of its margin model at least once each
day using standard predetermined parameters and assumptions''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2),\9\ clearing agencies must have
policies and procedures reasonably designed to review their margin
models and parameters at least monthly. The proposed amendments to the
CDS Risk Policy are consistent with this requirement. Rules 17Ad-
22(e)(4)(vi)(B) \10\ and 17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi)(B) \11\ also require a
clearing

agency to have policies and procedures reasonably designed to review
its stress-testing scenarios, models, and underlying parameters and
assumptions, and its parameters and assumptions for back-testing its
margin model. The proposed amendments to the CDS Risk Policy, CDS Back-
Testing Policy and CDS Stress Testing Policy, as discussed above, are
consistent with these requirements, as they provide that reviews of the
margin requirements and the parameters and assumptions relating to
margin models, stress-testing and back-testing must be performed on at
least a monthly basis. As a result, ICE Clear Europe believes that
these amendments to the CDS Policies are in compliance with Rules 17Ad-
22(b)(2),\12\ 17Ad-22(e)(4)(vi)(B) \13\ and 17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi)(B).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2). The rule states that ``[a]
registered clearing agency that performs central counterparty
services shall establish, implement, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to:
    (2) Use margin requirements to limit its credit exposures to
participants under normal market conditions and use risk-based
models and parameters to set margin requirements and review such
margin requirements and the related risk-based models and parameters
at least monthly.''
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(vi)(B). The rule states that
``[e]ach covered clearing agency shall establish, implement,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to, as applicable:
    (4) Effectively identify, measure, monitor, and manage its
credit exposures to participants and those arising from its payment,
clearing, and settlement processes, including by:
    (iv) Testing the sufficiency of its total financial resources
available to meet the minimum financial resource requirements under
paragraphs (e)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section, as applicable,
by:
    B. Conducting a comprehensive analysis on at least a monthly
basis of the existing stress-testing scenarios, models, and
underlying parameters and assumptions, and considering modifications
to ensure they are appropriate for determining the covered clearing
agency's required level of default protection in light of current
and evolving market conditions''.
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi)(B). The rule states that
``[e]ach covered clearing agency shall establish, implement,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to, as applicable:
    (6) Cover, if the covered clearing agency provides central
counterparty services, its credit exposures to its participants by
establishing a risk-based margin system that, at a minimum:
    (vi) Is monitored by management on an ongoing basis and is
regularly reviewed, tested, and verified by:
    B. Conducting a sensitivity analysis of its margin model and a
review of its parameters and assumptions for backtesting on at least
a monthly basis, and considering modifications to ensure the
backtesting practices are appropriate for determining the adequacy
of the covered clearing agency's margin resources''.
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(vi)(B).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rules 17Ad-22(e)(4)(vi)(C) \15\ and 17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi)(C) \16\
require clearing agencies to review parameters and assumptions more
frequently than monthly when the products cleared or markets served
display high volatility or become less liquid or when the size or
concentration of positions held by their participants increases
significantly. In compliance with this requirement, the proposed
amendments to the CDS Policies specifically require that reviews of
parameters and assumptions underlying margin models, stress-testing and
back-testing must be performed more frequently when the relevant
products display high volatility or become less liquid or when the size
or concentration of positions held by Clearing Members increases or
decreases significantly. Further, Rules 17Ad-22(e)(4)(vi)(D) \17\ and
17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi)(D) \18\ require clearing agencies to report the
results of the reviews conducted pursuant to Rules 17Ad-22(e)(4)(vi)(B)
and (C) \19\ as well as 17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi)(B) and (C) \20\ to
appropriate decision makers, including but not limited to the board or
the risk management committee. In compliance with this requirement, as
noted above, at the end of each quarter, the clearing risk department
shares its monthly reviews for that quarter with the ROD which performs
a second-line review and the head of second line clearing risk presents
the results of its review to the MOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(vi)(C). The rule states that
``[e]ach covered clearing agency shall establish, implement,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to, as applicable:
    (4) Effectively identify, measure, monitor, and manage its
credit exposures to participants and those arising from its payment,
clearing, and settlement processes, including by:
    (vi) Testing the sufficiency of its total financial resources
available to meet the minimum financial resource requirements under
paragraphs (e)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section, as applicable,
by:
    C. Conducting a comprehensive analysis of stress testing
scenarios, models, and underlying parameters and assumptions more
frequently than monthly when the products cleared or markets served
display high volatility or become less liquid, or when the size or
concentration of positions held by the covered clearing agency's
participants increases significantly''.
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi)(C). The rule states that
``[e]ach covered clearing agency shall establish, implement,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to, as applicable: (6) Cover, if the covered clearing
agency provides central counterparty services, its credit exposures
to its participants by establishing a risk-based margin system that,
at a minimum:
    (vi) Is monitored by management on an ongoing basis and is
regularly reviewed, tested, and verified by:
    C. Conducting a sensitivity analysis of its margin model and a
review of its parameters and assumptions for backtesting more
frequently than monthly during periods of time when the products
cleared or markets served display high volatility or become less
liquid, or when the size or concentration of positions held by the
covered clearing agency's participants increases or decreases
significantly''.
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(vi)(D). The rule states that
``[e]ach covered clearing agency shall establish, implement,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to, as applicable: (4) Effectively identify, measure,
monitor, and manage its credit exposures to participants and those
arising from its payment, clearing, and settlement processes,
including by:
    (vi) Testing the sufficiency of its total financial resources
available to meet the minimum financial resource requirements under
paragraphs (e)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section, as applicable,
by:
    D. Reporting the results of its analyses under paragraphs
(e)(4)(vi)(B) and (C) of this section to appropriate decision makers
at the covered clearing agency, including but not limited to, its
risk management committee or board of directors, and using these
results to evaluate the adequacy of and adjust its margin
methodology, model parameters, models used to generate clearing or
guaranty fund requirements, and any other relevant aspects of its
credit risk management framework, in supporting compliance with the
minimum financial resources requirements set forth in paragraphs
(e)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section ''.
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi)(D). The rule states that
``[e]ach covered clearing agency shall establish, implement,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to, as applicable: (6) Cover, if the covered clearing
agency provides central counterparty services, its credit exposures
to its participants by establishing a risk-based margin system that,
at a minimum:
    (vi) Is monitored by management on an ongoing basis and is
regularly reviewed, tested, and verified by:
    D. Reporting the results of its analyses under paragraphs
(e)(6)(vi)(B) and (C) of this section to appropriate decision makers
at the covered clearing agency, including but not limited to, its
risk management committee or board of directors, and using these
results to evaluate the adequacy of and adjust its margin
methodology, model parameters, and any other relevant aspects of its
credit risk management framework''.
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(vi)(B) and (C).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi)(B) and (C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(b)(4) \21\ requires clearing agencies to perform an
annual model validation, including a performance evaluation, of their
margin models and the related parameters and assumptions. Rules 17Ad-
22(e)(4)(vii) \22\ and 17Ad-22(e)(6)(vii),\23\ also require clearing
agencies to have policies and procedures in place to ensure the
performance of a model validation of their credit risk models, margin
system, and related models not less than annually. In compliance with
these requirements, proposed amendments to the CDS Policies
specifically state that the models used to support their objectives are
subject to a validation that shall be performed on an annual basis by a
member of the ROD or an external validator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(4). The rule states that ``[a]
registered clearing agency that performs central counterparty
services shall establish, implement, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to:
    (4) Provide for an annual model validation consisting of
evaluating the performance of the clearing agency's margin models
and the related parameters and assumptions associated with such
models by a qualified person who is free from influence from the
persons responsible for the development or operation of the models
being validated''.
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(vii). The rule states that
``[e]ach covered clearing agency shall establish, implement,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to, as applicable:
    (4) Effectively identify, measure, monitor, and manage its
credit exposures to participants and those arising from its payment,
clearing, and settlement processes, including by:
    (vii) Performing a model validation for its credit risk models
not less than annually or more frequently as may be contemplated by
the covered clearing agency's risk management framework established
pursuant to paragraph (e)(3) of this section.''
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(vii). The rule states that
``[e]ach covered clearing agency shall establish, implement,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to, as applicable: (6) Cover, if the covered clearing
agency provides central counterparty services, its credit exposures
to its participants by establishing a risk-based margin system that,
at a minimum:
    (vii) Requires a model validation for the covered clearing
agency's margin system and related models to be performed not less
than annually, or more frequently as may be contemplated by the
covered clearing agency's risk management framework established
pursuant to paragraph (e)(3) of this section''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2) \24\ requires clearing agencies to establish
reasonably

designed policies and procedures to provide for governance arrangements
that are clear and transparent and specify clear and direct lines of
responsibility. To facilitate compliance with this requirement, the
proposed amendments to the CDS Policies more clearly define the roles
and responsibilities of the MOC, the RWG and the TAC and other
personnel with respect to ongoing review of the margin methodology,
stress testing and back-testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 240.17 Ad-22(e)(2). The rule states that ``[e]ach
covered clearing agency shall establish, implement, maintain and
enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to, as
applicable:
    (2) Provide for governance arrangements that:
    (i) Are clear and transparent
    (ii) Clearly prioritize the safety and efficiency of the covered
clearing agency;
    (iii) Support the public interest requirements in Section 17A of
the Act (15 U.S.C. 78q-1) applicable to clearing agencies, and the
objectives of owners and participants;
    (iv) Establish that the board of directors and senior management
have appropriate experience and skills to discharge their duties and
responsibilities;
    (v) Specify clear and direct lines of responsibility; and
    (vi) Consider the interests of participants' customers,
securities issuers and holders, and other relevant stakeholders of
the covered clearing agency''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed rule changes would
have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The amendments to
the CDS Policies apply to all CDS Contracts and are intended to
strengthen risk management relating to these products. ICE Clear Europe
does not believe the amendments will have any direct effect on Clearing
Members, other market participants or the market for cleared products
generally. As a result, ICE Clear Europe does not believe the
amendments will materially affect the cost of, or access to, clearing.
To the extent the amendments may have an impact on margin levels, ICE
Clear Europe believes such changes will be appropriate in furtherance
of the risk management of the Clearing House. Therefore, ICE Clear
Europe does not believe the proposed rule changes impose any burden on
competition that is inappropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act.

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

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule changes have not
been solicited or received. ICE Clear Europe will notify the Commission
of any written comments received by ICE Clear Europe.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-ICEEU-2018-010 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-ICEEU-2018-010. 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 ICE Clear Europe and on ICE
Clear Europe's website at https://www.theice.com/clear-europe/regulation. 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-ICEEU-2018-010 and should be
submitted on or before December 26, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-26266 Filed 12-3-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 6, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 84695-84696]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26706]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FAA-2023-2220; Airspace Docket No. 23-AWP-59]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Restricted Area R-2512 Holtville, CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects a final rule published by the FAA in the
Federal Register on November 16, 2023, that amends restricted area R-
2512 in the vicinity of Holtville, CA.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, January 25, 2024. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.10 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), all
comments received, the final rule, this final rule correction, and all
background material may be viewed online at www.regulations.gov using
the FAA Docket number. Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are
available on the website. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days
each year.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. You may also contact the Rules and
Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Roff, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register for Docket
No. FAA-2023-2220 (88 FR 78636; November 16, 2023), that amended
restricted area R-2512 in the vicinity of Holtville, CA. The section of
14 CFR part 73 to be amended by the final rule was incorrectly stated
as 73.22. The correct section of 14 CFR part 73 to be amended is 73.25.
This rule corrects this typographical error.

Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the
airspace amendment reflected in Docket No. FAA-2023-2220, as published
in the Federal Register of November 16, 2023 (88 FR 78636), FR Doc.
2023-25347, is corrected as follows:

Sec.  73.25   [Amended]

0
2. Section 73.25 is amended as follows:
* * * * *

R-2512 Holtville, CA [Amended]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 33[deg]05'00'' N, long.
115[deg]17'33'' W; to lat. 33[deg]00'00'' N, long. 115[deg]13'33'' W;
to lat. 32[deg]51'00'' N, long. 115[deg]05'33'' W; to lat.
32[deg]51'00'' N, long. 115[deg]17'03'' W; to lat. 32[deg]58'00'' N,
long. 115[deg]17'33'' W; to lat. 33[deg]05'00'' N, long.
115[deg]20'03'' W; to the point of beginning.
    Designated altitudes. Surface to 23,000 feet MSL.
    Time of designation. 0600-2300 local time daily; other times by
NOTAM 24 hours in advance.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Los Angeles ARTCC.

    Using Agency. U.S. Marine Corps, Commanding Officer, Marine Corps
Air Station Yuma, Yuma, AZ.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 30, 2023.
Karen Chiodini,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2023-26706 Filed 12-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 106)]
[Notices]
[Page 31454-31457]
[DOCID:fr02jn08-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF07-12-000]

Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Amended Notice of Intent To Prepare
an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Storage Factory Project,
Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public
Scoping Meetings and Site Visit

May 22, 2008.
    As previously noticed on January 18, 2008, and amended herein, the
staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission)
will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the
environmental impacts of the Storage Factory Project, involving
construction and operation of facilities by Dominion Transmission, Inc.
(Dominion) in Tioga County, Pennsylvania and Frederick County,
Maryland. The EA will be used by the Commission in its decisionmaking
process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience
and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of a third scoping period (due to
changes in the project design) that will be used to gather
environmental input from the public and interested agencies on the
project. Your input will help the Commission staff determine which
issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that the scoping
period will close on June 23, 2008.
    Comments may be submitted in written or verbal form. Further
details on how to submit written comments are provided in the Public
Participation section of this notice. In lieu of sending written
comments, you may choose to attend the public scoping meeting scheduled
as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Date and time                          Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, June 19, 2008, 7 p.m. to 9 p.m.   Jefferson Ruritan Center,
 (EDT).                                      Lander Road at Route 340,
                                             Jefferson, Maryland,
                                             Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice is being sent to landowners of property within 0.5 mile
of the planned Jefferson Compressor Station site; interested
stakeholders who attended the Open House held by Dominion on May 7,
2008 and provided their address; interested stakeholders of the
alternative compressor station site near Middletown; Federal, state,
and local government representatives and agencies; environmental and
public interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested
parties in this proceeding; and local libraries and newspapers. We \1\
encourage government representatives to notify their constituents of
this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of
concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``We'' ``us'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Office of Energy Projects, part of the Commission staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by a Dominion representative about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed project facilities. The
pipeline company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable
agreement. However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that
approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if
easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, Dominion could
initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need to Know?'' addresses a number
of typically-asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and
how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is available for
viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    On August 29, 2007 and January 18, 2008, we issued two separate
Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the
Proposed Storage Factory Project, Request for Comments on Environmental
Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings and Site Visit (NOI).
Since the January 18 NOI, Dominion has changed the preferred location
for its compressor station located in Frederick County, Maryland. The
current configuration of the planned facilities is detailed below.
    The Storage Factory Project would involve leaching two caverns in a
Pennsylvania salt formation for the storage of natural gas. The project
consists of constructing leaching/pumping facilities, a brine
processing facility, water and brine pipelines, and a new compressor
station for gas storage injection/withdrawal purposes in Tioga County,
Pennsylvania. Alternative water sources for leaching the caverns are
also being investigated. Dominion is also proposing piping upgrades to
its existing Sabinsville Storage Pool in Tioga County. In addition,
Dominion had originally proposed construction of a new 14,000-
horsepower compressor station located off Marker Road approximately 2
miles west of Middletown in Frederick County, Maryland. However, based
on the environmental issues which were identified during the scoping
process, Dominion determined that the Middletown location is no longer
preferred. Dominion is now evaluating construction of a new 15,000-
horsepower compressor station at a location about 2 miles west of
Jefferson, Maryland and bounded by Route 180 (Jefferson Pike), U.S.
Route 340, and Gene Hemp Road.
    Dominion anticipates filing an application with the FERC after
September 2008 and to seek the Commission's approval in time to begin
construction by August 2009, with a proposed in-service date for the
first storage cavern of August 2014.
    Project location maps are included in Appendix A.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of all appendices are
available on the Commission's Web site at the ``eLibrary'' link or
from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the ``Additional Information''
section of this notice. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail. Requests for detailed maps
of the proposed facilities should be made directly to Dominion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    The Storage Factory Project is in the preliminary planning stage.
The precise facility design, pipeline route, rights-of-way, compressor
station locations, and other details have not yet been finalized.
Specific information on the location of the various project elements
will be made available to the public when it is finalized.
    Construction of the planned project would affect a total of about
175.6 acres during construction. Following construction, about 80.5
acres would be allowed to revert to its previous conditions and uses.
Disturbance associated with aboveground facilities would permanently
impact approximately 49.5 acres of land. This includes the compressor
station which would be located on approximately 8 acres within a 13.5
acre site that Dominion is seeking to acquire near Jefferson in
Frederick County, Maryland. The land is currently used for agriculture.
    Dominion plans to construct the pipelines associated with the
Sabinsville Storage Pool in existing rights-of-way and would seek a
construction right-of-way width varying between 100 feet and 75 feet
for the pipelines associated with the leaching and gas storage areas in
Pennsylvania.

 The EA Process

    For this project, the FERC staff has initiated its National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review prior to receiving an
application. The purpose of the Commission's Pre-Filing Process is to
involve interested stakeholders early in project planning and to
identify and attempt to resolve issues before an application is filed
with the FERC. A docket number (PF07-12-000) has been established to
place information filed by Dominion, and related documents issued by
the Commission, into the public record. Once a formal application is
filed with the FERC, a new docket number will be established. The FERC
will be the lead federal agency for the preparation of the EA which
will satisfy the requirements of NEPA.
    NEPA requires the Commission to take into account the environmental
impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the
issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA
also requires us to discover and address concerns the public may have
about proposals. This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main
goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the
important environmental issues. By this Notice of Intent, we are
requesting public comments on the scope of the issues that should be
addressed in the EA. We will consider all comments received during
scoping in the preparation of the EA.
    Our independent analysis and evaluation of the issues will be
presented in the EA. The EA will also include possible alternatives to
the proposed project or portions of the project, and we will make
recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various
resource areas of concern. Depending on the comments received during
the scoping

process, the EA may be published and mailed to Federal, state, and
local agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest
groups; other interested parties; affected landowners; Native American
tribes; libraries and newspapers in the project area; and the
Commission's official service list for this proceeding. A 30-day
comment period will be allotted for review of the EA. We will consider
all comments submitted on the EA in any Commission Order that is issued
for the project.
    We are currently involved in discussions with other jurisdictional
agencies to identify their issues and concerns. These agencies include
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
Maryland Department of Natural Resources; Frederick County; and
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
    By this notice, we are asking these and other Federal, state, and
local agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect
to environmental issues to formally cooperate with us in the
preparation of the EA. Agencies that would like to request cooperating
status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided
below.

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    The EA will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the
construction and operation of the proposed project. We have already
identified several issues that we think deserve attention based on a
preliminary review of the entire project site (both Maryland and
Pennsylvania portions) and the facility information provided by
Dominion. This preliminary list of issues and potential impacts may
change based on your comments and our analysis.
     Impacts on perennial and intermittent streams and
waterbodies.
     Evaluation of temporary and permanent impacts on wetlands
and development of appropriate mitigation.
     Effect on federally and state-listed species.
     Impacts on existing land uses.
     Visual impacts of the aboveground facilities on
surrounding areas.
     Impacts on local air and noise quality associated with
construction and operation.
     Impacts on cultural resources.
     Impacts on groundwater.
     Public safety and potential hazards associated with the
transport of natural gas and the proposed compressor facilities.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. By becoming a commenter, your
concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission.
Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects of
the proposal, reasonable alternatives to the proposal (including
alternative locations and routes), and measures to avoid or lessen
environmental impact. The more specific your comments, the more useful
they will be. If you have already mailed comments in response to the
initial NOI for this project, your comments will still be considered
and you do not need to resubmit your comments. Please carefully follow
these instructions to ensure that your comments are received in time
and properly recorded:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426;
     Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas
Branch 1;
     Reference Docket No. PF07-12-000;
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before June 23, 2008.
    Please note that the Commission strongly encourages electronic
filing of any comments. See 18 Code of Federal Regulations
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Internet
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the link to ``Documents and
Filings'' and ``eFiling.'' eFiling is a file attachment process and
requires that you prepare your submission in the same manner as you
would if filing on paper, and save it to a file on your hard drive. New
eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on ``Sign up''
or ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you
are making. This filing is considered a ``Comment on Filing.'' In
addition, there is a ``Quick Comment'' option available, which is an
easy method for interested persons to submit text only comments on a
project. The Quick-Comment User Guide can be viewed at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/quick-comment-guide.pdf. Quick Comment
does not require a FERC eRegistration account; however, you will be
asked to provide a valid e-mail address. All comments submitted under
either eFiling or the Quick Comment option are placed in the public
record for the specified docket. If you want to be kept on our
environmental mailing list, you must provide an address along with your
comment.
    The public scoping meeting (date, time, and location is listed
above) is designed to provide state and local agencies, interested
groups, affected landowners, and the general public with another
opportunity to offer environmental comments on the project. Interested
groups and individuals are encouraged to attend the meeting and to
present comments on the environmental issues they believe should be
addressed in the EA. A transcript of the meeting will be made so that
your comments will be accurately recorded.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ We previously held a public scoping meeting on September 18,
2007, in Lawrenceville, Pennsylvania, to gather comments on
Dominion's planned facilities in Pennsylvania and on February 6,
2008, in Middletown, Maryland, to gather comments on siting
Dominion's planned compressor station near Middletown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All public meetings will be posted on the Commission's calendar
located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with
other related information.
    Once Dominion formally files its application with the Commission,
you may want to become an official party to the proceeding known as an
``intervenor.'' Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and
are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts
if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor
formally participates in a Commission proceeding by filing a request to
intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are included in the
User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web site.
Please note that you may not request intervenor status at this time;
you must wait until a formal application is filed with the Commission.

Site Visit

    On June 19, 2008, the Office of Energy Projects (OEP) staff will
visit the planned Jefferson Compressor Station site near Jefferson,
Maryland. Staff will tour this area by automobile and on foot.
Representatives of Dominion will accompany the OEP staff.
    All interested parties may attend the site visit. Those planning to
attend must provide their own transportation. If you are interested in
attending the site visit, please meet us at 12 p.m. EDT at the planned
Jefferson Compressor Station Site. The directions to the location of
the planned Jefferson Compressor Station are as follows:

From the East (Frederick, MD)

     Travel west on MD Route 340 to exit 8 (Jefferson--Lander
Road);

     Turn right on Lander Road and travel 0.2 miles north to MD
Route 180 (Jefferson Pike);
     Turn left on MD Route 180 (Jefferson Pike) and travel west
approximately 2 miles;
     Existing Dominion Jefferson Metering & Regulation Station
and planned project site on left.

From West (Harpers Ferry, WV)

     Travel east on MD Route 340 to exit 4 (MD Route 180--
Jefferson Pike);
     Turn left on MD Route 180 (Jefferson Pike) and travel east
approximately 0.8 miles;
     Existing Dominion Jefferson Metering & Regulation Station
and planned project site on right.
    For additional information, please contact the Commission's Office
of External Affairs at 1-866-208-FERC (3372).

Environmental Mailing List

    An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed project in Maryland. This includes all
landowners who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may
be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
distances defined in the Commission's regulations of certain
aboveground facilities. If you do not return the attached form
(appendix B), you will be removed from the Commission's environmental
mailing list. All individuals who provide written comments (if using
quick comment, you must supply an address), attend the scoping meeting,
or return the ``Keep on Mailing List Form'' will remain on our
environmental mailing list for this project.
    Any individual who participated in the prior scoping periods will
also remain on our mailing list and does not need to mail back the
enclosed ``Keep on Mailing List Form''. This includes those who already
have:
     Mailed comments to FERC;
     Mailed the ``Keep on the Mailing List Form''; or
     Attended the scoping meeting in Lawrenceville,
Pennsylvania on September 18, 2007, or the scoping meeting in
Middletown, Maryland on February 6, 2008.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at 1-866-208 FERC (3372) or on
the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov). Using the
``eLibrary'' link, select ``General Search'' from the eLibrary menu,
enter the selected date range and ``Docket Number'' excluding the last
three digits (i.e., PF07-12), and follow the instructions. For
assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at 1-
866-208-3676, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The
eLibrary link on the FERC Internet Web site also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Finally, Dominion has established an Internet Web site for this
project at http://www.dom.com/about/gas-transmission/storage/index.jsp.
The Web site includes a project overview, status, and answers to
frequently-asked questions. You can also request additional information
by calling Dominion at 1-888-882-5055.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-12140 Filed 5-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P