[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 12, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8075-8078]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02748]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88136; File No. SR-ICEEU-2019-019]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICE Clear Europe
Collateral and Haircut Policy and Collateral and Haircut Procedures

February 6, 2020.

I. Introduction

    On December 4, 2019, ICE Clear Europe Limited (the ``Clearing
House,'' or ``ICEEU'') 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 replace the existing
Collateral and Haircut Policy (the ``Existing Policy''), which
currently exists as a single document, with two new documents: (i) A
revised Collateral and Haircut Policy (the ``Revised Policy'') that
would specify high-level policy details and (ii) a new Collateral and
Haircut Procedures (the ``Collateral Procedures'') that would provide
supporting operational and other details for the Revised Policy. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on December 23, 2019.\3\ The Commission did not receive comments on the
proposed rule change. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission
is approving the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87771 (December 17,
2019), 84 FR 70584 (December 23, 2019) (SR-ICEEU-2019-019)
(``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    ICEEU is proposing to adopt the Revised Policy and new Collateral
Procedures, which, taken together, would replace and supersede the
Existing Policy.\4\ The Existing Policy sets out ICEEU's overall
approach to defining the types, amounts and composition of cash and
non-cash collateral that ICEEU accepts from Clearing Members (``CMs'')
to cover their guaranty fund and margin requirements. The Existing
Policy also sets out ICEEU's overall goal of mitigating price risk it
may face when liquidating collateral of a defaulting CM by setting and
enforcing a list of acceptable collateral (``Permitted Cover'');
setting and applying risk-based haircuts to the value of the collateral
(``Haircuts''); setting and enforcing concentration limits on the
amount of collateral a CM may post, to provide diversification of the
collateral pool (``Concentration Limits''); and ensuring Permitted
Cover, Haircuts and Concentration Limits are aligned to the ICEEU's
risk appetite and compliant with applicable legal and regulatory
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The following description of the proposed rule change is
excerpted from the Notice, 84 FR 70584.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The approach of the proposed rule change is the creation of two
documents so that elements of the Existing Policy are split between the
Revised Policy and the Collateral Procedures. The new documents would
retain the high-level policy details from the Existing Policy in the
Revised Policy and place supporting detail from the Existing Policy
into the new Collateral Procedures. The amendments would also remove
certain operational details in the Existing Policy that ICEEU has
determined are not needed in the Revised Policy or Collateral
Procedures because they are contained in other Clearing House
documentation. Further, the proposed rule change would not itself
result in material changes to the overall purpose of the policy, the
underlying haircut model, or to the eligible collateral, haircuts and
concentration limitations that the Clearing House currently imposes.
The discussion below describes the information from the Existing Policy
that is either being retained in the Revised Policy and Collateral
Procedures or information not repeated in these documents because they
are duplicative of information contained in other Clearing House
documents.

A. Revised Policy

    The Revised Policy is retaining the high-level policy goals from
the Existing Policy related to Permitted Cover, Haircuts, and
Concentration Limits described below.
1. Permitted Cover
    The Revised Policy would restate the Existing Policy's overall
requirements that Permitted Cover assets be highly liquid with low
credit and market risk; are priced in an eligible currency; and entail
risks limited to those that ICEEU is able to identify, measure, monitor
and mitigate. The specific list of Permitted Cover would not be
contained in the Revised Policy (or Collateral Procedures) itself but
would continue to be available on the ICEEU website. The specific
principles for accepting Permitted Cover discussed in the Existing
Policy would reside the Collateral Procedures as discussed below.
2. Haircuts
    The Revised Policy would restate the Existing Policy's overall
requirements that Haircuts be based on a model that includes the
creditworthiness of the issuer; the asset's market risk and liquidity
risk; and market conditions and volatility. Certain details such as
those relating to the determination of minimum haircuts discussed in
the Existing Policy would be specified in the Collateral Procedures, or
in related model documentation. The Revised Policy would also state the
general principal from the Existing Policy that wrong way risk with
respect to posting of collateral (i.e., the risk that the value of a
particular CM's collateral is likely to decline at the same time the
Clearing House's risk to the CM increases) would be mitigated through
member-specific restrictions and actions rather than Haircuts.
3. Concentration Limits
    The Revised Policy would restate the Existing Policy's overall
framework for setting CM Concentration Limits. It

would provide that ICEEU may limit (i) the absolute amount of each type
of collateral that CMs may lodge to minimize concentration and enable
liquidity and (ii) the relative amount of each collateral type in a
CM's collateral portfolio to prevent overexposure to price movements in
individual asset classes. Details regarding collateral management, data
and reporting and legal review of enforceability of collateral found in
the Existing Policy would be split across the Collateral Procedures,
ICEEU's Collateral and Haircut Schedule of Parameters and Reviews (the
``Parameters'') and the Model Documentation for Collateral Haircut
Model. Where details from the Existing Policy such as intraday and end
of day valuation of collateral, ICEEU's investment program, or custody
arrangements for non-cash collateral are included in other Clearing
House policies, procedures and documentation, such as the Treasury &
Banking Services Policy, Investment Management Policy, F&O Risk Policy,
Document Governance Schedule and Risk Appetite Framework, to avoid
duplication, they would not be covered in the Revised Policy or
Collateral Procedures.
4. Policy Governance
    The Revised Policy would restate the Existing Policy's high level
overall arrangements for policy governance, reviews and exception
handling.

B. Collateral Procedures

    The new Collateral Procedures would function as the application of
the principles of the Revised Policy by describing the operational
details and related governance processes for Permitted Cover, Haircuts
and Concentration Limits that are currently in the Existing Policy and
described below.
1. Permitted Cover
    Detail regarding Permitted Cover requirements from the Existing
Policy, and the adoption of the new Collateral Procedures, would not
result in a change in the list of Eligible Permitted Cover. The
Collateral Procedures would apply general eligibility criteria to
Permitted Cover from the Existing Policy such as highly liquid assets,
price history, capacity to revalue, etc. The Collateral Procedures also
describe the additional criteria applied to financial instruments and
gold assets currently in the Existing Policy.
    The sovereign rating model has been retired by ICEEU and instead,
the Procedures and related Parameters address sovereign quality. The
elements related to sovereign rating are the same as in the Existing
Policy and discussed in the new Collateral Procedures and Parameters.
    Several other matters from the Existing Policy would not be
described in the Collateral Procedures because they are found in other
documents. Certain additional details and parameters would be set out
in an annex to the Procedure or in the List of Permitted Cover, which
is an operational document that is published on the ice.com website.\5\
Unlike the Existing Policy, the Collateral Procedures would not have a
section specifically addressing restrictions on Guaranty Fund
collateral as this is already addressed in the Finance Procedures and
List of Permitted Cover.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Available at: https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/clear_europe/list-of-permitted-covers.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Haircuts
    As is currently the case with the Existing Policy, the proposed
Collateral Procedures would apply conservative haircuts to Permitted
Cover to ensure that, even in stressed market conditions, the
collateral could be liquidated at least at the value it would be used
to cover, and would also continue to apply cross-currency haircuts to
mitigate foreign exchange risk where the currency applicable to the
collateral would be different from the currency of the requirements it
would be covering.
    As is currently the case with the Existing Policy, the Collateral
Procedures would state that ICEEU determines Haircuts using a
combination of a model, analytical tools and/or qualitative overlays.
The model would be described in the collateral and haircut model
documentation and related parameters rather than being repeated in the
Collateral Procedures or Revised Policy. As is currently the case with
the Existing Policy, the Collateral Procedures would provide that
consistent with the existing model, Haircuts would further be based on
a number of factors, including, but not limited to credit assessment of
the issuer, market conditions, volatility, and liquidity of the
underlying market.
    These factors are substantially the same as those set out in the
Existing Policy, other than the wrong way risk factor, which is
addressed through an operational report, and is addressed through CM-
specific measures rather than Haircuts.
    Several other matters covered in the Existing Policy would not be
included in the Revised Policy and Collateral Procedures. Haircuts
would be subject to minimum values which would be addressed in the
Parameters, instead of the Revised Policy or Collateral Procedures, and
the final Haircut value would be rounded up to the nearest ``Haircut
Rounding Interval.'' Certain additional requirements relating to
Haircuts on bonds and gold bullion, as well as collateral pricing,
which are currently addressed in the Existing Policy, would be removed
from the Existing Policy as they are already addressed, and will
continue to be addressed, in the Model and the Parameters. The list of
data used in collateral pricing that is currently set out in the
Existing Policy would instead be set out in the Parameters. The
description of exceptions would be set out in Clearing House
operational documentation.
    As is currently the case with the Existing Policy, the Collateral
Procedures would call for ICEEU to limit the likelihood of procyclical
impact from Haircuts as issuer creditworthiness deteriorates and
haircuts increase by applying a conservative minimum haircut,
identifying potential future events, and providing notice of changes to
haircuts.
3. Concentration Limits
    The approach to Concentration Limits contained in the proposed
Collateral Procedures would be substantially similar to the Existing
Policy. However, certain details regarding the collateral breakdown
report currently in the Existing Policy would not be included in the
Collateral Procedures (as they are inconsistent with the level of
detail in the Collateral Procedures generally) but would instead be set
out in operational documentation. The report itself, which details how
collateral values are produced at an operational level, will continue
to be produced as part of the normal reporting cycle.
    As is currently the case with the Existing Policy, the Collateral
Procedures describe the framework for how ICEEU determines the absolute
amount of each type of collateral that can be accepted from a CM
(``Absolute Limits'') and the relative amount of each type of
collateral within a CM's collateral portfolio (``Relative Limits''). As
compared to the Existing Policy, the Collateral Procedures would
clarify that all markets cleared by ICEEU would be included in the
calculation methodology for Absolute Limits. The description of the
Absolute Limits in the Collateral Procedures would otherwise generally
be consistent with the description of the Absolute Limits set out in
the Existing Policy.

    Additionally, unlike the Existing Policy, the Collateral Procedures
would not take into account ICEEU's committed repo facility as a basis
for allowing Clearing Members to exceed otherwise applicable Absolute
Limits.
4. Further Restrictions
    As is currently the case with the Existing Policy, the Collateral
Procedures would apply additional restrictions and measures with
respect to collateral such as reducing Absolute Limits once the CDS
spread of the issuer breaches pre-defined levels and analyzing CMs'
non-cash collateral to identify WWR daily.
    The Collateral Procedures would also address cross clearing house
concentration limits consistently with the manner in which they are
addressed in the Existing Policy.
5. Data Management
    While the Collateral Procedures restate from the Existing Policy
that the sources of data used for collateral valuation and for Haircuts
and Concentration Limits are approved and reviewed periodically at a
senior level, valuation of collateral is outside the scope of the
Collateral and Haircut Policy and Procedures and covered in the model
documentation. The Existing Policy discussed the manner in which ICEEU
monitored the value of collateral.
6. Daily Monitoring
    Pursuant to the proposed Collateral Procedures, ICEEU would
continue, from the Existing Policy, daily monitoring processes to
ensure the eligibility of the list of Permitted Cover, to ensure the
adequacy of Haircuts and to enforce the Concentration Limits
    Certain details under Data and Reporting in the Existing Policy
concerning the reports that are available to various stakeholders in
the form of periodic Collateral Reports, will not be included in the
Revised Policy or Collateral Procedures. The back testing of the
haircut parameters currently set out in the Existing Policy would be
instead set out in the Parameters (and the substance of those
parameters is not proposed to be changed). Likewise, the description of
the Risk Committee collateral reporting would be governed through the
Terms of Reference for committees instead of through the Revised Policy
or Collateral Procedures (and is not otherwise proposed to be changed).
7. Governance
    Governance relating to Permitted Cover, collateral and Haircuts
would generally remain the same as in the Existing Policy, though the
Collateral Procedures would add that competent authorities would be
notified of any material breaches. Additionally, requirements under the
Existing Policy relating to independent validation and policy review
are covered in the Model Risk Governance Framework and Documentation
Governance Schedule, and would not be addressed in the Revised Policy
or Collateral Procedures.
8. Other Existing Policy Matters
    Certain matters currently set out in the Existing Policy would be
removed and addressed in documentation other than the Revised Policy or
Collateral Procedures. Collateral management would be set out in the
Treasury and Banking Services Policy and the Investment Management
Procedures. The monitoring schedule would be set out in the Parameters.
The description of the legal review of enforceability of collateral
that was set out in the Existing Policy is generally considered to be
business as usual work for the legal team and would no longer be
covered through policies.

III. Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a
proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that
such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such
organization. For the reasons given below, the Commission finds that
the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act \6\ and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2), (e)(3), and (e)(5) thereunder.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2),(e)(3)(i),(e)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency With Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of ICEEU 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 which are in the
custody or control of ICEEU or for which it is responsible, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, ICEEU's Existing Policy document is being split
into the following two documents: (i) Revised Policy and new Collateral
Procedures. The two new documents will separate the higher level policy
principles from the specific procedures. In addition, neither the
Revised Policy nor the new Collateral Procedures will contain
information that is currently in other operational level documents. As
a result of the proposed rule change, the Revised Policy and new
Collateral Procedure will streamline but not materially alter the
Existing Policy.
    By clarifying and restating in a separate document its overall
policy approach to the types, amounts and composition of cash and non-
cash collateral that ICEEU accepts from CMs to cover their guaranty
fund and margin requirements and by detailing the current procedures
for applying that approach, the Commission believes the proposed rule
change would continue, in an effective and focused way, ICEEU's ability
to manage financial resources and ultimately its ability to clear and
settle transactions. For example, the Collateral Procedures detailing
eligibility criteria for Permitted Cover describe conservative
standards such as assets that are highly liquid, have sufficient price
history, have the capacity for daily revaluation, and are in eligible
currency.
    The Commission believes that this will help ICEEU focus
procedurally to meet its obligations when liquidating collateral.
Further, the factors upon which Haircuts will be based that are
detailed in the Collateral Procedures include credit assessment of the
issuer, maturity of the asset, volatility, liquidity of underlying
market, stressed market conditions, preemptive application of potential
future events, and application of conservative minimum haircut level to
all collateral types. The Commission believes that this level of detail
will help ICEEU continue to apply conservative haircuts to Permitted
Cover to ensure that, even in stressed market conditions, the
collateral could be liquidated to meet obligations while also limiting
the likelihood of procyclical impacts from Haircuts as issuer
creditworthiness deteriorates and haircuts increase.
    Similarly, the approach to Concentration Limits detailed in the
Collateral Procedures noted above sets a framework for how the limits
are set and clarifies that all markets cleared by ICEEU would be
included in the calculation methodology for Absolute Limits and that an
individual CM's collateral portfolios would be balanced between
different assets based on a qualitative assessment of the different
types of collateral, taking into account factors such as the types of
issuers, issuer credit risk and collateral liquidity and price
volatility. The Commission believes that this sort of information

within its procedures continues and focuses ICEEU's ability to manage
financial resources with a conservative approach to the permissible
collateral pool.
    The Commission also notes that it has previously found these
policies and procedures consistent with the Act \9\ and because there
are no material changes, believes that it continues to be consistent
with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74955 (May 13, 2015), 80
FR 28733 (May 19, 2015) (SR-ICEEU-2015-007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, the Commission finds
that the proposed rule change would promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions, assure the
safeguarding of securities and funds in ICEEU's custody or control,
and, in general, protect investors and the public interest, consistent
with the Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(i)

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(i) requires that ICEEU establish, implement,
maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to, as applicable, maintain a sound risk management framework
that identifies, measures, monitors, and manages the range of risks
that it faces.
    As described above, ICEEU's proposed Collateral Procedures, similar
to the Existing Policy, continues to list various eligibility criteria
for Permitted Cover, factors for determining Haircuts, and sets the
framework for the amount of each type of collateral that can be
accepted from a CM. The Commission believes that by proposing
Collateral Procedures to follow in this regard, ICEEU will be able to
continue, in a streamlined and focused fashion, to mitigate collateral
price and liquidation risk through setting acceptable Permitted Cover,
Haircuts and Concentration Limits and providing guidelines for
monitoring these measures and managing any deviations or related
issues. The Commission also believes that by documenting the management
of its collateral liquidation risks in this way, ICEEU generally
enhances its financial stability by ensuring that the collateral it
accepts from CMs continues to adequately meet its obligations.
    For these reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(i).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(3)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(5)

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(5) requires that ICEEU establish, implement,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to, as applicable, limit the assets it accepts as collateral
to those with low credit, liquidity, and market risks, and set and
enforce appropriately conservative haircuts and concentration limits if
the covered clearing agency requires collateral to manage its or its
participants' credit exposure; and require a review of the sufficiency
of its collateral haircuts and concentration limits to be performed not
less than annually.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the factors and other considerations
noted above as described in the proposed Collateral Procedures with
respect acceptable Permitted Cover, Haircuts, and Concentration Limits,
including low credit risk of assets, transferability of assets, market
conditions, and expectations of future volatility, will continue to
maintain ICEEU's ability to limit the assets it accepts as collateral
to those with low credit, liquidity, and market risks, and set and
enforce appropriately conservative haircuts and concentration limits.
Further, the Revised Policy and Collateral Procedures continue to
provide that Concentration Limits be reviewed at least monthly at a
senior level and Permitted Cover, Haircuts and Concentration Limits are
subject to regular reviews and monitoring and changed ad-hoc if needed.
    For these reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(5).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2) requires, among other things, that ICEEU
establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to provide for governance arrangements
that are clear and transparent and specify clear and direct lines of
responsibility.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, similar to the Existing Policy, the proposed
Revised Policy and the Collateral Procedures continue to describe the
governance relating to Permitted Cover, Haircuts, and Concentration
Limits. Specifically, the Revised Policy provides that the document
owner is responsible for ensuring that it remains up-to-date and is
reviewed in accordance with ICEEU's governance processes and will
report material breaches or unapproved deviations from this Policy to
their Head of Department, the Chief Risk Officer and the Head of
Compliance (or their delegates) who together will determine if further
escalation should be made to relevant senior executives, the Board and/
or competent authorities. Further, the proposed Collateral Procedures
state that proposals to add, remove, change, or set Permitted Cover,
Haircuts or Concentration Limits are reviewed and approved at a senior
level and amendments would be published where practicable by circular
in advance of taking effect to CMs and relevant competent authorities.
The Commission therefore believes that this continues to maintain
ICEEU's policies and procedures in a manner reasonably designed to
provide for governance arrangements that are clear and transparent and
specify clear and direct lines of responsibility.
    For these reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act,
and in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act \16\ and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(3)(i), (e)(5), and (e)(2) thereunder.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(3)(i),(e)(5),(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\18\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ICEEU-2019-019) be, and hereby
is, approved.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \19\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-02748 Filed 2-11-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 34)]
[Notices]
[Page 9318]
[DOCID:fr20fe08-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-68-000]

Trunkline LNG Company, LLC; Notice of Filing

February 12, 2008.
    Take notice that on February 1, 2008, Trunkline LNG Company, LLC
(Trunkline LNG), 5444 Westheimer Road, Houston, Texas 77056, filed an
application, pursuant to section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and
Part 157 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations, to install and
operate a new 1,500 electric motor-driven pipeline compressor and
related facilities at the existing Trunkline LNG Terminal (Terminal) in
Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana. The application is on file with the
Commission and open for public inspection. This filing is available for
review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the

``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The proposed compressor is necessary to capture and compress
additional boil off gas when the Terminal is in a zero sendout mode of
operation. Trunkline LNG states that the certificated sendout capacity
of 1.8 Bcf per day of natural gas with a peak capacity of 2.1 Bch per
day will not be changed. The construction and operation of the proposed
facilities will occur entirely within the existing terminal's site. The
estimated cost of the project is $3.5 million. Trunkline LNG currently
provides firm terminalling services to BG LNG Services, LLC under its
Rate Schedule FTS and FTS-2. Trunkline LNG proposed to place the
facilities in service by August 2008.
    Any questions regarding the application are to be directed to Mr.
Stephen T. Veatch, Senior Director of Certificates and Tariffs, 5444
Westheimer Road, Houston, Texas 77056; phone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or
by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to
the proceedings for this project should, on or before the below listed
comment date, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in
accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the
NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on
the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will
receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other
parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the
Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other
party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for
court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
    Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed
electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper, see, 18 CFR 385.2001
(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the
``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic
filings.
    Comment Date: March 4, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-3048 Filed 2-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 179 (Tuesday, September 15, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 57211]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20237]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1167-000.
    Applicants: Applicant information is not available at this time.
Atms or FOLA not available now.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Volume No. 2--Table of
Contents Clean Up & Nat Fuel SP359400 to be effective 9/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 9/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20200903-5091.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/15/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1168-000.
    Applicants: Applicant information is not available at this time.
Atms or FOLA not available now.
    Description: (doc-less) Motion to Intervene of Eversource Gas
Company of Massachusetts under RP20-1168.
    Filed Date: 9/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20200904-5100.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/16/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1169-000.
    Applicants: Applicant information is not available at this time.
Atms or FOLA not available now.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Non-Conforming Amendment &
Cancellation of Rate Schedule X-54 to be effective 10/5/2020.
    Filed Date: 9/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20200904-5048.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/16/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1170-000.
    Applicants: Applicant information is not available at this time.
Atms or FOLA not available now.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Negotiated Rate
Agreement--Shell Energy North America (US), L.P. to be effective 9/4/
2020.
    Filed Date: 9/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20200904-5120.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/16/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1171-000.
    Applicants: Applicant information is not available at this time.
Atms or FOLA not available now.
    Description: Joint Petition of Southern Company Services, Inc., et
al. for Limited Waivers of Capacity Release Regulations and Tariff
Provisions, et al. under RP20-1171.
    Filed Date: 9/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20200904-5172.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/11/20.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 8, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-20237 Filed 9-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 234 (Thursday, December 9, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 70121]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26662]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 606-027]

Pacific Gas & Electric Company; Notice of Availability of
Supplemental Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC)
regulations, 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 380, Commission
staff prepared a Supplemental Environmental Assessment (Supplemental
EA), to supplement its Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final
EIS), issued August 16, 2011. On March 13, 2009, Pacific Gas & Electric
Company (PG&E), filed with the Commission its application to surrender
its license for the Kilarc-Cow Hydroelectric Project No. 606. The
project is located on Old Cow Creek, South Cow Creek, and tributaries
in Shasta County, California.
    The Supplemental EA was prepared to address changes that have
occurred since the issuance of the Final EIS. Based on staff's
independent analysis in the Supplemental EA, Commission approval of
PG&E's proposal, as mitigated by the environmental measures discussed
in the Supplemental EA, would not constitute a major federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
    The supplemental EA may be viewed on the Commission's website at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``elibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number (P-606) in the docket number field to access the document. At
this time, the Commission has suspended access to the 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 protected] or toll-free at 1-866-208-3372,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    All comments on the Supplemental EA must be filed by January 3,
2022. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments using the Commission's eFiling system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/eFiling.aspx. Commenters can submit brief comments
up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment
system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/QuickComment.aspx. You must
include your name and contact information at the end of your comments.
For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support. In lieu of
electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via
the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier
must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
The first page of any filing should include docket number P-606-027.
    For further information, contact Rebecca Martin by telephone at
202-502-6012 or by email at [email protected].

    Dated: December 3, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-26662 Filed 12-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


The attached report contains the health sampling data for respirable crystalline silica contained in the OSHA Integrated Management Information System for the period 2009 through 2014 for both Federal and State Programs.  Starting in 2011, the Federal Offices began transitioning to the OIS database, so the data after 2011 is primarily from the State Program Offices.   Also attached is a document that contains the IMIS data field descriptions.

The data fields included in the sheet are:

Inspection Number
SIC Code
NAICS Code
Region ID Number
Establishment Name
Number of Employees
Type of Inspection
Sampling Date
Job Description
Occupation Code
Units of Measurement: M=mg/m3; G=mppcf
IMIS Substance Code
Type of Sample
Exposure Level
Type of Exposure
Frequency of Exposure
Number of Exposed Employees
Permissible Exposure Limit
Adjusted PEL Flag
Severity (Exposure/PEL)
Sample Number


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 10, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1258-1259]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00284]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9972-88-ORD]

Environmental Laboratory Advisory Board Meeting Dates and Agenda

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of teleconference and face-to-face meetings.

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

    The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Environmental
Laboratory Advisory Board (ELAB) holds teleconference meetings the
third Wednesday of each month at 1:00 p.m. ET and two face-to-face
meetings each calendar year. For 2018, teleconference only meetings
will be February 21; March 21; April 18; May 16; June 20; July 18;
September 19; October 17; November 21; and December 19 to discuss the
ideas and views presented at the previous ELAB meetings, as well as new
business. Items to be discussed by ELAB over these coming meetings
include: (1) Issues in continuing the expansion of national
environmental

accreditation; (2) ELAB support to the Agency on issues relating to
measurement and monitoring for all programs; and (3) follow-up on some
of ELAB's past recommendations and issues. In addition to these
teleconferences, ELAB will be hosting their two face-to-face meetings
with teleconference line also available on January 22, 2018 at the
Hyatt Regency in Albuquerque, NM at 1:00 p.m. (MT) (due to unforeseen
administrative circumstances, EPA is announcing this meeting with less
than 15 calendar days' notice) and on August 6, 2018 at the Hyatt
Regency in New Orleans, LA at 1:00 p.m. (CT). Written comments on
laboratory accreditation issues and/or environmental monitoring or
measurement issues are encouraged and should be sent to Ms. Lara P.
Phelps, Designated Federal Official, US EPA (E243-05), 109 T. W.
Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 or emailed to
[email protected]. Members of the public are invited to listen to the
teleconference calls, and time permitting, will be allowed to comment
on issues discussed during this and previous ELAB meetings. Those
persons interested in participating in ELAB teleconference meetings
should call Lara P. Phelps at<PHONE_NUMBER> to obtain teleconference
information. For information on access or services for individuals with
disabilities, please contact Lara P. Phelps at the number above,
preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much
time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: December 28, 2017.
Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta,
Science Advisor, Office of the Science Advisor.
[FR Doc. 2018-00284 Filed 1-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 92 (Friday, May 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27836-27837]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11456]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0118]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension of a
Currently-Approved Information Collection Request: Motor Carrier
Identification Report

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its
review and approval. The FMCSA requests approval to extend an ICR
entitled, ``Motor Carrier Identification Report,'' which is used to
identify FMCSA regulated entities, prioritize the agency's activities,
aid in assessing the safety outcomes of those activities, and for
statistical purposes.
    On February 6, 2012, FMCSA published a Federal Register notice
allowing for a 60-day comment period on the ICR. No comments were
received.

DATES: Please send your comments by June 11, 2012. OMB must receive
your comments by this date in order to act quickly on the ICR.

ADDRESSES: All comments should reference Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2012-0118. Interested persons are
invited to submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention
of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Ms. Vivian Oliver, Transportation
Specialist, Office of Information Technology, Operations Division,
Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email Address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Office hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Motor Carrier Identification Report.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-0013.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently-approved information
collection.
    Respondents: Motor carriers, commercial motor vehicle drivers, and
intermodal equipment providers.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 447,109.
    Estimated Time per Response: To complete Form MCS-150, motor
carriers will need 20 minutes the first time they file this report and
7.5 minutes for the biennial update. To complete Form MCS-150B (HM
Safety Permit Application), interstate HM carriers that have already
completed the Form MCS-150 will need 6 minutes to complete this report
and intrastate HM carriers that have never completed a Form MCS-150
will need about 16 minutes to complete it and 5 minutes for the
biennial update. Form MCS-150C--Intermodal Equipment Providers will
need 20 minutes the first time they file this report and 7.5 minutes
for the biennial update.
    Expiration Date: July 31, 2012.
    Frequency of Response: Biennially.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 93,792 hours [93,534 hours for Form
MCS-150 + 249 hours for Form MCS-150B + 9 hours for Form MCS-150C =
93,792 hours].
    Background: Title 49, United States Code Section 504(b)(2) provides
the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) with authority to require
carriers, lessors, associations, or classes of these entities to file
annual, periodic, and special reports containing answers to questions
asked by the Secretary. The Secretary may also prescribe the form of
records required to be prepared or compiled and the time period during
which records must be preserved (See Sec.  504(b)(1) and (d)). The
FMCSA will use this data to administer its safety programs by
establishing a database of entities that are subject to its
regulations. This database necessitates that these entities notify the
FMCSA of their existence. For example, under 49 CFR 390.19(a), FMCSA
requires all motor carriers beginning operations to file a Form MCS-150
entitled, ``Motor Carrier Identification Report.'' This report is filed
by all motor carriers conducting operations in interstate or
international commerce before beginning operations. It asks the

respondent to provide the name of the business entity that owns and
controls the motor carrier operation, address and telephone of
principal place of business, assigned identification number(s), type of
operation, types of cargo usually transported, number of vehicles
owned, term leased and trip leased, driver information, and
certification statement signed by an individual authorized to sign
documents on behalf of the business entity.
    The Department of Transportation (DOT) and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002 (DOT Appropriations Act) (Pub.
L. 107-87, 115 Stat. 833) directed the agency to issue an interim final
rule (IFR) to ensure that new entrant motor carriers are knowledgeable
about the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) and
standards.
    On June 30, 2004, the agency issued a final rule entitled,
``Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations: Hazardous Materials Safety
Permits,'' (69 FR 39350) which required all HM carriers (both
interstate and intrastate) to complete and file the Form MCS-150B
entitled, ``Combined Motor Carrier Identification Report and HM Permit
Application,'' to obtain a safety permit to transport hazardous
materials. The safety program under 49 CFR 390.19(a) also requires all
HM permitted carriers to complete Form MCS-150B in place of the current
Form MCS-150 to ``renew'' both their permit and their DOT numbers
according to the DOT number renewal schedule.
    On December 17, 2008, FMCSA issued a final rule entitled,
``Requirements for Intermodal Equipment Providers and for Motor
Carriers and Drivers Operating Intermodal Equipment,'' (73 FR 76794)
which required all intermodal equipment providers to complete Form MCS-
150C entitled, ``Intermodal Equipment Provider Identification Report''
in order to register with the Agency and receive a USDOT number. FMCSA
now regulates intermodal equipment providers and requires them to
complete Form MCS-150C, instead of the current Form MCS-150. In
addition, intermodal equipment providers must complete Form MCS-150C to
update their USDOT number record according to the USDOT number update
schedule in 49 CFR 390.19.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the FMCSA to perform its functions; (2) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for FMCSA to enhance the
quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information.

    Issued on: April 25, 2012.
Kelly Leone,
Associate Administrator for Research and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2012-11456 Filed 5-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 151 (Monday, August 6, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38327-38329]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16721]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83752; File No. SR-FINRA-2018-019]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change Creating Fee
and Honorarium for Late Cancellation of a Prehearing Conference

July 31, 2018.

I. Introduction

    On May 4, 2018, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend FINRA Rules 12500 and
12501 of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes
(``Customer Code'') and FINRA Rules 13500 and 13501 of the Code of
Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes (``Industry Code'' and
together, ``Codes''), to charge a $100 per-arbitrator fee to parties
who request cancellation of a prehearing conference within three
business days before a scheduled prehearing conference. The proposed
rule change would also amend FINRA Rules 12214(a) and 13214(a) of the
Codes to create a $100 honorarium to pay each arbitrator scheduled to
attend a prehearing conference that was cancelled within three business
days of the prehearing conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on May 14, 2018.\3\ The public comment period closed on June
8, 2018. The Commission received one comment letter in response to the
Notice, supporting the proposed rule change.\4\ This order approves the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Act Release No. 83227 (May 4, 2018), 83 FR
23306 (May 14, 2018) (File No. SR-FINRA-2018-019 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Letter from Steven B. Caruso, Maddox Hargett Caruso,
P.C., dated May 15, 2018 (``Caruso Letter''), available at https://www.sec.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The subsequent description of the proposed rule change is
substantially excerpted from FINRA's description in the Notice. See
Notice, 83 FR at 23306-23308.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cancellation Fee

    Parties to an arbitration typically schedule prehearing conferences
with the arbitrator(s) before the hearing on the merits of the
claim.\6\ During these conferences, the participants set discovery,
briefing and motions deadlines, schedule subsequent hearing sessions,
and address other preliminary matters.\7\ A prehearing conference may
also address other outstanding matters, such as discovery disputes or
substantive motions (e.g., motions to dismiss or motions to amend).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See FINRA Rules 12100(w) and 13100(w).
    \7\ See FINRA Rules 12500(c) and 13500(c).
    \8\ See FINRA Rules 12501(b) and 13501(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA stated that its arbitrators devote considerable time
preparing for prehearing conferences and forgo other opportunities by
reserving time on their schedules.\9\ Currently, however, parties can
cancel prehearing conferences up to, and including, the day of the
conference without penalty.\10\ Consequently, FINRA has found that late
cancellations (in particular, those that occur within three or fewer
business days of a scheduled prehearing conference) have negatively
impacted its roster of arbitrators by creating scheduling
inconveniences for, and uncompensated work by, arbitrators.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Notice, 83 FR at 23309.
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ In the past, arbitrators have resigned from the roster
because FINRA's dispute resolution forum does not provide a payment
to arbitrators for cancellations of prehearing conferences. FINRA
notes that one reason former arbitrators have given for their
resignation is the lack of compensation for prehearing conferences
that are cancelled on short notice. FINRA has identified 17 separate
complaints relating to 22 arbitrators with respect to the late
cancellations of prehearing conferences. See Notice, 83 FR at 23307,
note 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To help alleviate these burdens, FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA
Rules 12500 and 12501 of the Customer Code and FINRA Rules 13500 and
13501 of the Industry Code,\12\ which govern prehearing conferences, to
provide that if a cancellation \13\ request is agreed to by the parties
or requested by one or more parties within three business days before a
scheduled prehearing conference and granted, the party or parties shall
be charged a fee of $100 per arbitrator scheduled to attend the
prehearing conference (``late cancellation fee'').\14\ The date of the
party's or parties' cancellation request would control whether the fee
is assessed, not the date of the arbitrator or arbitrators' decision on
such a request, if a decision is required.\15\ If the arbitrator(s)
cancel a prehearing conference on their own, the parties would not be
charged.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ To simplify this explanation, FINRA's discussion of the
proposed changes focuses on changes to the Customer Code. However,
the proposed changes also apply to the Industry Code. See Notice, 83
FR at 23307, note 13.
    \13\ References to cancellations of prehearing conferences
include postponements of such conferences. See Notice, 83 FR at
23309, note 29.
    \14\ See Notice, 83 FR at 23307.
    \15\ A decision would be required if only one party requests
that the prehearing conference be cancelled. See Notice, 83 FR at
23307, note 14.
    \16\ See Notice, 83 FR at 23307.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposal, if more than one party requests the
cancellation of a prehearing conference, the arbitrator(s) would have
the authority to allocate the fee in the award between or among the
requesting parties.\17\ However, depending on the facts and
circumstances of the request, the arbitrator(s) could assess the fee to
one party or to a non-requesting party or parties if the arbitrator(s)
determine that these parties caused or contributed to the need for the
cancellation.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Notice, 83 FR at 23307.
    \18\ See Notice, 83 FR at 23307. See also FINRA Rules
12904(e)(8) and 13904(e)(8); see generally FINRA Rules 12601(b) and
13601(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposal, however, if an extraordinary circumstance
prevents a party from making a timely cancellation request, the
arbitrator(s) would have the discretion to waive the late cancellation
fee, provided they receive a written explanation of the
circumstance.\19\ FINRA would notify parties and arbitrator(s) that the
prehearing conference was cancelled and remind parties to provide an
explanation, if applicable, before the close of the arbitration
case.\20\ If the fee is waived, the party's or parties' obligation to
pay the fee would be eliminated. FINRA, however, would pay the $100
per-arbitrator honorarium (discussed below) to the arbitrator(s)
scheduled to attend the prehearing conference.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Notice, 83 FR at 23307.
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Honorarium

    In addition, FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rules 12214(a) and
13214(a) to provide that FINRA would pay an honorarium of $100 to each
arbitrator scheduled to attend a prehearing conference that was
cancelled within three business days of the prehearing conference by
agreement of the parties or was requested by one or more parties within
three business days of the prehearing conference and granted. As
discussed above, if the arbitrator(s) waive the fee, the obligation to
pay the fee would be eliminated, but FINRA would still pay the $100
per-arbitrator honorarium to the arbitrator(s) scheduled to attend the
prehearing conference.

III. Comment Summary

    As noted above, the Commission received one comment letter on the
proposed rule change, supporting the proposal.\22\ The commenter states
that late cancellations often result in scheduling inconvenience for,
and uncompensated work by, arbitrators. The commenter believes that the
proposal represents a ``fair, equitable and reasonable'' solution to
these concerns because the fee and honorarium recognize the
``considerable preparation by arbitrators . . . that is required prior
to a prehearing conference.'' \23\ Accordingly, the commenter believes
that the proposal would ``lead to an improved and expanded roster of
arbitrators.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See supra note 4.
    \23\ Caruso Letter.
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review of the proposed rule change and the comment
letter, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities
association.\25\ Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Exchange
Act,\26\ which requires, among other things, that FINRA rules be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest, and Exchange Act Section
15A(b)(5) of

the Exchange Act,\27\ which requires, among other things, that FINRA
rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility or system that FINRA operates or controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 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).
    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Interest

    The Commission agrees with FINRA and the commenter that the
proposed rule change would protect investors and the public interest by
improving FINRA's ability to recruit and retain qualified arbitrators
willing to devote the time and effort necessary to consider prehearing
issues, which FINRA asserts is an essential element for it to operate
an effective arbitration forum.\28\ Currently, parties can cancel
prehearing conferences up to, and including, the same day of the
conference without penalty. Late cancellations of prehearing
conferences do, however, penalize the arbitrators who would not receive
compensation for the time and effort devoted to preparing for the
conference, as well as the potential for lost personal or professional
opportunities caused by reserving the scheduled meeting time. These
burdens could negatively impact an arbitrator's decision to remain on
the FINRA arbitrator roster or an individual's decision to join the
roster. The proposed rule change would eliminate these disincentives by
compensating arbitrators in the event of a late cancellation. For these
reasons, the Commission believes the proposed rule change is consistent
with the Section 15A(b)(6) requirement that FINRA rules be designed to
protect the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Notice, 83 FR at 23308.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Equitable Allocation of Fees

    The Commission also agrees that the proposed rule change represents
an equitable allocation of the fees associated with using the FINRA
arbitration forum.\29\ In particular, the Commission notes the proposed
late cancellation fee would be allocated among those parties
responsible for canceling the meeting within three days of the
prehearing conferences. Even if a party or parties did not request the
cancellation, the proposed rule change would permit arbitrators to
allocate all, or a portion of the fee, to those parties if the
arbitrators determine that they caused or contributed to the late
cancellation.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Id. See also Caruso Letter.
    \30\ See Notice, 83 FR at 23308.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission recognizes that the proposed rule change could
increase the cost to parties of using the arbitration forum.\31\
However, the Commission also recognizes that the late cancellation fee
would compensate arbitrators directly inconvenienced by the late
cancellation of a prehearing conference and address a practice that
negatively impacts the roster of arbitrators. In particular, the
Commission notes that FINRA would compensate arbitrators for their
preparation time and opportunity cost associated with reserving a
meeting date when a prehearing conference is cancelled on short
notice.\32\ The Commission believes that it is reasonable to compensate
the inconvenienced arbitrators for the time and opportunity cost.
Furthermore, the Commission notes that parties to an arbitration could
avoid the proposed late termination fee by, among other ways, providing
notice of cancellation more than three business days prior to a
scheduled prehearing conference.\33\ Furthermore, the Commission notes
that the arbitrator(s) could assess the fee to one party or to a non-
requesting party or parties if the arbitrator(s) determine that these
parties caused or contributed to the need for the cancellation.
Finally, if an extraordinary circumstance prevents a party from making
a timely cancellation request, the arbitrator(s) would have the
discretion to waive the late cancellation fee, provided they receive a
written explanation of the circumstance
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Id.
    \32\ Id.
    \33\ See Notice, 83 FR at 23308.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the Commission believes the proposed rule change
is also consistent with the Section 15A(b)(5) requirement that FINRA
rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees among
persons using any facility or system that FINRA operates or controls.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act \34\ that the proposal (SR-FINRA-2018-019), be and hereby
is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-16721 Filed 8-3-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P