[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 46 (Thursday, March 8, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13978-13979]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5667]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 214

[Docket No. FRA-2008-0059, Notice No. 5]
RIN 2130-AB96

Railroad Workplace Safety; Adjacent-Track On-Track Safety for
Roadway Workers

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective date and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This document delays the effective date of the final rule
published November 30, 2011, and scheduled to take effect on May 1,
2012. The final rule mandates that roadway workers comply with
specified on-track safety procedures that railroads must adopt to
protect those workers from the movement of trains or other on-track
equipment on ``adjacent controlled track,'' and requests comments on
the petitions for reconsideration of the final rule that FRA has
received. In response to the final rule, FRA received two petitions for
reconsideration that raise a number of substantive issues requiring a
detailed response. Accordingly, in order to respond fully to the
petitions for reconsideration and for the reasons set forth below, this
document delays the effective date of the final rule until July 1,
2013. FRA is establishing a 60-day comment period in order to permit
interested parties an opportunity to respond to the submitted petitions
for reconsideration.

DATES: The effective date for the final rule published November 30,
2011, at 76 FR 74586, and originally effective on May 1, 2012, is
delayed until July 1, 2013. Comments in response to the petitions for
reconsideration must be received on or before May 7, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the Petitions for Reconsideration: Any comments
on the petitions for reconsideration related to Docket No. FRA-2008-
0059, Notice No. 4, may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, M-33, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department

of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, M-33, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: All submissions must include (1) the agency name and
(2) either the docket number for this rulemaking (Docket No. FRA-2008-
0059) or the current Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking (RIN 2130-AB96). 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
under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov anytime, or to the
Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, West
Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. Follow the online instructions for accessing
the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Rusk, Staff Director, Track
Division, Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance, FRA, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., RRS-15, Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>); or Anna Winkle, Trial Attorney, Office of
Chief Counsel, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., RCC-12, Mail Stop 10,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 30, 2011, FRA published a final
rule amending its regulations on railroad workplace safety to further
reduce the risk of serious injury or death to roadway workers
performing work with potentially distracting equipment near certain
adjacent tracks. See 76 FR 74586. In particular, the rule requires that
roadway workers comply with specified on-track safety procedures that
railroads must adopt to protect those workers from the movement of
trains or other on- track equipment on ``adjacent controlled track.''
The effective date of this final rule was to be May 1, 2012. In
response to the final rule, FRA received two petitions for
reconsideration that raise substantive issues, requiring a detailed
response from FRA. One of the petitions requests a delay in the
effective date of the final rule until July 1, 2013, for reasons
related to the railroads' safety training schedules. In addition, since
the publication of the final rule, it has come to FRA's attention that,
while the overwhelming majority of railroads complete their annual
training of roadway workers by May 1st of each calendar year, there is
at least one railroad that does not complete its training by that date
but that would complete it by July 1st of the calendar year.
Accordingly, in order to allow FRA appropriate time to consider and
fully respond to the petitions for reconsideration and to accommodate
all of the railroads' normal training schedules, this document delays
the effective date of the final rule until July 1, 2013. Therefore, any
requirements imposed by the final rule need not be complied with until
July 1, 2013.
    Additionally, FRA is establishing a 60-day comment period in order
to permit interested parties an opportunity to respond to the petitions
for reconsideration related to Docket No. FRA-2008-0059, Notice No. 4.
The petitions for reconsideration are available for review in the
docket for this rulemaking, and have been assigned identification
numbers of FRA-2008-0059-0031 and FRA-2008-0059-0032. FRA's response to
the petitions for reconsideration and any comments received on these
petitions will be published under a new RIN number (2130-AC37), but
will be filed in the same docket.

Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of FRA's dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 214

    Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Railroad safety.

The Final Rule

    In consideration of the foregoing, FRA delays the effective date of
the final rule until July 1, 2013.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 2, 2012.
Karen J. Hedlund,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-5667 Filed 3-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68435-68437]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23894]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-N-2873]

Workshop on Promoting Semantic Interoperability of Laboratory
Data; Public Workshop; Request for Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public workshop; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Library of Medicine (NLM)
of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Office of the National
Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), and the Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) are announcing the following
public workshop entitled ``CDC/FDA/NLM/ONC/CMS Workshop on Promoting
Semantic Interoperability of Laboratory Data.'' The purpose of this
public workshop is to receive and discuss input from stakeholders
regarding

proposed approaches to facilitate the adoption and implementation of
interoperability standards in a manner that enables consistent,
accurate, and harmonized descriptions of in vitro diagnostic tests and
results.

DATES: The public workshop will be held on November 8, 2016, from 8
a.m. to 5 p.m. (EDT). Submit either electronic or written comments on
the public workshop by December 9, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The public workshop will be held at the NLM NIH Bethesda
Campus, 8600 Rockville Pike, NIH Building 38A, Bethesda, MD 20894. For
general information, including parking and security information, please
refer to: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/about/lhcaud_gen.html.
    You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2016-N-2873 for the ``CDC/FDA/NLM/ONC/CMS Workshop on Promoting
Semantic Interoperability of Laboratory Data.'' Received comments will
be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as
``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9
a.m. and 4 p.m. EDT, Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Waters, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4535, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    This public workshop is a followup to the FDA/CDC/NLM Workshop on
``Promoting Semantic Interoperability of Laboratory Data'' held on
September 28, 2015. For more information on the content of the previous
public workshop, the Webcast, the transcript, and any presentations
from the 2015 workshop can be found at: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/ucm453897.htm.
    The primary purpose of the current workshop is to discuss with
stakeholders the means to facilitate adoption and implementation of
interoperability standards in a manner that enables consistent,
accurate, and harmonized electronic health data reporting. Specifically
this workshop will discuss aspects of semantic interoperability of
laboratory data including the use of Logical Observation Identifiers
Names and Codes (LOINC; http://loinc.org/) for identifying laboratory
tests and the use of Uniform Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine-
Clinical Terms (SNOMED-CT; http://www.ihtsdo.org/snomed-ct) coding sets
for describing results of qualitative test results.
    In order to build on the foundations of what was discussed during
the 2015 workshop, discussions will begin by summarizing the previous
workshop and addressing questions and concerns that were raised at the
previous meeting. These conversations will be followed by a discussion
on potential mechanisms for implementation of structured communication
models containing device information, LOINC (http://loinc.org/),
transmission codes, and other information that can be used to
consolidate a semantically interoperable and transmittable message.

II. Topics for Discussion at the Public Workshop

    This public workshop will consist of brief presentations to provide
a framework and a context for a series of interactive panel
discussions. Presentations will focus on mechanisms for attaining
harmonized semantically interoperable information and advancing the
probable functional models for information transmission, including
possible challenges and solutions for implementation. Presentations and
discussions will address proposals for harmonization

and communication that can facilitate practical adoption of
semantically interoperable data. Following the presentations on each
topic, there will be a moderated discussion where the participants and
additional panelists will be asked to provide their individual
perspectives.
    In advance of the meeting, CDC, FDA, NLM, ONC, and CMS will place
an agenda on file in the public docket (the docket number found in
brackets in the heading of this document) and will post it at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/default.htm.
See DATES for the deadline for submitting comments to the agenda for
the public workshop.
    The agencies will use the input from this workshop and public
comments to determine the appropriate next steps to advance semantic
interoperability of laboratory data.
    Registration: Registration is free and available on a first-come,
first-served basis. Persons interested in attending this public
workshop must register online by 4 p.m. (EDT) October 28, 2016. Early
registration is recommended because facilities are limited and,
therefore, FDA may limit the number of participants from each
organization. If time and space permits, onsite registration on the day
of the public workshop will be provided beginning at 7 a.m. (EDT).
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Rebecca Goodwin at<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>and/
or the Federal Relay at 1-800-877-8339. Requests should be made no
later than November 3, 2016.
    To register for the public workshop, please visit FDA's Medical
Devices News & Events--Workshops & Conferences calendar at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/default.htm.
(Select this public workshop from the posted events list.) Please
provide complete contact information for each attendee, including name,
title, affiliation, email, and telephone number. Those without Internet
access should contact Michael Waters to register (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). Registrants will receive confirmation after they
have been accepted. You will be notified if you are on a waiting list.
    Streaming Webcast of the Public Workshop: This public workshop will
also be videocast. Videocast access will be available at https://videocast.nih.gov/. The videocast link will also be available on the
registration Web page. FDA has verified the Web site addresses, as of
the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but Web sites
are subject to change over time.
    Requests for Oral Presentations: This public workshop includes a
public comment session. During online registration you may indicate if
you wish to present during a public comment session, and which topics
you wish to address. FDA has included general topics in this document.
FDA will do its best to accommodate requests to make public comments.
Individuals and organizations with common interests are urged to
consolidate or coordinate their presentations, and request time for a
joint presentation, or submit requests for designated representatives
to participate in the public comment session. Following the close of
registration, FDA will determine the amount of time allotted to each
presenter and the approximate time each oral presentation is to begin,
and will select and notify participants by November 1, 2016. All
requests to make oral presentations must be received by the close of
registration on 4 p.m. (EDT) October 28, 2016. If selected for
presentation, any presentation materials must be emailed to Michael
Waters (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) no later than October 28,
2016. No commercial or promotional material will be permitted to be
presented or distributed at the public workshop.
    CDC, FDA, NLM, ONC, and CMS are holding this public workshop to
obtain input from stakeholders regarding proposed approaches to
facilitate the adoption and implementation of interoperability
standards in a manner that enables consistent, accurate, and harmonized
electronic laboratory reporting. In order to permit the widest possible
opportunity to obtain public comment, FDA is soliciting either
electronic or written comments on all aspects of the public workshop
topics. See DATES for the deadline for submitting comments to the
agenda for the public workshop.
    Transcripts: Please be advised that as soon as a transcript is
available, it will be accessible at http://www.regulations.gov. It may
be viewed at the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). A
transcript will also be available in either hardcopy or on CD-ROM,
after submission of a Freedom of Information request. The Freedom of
Information office address is available on the Agency's Web site at
http://www.fda.gov. A link to the transcript will also be available
approximately 45 days after the public workshop on the Internet at
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/default.htm. (Select this public workshop from the posted events list).

    Dated: September 28, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-23894 Filed 10-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76068-76069]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30649]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2010-56]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petitions or their final disposition.

DATES: Comments on these petitions must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before December 17, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2010-
1086 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tyneka L. Thomas,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
Ralen Gao,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 2, 2010.
Dennis Pratte,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2010-1086.
    Petitioner: RLB Aviation, Inc. d.b.a. Starfighters, Inc.

    Section of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  91.139(a).
    Description of Relief Sought: RLB Aviation, Inc. d.b.a.
Starfighters, Inc. (Starfighters), requests an exemption from Sec.
91.319(a) to allow Starfighters to carry persons and property for
compensation or hire in experimental aircraft.

[FR Doc. 2010-30649 Filed 12-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 153 (Thursday, August 10, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54365-54370]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17127]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98064; File No. SR-NSCC-2022-802)]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of No Objection to Advance Notice Related to
Certain Enhancements to the Gap Risk Measure and the VaR Charge

August 4, 2023.

I. Introduction

    On December 2, 2022, the National Securities Clearing Corporation
(``NSCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') advance notice SR-NSCC-2022-802 (``Advance Notice'')
pursuant to section 806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, entitled Payment, Clearing
and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (``Clearing Supervision Act'')
\1\ and Rule 19b-4(n)(1)(i) \2\ under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Exchange Act'') \3\ regarding certain enhancements to its gap
risk charge and the volatility component of a member's required
margin.\4\ The Advance Notice was published for comment in the Federal
Register on December 21, 2022.\5\ On January 10, 2023, the Commission
issued an extension of the review period for the Advance Notice.\6\ On
March 27, 2023, the Commission requested additional information from
NSCC pursuant to section 806(e)(1)(D) of the Clearing Supervision Act,
which tolled the Commission's period of review of the Advance Notice
until 120 days \7\ from the date the requested information was received
by the Commission.\8\ The Commission received NSCC's response to the
Commission's request for additional information on April 28, 2023. The
Commission has received comments regarding the changes proposed in the
Advance Notice.\9\ The Commission is hereby providing notice of no
objection to the Advance Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(n)(1)(i).
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.
    \4\ See Notice of Filing, infra note 5, at 87 FR 78175.
    \5\ Exchange Act Release No. 96513 (Dec. 15, 2022), 87 FR 78175
(Dec. 21, 2022) (File No. SR-NSCC-2022-802) (``Notice of Filing'').
    \6\ Exchange Act Release No. 96624 (Jan. 10, 2023), 88 FR 2707
(Jan. 17, 2023).
    \7\ The Commission may extend the review period for an
additional 60 days (to 120 days total) for proposed changes that
raise novel or complex issues. See 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(H).
    \8\ See 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1)(E)(ii) and (G)(ii); Memorandum from
Office of Clearance and Settlement, Division of Trading and Markets,
titled ``Commission's Request for Additional Information'' (dated
Mar. 27, 2023), available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nscc-2022-802/srnscc2022802-20161718-330589.pdf.
    \9\ The Commission received one comment that was not relevant to
the proposal in the Advance Notice. See https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nscc-2022-802/srnscc2022802-320764.htm (commenting on
certain aspects of NSCC's operations that are not addressed or
changed in this proposal). In addition, the Commission received one
comment on the related proposed rule change filed as NSCC-2022-015.
See Exchange Act Release No. 96511 (Dec. 15, 2022), 87 FR 78157
(Dec. 21, 2022) (``Proposed Rule Change''), with comments at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nscc-2022-015/srnscc2022015.htm. Because
the proposals contained in the Advance Notice and the Proposed Rule
Change are the same, all public comments received on the proposals
were considered regardless of whether the comments were submitted
with respect to the Advance Notice or the Proposed Rule Change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Capitalized terms not defined herein are defined in NSCC's
Rules & Procedures (``Rules''), available at https://www.dtcc.com/~/
media/Files/Downloads/legal/rules/nscc_rules.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC provides clearing, settlement, risk management, central
counterparty services, and a guarantee of completion for virtually all
broker-to-broker trades involving equity securities, corporate and
municipal debt securities, and unit investment trust transactions in
the U.S. markets. A key tool that NSCC uses to manage its credit
exposure to its members is collecting an appropriate amount of margin
(i.e., collateral) from each member.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Pursuant to its Rules, NSCC uses the term ``Required Fund
Deposit'' to denote margin or collateral collected from its members.
See Rule 4 (Clearing Fund) and Procedure XV (Clearing Fund Formula
and Other Matters) of the Rules, supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Overview Regarding NSCC's Margin Methodology

    A member's margin is designed to mitigate potential losses to NSCC
associated with the liquidation of the member's portfolio in the event
that

member defaults.\12\ The aggregate of all members' margin deposits
(together with certain other deposits required under the Rules)
constitutes NSCC's clearing fund. NSCC would access its clearing fund
should a defaulting member's own margin and resources at NSCC be
insufficient to satisfy losses to NSCC caused by the liquidation of
that member's portfolio.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Under NSCC's Rules, a default would generally be referred
to as a ``cease to act'' and could encompass a number of
circumstances, such as a member's failure to make a margin payment
on time. See Rule 46 (Restrictions on Access to Services) of the
Rules, supra note 10.
    \13\ See Rule 4, supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC employs daily backtesting to determine the sufficiency of each
member's margin, by simulating the liquidation gains or losses using
the actual unsettled positions in the member's portfolio, and the
actual historical returns for each security held in the portfolio. A
backtesting deficiency would result if the liquidation losses were
greater than the member's margin. NSCC investigates the causes of any
backtesting deficiencies, paying particular attention to members with
backtesting deficiencies that bring the results for that member below
the 99 percent confidence target (i.e., greater than two backtesting
deficiency days in a rolling twelve-month period) to determine if there
is an identifiable cause of repeat backtesting deficiencies.\14\ NSCC
also evaluates whether multiple members may experience backtesting
deficiencies for the same underlying reason.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See National Securities Clearing Corporation, Disclosure
Framework for Covered Clearing Agencies and Financial Market
Infrastructures, at 61 (Dec. 2022), available at https://www.dtcc.com/legal/policy-and-compliance.
    \15\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each member's margin consists of a number of applicable components,
each of which is calculated to address specific risks faced by
NSCC.\16\ Each member's start of day required fund deposit is
calculated overnight, based on the member's prior end-of-day net
unsettled positions.\17\ NSCC notifies members early the following
morning, and members are required to make deposits by approximately
10:00 a.m. EST.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Procedure XV of the Rules, supra note 10.
    \17\ See Procedure XV, Sections II(B) of the Rules, supra note
10.
    \18\ See id. The Rules provide that required deposits to the
clearing fund are due within one hour of demand, unless otherwise
determined by NSCC. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally, the largest portion of a member's margin is the
volatility component. The volatility component is designed to reflect
the amount of money that could be lost on a portfolio over a given
period within a 99th percentile level of confidence. This component
represents the amount assumed necessary to absorb losses while
liquidating the member's portfolio.
    NSCC's methodology for calculating the volatility component of a
member's required fund deposit depends on the type of security and
whether the security has sufficient pricing or trading history for NSCC
to robustly estimate the volatility component using statistical
techniques. Generally, for most securities (e.g., equity securities),
NSCC calculates the volatility component using, among other things, a
parametric Value at Risk (``VaR'') model, which results in a ``VaR
Charge.'' \19\ The VaR Charge usually comprises the largest portion of
a member's required fund deposit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Sections I(A)(1)(a)(i) and I(A)(2)(a)(i) of Procedure
XV of the Rules, supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Current Treatment of Gap Risk in NSCC's Margin Methodology

    Under NSCC's current Rules, one of the potential methods of
calculating the VaR Charge relies on a measure of gap risk. It does not
accrue for all portfolios, but instead only serves as the VaR Charge if
it is the largest of three potential calculations.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Specifically, the VaR Charge is the greatest of (1) the
larger of two separate calculations based on different underlying
estimates that utilize a parametric VaR model, which addresses the
market risk of a member's portfolio (referred to as the core
parametric estimation), (2) the gap risk calculation, and (3) a
portfolio margin floor calculation based on the market values of the
long and short positions in the portfolio, which addresses risks
that might not be adequately addressed with the other volatility
component calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Gap risk events have been generally understood as idiosyncratic
issuer events (for example, earning reports, management changes, merger
announcements, insolvency, or other unexpected, issuer-specific events)
that cause a rapid shift in price volatility levels. The gap risk
charge was designed to address the risk presented by a portfolio that
is more susceptible to the effects of gap risk events, i.e., those
portfolios holding positions that represent more than a certain percent
of the entire portfolio's value, such that the event could impact the
entire portfolio's value.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Section I(A)(1)(a)(i)II and I(A)(2)(a)(i)II of
Procedure XV of the Rules, supra note 10. See also Exchange Act
Release Nos. 82780 (Feb. 26, 2018), 83 FR 9035 (Mar. 2, 2018) (SR-
NSCC-2017-808); 82781 (Feb. 26, 2018), 83 FR 9042 (Mar. 2, 2018)
(SR-NSCC-2017-020) (``Initial Filing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current gap risk charge applies only if a member's overall net
unsettled non-index position with the largest absolute market value in
the portfolio represents more than a certain percent of the entire
portfolio's value, that is, if the net unsettled position exceeds a
specified ``concentration threshold.'' The concentration threshold can
be set no higher than 30 percent and is evaluated periodically based on
members' backtesting results over a twelve month look-back period, and
it is currently set at 5%.\22\ NSCC's Rules currently calculate a gap
risk charge only for ``non-index'' positions, meaning positions in the
portfolio other than positions in ETFs that track diversified indices.
This is because index-based ETFs that track closely to diversified
indices are generally considered less prone to the effects of gap risk
events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Section I(A)(1)(a)(i)II and I(A)(2)(a)(i)II of
Procedure XV of the Rules, supra note 10; see Important Notice a9055
(Sept. 27, 2021), at https://www.dtcc.com/-/media/Files/pdf/2021/9/27/a9055.pdf (notifying members that the concentration threshold had
been changed from 10% to 5%).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The risk of large, unexpected price movements, particularly those
caused by a gap risk event, are more likely to have a greater impact on
portfolios with large net unsettled positions in securities that are
susceptible to those events. Generally, index-based ETFs that track
closely to diversified indices are less prone to the effects of gap
risk events. Therefore, if the concentration threshold is met, NSCC
currently calculates the gap risk charge for positions in the portfolio
other than positions in ETFs that track diversified indices, referred
to as ``non-index positions.''
    To calculate the gap risk charge, NSCC multiplies the gross market
value of the largest non-index net unsettled position in the portfolio
by a gap risk haircut, which can be no less than 10 percent (``gap risk
haircut'').\23\ Currently, NSCC determines the gap risk haircut
empirically as no less than the larger of the 1st and 99th percentiles
of three-day returns of a set of CUSIPs that are subject to the VaR
Charge pursuant to the Rules, giving equal rank to each to determine
which has the highest movement over that three-day period. NSCC uses a
look-back period of not less than ten years plus a one-year stress
period, and if the one-year stress period overlaps with the look-back
period, only the non-overlapping period would be combined with the
look-back period. The resulting haircut is then rounded up to the
nearest whole percentage and applied to the largest non-index net
unsettled position to determine the gap risk charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Section I(A)(1)(a)(i)II and I(A)(2)(a)(i)II of
Procedure XV of the Rules, supra note 10.

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

III. The Advance Notice

    NSCC is proposing to make the following changes to the gap risk
charge: (1) make the gap risk charge an additive component of the
member's total VaR Charge when it is applicable, rather than being
applied as the applicable VaR Charge only when it is the largest of
three separate calculations, (2) adjusting the gap risk charge to be
based on the two largest positions in a portfolio, rather than based on
the single largest position, (3) changing the floor of the gap risk
haircut from 10 percent to 5 percent for the largest position, adding a
floor of the gap risk haircut of 2.5 percent for the second largest
position, and providing that gap risk haircuts would be determined
based on backtesting and impact analysis, and (4) amending which ETF
positions are excluded from the gap risk charge to more precisely
include ETFs that are more prone to gap risk, i.e., are non-
diversified.
    First, NSCC is proposing to make the result of the gap risk charge
calculation an additive component of a member's total VaR Charge,
rather than applicable as the VaR Charge only when it is the highest
result of three calculations. Under the proposal, the VaR Charge would
be equal to the sum of (1) the greater of either the core parametric
estimation or the portfolio margin floor calculation, neither of which
is changing in this proposal,\24\ and (2) the gap risk charge
calculation. Rather than being applied only when the gap risk charge
exceeds the other two calculations, the gap risk charge calculation
would apply every time the top two positions exceed the concentration
threshold and would always be a portion of the overall VaR Charge in
such circumstances. NSCC states that making this charge additive could
improve its ability to mitigate idiosyncratic risks that it could face
through the collection of the VaR Charge.\25\ Based on impact studies,
NSCC believes this broader application together with the other proposed
changes outlined below would better protect against more idiosyncratic
risk scenarios than the current methodology.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See note 20 supra.
    \25\ See Notice of Filing, supra note 5, 87 FR at 78178.
    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, NSCC is proposing to make the gap risk charge rely upon the
absolute values of the two largest non-diversified net unsettled
positions, as opposed to using the absolute value of only the single
largest non-diversified net unsettled position. Therefore, the gap risk
charge would be calculated by first multiplying each of the two largest
non-diversified net unsettled positions with a gap risk haircut, and
then adding the sum of the resulting products. The gap risk charge
would be applicable if that sum of the resulting products exceeded the
concentration threshold.\27\ NSCC states that applying the gap risk
charge to the two largest non-diversified positions in the portfolio
would cover concurrent gap moves involving more than one concentrated
position, adding more flexibility and coverage.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ As noted in Section II.B above, the concentration threshold
is currently set at 5%, and the Rules define the concentration
threshold as no more than 30 percent of the value of the entire
portfolio. See Section I(A)(1)(a)(i)II and I(A)(2)(a)(i)II of
Procedure XV of the Rules, supra note 20. The proposed changes would
clarify that the concentration threshold is not fixed at 30 percent
by defining concentration threshold as a percentage designated by
NSCC of the value of the entire portfolio and determined by NSCC
from time to time, and that shall be no more than 30 percent. NSCC
believes this proposed change will help clarify that the
concentration threshold could change from time to time but could not
be set to be more than 30 percent. See Notice of Filing, supra note
5, 87 FR at 78179.
    \28\ See Notice of Filing, supra note 5, 87 FR at 78178.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, NSCC proposes to revise the calculation of the gap risk
haircut in response to making the proposal an additive component of a
member's VaR Charge. Currently, the gap risk haircut is determined by
selecting the largest of the 1st and 99th percentiles of three-day
returns of a composite set of equities, using a look-back period of not
less than 10 years plus a one year stress period.\29\ NSCC believes
that this methodology results in implicit overlapping of the risk
covered by the core parametric VaR and the gap risk charge.\30\ Because
the proposal would make the gap risk charge an additive component to
the VaR Charge rather than a substitutive component, NSCC does not
believe that the current methodology for the gap risk haircut would
result in an appropriate level of margin.\31\ Under the proposal, NSCC
would determine and calibrate the concentration threshold and the gap
risk haircut periodically based on backtesting and impact analysis.
NSCC states that the concentration threshold and the gap risk haircuts
would be selected from various combinations of concentration thresholds
and gap risk haircuts based on backtesting and impact analysis across
all member portfolios, initially using a five year look-back
period.\32\ NSCC believes that this would provide more flexibility to
set the parameters from time to time to provide improved backtesting
performance, broader coverage for idiosyncratic risk scenarios and
flexibility for model tuning to balance performance and cost
considerations.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Id.
    \30\ See id.
    \31\ Id.
    \32\ Id.
    \33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, NSCC proposes to revise the determination of the gap
risk haircut in response to the proposal's inclusion of the two largest
non-diversified net unsettled positions, as opposed to only the one,
and to its additive nature. Currently, the percent that is applied to
the largest non-index net unsettled position in the portfolio is no
less than 10 percent.\34\ Because of the proposal's shift to including
the two largest positions, NSCC believes it is appropriate to set a
lower floor for the gap risk haircut that applies to the largest of
those two positions.\35\ Moreover, because the gap risk charge would
now be additive and would apply more frequently, NSCC believes that the
flexibility to set a lower floor for the largest position would be
appropriate.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Id.
    \35\ Id. at 78178-79.
    \36\ Id. at 78179.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, NSCC is proposing to lower the gap risk haircut that
would be applied to the largest non-diversified net unsettled position
to be a percent that is no less than 5 percent. The gap risk haircut
that would be applied to the second largest non-diversified net
unsettled position in the portfolio would be no larger than the gap
risk haircut that would be applied to the largest non-diversified net
unsettled position and would be subject to a floor of 2.5 percent. NSCC
states that, upon implementation of the proposed rule change, NSCC
would set the concentration threshold at 10%, apply a gap risk haircut
on the largest non-diversified net unsettled position of 10% and a gap
risk haircut on the second largest non-diversified net unsettled
position of 5%.\37\ NSCC would set the concentration threshold and the
gap risk haircuts based on backtesting and impact analysis in
accordance with NSCC's model risk management practices and governance
set forth in the Model Risk Management Framework.\38\ NSCC would
provide

notice to members by important notice of the concentration threshold
and gap risk haircuts that it would be applying.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Id.
    \38\ See Exchange Act Release Nos. 81485 (Aug. 25, 2017), 82 FR
41433 (Aug. 31, 2017) (File No. SR-NSCC-2017-008); 84458 (Oct. 19,
2018), 83 FR 53925 (Oct. 25, 2018) (File No. SR-NSCC-2018-009);
88911 (May 20, 2020), 85 FR 31828 (May 27, 2020) (File No. SR-NSCC-
2020-008); 92381 (July 13, 2021), 86 FR 38163 (July 19, 2021) (File
No. SR-NSCC-2021-008); and 94272 (Feb. 17, 2022), 87 FR 10419 (Feb.
24, 2022) (File No. SR-NSCC-2022-001). NSCC's model risk management
governance procedures include daily backtesting of model
performance, periodic sensitivity analyses of models and annual
validation of models. They would also provide for review of the
concentration threshold and the gap risk haircuts at least annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, NSCC is proposing to amend what positions are excluded from
the gap risk charge calculation. Currently, only ``non-index''
positions and index-based exchange-traded products that track a narrow
market index are included in the gap risk charge.\39\ Under the
proposal, this would be revised to refer to ``non-diversified''
positions instead of non-index positions. The rule text would specify
that NSCC would exclude ETF positions from the calculation (that is, it
would consider them diversified) if the positions have characteristics
that indicate that they are less prone to the effects of gap risk
events, including whether the ETF positions track to an index that is
linked to a broad based market index, contain a diversified underlying
basket, are unleveraged or track to an asset class that is less prone
to gap risk. NSCC states that the proposed change would result in
certain non-index based ETFs being excluded from the gap risk charge
whereas they are currently included, such as unleveraged U.S. dollar
based ETFs.\40\ NSCC also states that this proposed change would
provide greater transparency to members regarding which positions are
excluded from this calculation.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Section I(A)(1)(a)(i)II and I(A)(2)(a)(i)II of
Procedure XV of the Rules, supra note 10. See also Initial Filing,
supra note 21.
    \40\ See Notice of Filing, supra note 5, 87 FR at 78178.
    \41\ Id. NSCC states that it uses a third-party provider to
identify ETFs that meet its criteria of being diversified. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC states that certain ETFs, both index based and non-index
based, are less prone to the effects of gap risk events as a result of
having certain characteristics and, therefore, are less likely to pose
idiosyncratic risks that the gap risk charge is designed to
mitigate.\42\ By contrast, based on the proposed methodology, NSCC
would include certain commodity ETFs in the gap risk charge that track
to an index that is not a broad-based diversified commodity index; such
ETFs are not currently subject to the gap risk charge, but would be
subject going forward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Commission Findings and Notice of No Objection

    Although the Clearing Supervision Act does not specify a standard
of review for an advance notice, the stated purpose of the Clearing
Supervision Act is instructive: to mitigate systemic risk in the
financial system and promote financial stability by, among other
things, promoting uniform risk management standards for systemically
important financial market utilities (``SIFMUs'') and strengthening the
liquidity of SIFMUs.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See 12 U.S.C. 5461(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act authorizes the
Commission to prescribe regulations containing risk management
standards for the payment, clearing, and settlement activities of
designated clearing entities engaged in designated activities for which
the Commission is the supervisory agency.\44\ section 805(b) of the
Clearing Supervision Act provides the following objectives and
principles for the Commission's risk management standards prescribed
under section 805(a) :\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(a)(2).
    \45\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     to promote robust risk management;
     to promote safety and soundness;
     to reduce systemic risks; and
     to support the stability of the broader financial system.
    Section 805(c) provides, in addition, that the Commission's risk
management standards may address such areas as risk management and
default policies and procedures, among other areas.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has adopted risk management standards under section
805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act and section 17A of the
Exchange Act (the ``Clearing Agency Rules'').\47\ The Clearing Agency
Rules require, among other things, each covered clearing agency to
establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and
procedures that are reasonably designed to meet certain minimum
requirements for its operations and risk management practices on an
ongoing basis.\48\ As such, it is appropriate for the Commission to
review advance notices against the Clearing Agency Rules and the
objectives and principles of these risk management standards as
described in section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act. As
discussed below, the Commission believes the changes proposed in the
Advance Notice are consistent with the objectives and principles
described in section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act,\49\ and in
the Clearing Agency Rules, in particular Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) and
(e)(6)(i).\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22. See Exchange Act Release No. 68080
(Oct. 22, 2012), 77 FR 66220 (Nov. 2, 2012) (S7-08-11). See also
Covered Clearing Agency Standards Adopting Release, Exchange Act
Release No. 78961 (Sept. 28, 2016), 81 FR 70786 (Oct. 13, 2016).
NSCC is a ``covered clearing agency'' as defined in Rule 17Ad-
22(a)(5).
    \48\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \49\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
    \50\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) and (e)(6)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency With Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act

    The Commission believes that the proposal contained in NSCC's
Advance Notice is consistent with the stated objectives and principles
of section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act. Specifically, as
discussed below, the Commission believes that the changes proposed in
the Advance Notice are consistent with promoting robust risk
management, promoting safety and soundness, reducing systemic risks,
and supporting the stability of the broader financial system.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the Advance Notice is consistent with
promoting robust risk management as well as safety and soundness
because, based on the confidential information provided by NSCC and
reviewed by the Commission, including the impact study demonstrating
the collective impact of the proposed changes on the margin collected
both at the overall clearing agency level and on a member-by-member
basis and on NSCC's backtesting performance, the proposed changes with
respect to the calculation of the gap risk charge provide better margin
coverage than the current methodology. The Commission believes that the
changes described in the Advance Notice should enable NSCC to better
manage its exposure to portfolios with identified concentration risk,
which should, in turn, limit its exposure to members in the event of a
member default, which is consistent with promoting robust risk
management.
    The Commission believes that making the gap risk charge an additive
component, as opposed to a potential substitutive option applicable
only if it exceeds other methodologies for determining the VaR Charge,
should help NSCC better protect against more idiosyncratic risk
scenarios in concentrated portfolios than the current methodology. In
addition, adjusting the gap risk calculation to take into account the
two largest positions, as well as to apply two separate haircuts based
on backtesting and impact analysis with floors set forth in the Rules,
should allow NSCC to cover concurrent gap moves involving more than one
concentrated position. Moreover, modifying the criteria for ETF
positions subject to the gap risk charge based on

whether they are non-diversified rather than whether they are non-index
would allow NSCC to more accurately determine which ETFs should be
included and excluded from the gap risk charge based on characteristics
that indicate that such ETFs are more or less prone to the effects of
gap risk events, thereby providing more accurate coverage of the
potential exposure arising from such positions.
    Further, the Commission believes that, to the extent the proposed
changes are consistent with promoting NSCC's safety and soundness, they
are also consistent with reducing systemic risk and supporting the
stability of the broader financial system. NSCC has been designated as
a SIFMU, in part, because its failure or disruption could increase the
risk of significant liquidity or credit problems spreading among
financial institutions or markets.\52\ The Commission believes that the
proposed changes would support NSCC's ability to continue providing
services to the markets it serves by addressing losses and shortfalls
arising out of a member default. NSCC's continued operations would, in
turn, help reduce systemic risk and support the stability of the
financial system by reducing the risk of significant liquidity or
credit problems spreading among market participants that rely on NSCC's
central role in the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Financial Stability Oversight Council, 2012 Annual Report,
Appendix A, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/261/2012-Annual-Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, and for the reasons stated above, the Commission
believes the changes proposed in the Advance Notice are consistent with
section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) Under the Exchange Act

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) under the Exchange Act requires that a
covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce
written policies and procedures reasonably designed to effectively
identify, measure, monitor, and manage its credit exposures to
participants and those arising from its payment, clearing, and
settlement processes, including by maintaining sufficient financial
resources to cover its credit exposure to each participant fully with a
high degree of confidence.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on its review of the record, the Commission believes NSCC's
proposal to broaden the scope of the gap risk charge and the related
adjustments to its calculation could help improve NSCC's backtesting
performance, provide broader coverage for idiosyncratic risk scenarios,
and could help address the potential increased risks NSCC may face
related to its ability to liquidate a portfolio that is susceptible to
such risks in the event of a member default. Specifically, the
Commission has reviewed and analyzed NSCC's analysis of the
improvements in its backtesting coverage,\55\ and agrees that the
analysis demonstrates that the proposal would result in better
backtesting coverage and, therefore, less credit exposure to its
members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ NSCC submitted more detailed results of the impact study as
confidential Exhibit 3 to the Advance Notice. NSCC requested
confidential treatment of Exhibit 3 pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)
and 552(b)(8) and 17 CFR. 200.80(b)(4) and 200.80(b)(8). A commenter
raised a concern regarding redacted portions of the filing, which
consisted of certain supporting exhibits filed confidentially as
Exhibit 3 to the filing. See https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nscc-2022-015/srnscc2022015-320658.htm. NSCC asserted that this exhibit
to the filing was entitled to confidential treatment because it
contains: (i) trade secrets and commercial information that is
privileged or confidential and which, if disclosed, would be
accessible to the DTCC Companies' competitors and could result in
substantial competitive injury to the DTCC Companies; and (ii) non-
public, confidential information prepared for use by Commission
staff. Under section 23(a)(3) of the Exchange Act, the Commission is
not required to make public statements filed with the Commission in
connection with a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory
organization if the Commission could withhold the statements from
the public in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act
(``FOIA''), 5 U.S.C. 552. 15 U.S.C. 78w(a)(3). The Commission has
reviewed the documents for which NSCC requests confidential
treatment and concludes that they could be withheld from the public
under the FOIA. FOIA Exemption 4 protects confidential commercial or
financial information. 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). Under Exemption 4,
information is confidential if it ``is both customarily and actually
treated as private by its owner and provided to government under an
assurance of privacy.'' Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader
Media, 139 S. Ct. 2356, 2366 (2019). Based on its review of the
materials submitted, the Commission believes that the information is
the type that would not customarily be disclosed to the public.
Specifically, this information consists of an impact study analyzing
the effect that the changes to NSCC's margin methodology would have
on each member's individual margin requirement to NSCC; information
regarding NSCC's analysis and development of the particular changes
to the margin methodology, including its consideration of potential
alternative haircuts and thresholds; and excerpts from NSCC's non-
public detailed margin methodology. In addition, by requesting
confidential treatment, NSCC had an assurance of privacy because the
Commission generally protects information that can be withheld under
Exemption 4. Thus, the Commission has determined to accord
confidential treatment to the confidential exhibits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission believes that the proposal would enable
NSCC to better manage its credit risks by allowing it to respond
regularly and more effectively to any material deterioration of
backtesting performances, market events, market structure changes, or
model validation findings, thereby helping to ensure that NSCC can take
steps to collect sufficient margin to maintain sufficient financial
resources to cover its exposure to its members. Therefore, the
Commission believes the changes proposed in the Advance Notice are
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) under the Exchange Act.

C. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) Under the Exchange Act

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) under the Exchange Act requires that each
covered clearing agency that provides central counterparty services
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to cover its credit exposures to its
participants by establishing a risk-based margin system that, at a
minimum, considers, and produces margin levels commensurate with, the
risks and particular attributes of each relevant product, portfolio,
and market.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission understands that, as described above, the proposal
as a whole is designed to enable NSCC to more effectively address the
risks presented by members' concentrated positions in securities more
prone to gap risk events and to produce margin levels that are more
commensurate with the particular risk attributes of these concentrated
holdings, including the market price risk of liquidating large
positions in securities that are more prone to gap risk events. The
Commission believes that the proposal would improve NSCC's ability to
consider, and produce margin levels commensurate with, the risks and
particular attributes presented by a portfolio that meets the
concentration threshold and, therefore, is more susceptible to the
impacts of idiosyncratic risks.
    First, the Commission believes that broadening the gap risk charge
to an additive feature of the VaR Charge and using the two largest non-
diversified positions would help NSCC to more effectively manage the
idiosyncratic risks of portfolios with concentrated holdings.
Specifically, the proposed changes should result in an overall increase
of margin for members that have positions subject to the gap risk
charge.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ The impact study indicated that the proposed changes would
have resulted in a 10.88% increase for the daily total VaR Charge on
average and would have resulted in a 4.89% increase in the daily
total clearing fund on average during that period. See Notice of
Filing, supra note 5, 87 FR at 78176. In addition, the Commission
reviewed confidential materials submitted to the Commission, which
included more granular information, at a member level, of the
impacts of this proposal as compared to the current methodology. See
note 55 supra.

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

    Second, given the proposed additive nature of the gap risk charge,
the Commission believes the adjustments to the gap risk charge
calculation (i.e., establishing floors for the gap risk haircuts
applicable to the two largest positions) are reasonably designed to
cover NSCC's exposure to members arising from gap risks. The Commission
believes the adjustments to the gap risk charge calculation are
reasonable because the record shows the proposal should improve NSCC's
ability to mitigate against idiosyncratic risks that NSCC may face when
liquidating a portfolio that contains a concentration of positions,
while balancing NSCC's consideration of the potential costs to members
that may be subject to the gap risk charge.\58\ The Commission believes
that the established floors for the two haircuts should also help
ensure that the gap risk charge collects margin sufficient to cover the
potential exposure in a gap risk event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ As part of the confidential materials submitted to the
Commission, NSCC provided analysis of alternative potential haircuts
and thresholds that it considered when developing the proposal. See
note 55 supra. The Commission's review of those materials further
supports its belief as to the reasonableness of this aspect of the
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, by providing additional specific objective criteria to
determine which positions would be subject to the gap risk charge, the
Commission believes that NSCC should be able to better identify those
securities that may be more prone to idiosyncratic risks. Specifically,
the proposal should ensure that ETFs identified as non-diversified
(whether index-based or not) and therefore more prone to idiosyncratic
risks will be subject to the gap risk charge.
    Taken together, the Commission believes that the proposal should
permit NSCC to calculate a gap risk charge that is more appropriately
designed to address the gap risks presented by concentrated positions
in portfolios. Accordingly, the Commission believes the proposal is
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) under the Exchange Act because it
is designed to assist NSCC in maintaining a risk-based margin system
that considers, and produces margin levels commensurate with, the risks
and particular attributes of portfolios with identified concentration
risks.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore noticed, pursuant to section 806(e)(1)(I) of the
Clearing Supervision Act, that the Commission DOES NOT OBJECT to
Advance Notice (SR-NSCC-2022-802) and that NSCC is AUTHORIZED to
implement the proposal as of the date of this notice, or the date of an
order by the Commission approving proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2022-
015, whichever is later.

    By the Commission.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-17127 Filed 8-9-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 192 (Friday, October 3, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59767-59768]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23639]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9017-3]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

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

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 09/22/2014 Through 09/26/2014
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20140282, Final EIS, NPS, TX, Big Thicket National Preserve
Final General Management Plan, Review Period Ends: 11/03/2014, Contact:
Doug Neighbor<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20140283, Final EIS, NPS, TX, Lake Meredith National Recreation
Area and Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument General Management
Plan, Review Period Ends: 11/03/2014, Contact: Arlene Wimer 806-857-
0309.
EIS No. 20140284, Draft Supplement, FHWA, VA, U.S. Route 460 Corridor,
Comment Period Ends: 11/17/2014, Contact: Edward S. Sundra, 804-775-
3357. The U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway
Administration, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Virginia
Department of Transportation are joint lead agencies for the above
project.
EIS No. 20140285, Final EIS, USFS, CA, California Pacific Electricity
Company 625 and 650 Electrical Line Upgrade Project, Review Period
Ends: 11/03/2014, Contact: Robert Rodman<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20140286, Draft EIS, USFS, CA, Jess Project, Klamath National
Forest, Comment Period Ends: 11/17/2014, Contact: Angie Bell 530-842-
6131.
EIS No. 20140287, Draft EIS, USFS, WA, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Invasive
Plant Management, Comment Period Ends: 11/17/2014, Contact: Phyllis
Reed<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20140288, Draft EIS, BPA, OR, WA, Walla Walla Basin Spring
Chinook Hatchery Program, Comment Period Ends: 11/24/2014, Contact:
Donald L. Rose<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20140198, Draft EIS, NMFS, WA, Two Joint State and Tribal
Resource Management Plans for Puget Sound Salmon and Steelhead Hatchery
Programs, Comment Period Ends: 11/24/2014, Contact: Steve Leider 360-
753-4650. Revision to the FR Notice Published 07/25/2014; Extending the
Comment Period from 10/23/2014 to 11/24/2014.
EIS No. 20140236, Final EIS, USACE, WA, Lower Snake River Programmatic
Sediment Management Plan, Review Period Ends: 09/22/2014, Contact:
Sandra Shelin<PHONE_NUMBER>. Revision to FR Notice Published 09/26/2014;
Correction to the Review Period, which ended on 09/22/2014 and not 09/
29/2014.

    Dated: September 30, 2014.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2014-23639 Filed 10-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment: "A 75 day comment period is insufficient time for the vaping industry and the wider vaping community to comment on the proposed deeming regulations. I would respectfully request that the period for comment be extended to 180 days.

Vaping has saved my life. Small business is the oil that keeps the engine of our country running. Please, allow some more time.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 199 (Monday, October 17, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 62902]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22449]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96023; File No. SR-NYSE-2022-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on
Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed
Rule Change To Modify Certain Pricing Limitations for Securities Listed
on the Exchange Pursuant to a Primary Direct Floor Listing

October 11, 2022.
    On April 7, 2022, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to allow companies to modify certain pricing
limitations for securities listed on the Exchange pursuant to a direct
listing with a primary offering in which the company will sell shares
itself in the opening auction on the first day of trading on the
Exchange. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on April 19, 2022.\3\ On May 26, 2022, pursuant to
section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer
period within which to either approve or disapprove the proposed rule
change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.\5\ On July 18, 2022, the Commission instituted
proceedings under section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \6\ to determine
whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94708 (April 13,
2022), 87 FR 23300 (April 19, 2022) (``Notice''). Comments received
on the proposal are available on the Commission's website at:
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2022-14/srnyse202214.htm.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94991 (May 26,
2022), 87 FR 33518 (June 2, 2022). The Commission designated July
18, 2022, as the date by which it should approve, disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 95312 (July 18,
2022), 87 FR 43914 (July 22, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \8\ provides that, after initiating
proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order approving or
disapproving the proposed rule change not later than 180 days after the
date of publication of notice of the filing of the proposed rule
change. The Commission may extend the period for issuing an order
approving or disapproving the proposed rule change, however, by not
more than 60 days if the Commission determines that a longer period is
appropriate and publishes the reasons for such determination. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on April 19, 2022.\9\ The 180th day after publication of the Notice is
October 16, 2022. The Commission is extending the time period for
approving or disapproving the proposal for an additional 60 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \9\ See Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the
proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the
proposed rule change along with the comments on the proposal.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\10\ designates December 15, 2022, as the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    date by which the Commission should either approve or disapprove
the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NYSE-2022-14).

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

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-22449 Filed 10-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 46)]
[Notices]
[Page 11211-11213]
[DOCID:fr10mr10-131]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61630; File No. SR-Phlx-2010-26]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. To
Permit the Concurrent Listing of $3.50 and $4 Strikes for Classes
Participating in the $0.50 Strike Program and the $1 Strike Program

March 2, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on February 19, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
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. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposal to amend
Commentary .05 to Rule 1012 (Series of Options Open for Trading) to
permit the concurrent listing of $3.50 and $4 strikes for classes that
participate in both the $0.50 Strike Price Program (``$0.50 Strike
Program'') \3\ and the $1

Strike Price Program (``$1 Strike Program'').\4\ The Exchange requests
that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay period contained
in Exchange Act Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The $0.50 Strike Program was initially approved on September
18, 2009. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60694 (September
18, 2009), 74 FR 49048 (September 25, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-65) (order
approving).
    \4\ The $1 Strike Program was initially approved as a pilot on
June 11, 2003. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 48013 (June
11, 2003), 68 FR 35933 (June 17, 2003) (SR-Phlx-2002-55) (order
approving). The program was subsequently made permanent and
expanded. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 57111 (January 8,
2008), 73 FR 2297 (January 14, 2008) (SR-Phlx-2008-01) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness); 59590 (March 17, 2009), 74 FR
12412. (March 24, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-21) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness); and 61277 (January 4, 2010), 75 FR 1442
(January 11, 2010)(SR-Phlx-2009-108) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQOMXPHLX/
Filings/, 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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposal is to amend Commentary .05 to Rule
1012 to permit the concurrent listing of $3.50 and $4 strikes for
classes that participate in both the $0.50 Strike Program and the $1
Strike Program.
    The Exchange recently implemented a rule change that permits strike
price intervals of $0.50 for options on stocks trading at or below
$3.00 pursuant to the $0.50 Strike Program.\6\ As part of the filing to
establish the $0.50 Strike Program, the Exchange contemplated that a
class may be selected to participate in both the $0.50 Strike Program
and the $1 Strike Program. Under the $1 Strike Program, new series with
$1 intervals are not permitted to be listed within $0.50 of an existing
$2.50 strike price in the same series, except that strike prices of $2
and $3 are permitted to be listed within $0.50 of a $2.50 strike price
for classes also selected to participate in the $0.50 Strike
Program.\7\ Under the Exchange's current Rule 1012, for classes
selected to participate in both the $0.50 Strike Program and the $1
Strike Program, the Exchange may either: (a) List a $3.50 strike but
not list a $4 strike; or (b) list a $4 strike but not list a $3.50
strike. For example, if a $3.50 strike for an option class in both the
$0.50 and $1 Strike Programs was listed, the next highest permissible
strike price would be $5.00. Alternatively, if a $4 strike was listed,
the next lowest permissible strike price would be $3.00. The intent of
the $0.50 Strike Program was to expand the ability of investors to
hedge risks associated with stocks trading at or under $3 and to
provide finer intervals of $0.50, beginning at $1 up to $3.50. As a
result, the Exchange believes that the current filing is consistent
with the purpose of the $0.50 Strike Program and will permit the
Exchange to fill in any existing gaps resulting from having to choose
whether to list a $3.50 or $4 strike for options classes in both the
$0.50 and $1 Strike Programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60694 (September 18,
2009), 74 FR 49048 (September 25, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-65) (order
approving); and Commentary .05(a)(ii) to Rule 1012.
    \7\ See Commentary .05(a)(i)(C) of Rule 1012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Exchange is submitting the current filing to permit
the listing of concurrent $3.50 and $4 strikes for classes that are
selected to participate in both the $0.50 Strike Program and the $1
Strike Program. To effect this change, the Exchange is proposing to
amend Commentary .05(a)(i)(B) to Rule 1012 by adding $4 to the strike
prices of $2 and $3 currently permitted if a class participates in both
the $0.50 Strike Program and the $1 Strike Program.
    The Exchange is also proposing to amend the current rule text to
delete references to ``$2.50 strike prices'' (and the example utilizing
$2.50 strike prices) and to replace those references with broader
language, e.g., ``existing strike prices.''
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \9\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open
market and a national market system, by permitting the Exchange to list
more granular strikes on options overlying lower priced securities,
which the Exchange believes will provide investors with greater
flexibility by allowing them to establish positions that are better
tailored to meet their investment objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The Exchange believes that the foregoing proposed rule change may
take effect upon filing with the Commission pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) \10\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder \11\
because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay to permit the Exchange to compete with other exchanges
whose rules permit concurrent listing of $3.50 and $4 strikes for
classes similarly

participating in both a $0.50 strike program and a $1 strike program.
The Commission finds that waiver of the operative delay is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest because such
waiver will encourage fair competition among the exchanges. Therefore,
the Commission designates the proposal operative upon filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2010-26 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-Phlx-2010-26. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml).
    Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing also will
be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
Phlx-2010-26 and should be submitted on or before March 31, 2010.

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-5078 Filed 3-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57594-57595]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26239]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP18-18-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of
Application

    On November 15, 2017, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC
(Transco), P.O. Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251, filed an application
pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations seeking for a
certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing Transco's
Gateway Expansion Project (Project), which is an expansion of Transco's
existing interstate gas transmission system in New Jersey that will
enable Transco to provide an additional 65,000 dekatherms per day of
firm transportation service, all as more fully set forth in the
application, which is open to the public for inspection. The filing may
also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding the Transco's application should be
directed to Jordan Kirwin, P.O. Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251, or
(713) 215-2264, or by email [email protected].
    Specifically, the Project will involve: (1) Installing 27,500 of
additional horsepower at Transco's existing Station 303 located in
Essex County, New Jersey; (2) replacing the existing 12-inch-diameter
header, meter skid and associated equipment with two new 6-inch-
diameter ultrasonic meter skids and associated equipment at the
existing Paterson Meter and Regulator (M&R) facility located in Passaic
County, New Jersey; (3) installing a 36-inch-diameter mainline block
valve at the existing Roseland M&R facility located in Essex County,
New Jersey; and (4) installing one electric transformer at the existing
Roseland Electric Substation located in Essex County, New Jersey.
    Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of

Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among
other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's
issuance of the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the
Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify
federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all
necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal
authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission
staff's EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 7 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission
and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on December 21, 2017.

    Dated: November 30, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-26239 Filed 12-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P