[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 101 (Tuesday, May 26, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31571-31575]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11137]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88907; File No. SR-ICEEU-2020-002]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice
of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission or
Advance Notice Relating to the ICE Clear Europe Investment Management
Procedures and Treasury and Banking Services Policy (To Be Renamed
Liquidity and Investment Management Policy)

May 19, 2020.
    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 May 13, 2020, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear Europe'' or the
``Clearing House'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule changes described in Items I, II and
III below, which Items have been prepared by ICE Clear Europe. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or Advance Notice

    ICE Clear Europe proposes to amend its Investment Management
Procedures (the ``Procedures'') and its Treasury and Banking Services
Policy, which would be renamed the Liquidity and Investment Management
Policy (the ``Policy'', and collectively with the Procedures, the
``Documents''). The revisions would not involve any changes to the ICE
Clear Europe Clearing Rules.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the
meanings specified in the ICE Clear Europe Clearing Rules (the
``Rules'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission or
Advance Notice

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

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission or
Advance Notice

(a) Purpose
    ICE Clear Europe is proposing to adopt the amendments to the
Documents following an annual review by Treasury to:
     Include investment limits and criteria for the investment
of ICE Clear Europe's contribution to default resources (a.k.a. ``skin
in the game''), in addition to the investment of clearing member
contributions;
     Similarly include investment limits and criteria for the
investment of ICEU's regulatory capital;
     Remove the requirement for 50% of the investable balance
per currency to be invested in overnight reverse repurchase agreements
(``repos''), as this requirement was potentially constraining the use
of central bank deposits where available;
     Include cross currency sovereign bonds as acceptable
assets (``collateral'') under reverse repos; and
     Eliminate the separate section regarding investments in
`times of insufficient market supply' (as it was unclear when this
applied). Instead, the revised Documents include a single set of
relevant permitted investments and collateral in the acceptable lists
for all market circumstances (and the allocation to different
investment and collateral within those lists can be managed across
different market circumstances).
    Certain other clarifications would also be made to the Procedures,
including to the glossary, and conforming changes would be made to the
Policy. The Policy would also be renamed the Liquidity and Investment
Management Policy to reflect its coverage of investment management more
broadly.
Proposed Amendments to the Procedures
    The purpose section of the Procedures would be updated to note that
it addresses permitted investments and concentration limits relating to
ICE Clear Europe contributions to default resources and regulatory
capital in addition to clearing member margin and guaranty fund
contributions (which are covered by the existing Procedures).
    With respect to overall investment considerations, a number of
modifications would be made. The requirement that at least 50% of the
investable portfolio in each currency

should be invested in overnight reverse repurchase agreements would be
removed. (This change would facilitate use of central bank deposits
where available to ICE Clear Europe for the relevant currency.) A
requirement that no more than 5% of the investible funds can be held as
unsecured cash each calendar month would be added, which requirement
would be applied separately to (i) ICE Clear Europe's regulatory
capital; and (ii) total Clearing Member cash and Clearing House skin in
the game. Central bank deposits would be considered secured and thus
outside of the 5% threshold.
    The table of authorized investments and concentration limits for
investments of cash provided by Clearing Members and ICE Clear Europe
skin in the game would be amended as follows:

--US, UK and EU government agency bonds would be added to the list of
eligible instruments (as a distinct category from sovereign obligations
(renamed sovereign bonds) of those countries)
    [cir] Qualifying government agency bonds would have a maximum
maturity of 13 calendar months and minimum credit ratings of AA- from
at least two nationally recognized statistical rating organizations
(``NRSROs'').
    [cir] US and UK government agency bonds would have no issuer
concentration limits and their maximum portfolio limits would be 20% of
the total USD or GBP, as applicable, balance in a single issue.
    [cir] EU government agency bonds would have an issuer concentration
limit of 15% of the total EUR balance in a single issuer.

--For qualifying US, UK and EU sovereign bonds, minimum credit ratings
of would be deleted.
--The maximum concentration limit for reverse repurchase agreements
would be amended to apply per counterparty family instead of per
counterparty.
--Commercial bank obligations would be amended to refer to commercial
bank deposits and related maximum counterparty concentration limits
would be amended to clarify that unsecured cash limits for financial
service providers are set out separately.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Currently set out in the existing Unsecured Credit Limit
Procedures.

    A new table of authorized investments and concentration limits for
investment of ICE Clear Europe's regulatory capital would be added.
Authorized instruments would be limited to US, UK and EU sovereign
bonds and US, UK and EU government agency bonds with a maximum maturity
of 90 days. The US and UK sovereign and government agency bonds would
have no issuer concentration limit and a portfolio concentration limit
of 20% (for sovereign bond) and 25% (for government agency bonds) of
the total USD or GBP balance, as applicable, in a single issue. The EU
government agency bonds would have a maximum counterparty concentration
limit of 25% of the EUR balance in a single issuer. EU sovereign bonds
would need to be issued by the German, French, Belgian or Dutch
governments. The minimum credit ratings for government agency bonds
would be AA- from at least two NRSROs.
    The acceptable collateral table for reverse repo transactions would
be revised to include certain additional types of underlying collateral
as well as to permit greater use of cross-currency collateral (e.g., a
EUR denominated reverse repo on US Sovereign Bonds), subject to
additional haircuts. The range of accepted collateral would be extended
to include Supranational obligations denominated in USD, EUR and GBP
and USD government agency bonds, in addition to the existing permitted
US, UK and EU Sovereign Bonds. The required credit rating for all
collateral would be AA-/Aa3, consistent with current requirements. The
revisions would allow greater use of cross-currency reverse repo
involving US, UK and EU sovereign bond collateral, subject to a 4%
haircut (as compared to 2% for repo in the same currency). The
Procedures would also provide that ICE Clear Europe's preferred form of
collateral would be sovereign bonds in same currency of as reverse repo
and the use of non-preferred collateral would be reviewed monthly by
the Head of Treasury and the Chief Risk Officer (or their delegates).
    The section regarding changes to the investment criteria in times
of insufficient market supply would be deleted. In ICE Clear Europe's
view, under the existing procedures it is not entirely clear when this
section would apply. Furthermore, the revised investment limits
discussed above are, in ICE Clear Europe's view, appropriate for all
market circumstances and provide sufficient flexibility to permit ICE
Clear Europe to manage changes in supply of particular types of
investments.
    The amendments would provide that investments would be monitored
against the concentration limits and investment criteria daily by
Treasury and Finance and clarify that breaches of both concentration
limits and the investment criteria would be escalated to the Risk
Oversight and Compliance team. The amendments also note that
concentration limit and investment criteria breaches could also trigger
general regulatory notifications.
    The glossary section of the Procedures would be amended as follows:
     The terms Central Bank Obligations and Commercial Bank
Obligations would be removed as no longer necessary as the Procedures
would refer to, respectively, central bank deposits and commercial bank
deposits instead;
     The term EU Sovereign Obligations would be amended to the
more general defined term, Government Agency Bonds, which would be
defined as bonds issued by or that have their principal and interest
fully guaranteed by their government;
     The term Permitted Investment Counterparties for FCM
Customer Funds would be amended slightly for clarification;
     The term UK Sovereign Obligations and US Sovereign
Obligations would be removed and references to these terms would be
removed or amended to, respectively, UK Sovereign Bonds and US
Sovereign Bonds; and
     The term Supranational Obligations would be added and
would be defined as securities that: (i) Are issued by institutions
that are owned or established by governments of two or more countries
that are all members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) or of the European Union (EU); and (ii) are fully
guaranteed as to principal and interest by those governments.
Proposed Amendments to the Policy
    As noted above, the Policy is being renamed the Liquidity and
Investment Management Policy. The amendments to the Policy conform to
the amendments to the Procedures, including to provide that management
of ICE Clear Europe's skin in the game and regulatory capital are
within the scope of the Policy. Accordingly, the description of ICE
Clear Europe investment management objective would be broadened to
refer to safeguarding cash generally rather than Clearing Member cash
specifically. The amendments also include non-substantive changes to
refer to both liquidity management and investment in various places. In
the purpose section of the Policy, the statement that the Policy
constitutes ICE Clear Europe's liquidity risk management framework for
the purposes of EMIR would be deleted. In the background section of the
Policy, the statement that Treasury Banking Services operates within
the

risk appetites set by the board and in compliance with applicable
regulations would be deleted as unnecessary (given that the Board-
adopted risk appetites apply to all activities of the Clearing House).
(b) Statutory Basis
    ICE Clear Europe believes that the proposed amendments are
consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \5\ and the
regulations thereunder applicable to it. In particular, Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \6\ requires, among other things, that the
rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to
the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and
transactions, the safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody
or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible, and
the protection of investors and the public interest. The proposed
Documents are intended generally to enhance the Clearing House's
criteria for investments. The changes would bring the investment of the
Clearing House's own skin in the game and regulatory capital within the
same investment framework as investment of Clearing Member
contributions, which will facilitate overall risk management of
investment by the Clearing House. The amendments would also update
investment criteria to remove certain constraints on the use of central
bank deposits (specifically, the requirement for 50% of the investable
balance per currency to be invested in overnight repo), and permit
greater use of cross currency repo. The amendments also remove a
unnecessary distinction between normal market conditions and conditions
of insufficient supply. In ICE Clear Europe's view the revised
documentation would facilitate ongoing investment risk management by
the Clearing House, and facilitate the Clearing House's ability to meet
its short-term financial obligations in the event of clearing member
defaults or other liquidity stress events. These amendments would
therefore promote overall Clearing House risk management and facilitate
the prompt and accurate clearing of cleared contracts and protect
investors and the public interest in the sound operations of the
Clearing House, consistent with the requirements of Section
17A(b)(3)(F).\7\ In ICE Clear Europe's view, the amendments are also
consistent with maintaining the value of, and access to, funds invested
by the Clearing House, and therefore will enhance the safeguarding of
securities and funds in the custody or control of the Clearing House or
for which it is responsible, within the meaning of Section
17A(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendments to the Documents are further consistent
with the risk management requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(i) \8\
through enhancing ICE Clear Europe's investment management policies. As
noted above, the amendments would extend these policies to cover
investment limits and criteria relating to ICE Clear Europe's skin in
the game and regulatory capital. Allowing for greater investment
flexibility through the removal of the requirement for 50% of the
investable balance per currency be invested in overnight reverse repo
would also remove a constraint to appropriate risk management that
limit ICE Clear Europe's ability to use central bank deposits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(3)(i)-(ii). The rule states that
``[e]ach covered clearing agency shall establish, implement,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to, as applicable: [m]aintain a sound risk management
framework for comprehensively managing legal, credit, liquidity,
operational, general business, investment, custody, and other risks
that arise in or are borne by the covered clearing agency, which:
    (i) Includes risk management policies, procedures, and systems
designed to identify, measure, monitor, and manage the range of
risks that arise in or are borne by the covered clearing agency,
that are subject to review on a specified periodic basis and
approved by the board of directors annually;''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendments to the Documents are also consistent with
the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(i) and (ii) and Rule 17Ad-
22(a)(14) \9\ which require ICE Clear Europe to maintain sufficient
qualifying liquid resources. In compliance with this requirement, the
proposed amendments would detail investment limits and criteria to
better manage liquidity of ICE Clear Europe's skin in the game and
regulatory capital. The amendments would also allow greater flexibility
to maintain liquid resources in the form of central bank deposits by
removing requirements relating to maintaining certain minimum balances
in overnight reverse repos.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7)(i)--(ii). The rule states that
``[e]ach covered clearing agency shall establish, implement,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to, as applicable: [e]ffectively measure, monitor, and
manage the liquidity risk that arises in or is borne by the covered
clearing agency, including measuring, monitoring, and managing its
settlement and funding flows on an ongoing and timely basis, and its
use of intraday liquidity by, at a minimum, doing the following:
    (i) Maintaining sufficient liquid resources at the minimum in
all relevant currencies to effect same-day and, where appropriate,
intraday and multiday settlement of payment obligations with a high
degree of confidence under a wide range of foreseeable stress
scenarios that includes, but is not limited to, the default of the
participant family that would generate the largest aggregate payment
obligation for the covered clearing agency in extreme but plausible
market conditions;
    (ii) Holding qualifying liquid resources sufficient to meet the
minimum liquidity resource requirement under paragraph (e)(7)(i) of
this section in each relevant currency for which the covered
clearing agency has payment obligations owed to clearing members;
    17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(a)(14) Qualifying liquid resources means, for
any covered clearing agency, the following, in each relevant
currency:
    (i) Cash held either at the central bank of issue or at
creditworthy commercial banks;
     (ii) Assets that are readily available and convertible into
cash through prearranged funding arrangements, such as:
    (A) Committed arrangements without material adverse change
provisions, including:
    (1) Lines of credit;
    (2) Foreign exchange swaps; and
    (3) Repurchase agreements; or
    (B) Other prearranged funding arrangements determined to be
highly reliable even in extreme but plausible market conditions by
the board of directors of the covered clearing agency following a
review conducted for this purpose not less than annually; and
     (iii) Other assets that are readily available and eligible for
pledging to (or conducting other appropriate forms of transactions
with) a relevant central bank, if the covered clearing agency has
access to routine credit at such central bank in a jurisdiction that
permits said pledges or other transactions by the covered clearing
agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendments to the Documents would be similarly compliant with
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(16),\10\ which would require assets of the Clearing
House and Clearing Members be held in a manner that minimizes risk of
loss and invested in assets with minimal credit, market and liquidity
risk. As noted above, the amendments would apply to both the Clearing
House's own assets and Clearing Member assets. The amendments to the
acceptable collateral table would set out appropriate investment,
concentration, maturity, rating and other criteria for investments and
reverse repo collateral that are intended to minimize credit, market
and liquidity risks from these investments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(16). The rule states that ``[e]ach
covered clearing agency shall establish, implement, maintain and
enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to, as
applicable: [s]afeguard the covered clearing agency's own and its
participants' assets, minimize the risk of loss and delay in access
to these assets, and invest such assets in instruments with minimal
credit, market, and liquidity risks.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rules 17Ad-22(e)(7)(iii) and (e)(9) \11\ require clearing agencies,
where

possible, to access accounts and services at a central bank. The
proposed removal of the requirement that 50% of the investable balance
per currency be invested in overnight reverse repo would provide
greater flexibility for the Clearing House to use central bank
deposits, consistent with these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7)(iii). The rule states that
``[e]ach covered clearing agency shall establish, implement,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to, as applicable: [e]ffectively measure, monitor, and
manage the liquidity risk that arises in or is borne by the covered
clearing agency, including measuring, monitoring, and managing its
settlement and funding flows on an ongoing and timely basis, and its
use of intraday liquidity by, at a minimum, doing the following:
     (iii) Using the access to accounts and services at a Federal
Reserve Bank, pursuant to Section 806(a) of the Payment, Clearing,
and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5465(a)), or other
relevant central bank, when available and where determined to be
practical by the board of directors of the covered clearing agency,
to enhance its management of liquidity risk;'' maintain and enforce
written policies and procedures reasonably designed to, as
applicable: [c]onduct its money settlements in central bank money,
where available and determined to be practical by the board of
directors of the covered clearing agency, and minimize and manage
credit and liquidity risk arising from conducting its money
settlements in commercial bank money if central bank money is not
used by the covered clearing agency.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendments to the Documents would also be compliant with Rule
17Ad-22(e)(15)(ii).\12\ The proposed new table of authorized
investments and concentration limits for investment of ICE Clear
Europe's regulatory capital relates to highly liquid government
securities that constitute liquid net assets for purposes of this rule,
and is consistent with existing practice. The concentration limits
provided, which are consistent with those set with respect to cash from
Clearing Members and skin in the game, would further enable ICE Clear
Europe to continue to hold sufficient liquid net assets to meet this
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(15)(ii). The rule states that
``[e]ach covered clearing agency shall establish, implement,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to, as applicable: (15) Identify, monitor, and manage the
covered clearing agency's general business risk and hold sufficient
liquid net assets funded by equity to cover potential general
business losses so that the covered clearing agency can continue
operations and services as a going concern if those losses
materialize, including by: (ii) Holding liquid net assets funded by
equity equal to the greater of either (x) six months of the covered
clearing agency's current operating expenses, or (y) the amount
determined by the board of directors to be sufficient to ensure a
recovery or orderly wind-down of critical operations and services of
the covered clearing agency, as contemplated by the plans
established under paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section, and which:
     (A) Shall be in addition to resources held to cover participant
defaults or other risks covered under the credit risk standard in
paragraph (b)(3) or paragraphs (e)(4)(i) through (iii) of this
section, as applicable, and the liquidity risk standard in
paragraphs (e)(7)(i) and (ii) of this section; and
     (B) Shall be of high quality and sufficiently liquid to allow
the covered clearing agency to meet its current and projected
operating expenses under a range of scenarios, including in adverse
market conditions;''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed amendments would
have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The amendments
would apply uniformly to all investments made by the Clearing House,
are being adopted to strengthen and clarify the Clearing House's
investment management policies and procedures and should not affect the
rights or obligations of Clearing Members. The amendments are also
intended to treat investment of ICE Clear Europe's own assets (as skin
in the game or regulatory capital) in the same manner as Clearing
Member assets. As a result, ICE Clear Europe does not believe the
amendments would affect the cost of clearing for Clearing Members or
other market participants, the market for cleared services generally or
access to clearing by Clearing Members or other market participants, or
otherwise affect competition among Clearing Members or market
participants in a manner not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act.

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

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

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based
Swap Submission and Advance Notice and Timing for Commission Action

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, security-based swap submission or advance notice 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-ICEEU-2020-002 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2020-002. 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, security-based
swap submission or advance notice that are filed with the Commission,
and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change,
security-based swap submission or advance notice between the Commission
and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public
in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available
for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference
Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days
between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings
will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal
office of ICE Clear Europe and on ICE Clear Europe's website at https://www.theice.com/clear-europe/regulation.
    All comments received will be posted without change. Persons
submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2020-002 and should be
submitted on or before June 16, 2020.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-11137 Filed 5-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 71 (Monday, April 13, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20566-20567]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07731]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0114]

Hours of Service of Drivers: Application for Exemption; Werner
Enterprises

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

ACTION: Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
requests public comment on Werner Enterprises' (Werner) application for
an exemption from the requirement that certain data fields be included
in electronic records of duty status (RODS) files presented by
electronic logging devices (ELDs). Specifically, Werner requests that,
during the first eight days that each of its drivers transitions to an
ELD from its new supplier, Platform Science, five specific data fields
in the RODS files accessible through the in-cab ELD unit be left blank
due to file compatibility issues between the suppliers' systems.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 13, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2020-0114 using any of the
following methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments on the Federal electronic docket
site.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Bring comments to Docket
Operations, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, DOT Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. e.t., Monday-
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number for this notice. For detailed instructions on submitting
comments and additional information on the exemption process, see the
``Public Participation'' heading below. Note that all comments received
will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided. Please see the ``Privacy Act''
heading for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or to Docket
Operations, Room W12-140, DOT Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you,
please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting Docket
Operations.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Public participation: The http://www.regulations.gov website is
generally available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You may find
electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the
``help'' section of the http://www.regulations.gov website as well as
the DOT's http://docketsinfo.dot.gov website. If you would like
notification that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgment
page that appears after submitting comments online.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Pearlie Robinson, FMCSA Driver and
Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-2020-0114), indicate the specific section of this
document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for
suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comments online, go to www.regulations.gov and put
the docket number, ``FMCSA-2020-0114'' in the ``Keyword'' box, and
click ``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on ``Comment
Now!'' button and type your comment into the text box in the following
screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual
or on behalf of a third party and then submit. If you submit your
comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no
larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic
filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they
reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard
or envelope. FMCSA will consider all comments and material received
during the comment period and may grant or not grant this application
based on your comments.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b) to grant exemptions
from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the
public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the
application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted.
The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the
request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted,
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period and explain
the terms and conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed
(49 CFR 381.300(b)).

III. Background

    On December 16, 2015 (80 FR 78292), FMCSA published a final rule
requiring most drivers required to prepare hours-of-service (HOS)
records of duty status (RODS) to use ELDs instead of paper logs to
document their RODS. The final rule also established minimum
performance and technical design standards for ELDs.
    Appendix A to Subpart B of 49 CFR part 395 (Appendix A) provides
requirements for data fields that must be included in electronic RODS
files generated by ELDs.

IV. Werner's Exemption Application

    Werner requests that during the first eight days that each of its
drivers makes the transition to an ELD from its new supplier, Platform
Science, five specific data fields required by Appendix A to be
included in the RODS files accessible through the in-cab ELD unit be
left blank. The files generated by the current ELDs used by Werner
include all the required information. The files generated by the
Platform Science ELDs that Werner will begin using in 2020 include all
the required information. Werner will be transferring data from its
current ELD system to a new platform, and with that transition 5
elements will not be available for the first 8 days. The affected
fields are:
     Co-driver information;
     Odometer Elapsed--vehicle elapsed miles/kilometers in
given ignition power on cycle;
     Engine Hours Elapsed--elapsed time of engine operation in
the given ignition power on cycle;
     Engine Hours Total--total engine hours at time of event;
and,
     Odometer Total (decimal)--total at time of the event.
    Consequently, during the first seven days a driver is operating a
Werner vehicle equipped with the new Platform Science ELD, the
electronic RODS file accessible in the vehicle will not include the
five data elements specified above; however, all other information
needed to determine compliance with the HOS rules will be available.
The inspector would review the electronic RODS via FMCSA's eRODS
software which would detect the missing data elements in the Platform
Science ELD presentation of the previous eight days of RODS. This
problem will affect Werner's entire fleet which consists of roughly
10,000 drivers and 8,000 power units as the transition takes place.
    Werner notes that its drivers would have electronic RODS files
available for review using FMCSA's eRODS software providing accurate
duty status information for the current day and the previous seven days
at any inspection location. While the files would not include the five
data elements above, HOS information can still be verified at the
roadside, and the information would be available for an on-site
investigation conducted at a Werner facility. The remaining data
elements would provide a means for identifying non-compliance with the
underlying hours-of-service requirements. A copy of the exemption
application has been placed in the docket referenced at the beginning
of this notice.

V. Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), FMCSA requests public
comment from all interested persons on Werner's application for an
exemption from the requirement that data fields specified in Appendix A
to Subpart B or Part 395 (Appendix A) be included in electronic records
of duty status (RODS) files generated by electronic logging devices
(ELDs). All comments received before the close of business on the
comment closing date indicated at the beginning of this notice will be
considered and will be available for examination in the docket at the
location listed under the Addresses section of this notice. Comments
received after the comment closing date will be filed in the public
docket and will be considered to the extent practicable. In addition to
late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file, in the public docket,
relevant information that becomes available after the comment closing
date. Interested persons should continue to examine the public docket
for new material.

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-07731 Filed 4-10-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 164 (Thursday, August 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42648-42649]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18275]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9982-15-OP]

Notice of Charter Renewal

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of charter renewal.

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

    Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has determined that, in accordance with the provisions of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the National Environmental
Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) is necessary and in the public
interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the
agency by law. Accordingly, NEJAC will be renewed for an additional
two-year period. The purpose of the NEJAC is to provide advice and
recommendations to the Administrator about issues associated with
integrating environmental justice concerns into EPA's outreach
activities, public policies, science, regulatory, enforcement, and
compliance decisions.

    Inquiries may be directed to Matthew Tejada, NEJAC Designated
Federal Officer, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (Mail Code
2202A), Washington, DC 20460,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

    Dated: August 7, 2018.
Brittany Bolen,
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-18275 Filed 8-22-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 58987]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23580]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-2642-000]

North Eastern States, Inc.; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of North Eastern States, Inc.'s application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability is October 9, 2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 19, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-23580 Filed 9-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 19, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 96)]
[Notices]
[Page 28012-28014]
[DOCID:fr19my10-54]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0282; FRL-8824-8]

Pesticides; Draft Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on False or
Misleading Pesticide Product Brand Names

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Agency is announcing the availability of and seeking
public comment on a draft Pesticide Registration Notice (PR Notice)
entitled ``False or Misleading Pesticide Product Brand Names.'' PR
Notices are issued by the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) to inform
pesticide registrants and other interested persons about important
policies, procedures, and registration related decisions, and serve to
provide guidance to pesticide registrants and OPP personnel. This
particular draft PR

Notice provides guidance to applicants, registrants and distributors
concerning pesticide product brand names that may be false or
misleading, either by themselves or in association with particular
company names or trademarks.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 18, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0282, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2010-0282. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Kempter, Antimicrobials Division
(7510P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me

    This action is directed to the public in general although this
action may be of particular interest to those persons who are required
to register pesticides. Since other entities may also be interested,
the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that
may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
information in this notice, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
     iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. What Guidance Does this PR Notice Provide?

    This draft PR Notice provides guidance to applicants, registrants
and distributors on pesticide product brand names that may be false or
misleading, either by themselves or in association with particular
company names or trademarks. The Agency previously announced the
availability of this draft PR Notice for public comment (67 FR 14941;
FRL-6809-9) on March 28, 2002 and received comments from 28 parties
(EPA docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-0084). The Agency has reviewed
those comments, made appropriate changes to the draft PR Notice, and
written responses to the comments (see the Responses to Comments
document posted to the docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0282).
    The revised draft PR Notice clarifies how statutory and regulatory
provisions that prohibit pesticide labeling from being false or
misleading apply to product brand names. Under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) sections 12(a)(1)(E) and
2(q)(1)(A), and 40 CFR 156.10(b)(2) and

40 CFR 156.10(a)(5), products with brand names that, in a false or
misleading manner, state or imply safety, efficacy or comparative
claims, or are otherwise false or misleading in any particular, are
considered to be misbranded and may not be sold or distributed.
    The revised, draft PR Notice explains the statutory and regulatory
requirements that a pesticide product brand name, either by itself or
containing or located in close proximity to a company name or
trademark, not be false or misleading. The draft PR Notice provides
examples of potentially false or misleading product brand names.
Finally, the draft PR Notice states that the Agency will be applying
these regulations as interpreted in this notice when evaluating
applications for new products or brand names, reviewing notifications
for alternate or changed brand names, reviewing applications for
registration, or conducting registration reviews. The draft PR Notice
encourages applicants and registrants to review their product names in
light of its guidance, and, if warranted, take corrective action within
two years of the issuance of the final PR Notice. The draft PR Notice
explains that after the final implementation date, EPA may consider the
guidance in the final PR Notice when determining whether a product is
misbranded under FIFRA.

III. Do PR Notices Contain Binding Requirements?

    The PR Notice discussed in this notice is intended to provide
guidance to EPA personnel and decisionmakers and to pesticide
registrants. While the requirements in the statute and Agency
regulations are binding on EPA and the applicants, this PR Notice is
not binding on either EPA or pesticide registrants, and EPA may depart
from the guidance where circumstances warrant and without prior notice.
Likewise, pesticide registrants and applicants may assert that the
guidance is not appropriate categorically or not applicable to a
specific pesticide or situation.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: May 12, 2010.
 Steven Bradbury,
Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 2010-11977 Filed 5-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31121-31123]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14013]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81037; File No. SR-ICC-2017-010]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of
Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or Advance Notice
Relating to the ICC Clearing Rules and the ICC Treasury Operations
Policies and Procedures

June 28, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that on June
16, 2017, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission the proposed rule change, security-based swap
submission, or advance notice, as described in Items I, II, and III
below, which Items have been prepared primarily by ICC. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change, security-based swap submission, or advance notice from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The principal purpose of the proposed changes is to make changes to
the ICC Clearing Rules (the ``ICC Rules'') and ICC Treasury Operations
Policies and Procedures (``Treasury Policy'') to remove eligibility of
Japanese yen (``JPY''), Great British pounds (``GBP''), and Canadian
dollars (``CAD'') to meet Initial Margin and Guaranty Fund
requirements.

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

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

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

    ICC Clearing Participants are required to post Initial Margin and
contribute to the Guaranty Fund to collateralize their individual
credit exposure to ICC. Currently, a Clearing Participant may meet the
final 35% of their Initial Margin and Guaranty Fund requirements with
JPY, GBP, or CAD, in aggregate. To date, ICC has never received GBP and
CAD, and has received small deposits of JPY from a limited number of
Clearing Participants (i.e. less than 1% of total margin deposits).
JPY, GBP, and CAD are not considered to be `liquid' resources from an
ICC perspective, as they must be converted to another currency (USD or
Euro). JPY additionally has a significant timing issue related to
conversion. Further, ICC has found securitization for these currencies
impractical, especially for the small balances of JPY received.
    For the aforementioned reasons, ICC proposes revising the ICC Rules
and ICC Treasury Operations Policies and Procedures to remove
eligibility of JPY, GBP, and CAD to meet Initial Margin and Guaranty
Fund requirements. Clearing Participants will continue to be able to
meet their Initial Margin and Guaranty Fund requirements using Euro
cash, U.S. cash and/or U.S. Treasuries, in accordance with the
collateral thresholds set forth in Schedule 401 of the ICC Rules. The
proposed revisions to the ICC Rules and ICC Treasury Policy are
described in detail as follows.
ICC Rules
    ICC proposes updates to Schedule 401 of the ICC Rules.
Specifically, ICC proposes removing references to G7 cash,\3\ and
defining `All Eligible Collateral' for both Non-Client Initial Margin
and Guaranty Fund Liquidity Requirements and Client-Related Initial
Margin Liquidity Requirements to be U.S. cash, Euro cash, and/or U.S.
Treasuries. Under the proposed changes, U.S. cash, Euro cash, and/or
U.S. Treasuries will be eligible for meeting the final 35% of Initial
Margin and Guaranty Fund requirements for all Non-Client Initial Margin
and Guaranty Fund Liquidity Requirements and Client-Related USD
denominated Initial Margin Requirements; and U.S. cash, Euro cash, and/
or U.S. Treasuries will be eligible for meeting a maximum of 100% of
Initial Margin requirements for Client-Related Euro Denominated Product
Requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ G7 cash includes U.S. cash, Euro cash, JPY, GBP, and CAD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ICC Treasury Policy
    ICC also proposes updates to the ICC Treasury Policy to remove
references to CAD, GBP, and JPY as eligible collateral. ICC proposes
removing references to CAD, GBP, and JPY in the `Collateral Liquidation
Assumptions' tables (for both Euro and U.S. Dollar denominated
requirements). Under the proposed changes, the tables will set forth
collateral liquidity assumptions for U.S. cash, Euro cash, and U.S.
Treasuries only.
    ICC proposes updating the House Initial Margin and Guaranty Fund
Liquidity Requirements (for Non-Client U.S. Dollar and Euro denominated
requirements) chart to remove reference to G7 cash and to define `All
Eligible Collateral' to be U.S. cash, Euro cash, and/or U.S.
Treasuries. ICC proposes updating the list of acceptable forms of
collateral for Initial Margin to specifically include U.S. Treasury
Securities, U.S. cash, and Euro cash, and to remove the general
reference to G7 currencies. ICC also proposes updating the list of
acceptable forms of collateral for the Guaranty Fund to include U.S.
Treasury Securities, U.S. cash, and Euro cash, and to remove the
general reference to G7 currencies. ICC proposes updates to the
`Eligible Client Collateral' section of the Treasury Policy to note
that ICC's eligible collateral for client Initial Margin includes U.S.
cash, Euro cash, and U.S. government securities in line with current
eligible collateral for House exposures (i.e. U.S. Treasuries). ICC
also proposes updates to the `Client-Related Initial Margin Liquidity
Requirements' section of the Treasury Policy to reflect the proposed
liquidity requirement changes, namely U.S. denominated product
requirements of 65% U.S. cash and/or U.S. Treasuries, and 35% remainder
eligible U.S. cash, U.S. Treasuries, and/or Euro cash; and Euro
denominated product requirements of 100% U.S. cash, Euro cash, and/or
U.S. Treasuries.
    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \4\ requires, among other things,
that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and,
to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and
transactions; to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which
are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is
responsible; and to comply with the provisions of the Act and the rules
and regulations thereunder. ICC believes that the proposed rule changes
are consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to ICC, in particular, to Section
17A(b)(3)(F),\5\ because ICC believes that removing eligibility of JPY,
GBP, and CAD to meet Initial Margin and Guaranty Fund requirements will
promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions, derivatives agreements, contracts, and transactions, and
contribute to the safeguarding of securities and funds associated with
security-based swap transactions in ICC's custody or control, or for
which ICC is responsible. The proposed update will promote the
liquidity of ICC collateral. Such changes are consistent with the
eligible collateral accepted by other market participants. Further,
from a practical standpoint, the proposed updates will have minimal
impact on ICC's financial resource composition, as such currencies have
been rarely utilized by Clearing Participants to meet Initial Margin
and Guaranty Fund requirements. ICC will continue to accept U.S. cash,
Euro cash, and U.S. Treasuries as eligible collateral, in accordance
with Schedule 401 of the ICC Rules. Such collateral will continue to be
held in a manner whereby risk of loss or of delay in access to them is
minimized, consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) \6\ and Rule 17Ad-
22(d)(3).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \5\ Id.
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(3).

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

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

    ICC does not believe the proposed rule changes would have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The changes to ICC's
eligible collateral apply uniformly across all market participants.
Therefore, ICC does not believe the proposed rule changes impose any
burden on competition that is inappropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been
solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by ICC.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such 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-ICC-2017-010 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2017-010. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet 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 such filings will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Credit
and on ICE Clear Credit's Web site at https://www.theice.com/clear-credit/regulation.
    All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2017-010
and should be submitted on or before July 26, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-14013 Filed 7-3-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 139 (Thursday, July 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42529-42533]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17550]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67436; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2012-73]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Establishing a Fee
for Television Distribution of the NYSE Arca Trades Data Product

July 13, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on July 3, 2012, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 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 establish a fee for television
distribution of the NYSE Arca Trades data product. 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to establish a fee for television
distribution of the NYSE Arca Trades data product.
    In 2009, the Commission approved the NYSE Arca Trades data product
and its fees.\4\ NYSE Arca Trades is a NYSE Arca-only market data
service that allows a vendor to redistribute on a real-time basis the
same last sale information that the Exchange reports under the
Consolidated Tape Association (``CTA'') Plan and the NASDAQ Unlisted
Trading Privileges Plan (``NASDAQ UTP Plan'') for including in those
plans' consolidated data streams and certain other related data
elements (``NYSE Arca Last Sale Information'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59598 (Mar. 18,
2009); 74 FR 12919 (Mar. 25, 2009) (SR-NYSEArca-2009-05).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2010, the Commission approved changes to the fees for NYSE Arca
Trades that modified the professional subscriber fee to consolidate the
per-display device fee for NYSE Arca Last Sale Information relating to
Network A and Network B Eligible Securities and securities listed on
NASDAQ and provide an alternative to the per-device fee based on the
number of ``Subscriber Entitlements,'' rather the basis of the number
of devices.\5\ The Exchange charges the datafeed recipients (a) an
access fee of $750 per month (the ``Access Fee''), and (b) at the
election of the vendor, either (i) a device fee for professional
subscribers of $10.00 per month or (ii) a fee based on the number of
``Subscriber Entitlements '' (the latter two fees together, ``User
Fees'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62188 (May 27,
2010); 75 FR 31484 (June 3, 2010) (SR-NYSEArca-2010-23).
    \6\ Id. at 31485-31486.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to add a new fee category for NYSE Arca
Trades to provide television broadcasters \7\ with an alternative
enterprise fee (the ``Broadcast Fee''). For the receipt of access to
and the ability to display the datafeeds of the NYSE Arca Trades
service by a television broadcaster, the Exchange proposes to charge a
flat fee of $20,000 per month.\8\ Broadcasters will not be required to
track the number of viewers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Television broadcast can be through cable, satellite, or
traditional means.
    \8\ Although the Broadcast Fee will not vary based on the amount
of time that the datafeed is displayed during the day or the number
of channels the broadcaster utilizes, it will be prorated if a
television broadcaster initiates the service during the middle of a
month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \9\ in general and with Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of
the Act \10\ in particular in that it provides an equitable allocation
of reasonable fees among users and recipients of the data and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination among customers, issuers, and
brokers. The proposed Broadcast Fee is reasonable, equitable, and not
unfairly discriminatory because it will provide a convenient and easy-
to-administer way for a television broadcaster to display real-time
NYSE Arca-only data on television, thereby providing public investors
and other market participants who watch the broadcaster's channel with
another means to obtain current market data. The Exchange believes that
the Broadcast Fee will be attractive to television broadcasters because
it will enable them to provide market data to their viewers that will
complement the broadcasters' news reporting services without the added
administrative burden and cost of keeping track of the number of
viewers of the datafeed. The proposed distribution method differs,
however, from other distribution methods in that the data will be
available in temporary, view-only mode on television screens.\11\ Other
available distribution methods for NYSE Arca Trades and alternative
data products may allow the end-user to download and analyze last sale
data in order to make trading decisions. For these reasons, the
Exchange believes that establishing a different pricing scheme for
television broadcasters is justified. The Exchange also believes that
its pricing is reasonable in light of other similar products. By way of
comparison, for example, the television ticker display fee for CTA
Network A market data (i.e., consolidated last sale data for securities
listed on the New York Stock Exchange) is based on the number of
viewers of the ticker, and is capped at $125,000 month, and the
television ticker display fee for NASDAQ securities, similarly based on
the number of households reached by the broadcaster, is capped at
$50,000. Both of these products require the broadcaster to track the
number of viewers of the ticker.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
    \11\ A television broadcaster could elect to combine for
broadcast the NYSE Arca Trades data with other data available to it
for broadcast.
    \12\ The Network A Rate Schedule is available at http://www.nyxdata.com/CTA. See also NASDAQ Rule 7039, which sets forth
fees for the distribution of NASDAQ Last Sale Data Products via
Television.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The existence of alternatives to the NYSE Arca Trades data product,
including real-time consolidated data, free delayed consolidated data,
and proprietary last sale data from other sources, ensures that the
Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably
discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect such
alternatives. The recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit in NetCoalition v. SEC, No. 09-
1042 (DC Cir. 2010), upheld the Commission's reliance upon the
existence of competitive market mechanisms to set reasonable and
equitably allocated fees for proprietary market data:

    In fact, the legislative history indicates that the Congress
intended that the market system `evolve through the interplay of
competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are
removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power `in those
situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as in the
creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system.'

    NetCoalition at 15 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-229 at 92 (1975), as
reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 321, 323). The court agreed with the
Commission's conclusion that ``Congress intended that `competitive
forces should dictate the services and practices that constitute the

U.S. national market system for trading equity securities.' '' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ NetCoalition at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained below in the Exchange's Statement on Burden on
Competition, the Exchange believes that there is substantial evidence
of competition in the marketplace for data and that the Commission can
rely upon such evidence in concluding that the fees established in this
filing are the product of competition and therefore satisfy the
relevant statutory standards.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Section 916 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (``Dodd-Frank Act'') amended
paragraph (A) of Section 19(b)(3) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3),
to make clear that all exchange fees for market data may be filed by
exchanges on an immediately effective basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the NetCoalition decision noted, the Commission is not required
to undertake a cost-of-service or ratemaking approach, and the Exchange
incorporates by reference into this proposed rule change its analysis
of this topic in another recent rule filing.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63291 (Nov. 9,
2010), 75 FR 70311 (Nov. 17, 2010) (SR-NYSEArca-2010-97).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed fee is
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory.

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. An exchange's ability to
price its datafeed products is constrained by (1) competition among
exchanges and other trading platforms that compete with one another in
a variety of dimensions, (2) the existence of inexpensive real-time
consolidated data and free delayed consolidated data, and (3) the
inherent contestability of the market for proprietary last sale data.
    The market for proprietary last sale data products is currently
competitive and inherently contestable because there is fierce
competition for the inputs necessary to the creation of proprietary
data and strict pricing discipline for the proprietary products
themselves. Numerous exchanges compete with each other for listings,
trades, and market data itself, providing virtually limitless
opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish to produce and distribute
their own market data. This proprietary data is produced by each
individual exchange, as well as other entities, in a vigorously
competitive market.
    It is common for broker-dealers to further exploit this competition
by sending their order flow and transaction reports to multiple
markets, rather than providing them all to a single market. As a recent
Commission Concept Release noted, the ``current market structure can be
described as dispersed and complex'' with ``trading volume * * *
dispersed among many highly automated trading centers that compete for
order flow in the same stocks'' and ``trading centers offer[ing] a wide
range of services that are designed to attract different types of
market participants with varying trading needs.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Concept Release on Equity Market Structure, Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 61358 (Jan. 14, 2010), 75 FR 3594 (Jan. 22,
2010) (File No. S7-02-10). This Concept Release included data from
the third quarter of 2009 showing that no market center traded more
than 20% of the volume of listed stocks, further evidencing the
dispersal of and competition for trading activity. Id. at 3598.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Competitive markets for order flow, executions, and transaction
reports provide pricing discipline for the inputs of proprietary data
products and therefore constrain markets from overpricing proprietary
market data. The U.S. Department of Justice recently acknowledged the
aggressive competition among exchanges. In announcing the abandoned bid
for NYSE Euronext by NASDAQ OMX Group Inc. and IntercontinentalExchange
Inc., Assistant Attorney General Christine Varney stated that exchanges
``compete head to head to offer real-time equity data products. These
data products include the best bid and offer of every exchange and
information on each equity trade, including the last sale.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Press Release, U.S. Department of Justice, Assistant
Attorney General Christine Varney Holds Conference Call Regarding
NASDAQ OMX Group Inc. and IntercontinentalExchange Inc. Abandoning
Their Bid for NYSE Euronext (May 16, 2011), available at http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/atr/speeches/2011/at-speech-110516.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Transaction execution and proprietary data products are
complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of
the execution service. In fact, market data and trade execution are a
paradigmatic example of joint products with joint costs. The decision
whether and on which platform to post an order will depend on the
attributes of the platform where the order can be posted, including the
execution fees, data quality, and price and distribution of its data
products. Without trade executions, exchange data products cannot
exist.
    Further, data products are valuable to many end users only insofar
as they provide information that end users expect will assist them or
their customers in making trading decisions. The Exchange notes in that
respect that making the NYSE Arca Trades service available on
television at a more economical and easier to administer fee would
encourage more television broadcasters to choose to offer the datafeed
and thereby benefit public investors and other market participants who
follow market developments through that medium by providing them with a
convenient way to track price trends while watching news programs
during the course of the trading day, thereby complementing NYSE Arca
Trades offerings through other means.
    The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of
the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing,
maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution
platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair
operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a
trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both
products and the joint costs it incurs. Moreover, an exchange's broker-
dealer customers view the costs of transaction executions and of data
as a unified cost of doing business with the exchange.
    Similarly, in the case of products that are distributed through
market data vendors, the vendors provide price discipline for
proprietary data products because they control the primary means of
access to certain end users. Vendors impose price restraints based upon
their business models. For example, vendors such as Bloomberg and
Thomson Reuters that assess a surcharge on data they sell may refuse to
offer proprietary products that end users will not purchase in
sufficient numbers. Internet portals, such as Google, impose a
discipline by providing only data that will enable them to attract
``eyeballs'' that contribute to their advertising revenue. Similarly,
television broadcasters will not elect to display NYSE Arca Trades
unless they believe it will help them attract or maintain viewers.
    Other market participants have noted that the liquidity provided by
the order book, trade execution, core market data, and non-core market
data are joint products of a joint platform and have common costs.\18\
The Exchange agrees

with and adopts those discussions and the arguments therein. The
Exchange also notes that the economics literature confirms that there
is no way to allocate common costs between joint products that would
shed any light on competitive or efficient pricing.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62887 (Sept. 10,
2010), 75 FR 57092, 57095 (Sept. 17, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-121);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62907 (Sept. 14, 2010), 75 FR
57314, 57317 (Sept. 20, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-110); and Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 62908 (Sept. 14, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-
111), 75 FR 57321, 57324 (Sept. 20, 2010) (``all of the exchange's
costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order
flow, executing and/or routing orders, and generating and selling
data about market activity. The total return that an exchange earns
reflects the revenues it receives from the joint products and the
total costs of the joint products.''); see also August 1, 2008
Comment Letter of Jeffrey S. Davis, Vice President and Deputy
General Counsel, NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc., Statement of Janusz Ordover
and Gustavo Bamberger (``because market data is both an input to and
a byproduct of executing trades on a particular platform, market
data and trade execution services are an example of `joint products'
with `joint costs.' ''), attachment at pg. 4, available at
www.sec.gov/comments/34-57917/3457917-12.pdf.
    \19\ See generally Mark Hirschey, Fundamentals of Managerial
Economics, at 600 (2009) (``It is important to note, however, that
although it is possible to determine the separate marginal costs of
goods produced in variable proportions, it is impossible to
determine their individual average costs. This is because common
costs are expenses necessary for manufacture of a joint product.
Common costs of production--raw material and equipment costs,
management expenses, and other overhead--cannot be allocated to each
individual by-product on any economically sound basis.* * * Any
allocation of common costs is wrong and arbitrary.''). This is not
new economic theory. See, e.g., F.W. Taussig, ``A Contribution to
the Theory of Railway Rates,'' Quarterly Journal of Economics V(4)
438, 465 (July 1891) (``Yet, surely, the division is purely
arbitrary. These items of cost, in fact, are jointly incurred for
both sorts of traffic; and I cannot share the hope entertained by
the statistician of the Commission, Professor Henry C. Adams, that
we shall ever reach a mode of apportionment that will lead to
trustworthy results.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Analyzing the cost of market data distribution in isolation from
the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data
will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data. Thus, because it is
impossible to create data without a fast, technologically robust, and
well-regulated execution system, system costs and regulatory costs
affect the price of market data. It would be equally misleading,
however, to attribute all of an exchange's costs to the market data
portion of an exchange's joint product. Rather, all of an exchange's
costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow,
executing and/or routing orders, and generating and selling data about
market activity. The total return that an exchange earns reflects the
revenues it receives from the joint products and the total costs of the
joint products.
    Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain
the aggregate return that each platform earns from the sale of its
joint products, but different platforms may choose from a range of
possible, and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of
recovering total costs. For example, some platforms may choose to pay
rebates to attract orders, charge relatively low prices for market
information (or provide information free of charge), and charge
relatively high prices for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms
may choose a strategy of paying lower rebates (or no rebates) to
attract orders, setting relatively high prices for market information,
and setting relatively low prices for accessing posted liquidity. In
this environment, there is no economic basis for regulating maximum
prices for one of the joint products in an industry in which suppliers
face competitive constraints with regard to the joint offering.
    The level of competition and contestability in the market is
evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for order flow,
including 12 equities self-regulatory organization (``SRO'') markets,
as well as internalizing broker-dealers (``BDs'') and various forms of
alternative trading systems (``ATSs''), including dark pools and
electronic communication networks (``ECNs''). Each SRO market competes
to produce transaction reports via trade executions, and two FINRA-
regulated Trade Reporting Facilities (``TRFs'') compete to attract
internalized transaction reports.
    The large number of SROs, TRFs, BDs, and ATSs that currently
produce proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it
provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each
SRO, TRF, ATS, and BD is currently permitted to produce proprietary
data products, and many currently do or have announced plans to do so,
including but not limited to the Exchange, NYSE, NYSE Amex, NASDAQ OMX,
BATS, and Direct Edge.
    The fact that proprietary data from ATSs, BDs, and vendors can
bypass SROs is significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete
directly with SROs for the production and sale of proprietary data
products. Second, because a single order or transaction report can
appear in an SRO proprietary product, a non-SRO proprietary product, or
both, the amount of data available via proprietary products is greater
in size than the actual number of orders and transaction reports that
exist in the marketplace. Because market data users can thus find
suitable substitutes for most proprietary market data products (in this
case both a CTA product and a NASDAQ proprietary product are direct
alternatives), a market that overprices its market data products stands
a high risk that users may substitute another source of market
information for its own.
    Moreover, consolidated data provides two additional measures of
pricing discipline for proprietary data products that are a subset of
the consolidated data stream. First, the consolidated data is widely
available in real-time at $1 per month for non-professional users.
Second, consolidated data is also available at no cost with a 15- or
20- minute delay. Because consolidated data contains marketwide
information, it effectively places a cap on the fees assessed for
proprietary data (such as last sale data) that is simply a subset of
the consolidated data. The mere availability of low-cost or free
consolidated data provides a powerful form of pricing discipline for
proprietary data products that contain data elements that are a subset
of the consolidated data, by highlighting the optional nature of
proprietary products. The Exchange notes that its Broadcast Fee for
NYSE Arca Trades is substantially less than the fee for a similar CTA
product.
    In addition to the competition and price discipline described
above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly
contestable because market entry is rapid, inexpensive, and profitable.
The history of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants
that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms
and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook,
Island, RediBook, Attain, TrackECN, BATS Trading and Direct Edge.
Today, BATS and Direct Edge provide data at no charge on their Web
sites in order to attract more order flow, and use market data revenue
rebates from resulting additional executions to maintain low execution
charges for their users.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ This is simply a securities market-specific example of the
well-established principle that in certain circumstances more sales
at lower margins can be more profitable than fewer sales at higher
margins; this example is additional evidence that market data is an
inherent part of a market's joint platform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In establishing the Broadcast Fee for the NYSE Arca Trades Service,
the Exchange considered the competitiveness of the market for data and
all of the implications of that competition. The Exchange believes that
it has considered all relevant factors and has not considered
irrelevant factors in order to establish fair, reasonable, and not
unreasonably discriminatory fees and an equitable allocation of fees
among all users. The existence of numerous alternatives to the
Exchange's product, including real-time consolidated data, free delayed
consolidated data, and proprietary data from other sources, ensures
that the

Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably
discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect these
alternatives. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the acceptance of
datafeed products in the marketplace demonstrates the consistency of
these fees with applicable statutory standards.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \21\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \22\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the NYSE Arca.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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.

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-NYSEArca-2012-73 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-NYSEArca-2012-73.
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 such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSEArca-2012-73, and should be submitted on or before August 9, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-17550 Filed 7-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P