[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 66 (Monday, April 7, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18996]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07607]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0191]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Willamette River, Portland, OR

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Broadway Bridge across the
Willamette River, mile 11.7, at Portland, OR. The deviation is
necessary to accommodate the Portland Race for the Roses event. This
deviation allows the bridge to remain in the down or closed position to
facilitate safe movement of event participants.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 4:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. April
13, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2014-0191] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge
Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Multnomah County has requested that the
Broadway Bascule Bridge remain closed to vessel traffic to facilitate
safe, uninterrupted roadway passage of participants in the Portland
Race for the Roses event. The Broadway Bridge crosses the Willamette
River at mile 11.7 and provides 90 feet of vertical clearance above
Columbia River Datum 0.0 while in the closed position. Vessels able to
pass through the bridge in the closed positions may do so at anytime.
The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no
immediate alternate route for vessels to pass.
    Under normal conditions this bridge operates in accordance with 33
CFR 117.897, which allows for the bridge to remain closed between 7
a.m. and 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Friday and also
requires advance notification when a bridge opening is needed. This
deviation allows the bascule span of the Broadway Bridge across the
Willamette River, mile 11.7, to remain in the closed position and need
not open for maritime traffic from 4:30 a.m. April 13, 2014 to 9:30
a.m. April 13, 2014. The bridge shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR
117.897 at all other times.
    Waterway usage on this stretch of the Willamette River includes
vessels ranging from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft.
Mariners will be notified and kept informed of the bridges' operational
status via the Coast Guard Notice to Mariners publication and Broadcast
Notice to Mariners as appropriate. The bridge will be required to open,
if needed, for vessels engaged in emergency response operations during
this closure period.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: March 19, 2014.
Steven M. Fischer,
Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2014-07607 Filed 4-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 129 (Monday, July 6, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 40285]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14424]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 10674-017]

Kaukauna Utilities; Notice of Availability of Environmental
Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or
FERC) regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed the application for a new license for the Kimberly
Hydroelectric Project (project), located on the Lower Fox River near
the Village of Kimberly in Outagamie County, Wisconsin.
    The environmental assessment (EA) analyzes the potential
environmental effects of continuing to operate the project, and
concludes that issuing a new license for the project, with appropriate
environmental measures, would not constitute a major federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website 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. At this time, the Commission has suspended access to
Commission's Public Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a
National Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19),
issued by the President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at (866)-208-
3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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.
    Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this
notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please
file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support. Please
put docket number ``P-10674-017'' on the first page of your response.
    For further information, please contact Colleen Corballis by phone
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: June 29, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-14424 Filed 7-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 102 (Wednesday, May 27, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31812-31814]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11299]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2009-0035]

The Ethylene Oxide (EtO) Standard; Extension of the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection
(Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning the proposal to
extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the
information collection requirements

specified in the Ethylene Oxide (EtO) Standard.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
July 27, 2020.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal e-
Rulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit your comments and attachments
to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2009-0035, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-
3653, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries
(hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are accepted
during the Docket Office's normal business hours, 10:00 a.m. to 3:00
p.m., ET.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and the
OSHA docket number (OSHA-2009-0035) for the Information Collection
Request (ICR). All comments, including any personal information you
provide, such as social security number and date of birth, are placed
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at http://www.regulations.gov. For further information on submitting
comments see the ``Public Participation'' heading in the section of
this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the above address. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download from the website. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You also may contact Theda Kenney at
the below phone number to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney or Seleda Perryman,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of the continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information
is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal,
collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of
the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes
information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for
enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing information regarding the
causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and
accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires that OSHA obtain
such information with minimum burden upon employers, especially those
operating small businesses, and to reduce to the maximum extent
feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining information
(29 U.S.C. 657).
    The EtO Standard (29 CFR 1910.1047) specifies a number of paperwork
requirements. The following is a brief description of the collection of
information requirements contained in the standard.
    The information collection requirements specified in the Ethylene
Oxide Standard protect workers from the adverse health effects that may
result from occupational exposure to ethylene oxide. The principal
information collection requirements in the EtO Standard include
conducting worker exposure monitoring, notifying workers of the
exposure, implementing a written compliance program, and implementing
medical surveillance of workers. Also, the examining physician must
provide specific information to ensure that workers receive a copy of
their medical examination results. The employer must maintain exposure-
monitoring and medical records for specific periods, and provide access
to these records by OSHA, the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, the affected workers, and their authorized
representatives and other designated parties.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend the approval of the collection
of information (paperwork) requirements contained in the Ethylene Oxide
Standard. There is an overall adjustment increase in burden hours for
this ICR. The burden hours have increased a total of 3,377 hours (from
27,880 hours to 31,257 hours). The adjustment increase is primarily due
to estimated number of establishments covered by the standard.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Ethylene Oxide (EtO) Standard (29 CFR 1910.1047).
    OMB Number: 1218-0108.
    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits.
    Number of Respondents: 2,085.
    Frequency of Response: Initially, annually; on occasion.
    Total Responses: 112,016.
    Average Time per Response: Various.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 31,257.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $4,971,000.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
e-Rulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile; or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the agency name
and the OSHA docket number for this ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2009-0035).
You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you

must submit them to the OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this
notice titled ADDRESSES). The additional materials must clearly
identify your electronic comments by your name, date, and the docket
number so the agency can attach them to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as your social security number and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download from this
website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on
using the http://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments and
access the docket is available at the website's ``User Tips'' link.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not
available from the website, and for assistance in using the internet to
locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice.
    The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012
(77 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on May 19, 2020.
Loren Sweatt,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety
and Health.
[FR Doc. 2020-11299 Filed 5-26-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: May 28, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 101)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 25406-25408]
[DOCID:fr28my09-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 30667 Amdt. No 3222]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports.
These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or
revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National
Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient

use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations
under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective May 28, 2009. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of May 28, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:
    For Examination--
    1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located;
    3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur
Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_
federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    Availability--All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available
online free of charge. Visit http://www.nfdc.faa.gov to register.
Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may
be obtained from:
    1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harry J. Hodges, Flight Procedure
Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions,
Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma City,
OK. 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing,
amending, suspending, or revoking SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS.
The complete regulators description of each SIAP and its associated
Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form
documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5
U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The applicable FAA
Forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when
required by an entry on 8260-15A.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, in addition
to their complex nature and the need for a special format make
publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical.
Furthermore, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs,
Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their depiction on
charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. The advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on
FAA forms is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR
sections and specifies the types of SIAPs and the effective dates of
the, associated Takeoff Minimums and ODPs. This amendment also
identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the
amendment number.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as contained in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The
circumstances which created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums
and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30
days. For the remaining SIAPS and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPS and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedures before adopting these SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and
ODPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where
applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in
less than 30 days.

Conclusion

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and
Navigation (Air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 15, 2009.
John M. Allen,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code
of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and/or Obstacle Departure
Procedures effective at 0902 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120,
44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Effective 02 JUL 2009

Fairhope, AL, H L Sonny Callahan, RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Amdt 1
Fairhope, AL, H L Sonny Callahan, RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Amdt 1
Fairhope, AL, H L Sonny Callahan, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 6
Hamilton, AL, Marion County-Rankin Fite, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Orig
Hamilton, AL, Marion County-Rankin Fite, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig

Prescott, AZ, Ernest A. Love Field, RNAV (RNP) RWY 3R, Orig
Scottsdale, AZ, Scottsdale, RNAV (RNP) RWY 21, Orig
Scottsdale, AZ, Scottsdale, RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 3, Orig
Scottsdale, AZ, Scottsdale, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 3, Orig
Chico, CA, Chico Muni, GPS RWY 13L, Orig, B, CANCELLED
Chico, CA, Chico Muni, GPS RWY 31R, Orig-C, CANCELLED
Chico, CA, Chico Muni, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 13L, Amdt 11
Chico, CA, Chico Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13L, Orig
Chico, CA, Chico Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31R, Orig
San Diego/El Cajon, CA, Gillespie Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1
Santa Maria, CA, Santa Maria Pub/Capt G Allan Hancock Fld, RNAV
(GPS) RWY 30, Orig
Hayden, CO, Yampa Valley, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3
Titusville, FL, Space Coast Regional, ILS OR LOC RWY 36, Amdt 11
Titusville, FL, Space Coast Regional, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig
Titusville, FL, Space Coast Regional, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 9, Orig
Burlington, IA, Southeast Iowa Rgnl, VOR/DME RWY 12, Amdt 6
Evansville, IN, Evansville Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 8
Fort Wayne, IN, Fort Wayne Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 5, ILS RWY 5 (CAT
II), Amdt 15
Fort Wayne, IN, Fort Wayne Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 32, Amdt 29
Fort Wayne, IN, Fort Wayne Intl, LOC BC RWY 14, Amdt 14
Fort Wayne, IN, Fort Wayne Intl, RADAR-1, Amdt 25
Fort Wayne, IN, Fort Wayne Intl, VOR OR TACAN RWY 5, Amdt 20
Fort Wayne, IN, Fort Wayne Intl, VOR OR TACAN RWY 14, Amdt 17
Richmond, IN, Richmond Muni, ILS OR LOC RWY 24, Amdt 1
Richmond, IN, Richmond Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Orig
Richmond, IN, Richmond Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Orig
Richmond, IN, Richmond Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Richmond, IN, Richmond Muni, VOR RWY 6, Amdt 12
Richmond, IN, Richmond Muni, VOR RWY 24, Amdt 13
Richmond, IN, Richmond Muni, VOR RWY 33, Amdt 2
Topeka, KS, Forbes Field, GPS RWY 3, Orig, CANCELLED
Topeka, KS, Forbes Field, GPS RWY 21, Orig, CANCELLED
Topeka, KS, Forbes Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 3, Orig
Topeka, KS, Forbes Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 21, Orig
Topeka, KS, Forbes Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Reserve, LA, St John The Baptist Parish, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig
Hyannis, MA, Barnstable Muni Boardman/Polando Field, ILS OR LOC RWY
15, Amdt 4
Hyannis, MA, Barnstable Muni-Boardman/Polando Field, ILS OR LOC RWY
24, Amdt 18
Hyannis, MA, Barnstable Muni-Boardman/Polando Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY
15, Orig
Hyannis, MA, Barnstable Muni-Boardman/Polando Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY
24, Amdt 1
Lincoln, ME, Lincoln Regional, NDB RWY 17, Amdt 1
Lincoln, ME, Lincoln Regional, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig
Lincoln, ME, Lincoln Regional, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig
Lincoln, ME, Lincoln Regional, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 2
Presque Isle, ME, Northern Main Regional Arpt at Presque Is, ILS OR
LOC RWY 1, Amdt 6
Presque Isle, ME, Northern Main Regional Arpt at Presque Is, RNAV
(GPS) RWY 1, Amdt 1
Presque Isle, ME, Northern Main Regional Arpt at Presque Is, RNAV
(GPS) RWY 19, Orig
Presque Isle, ME, Northern Main Regional Arpt at Presque Is, RNAV
(GPS) RWY 28, Amdt 1
Presque Isle, ME, Northern Main Regional Arpt at Presque Is, RNAV
(GPS) Y RWY 1, Orig, CANCELLED
Kirksville, MO, Kirksville Rgnl, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 36, Amdt 1
Kirksville, MO, Kirksville Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 2
Kirksville, MO, Kirksville Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 2
Kirksville, MO, Kirksville Rgnl, VOR-A, Amdt 15
Kirksville, MO, Kirksville Rgnl, VOR/DME-B, Amdt 7
Gulfport, MS, Gulfport-Biloxi Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Amdt 1
Gulfport, MS, Gulfport-Biloxi Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1
Gulfport, MS, Gulfport-Biloxi Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Amdt 1
Gulfport, MS, Gulfport-Biloxi Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1
Gulfport, MS, Gulfport-Biloxi Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Amdt 6
Great Falls, MT, Great Falls Intl, VOR/DME RWY 3, Amdt 17
Kalispell, MT, Glacier Park Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 2, Amdt 6
Kalispell, MT, Glacier Park Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Amdt 1
Kalispell, MT, Glacier Park Intl, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 2, Amdt 2
Kalispell, MT, Glacier Park Intl, RNAV (RNP) RWY 20, Orig
Kalispell, MT, Glacier Park Intl, RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 2, Orig
Elizabethtown, NC, Curtis L Brown Jr Field, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Orig
Roxboro, NC, Person County, ILS OR LOC RWY 6, Amdt 1
Gwinner, ND, Gwinner-Roger Melroe Field, NDB RWY 34, Amdt 2
Gwinner, ND, Gwinner-Roger Melroe Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Amdt 2
Gwinner, ND, Gwinner-Roger Melroe Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Amdt 2
Gwinner, ND, Gwinner-Roger Melroe Field, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Orig
Columbus, NE, Columbus Muni, LOC/DME RWY 14, Amdt 8
Reno, NV, Reno/Stead, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 32, Orig
Shirley, NY, Brookhaven, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig
Tiffin, OH, Seneca County, GPS RWY 24, Orig-A, CANCELLED
Tiffin, OH, Seneca County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Orig
Tiffin, OH, Seneca County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Orig
Tiffin, OH, Seneca County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2
Tiffin, OH, Seneca County, VOR RWY 6, Amdt 9
Bend, OR, Bend Muni, BEND ONE Graphic Obstacle DP
Bend, OR, Bend Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 4
Pendleton, OR, Eastern Oregon Regional at Pendleton, ILS OR LOC/DME
RWY 25, Amdt 25
Pendleton, OR, Eastern Oregon Regional at Pendleton, RNAV (GPS) RWY
7, Orig
Pendleton, OR, Eastern Oregon Regional at Pendleton, RNAV (GPS) RWY
11, Orig
Pendleton, OR, Eastern Oregon Regional at Pendleton, RNAV (GPS) RWY
25, Orig
Pendleton, OR, Eastern Oregon Regional at Pendleton, RNAV (GPS) RWY
29, Orig
Pendleton, OR, Eastern Oregon Regional at Pendleton, Takeoff
Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3
Pendleton, OR, Eastern Oregon Regional at Pendleton, VOR RWY 7, Amdt
15
Harrisburg, PA, Harrisburg Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Amdt 1
Harrisburg, PA, Harrisburg Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 1
Tower City, PA, Bendigo, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Pawtucket, RI, North Central State, GPS RWY 5, Orig, CANCELLED
Pawtucket, RI, North Central State, LOC RWY 5, Amdt 6
Pawtucket, RI, North Central State, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig
Pawtucket, RI, North Central State, VOR-A, Amdt 7
Pawtucket, RI, North Central State, VOR-B, Amdt 7
Heber City, UT, Heber City Muni-Russ McDonald Field, RNAV (GPS)-A,
Amdt 1
Leesburg, VA, Leesburg Executive, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 1
Barre/Montpelier, VT, Edward F. Knapp State, ILS OR LOC RWY 17, Amdt
6
Barre/Montpelier, VT, Edward F. Knapp State, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig
Beckley, WV, Raleigh County Memorial, VOR RWY 10, Amdt 13
Morgantown, WV, Morgantown Muni-Walter L. Bill Hart Field, RNAV
(GPS) Y RWY 18, Orig
Morgantown, WV, Morgantown Muni-Walter L. Bill Hart Field, RNAV
(GPS) Z RWY 18, Orig

[FR Doc. E9-12140 Filed 5-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21318-21319]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09884]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 17g-7, SEC File No. 270-563, OMB Control No. 3235-0656.

    ** This corrected notice replaces the notice published on May 2,
2018 in the Federal Register Vol. 83, No. 85, page 19370.
    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
previously approved collection of information provided for in Rule 17g-
7 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 17 CFR 240.17g-1 and 17 CFR 249b.300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17g-7 contains disclosure requirements for Nationally
Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations (``NRSROs'') including
certain information to be published when taking a rating action with
respect to a credit rating. Currently, there are 10 credit rating
agencies registered as NRSROs with the Commission. The Commission
estimates that the total burden for respondents to comply with Rule
17g-7 is 695,797 hours.

    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a
valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
    Background documentation for this information collection may be
viewed at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Comments should be
directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
[email protected]; and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F St. NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
[email protected]. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days
of this notice.

    Dated: May 4, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-09884 Filed 5-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE: 11/21/14

FROM: 		Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4

TO:CLEAN POWER PLAN FOR EXISTING POWER PLANTS; DOCKET ID: OAR - 2013-0602

SUBJECT:DISCUSSION OF THE CLEAN POWER Plan with Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality

SUMMARY:
REGION 4 PROVIDED INFORMATION ON THE CLEAN POWER PLAN to the Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality on August 6, 2014.  The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was
proposed on June 2, 2014.
ATTENDEES:

EPA
Beverly Banister/EPA R4
Ken Mitchell/EPA R4
Carol Kemker/EPA R4
Gregg Worley/EPA R4
Lora Strine/EPA OAQPS
Kevin Culligan/EPA OAQPS
Erich Eshmann/EPA OAP
Denise Mullholand/EPA OAP
Beth Conlin/EPA OAP

External Stakeholders
Maya Rao/MS DEQ
Elliott Bickerstaff/MS DEQ
Chad LaFontaine/MS DEQ

ATTACHMENT

Advance Questions for Discussion of the Clean Power Plan with Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality on 8/6/14

   1. Would like EPA to walk us through the calculations of  getting  the 1140 lbs CO2/MWH (2012) as well as the building blocks that take us to the MS goal of 692 lbs CO2/MWh.
      Also, we understand that EPA has had some model runs to meet the state goals. We would like to see the output files in an understandable format and be walked through the modeled compliance scenario.

   2. Why did EPA choose the average of 10 year timeline, instead of a goal at 2030. It is impossible to put a thoughtful cost effective plan and get huge  reductions in early 2020. . Adding renewables/nuclear to the energy mix would take time .  Also there are   existing fuel contracts, several investments into complying with MATs, etc.  A longer time frame would reduce these stranded costs. We believe, the intermediate goals are artificial deadlines, with no advantage to achieving meaningful GHG reductions.

   3. We would like to see the calculations on a mass basis also and what the numbers look like for MS in 2005, 2012, 2020 and 2030. Can the region provide this?

   4. Due to the extremely narrow timeframe provided, we feel it necessary to try and develop a feasible and achievable plan forward for MS. In order to do so, the first item would be a re-evaluation of the goal established for MS. It is not possible for us to build a plan, when the goal is not realistic. MS has zero flexibility. We  have to meet  all the four building Blocks, in fact the first block is eliminated for MS, because all our capacity has to be switched from coal to NGCC. Do you see this a realistic path forward.

   5. EPA should not use a single year's power generation to set a base for establishing the goal. Especially the year 2012 had unique circumstances for MS. We need to evaluate a different timeframe.

   6. EPA has taken credit for CO2 emission reductions since 2005. However, states only get credit for reductions after 2012. The States who were proactive, did not get any credit for activities done from 2005 to 2012. In fact MS rates went from about 1800 to 1200 lbs of CO2/MWH from 2005 to 2012.

   7. Questions about Nuclear Generation.  -  How would we get credit for an uprate done in 2012 to meet the proposed goal? Can we get credit  fornew generation were added in the future?

   8. For some states like MS, the 111(d) standard  is way more stringent than 111(b).   EPA should not make it, more stringent that 111(b).

   9. The Renewables energy calculations are confusing. In our goal, EPA expects an increase of 262% from 1.5 Million MWH to 5.5 Million MWH. In the alternative  RE calculations our technical potential it is about2.5 Million MWH which is significantly less than that in the proposal. Also has EPA considered a cost/ton of CO2 reduction for different states. For ex, for MS, the Solar capacity factor is about 20%. For western states , the capacity factor may be much higher which would make solar more expensive and less feasible than in those states. Is that taken into account in setting the RE goals.

   10. Energy Efficiency  -  The verification methods for credits due to implementing EE measure toward a rate basis goal could be extremely laborious and draining on state resources if included under a mandated 111(d) SIP.   What guidance/resources is EPA willing to provide in EE plan development and compliance monitoring?

   11. All the goals are based on an annual average. During periods of extreme cold/hot weather, units operate at a much higher capacity. This model would  give us serious concerns over reliability issues at these times. During the ECOS STEPs meeting, FERC was very hesitant about the reliability, because they said that they had not looked at the 50 State Plans.

   12. Lastly we do not believe the proposal fits within the constraints of 111d  based on the fact that the four building block approach is not BSER for fossil fired EGUs. We believe incorporating elements of power generation and power usage to establish emission guidelines are beyond the scope of what should be expected in a 111(d) state plan.

   13. This rule is extremely complicated, resource intensive and not legally defensible. It seems like a waste of resources if the courts overturn or remand the final rule. Will EPA consider increasing the timelines for compliance so that we can prepare better and plan the resources accordingly.

   14. If states are not able to do timely SIPs, what would a FIP look like?


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 130 (Friday, July 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40133-40136]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16521]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67317; File No. SR-NYSE-2012-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1
Thereto, (1) Amending Rule 13 To Establish New Order Types, (2)
Amending Rule 115A To Delete Obsolete Text and To Clarify and Update
the Description of The Allocation of Market and Limit Interest in
Opening and Reopening Transactions, (3) Amending Rule 123C To Include
Better-Priced G Orders in The Allocation of Orders in Closing
Transactions, and (4) Making Other Technical and Conforming Changes

June 29, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that on June 15, 2012, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``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 prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. On June 27, 2012, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to
the proposed rule change. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to (1) amend Rule 13 to establish new order
types, (2) amend Rule 115A to delete obsolete text and to clarify and
update the description of the allocation of market and limit interest
in opening and reopening transactions, (3) amend Rule 123C to include
better-priced G orders in the allocation of orders in closing
transactions, and (4) make other technical and conforming changes. The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to (1) amend Rule 13 to establish new order
types, (2) amend Rule 115A to delete obsolete text and to clarify and
update the description of the allocation of market and limit interest
in opening and reopening transactions, (3) amend Rule 123C to include
better-priced G orders \4\ in the allocation of orders in closing
transactions, and (4) make other technical and conforming changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A G order is a proprietary order represented pursuant to
Section 11(a)(1)(G) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act''). Section 11(a)(1) of the Act generally prohibits a member
of a national securities exchange from effecting transactions on
that exchange for its own account, the account of an associated
person, or any account over which it or an associated person
exercises discretion. See 15 U.S.C. 78k(a)(1). Subsection (G) of
Section 11(a)(1) provides an exemption allowing an exchange member
to have its own floor broker execute a proprietary transaction (``G
order''). A g-Quote is an electronic method for Floor brokers to
represent G orders. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 13 to define
a ``G order'' as the term is currently used in Rule 123C(7), and the
Exchange proposes to add it to Rule 115A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 13 Order Type Amendments
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 13 to delete the At the Opening
and At the Opening Only order types \5\ and replace them with Market
``On-the-Open'' (``MOO'') and Limit ``On-the-Open'' (``LOO'') order
types, terminologies commonly used by other exchanges \6\ and
variations of the Market ``At-The-Close'' (``MOC'') and Limit ``At-The-
Close'' (``LOC'') order types already offered by the Exchange.\7\ Under
current Rule 13, At the Opening and At the Opening Only orders can
execute after the security opens on a quote, which is why the current
definition includes provisions relating to routing such interest to an
away market. The Exchange wishes to preclude such interest from
executing after opening on a quote, or routing to an away market, and
as such, the new MOO and LOO order definitions would specifically
provide that such order types automatically cancel if the security
opens either on a quote or a trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Under current Rule 13, these orders are market or limited
price orders that are to be executed on the opening trade of the
stock on the Exchange or, if the Exchange opens the stock on a
quote, the opening trade in the stock on another market center to
which such order or part thereof has been routed in compliance with
Regulation NMS; any such order or portion thereof not so executed is
treated as cancelled. An At the Opening or At the Opening Only order
that seeks the possibility of an NYSE-only opening execution must be
marked as a Regulation NMS-compliant Immediate or Cancel (``IOC'')
order. An order so marked, or part thereof, is immediately and
automatically cancelled if it is not executed on the opening trade
of the stock on the Exchange or compliance with Regulation NMS
requires all or part of such order to be routed to another market
center.
    \6\ See, e.g., NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.31(t)(1) and (2);
NASDAQ Rule 4752(a)(3) and (4); and BATS Exchange Rule 11.23(a)(14)
and (16).
    \7\ See Rule 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A MOO would be defined as a market order in a security that is to
be executed in its entirety on the opening or reopening trade of the
security on the Exchange; it would be immediately and automatically
cancelled if the security opened on a quote or if it were not executed
due to tick restrictions. A LOO order would be defined as a limit order
in a security that is to be executed on the opening or reopening trade
of the security on the Exchange. A LOO order, or a part thereof, would
immediately and automatically cancel if by its terms it were not
marketable at the opening price, if it were not executed on the opening
trade of the security on the Exchange, or if the security opened on a
quote. Both MOO and LOO orders could be entered before the open to
participate on the opening trade or during a trading halt or pause to
participate on a reopening trade.
    The Exchange also proposes to add a new paragraph (c) in the
definition of IOC orders to provide for a new order type, an IOC-
Minimum Trade Size (``MTS'') order (``IOC-MTS order''), which would be
defined as any IOC order, including an intermarket sweep order, that
includes an MTS instruction.\8\ For each incoming IOC-MTS order,
Exchange systems would evaluate whether contra-side displayable and
non-displayable interest on Exchange systems could meet the MTS and
reject such incoming IOC-MTS order if Exchange contra-side volume could
not do so. An NYSE IOC order with an MTS could result in an execution
in an away market. For example, assume that the Exchange best bid or
offer is $10.05-$10.07 with 500 shares offered. A buy NYSE IOC-MTS
market order for 500 shares arrives, and

because NYSE can fill it, the incoming NYSE IOC-MTS order would be
accepted. However, if the current best protected offer is $10.06 on
another market for 200 shares, NYSE would route 200 shares of the
incoming NYSE IOC-MTS to Nasdaq and execute the balance of 300 shares
at $10.07. The Exchange would reject any IOC-MTS orders if the security
were not open for trading, if it were halted or paused, or if auto-
execution were suspended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A minimum trade size instruction is currently available to
Floor brokers for d-quotes under NYSE Rule 70.25(d). Nasdaq also
offers a Minimum Quantity Order, which is a non-displayed order that
will not execute unless a specified minimum quantity of shares can
be obtained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes non-substantive amendments to its Immediate
or Cancel definition as well, including adding the short-form term
``IOC'' to the rule, redesignating existing paragraphs (c) and (d) as
(d) and (e) respectively, and conforming existing rule text to provide
that only an IOC order without an MTS could be entered before the
Exchange opening for participation in the opening trade or when auto
execution is suspended, which includes during a trading pause or halt.
Existing paragraph (e) would be deleted because it contains obsolete
text.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Paragraph (e) references commitments to trade received on
the Floor through the Intermarket Trading System (``ITS''). ITS was
decommissioned in connection with the implementation of Regulation
NMS on July 9, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes additional technical and conforming
amendments to Rule 13. The Exchange proposes to delete the definition
of Auction Market Order \10\ because this order type was never
implemented. The Exchange also proposes to delete the definition of
Time Order because this relates to a Floor broker order that
historically would have been held by the specialist on behalf of the
Floor broker and converted to a market or limit order at a specified
time. In connection with both the Hybrid Market initiative and the
Exchange's New Market Model, this order type is now obsolete and can no
longer be used by Floor brokers. In addition, the Exchange proposes to
amend the definition of Auto Ex Order to remove a reference to the
Automated Bond System, which is no longer operational.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53539 (March 22,
2006), 71 FR 16353 (March 31, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2004-05).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 115A Opening Allocation
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 115A, which addresses orders at
the opening or in unusual situations. Currently, the Rule contains no
text but has Supplementary Material .10, which addresses queries to the
Display Book before an opening; Supplementary Material .20, which
addresses the arranging of an opening or price by a Designated Market
Maker (``DMM''); and Supplementary Material .30, which addresses
certain functions of Exchange systems with respect to orders at the
opening.
    The Exchange proposes to redesignate Supplementary Material .10 as
Rule 115A(a) but does not propose any change to the text of this
provision.
    The Exchange proposes to add new Rule 115A(b), which would address
the allocation of orders on opening and reopening trades and delete in
its entirety the text of Supplementary Material .20 and .30. Most of
the current text of Supplementary Material .20 and .30 is obsolete in
that it describes DMM functions that have not been performed since the
second phase of the New Market Model was launched in 2008.\11\ DMMs no
longer hold orders. As such, the Exchange proposes to delete all of the
text relating to those functions. Supplementary Material .30 also
contains text describing Exchange systems that is either outdated or
covered by Rule 15, and as such, also would be deleted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58845 (Oct. 24,
2008), 73 FR 64379 (Oct. 29, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-46).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A few of the current provisions of Supplementary Material .20
continue to be applicable following adoption of the New Market Model.
Current paragraphs 2(a), (b), and (c) of Supplementary Material .20
address the allocation and precedence of certain orders in openings and
reopenings. Paragraph 2(a) provides that a limited price order to buy
(sell) that is at a higher (lower) price than the security is to be
opened or reopened is treated as a market order, and market orders have
precedence over limited orders. Paragraph 2(b) provides that when the
price on a limited price order is the same as the price at which the
stock is to be opened or reopened, it may not be possible to execute a
limited price order at such price. Paragraph 2(c) requires a DMM to see
that each market order the DMM holds participates in the opening
transaction, and if the order is for an amount larger than one round
lot, the size of the bid that is accepted or the offer that is taken
establishing the opening or reopening price is the amount that a market
order is entitled to participate in at the opening or reopening.
    The Exchange proposes to move these concepts concerning the
allocation and precedence of orders in openings and reopenings to
proposed Rule 115A(b); further clarify and update the text to better
reflect the Exchange's current practices; and expressly address the
treatment of MOOs, LOOs, tick-sensitive market orders, Floor broker
interest manually entered by DMMs, and G orders. Proposed Rule 115A(b)
would provide that when arranging an opening or reopening price, except
as provided for in proposed Rule 115A(b)(2), which is described below,
market interest would be guaranteed to participate in the opening or
reopening transaction and have precedence over (i) limit interest that
is priced equal to the opening or reopening price of a security and
(ii) DMM interest. For purposes of the opening or reopening
transaction, market interest would include (i) market and MOO orders,
(ii) tick-sensitive market and MOO orders to buy (sell) that are priced
higher (lower) than the opening or reopening price, (iii) limit
interest to buy (sell) that is priced higher (lower) than the opening
or reopening price, and (iv) Floor broker interest entered manually by
the DMM.
    For purposes of the opening or reopening transaction, limit
interest would include (i) limited-priced interest, including e-Quotes,
LOO orders, and G orders; and (ii) tick-sensitive market and MOO orders
that are priced equal to the opening or reopening price of a security.
Limit interest that is priced equal to the opening or reopening price
of a security and DMM interest would not be guaranteed to participate
in the opening or reopening transaction. In addition, G orders that are
priced equal to the opening or reopening price of a security would
yield to all other limit interest priced equal to the opening or
reopening price of a security except DMM interest.
    The Exchange also proposes to include in the rule more specificity
of the circumstances of when a security may open on a quote, and what
would happen to odd-lot sized orders in such scenario. Proposed Rule
115A(b)(2) would provide that if the aggregate quantity of MOO and
market orders on at least one side of the market equals one round lot
or more, the security must open on a trade. If the aggregate quantity
of MOO and market orders on each side of the market equals less than
one round lot or is zero, the security could open on a quote. If a
security opens on a quote, odd-lot market orders would automatically
execute in a trade immediately following the open on a quote and odd-
lot MOOs would immediately and automatically cancel. MOO and market
orders subject to tick restrictions that either cannot participate at
an opening or reopening price or are priced equal to the opening or
reopening price would not be included in the aggregate quantity of MOO
and market orders.

Rule 123C Closing Allocation
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 123C to include better-priced G
orders in the list of orders that must be allocated in whole or part in
closing transactions. G orders on NYSE yield priority and parity to
other non-G orders, other than CO Orders.\12\ However, Section
11(a)(1)(G) of the Act does not require better-priced G orders to
yield.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Rule 123C(7)(a) sets forth six order types that must be
included in the closing transaction in the following order: (1) MOC
orders that do not have tick restrictions, (2) MOC orders that have
tick restrictions that limit the execution of the MOC to a price better
than the price of the closing transaction, (3) Floor broker interest
entered manually by the DMM, (4) limit orders better priced than the
closing price, (5) LOC orders that do not have tick restrictions better
priced than the closing transaction, and (6) LOC orders better priced
than the closing transaction that have tick restrictions that are
capable of being executed based on the closing price. Rule 123C(7)(b)
provides that the following interest may be used to offset a closing
imbalance in the following order: (1) Limit orders represented in the
Display Book with a price equal to the closing price, (2) LOC orders
with a price equal to the closing price, (3) MOC orders that have tick
restrictions that limit the execution of the MOC to the price of the
closing transaction, (4) LOC orders that have tick restrictions that
are capable of being executed based on the closing price and the price
of such limit order is equal to the price of the closing transaction,
(5) G orders, and (6) Closing Only orders.
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 123C(7)(a) to add G orders that
are better priced than the closing price as the last type of order that
must be included in the closing transaction and to make a conforming
change to Rule 123C(7)(b) to reference G orders priced equal to the
closing price as being eligible to be used to offset a closing
imbalance with the same priority as the current Rule reflects. Rule
123C(7)(b)(i) also would be clarified by adding that DMM interest, as
well as limit orders represented in the Display Book with a price equal
to the closing price, are the first types of interest that may be used
to offset a closing imbalance.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange has noted in prior rule filings that DMM
interest would be treated in such a manner. See, e.g., Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 60974 (Nov. 9, 2009) 74 FR 59299 (Nov. 17,
2009) (SR-NYSE-2009-111) (``After the `must execute interest' is
satisfied, then any limit orders represented in Display Book at the
closing price may be used to offset the remaining imbalance. It
should be noted that DMM interest, including better-priced DMM
interest entered into the Display Book prior to the closing
transaction, eligible to participate in the closing transaction is
always included in the hierarchy of execution as if it were interest
equal to the price of the closing transaction.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that in amending Rules 115A and 123C to include
better-priced G orders in the allocation of orders in opening,
reopening, and closing transactions, G orders priced at the opening,
reopening, or closing price will still yield priority and parity to
other non-G orders, other than CO Orders at the close, as required by
Section 11(a) of the Act. The Exchange further notes that there is no
requirement under the Act that better-priced G orders yield. The
Exchange believes that including better-priced G orders in the required
allocation for opening, reopening, and closing transactions will
encourage member organizations to provide price improvement and
liquidity on the Exchange. Moreover, for opening and reopening
transactions, if better-priced G orders are not included in the ``has
to go'' interest, immediately following the opening, such better-priced
G orders will automatically be quoted, which, assuming it is sell G
order interest, could result in an opening transaction, and then a sell
quote that is below the opening price.
    Because these are technology-based changes, the Exchange will
announce the implementation schedule via Trader Update.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\14\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
The Exchange believes that deleting the At the Opening and At the
Opening Only order types and creating new MOO and LOO order types
provide more clarity about how opening orders are processed, and in
particular that automatically canceling such orders when the Exchange
opens on quote will create efficiencies and also remove impediments to
a free and open market. The Exchange further believes that offering a
new order type, an IOC-MTS, will offer investors new trading
opportunities on the Exchange. The LOO, MOO, and IOC-MTS orders are
similar to orders that have already been approved by the
Commission.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \16\ See supra notes 6 and 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that amending Rule 115A to delete obsolete
text and to clarify and update the description of the allocation of
market and limit interest in openings and reopenings and address the
treatment of additional order types will add transparency and clarity
to the Exchange's rules, thereby promoting just and equitable
principles of trade and removing impediments to and perfecting the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to Rule 123C and
related proposed change concerning the treatment of better-priced G
orders in Rule 115A will promote just and equitable principles of trade
and remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and that the proposed changes also
are consistent with Section 11(a)(1)(G) of the Act. As discussed above,
G Orders priced at the opening, reopening, or closing price will
continue to yield, as required by Section 11(a). Moreover, the Exchange
believes that for the opening and reopening transactions, including
better-priced G interest as ``has-to-go'' interest will encourage
member organizations to provide price improvement and liquidity at the
Exchange. The Exchange further believes that amending Rule
123C(7)(b)(i) to expressly provide for the treatment of DMM interest in
offsetting a closing imbalance will add transparency and clarity to the
Exchange's rules, thereby promoting just and equitable principles of
trade and removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system.
    Finally, the technical changes to remove obsolete references in
Rule 13 also will add transparency and clarity to the Exchange's rules,
thereby promoting just and equitable principles of trade and removing
impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market
and a national market system.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition 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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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 (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date 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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2012-19 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR- NYSE-2012-19. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing 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 publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2012-19 and should be
submitted on or before July 27, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-16521 Filed 7-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 79 (Wednesday, April 24, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17204-17207]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08204]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85686; File No. SR-FICC-2019-002]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
To Include References to Uniform Mortgage-Backed Securities

April 18, 2019.
    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 April 9,

2019, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been
prepared by the clearing agency. FICC filed the proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(i)
thereunder.\4\ 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)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change consists of modifications to the FICC
Government Securities Division (``GSD'') Rulebook, the Methodology
Document--GSD Initial Market Risk Margin Model (the ``GSD Methodology
Document,'' together with the GSD Rulebook, the ``GSD Rules''), the
FICC Mortgage-Backed Securities Division (``MBSD'') Clearing Rules, and
the Methodology and Model Operations Document--MBSD Quantitative Risk
Model (the ``MBSD Methodology Document,'' together with the MBSD
Clearing Rules, the ``MBSD Rules'') to include references, as described
below, to a new type of mortgage-backed securities, referred to as
uniform mortgage-backed securities (``UMBS''), issued by the Federal
National Mortgage Association (``Fannie Mae'') and the Federal Home
Loan Mortgage Corporation (``Freddie Mac'').\5\ The proposed changes
would not require any changes to FICC's systems nor would the changes
impact the rights and obligations of GSD Netting Members and MBSD
Clearing Members (collectively, ``Members''). FICC would treat UMBS in
the same manner that it currently treats Fannie Mae securities and
Freddie Mac securities from an operational and risk management
perspective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Terms not defined herein are defined in the GSD Rulebook,
available at http://dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/rules/
ficc_gov_rules.pdf, or the MBSD Clearing Rules, available at http://
dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/rules/ficc_mbsd_rules.pdf, as
applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, FICC is proposing to (1) amend the GSD Rulebook and
the MBSD Clearing Rules to apply the current haircut for Fannie Mae
securities and Freddie Mac securities to the proposed UMBS for purposes
of satisfying Required Fund Deposit amounts, (2) amend the GSD Rulebook
to apply the current Pricing Rate for CCIT Transactions backed by
Fannie Mae securities and Freddie Mac securities to CCIT Transactions
backed by UMBS, and (3) amend the GSD Methodology Document and MBSD
Methodology Document to include references to UMBS. FICC is requesting
confidential treatment of the GSD Methodology Document and the MBSD
Methodology Document, and has filed these documents separately with the
Commission.\6\ The proposed changes are described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 17 CFR 240-24b-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    FICC is proposing to (1) amend the GSD Rulebook and the MBSD
Clearing Rules to apply the current haircut for Fannie Mae securities
and Freddie Mac securities to the proposed UMBS for purposes of
satisfying Required Fund Deposit amounts, (2) amend the GSD Rulebook to
apply the Pricing Rate for CCIT Transactions backed by Fannie Mae
securities and Freddie Mac securities to CCIT Transactions backed by
UMBS, and (3) amend the GSD Methodology Document and MBSD Methodology
Document to include references to UMBS because UMBS will be included in
MBSD's TBA \7\ product line and will be eligible collateral for GSD's
GCF Repo Transactions \8\ backed by mortgage-backed securities. The
proposed changes would not require any changes to FICC's systems nor
would the changes impact the rights and obligations of Members. FICC
would treat UMBS in the same manner that it currently treats Fannie Mae
securities and Freddie Mac securities from an operational and risk
management perspective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Pursuant to the MBSD Clearing Rules, the term ``TBA'' means
a contract for the purchase or sale of a mortgage-backed security to
be delivered at an agreed-upon future date because as of the
transaction date, the seller has not yet identified certain terms of
the contract, such as the pool number and number of pools, to the
buyer. See MBSD Rule 1, supra note 5.
    \8\ Pursuant to the GSD Rulebook, the term ``GCF Repo
Transaction'' means a Repo Transaction involving Generic CUSIP
Numbers the data on which are submitted to FICC on a Locked-In-Trade
basis pursuant to the provisions of GSD Rule 6C, for netting and
settlement by FICC pursuant to the provisions of GSD Rule 20. See
GSD Rule 1, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(i) Background
    Under the direction of the Federal Housing Finance Agency
(``FHFA''), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will create a new mortgage-
backed security pursuant to an initiative referred to as the single
security initiative (``Single Security Initiative'').\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See ``Uniform Mortgage-Backed Security,'' 84 FR 7793 (March
5, 2019) (to be codified at 12 CFR 1248); ``Single Security
Initiative and Common Securitization Platform,'' FHFA, available at
https://www.fhfa.gov/PolicyProgramsResearch/Policy/Pages/Securitization-Infrastructure.aspx; ``Single Security Initiative and
Common Securitization Platform,'' Fannie Mae, available at http://fanniemae.com/portal/funding-the-market/single-security/index.html
(``Fannie Mae website''); and ``Single Security Initiative and the
Common Securitization Platform,'' Freddie Mac, available at http://www.freddiemac.com/mbs/html/single_security_csp.html (``Freddie Mac
website'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the FHFA's proposed rule and final rule, respectively,
and the information that has been publicly made available on the FHFA,
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac websites, the stated goals of the Single
Security Initiative are to (i) bring additional liquidity and
fungibility to the TBA market; and (ii) to reduce or eliminate the
trading disparities that exist today between Fannie Mae's and Freddie
Mac's TBA securities.\10\ In connection with the Single Security
Initiative, FICC understands the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id. See also ``Uniform Mortgage-Backed Security,'' 83 FR
46889 (proposed September 17, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The new mortgage-backed securities, referred to as UMBS,
will be issued and guaranteed by either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, and
backed by fixed rate 30-year, 20-year, 15-year, or 10-year single
family mortgage loans.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Freddie Mac website, supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     UMBS will be single-class securities backed by mortgage
loans purchased by either Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 84 FR at 7800; Fannie Mae website, supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     the key features of UMBS will be the same as those of
Fannie Mae securities, and as a result, the existing Fannie Mae
securities will be interchangeable with UMBS.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 84 FR at 7800.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Freddie Mac will give market participants the opportunity
to exchange 45-day Freddie Mac Participation Certificates and Freddie

Mac Giant Participation Certificates\14\ for comparable UMBS backed by
the same mortgage loans.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Freddie Mac refers to its pass-through mortgage-backed
securities as ``Participation Certificates.'' Freddie Mac Giant
Participation Certificates are single-class pass-through securities
that enable investors to manage their portfolios more efficiently by
consolidating smaller participation certificates into larger giant
participation certificates. See ``Giant PCs,'' available at http://www.freddiemac.com/mbs/products/giants.html. Introduced in 1988,
Freddie Mac Giant Participation Certificates are popular with
dealers and investors because they are an efficient and profitable
way to aggregate production and investment portfolios. Id.
    \15\ See 83 FR at 46890; Fannie Mae website, supra note 9. The
opportunity to exchange 45-day Freddie Mac Participation
Certificates and Freddie Mac Giant Participation Certificates for
comparable UMBS backed by the same mortgage loans occurs outside of
FICC. FICC is not involved in any aspect of this exchange process.
Information on this exchange is available at http://www.freddiemac.com/mbs/exchange/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the information noted above, FICC will include UMBS in
MBSD's existing TBA product line (which currently includes Fannie Mae
securities and Freddie Mac securities) and amend the GSD Rules and the
MBSD Rules to treat the proposed UMBS in the same manner that it treats
existing TBA securities. As a result, MBSD Clearing Members will be
allowed to submit TBA transactions backed by UMBS \16\ and GSD Netting
Members will be allowed to submit GCF Repo Transactions collateralized
with UMBS. FICC will implement these changes to give Members the
ability to clear and settle UMBS as an Eligible Security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See GSD Rule 1, Definitions--``Eligible Security,'' and
MBSD Rule 1, Definitions--``Eligible Security,'' supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(ii) Proposed Changes
    In order to facilitate the submission of TBA transactions backed by
UMBS and GCF Repo Transactions collateralized by UMBS, FICC is
proposing to (1) amend the GSD Rulebook and the MBSD Clearing Rules to
apply the current haircut for Fannie Mae securities and Freddie Mac
securities, respectively, to the proposed UMBS used to satisfy Required
Fund Deposit amounts, (2) amend the GSD Rulebook to apply the current
Pricing Rate for Fannie Mae securities and Freddie Mac securities to
CCIT Transactions backed by UMBS, and (3) amend the GSD Methodology
Document and the MBSD Methodology Document to include references to
UMBS. The proposed changes are set forth below:

A. Proposed Changes to the GSD Rulebook

    FICC is proposing to amend GSD Rule 1 to include the definition for
UMBS. This term would be defined as a single-class mortgage-backed
security backed by fixed-rate mortgage loans on one to four unit
(single-family) properties issued by either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
which has the same characteristics (such as payment delay, pooling
prefixes and minimum pool submission amounts) regardless of whether
Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac is the issuer. FICC is proposing this change
because this term would be referenced in GSD Rule 3B Section 14(a)(xii)
and GSD's Schedule of Haircuts for Eligible Clearing Fund Securities.
    FICC is also proposing to amend GSD Rule 3B Section 14(a)(xii) to
include a reference to UMBS. This section defines the Pricing Rate for
CCIT MRA transactions backed by U.S. Treasury securities, Non-Mortgage-
Backed U.S. Agency Securities, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage-
backed securities. FICC is proposing to amend this section to add UMBS
to the references to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage-backed
securities. Due to this change, the calculated Pricing Rate for UMBS
would be the same as the Pricing Rate for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
mortgage-backed securities.
    FICC is also proposing to amend item 3 entitled ``MBS Pass-
Throughs'' in GSD's Schedule of Haircuts for Eligible Clearing Fund
Securities to apply the current haircut for Fannie Mae securities and
Freddie Mac securities to the proposed UMBS.

B. Proposed Changes to the MBSD Clearing Rules

    FICC is proposing to amend MBSD Rule 1 to include the definition
for UMBS. This term would be defined as a single-class mortgage-backed
security backed by fixed-rate mortgage loans on one to four unit
(single-family) properties issued by either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
which has the same characteristics (such as payment delay, pooling
prefixes and minimum pool submission amounts) regardless of whether
Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac is the issuer. FICC is proposing this change
because this term would be referenced in MBSD's Schedule of Haircuts
for Eligible Clearing Fund Securities.
    FICC is proposing to amend item 3 entitled ``MBS Pass-Throughs'' in
MBSD's Schedule of Haircuts for Eligible Clearing Fund Securities to
apply the current haircut for Fannie Mae securities and Freddie Mac
securities to the proposed UMBS.

C. Proposed Changes to the GSD Methodology Document

    FICC is proposing to amend the GSD Methodology Document to include
references to UMBS. Given that the FHFA's proposed rule and final rule
state that the key features of the proposed UMBS would be the same as
the current Fannie Mae securities,\17\ FICC would treat UMBS in the
same manner that it treats Fannie Mae securities from a risk management
perspective--meaning, FICC would calculate a GSD Netting Member's
Required Fund Deposit amount for GCF Repo Transactions backed by UMBS
consistent with FICC's current calculation of GCF Repo Transactions
backed by Fannie Mae securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 83 FR at 46890; 84 FR at 7793.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Proposed Changes to the MBSD Methodology Document

    FICC is proposing to amend the MSBD Methodology Document to include
references to UMBS. Given that the FHFA's proposed rule and final rule
state that the key features of the proposed UMBS would be the same as
the current Fannie Mae securities.\18\ FICC would treat UMBS in the
same manner that it treats Fannie Mae securities from a risk management
perspective--meaning, FICC would calculate a MBSD Clearing Member's
Required Fund Deposit amount for portfolios that are comprised of UMBS
in a manner that is consistent with FICC's current calculation for
portfolios that are comprised of Fannie Mae securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the GSD
Rules and MBSD Rules be designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions.\19\ As described
above, FICC is proposing to (1) amend the GSD Rulebook and the MBSD
Clearing Rules to apply the current haircut for Fannie Mae securities
and Freddie Mac securities to the proposed UMBS, (2) amend the GSD
Rulebook to apply the current Pricing Rate for CCIT Transactions backed
by Fannie Mae securities and Freddie Mac securities to CCIT
Transactions backed by UMBS, and (3) amend the GSD Methodology Document
and MBSD Methodology Document to include references to UMBS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC believes the proposed rule change would promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions because
the

proposed UMBS would present the same risks to FICC that the existing
Fannie Mae securities and Freddie Mac securities currently present to
FICC given that the FHFA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have indicated
that the key characteristics of UMBS will be the same as Fannie Mae
securities as described in Item II(A)1 above. As a result, FICC would
treat UMBS in the same manner that it treats Fannie Mae securities and
Freddie Mac securities. Specifically, the changes would promote the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities because (1)
the proposed haircut, which would be the same as the haircuts for
Fannie Mae securities and Freddie Mac securities, would protect FICC
from the potential decline in the value of UMBS in normal and in
stressed market conditions, (2) the proposed Pricing Rate for CCIT
Transactions backed by UMBS would help to ensure that such rate is
calculated in the same manner as Fannie Mae securities and Freddie Mac
securities for purposes of a CCIT MRA transaction, and (3) the proposed
inclusion of UMBS in the GSD Methodology Document and MBSD Methodology
Document would help to ensure that UMBS is treated in the same manner
as Fannie Mae securities for risk management purposes. For these
reasons, FICC believes that the proposed changes are consistent with
the requirements of the Act, in particular Section 17A(b)(3)(F), cited
above.
(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition
    FICC does not believe that the proposed rule changes would have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition because, as described in
Item II(A)1 above, FICC would treat UMBS in the same manner that it
treats Fannie Mae securities and Freddie Mac securities (i.e., the same
haircut that is currently applied to Fannie Mae securities and Freddie
Mac securities would be applied to UMBS; the same CCIT Pricing Rate
that is currently applied to CCIT Transactions backed by Fannie Mae
securities and Freddie Mac securities would be applied to CCIT
Transactions backed by UMBS; and the same risk management that is
applied to Fannie Mae securities and Freddie Mac securities would be
applied to UMBS). Given this, FICC's proposed treatment of UMBS would
not give Members an advantage or a disadvantage if such Members use
UMBS rather than Fannie Mae securities or Freddie Mac securities (1)
for purposes of satisfying Required Fund Deposits amounts or (2) to
back CCIT Transactions. Therefore, FICC does not believe that the
proposed rule changes would have any impact or impose any burden on
competition.
(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received from Members, Participants, or Others
    FICC has not received or solicited any written comments relating to
this proposal. FICC will notify the Commission of any written comments
received by FICC.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \20\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\21\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-FICC-2019-002 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2019-002. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of FICC and on DTCC's website
(http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). All comments received
will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2019-002 and should be submitted on
or before May 15, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-08204 Filed 4-23-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P