                              Served: March 16, 2004

         UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

   DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

           OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                  WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 11th day of March, 2004

Essential Air Service at

GRAND ISLAND, NEBRASKA

KEARNEY, NEBRASKA

McCOOK, NEBRASKA

NORFOLK, NEBRASKA

NORTH PLATTE, NEBRASKA

SCOTTSBLUFF, NEBRASKA

under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq.

 	Docket OST-2002-13983

 	Docket OST-1996-1715

 	Docket OST-1997-3005

 	Docket OST-1998-3704

 	Docket OST-1999-5173

 	Docket OST-2003-14535

Notice of Extension

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated.  (No additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter.)

By Order 2003-12-2, served December 5, 2003, the Department requested
proposals from air carriers interested in providing essential air
service at Grand Island, Kearney, McCook, Norfolk, North Platte, and
Scottsbluff, Nebraska.  Six air carriers submitted a total of 59
proposal options.  By letter dated February 18, 2004, we requested
comments on the air carrier selection from the Mayors and Airport
Managers of the six Nebraska communities, as well as from the Director
of the Nebraska Department of Aeronautics.  We requested that these
comments be submitted by March 18, 2004.

We have received a request dated February 25, 2004, from the Airport
Manager of the Western Nebraska Regional Airport in Scottsbluff,
requesting a seven-day extension for submitting the airport’s
comments.  In support of his request, the Airport Manager states that
the Airport Authority Board meeting is scheduled for March 18, the day
comments are due.

Because we recognize that scheduled meetings of local governmental
bodies may occur at inopportune times relative to our letter, we will
grant this request.  Many of the proposals for the six Nebraska points
involve routings that link two or more essential air service
communities, therefore we will grant all of the civic parties an
additional week, until March 25, 2004, to submit their comments on the
service proposals for their communities.

This action is effective immediately.

Action taken by:	Dennis DeVany, Chief

					EAS and Domestic Analysis Division, X-53

					Office of Aviation Analysis

					Office of the Secretary

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov/"  http://dms.dot.gov/

 PAGE

-  PAGE   2  -


Date:	December 14, 2011
Subject:	Calculation of Representative Detection Levels for Metals, Particulate Matter, and Hydrochloric Acid Emissions; Electric Utility Steam Generating Units MATS
From:	Roy Neulicht (RTI International)
To:  	Bill Maxwell
	OAQPS/SPPD/ESG (D243-01)
	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
	Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Introduction
This memorandum documents the calculation of representative detection levels (RDL) as emission rates, pound per million Btu (lb/MMBtu) for metals, filterable particulate matter (PM), and hydrochloric acid (HCl) emissions. A December 13, 2011, memorandum from Peter Westlin and Ray Merrill, US EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards entitled "Data and procedure for handling below detection level data in analyzing various pollutant emissions databases for MACT and RTR emissions limits," provides guidance for the handling of below detection level (BDL) data and for developing RDL data.  The referenced memorandum provides several tables that present RDLs for various pollutants in units of mass and concentration for representative sampling times. For the EGU MATS rule, RDLs expressed in terms of emissions rate, lb/MMBtu are needed.  The purpose of  this memorandum  is to document the calculations used to convert the RDLs for PM, HCl, and metal emissions presented in the referenced memorandum in terms of concentration, microgram per dry standard cubic meters (ug/dscm) to an emission rate, lb/MMBtu.

Calculations

Except for IGCC units, the following equation was used to convert RDLs expressed as ug/dscm to units of lb/MMBtu:

E  =  Cd * Fd * (20.9 / (20.9 - % O2))
Where:
E = Emissions rate, lb/MMBtu
Cd  =  concentration (lb/dscf)
Fd  = F Factor, dscf/MMBtu
% O2  = percent oxygen in flue gas
Conversion: 1 lb/scf = 1.6 x 10[10] ug/dscm

An oxygen content of six percent (6 %) was used for the calculations.

For IGCC units, the information available was the Fc and flue gas carbon dioxide concentrations.  Therefore, for IGCC units, the following equation was used to convert RDLs expressed as ug/dscm to units of lb/MMBtu:

E = Cd * Fc * (100 / % CO2)
Where:
E =  Emissions rate, lb/MMBtu
Cd  =  concentration (lb/dscf)
Fc  =  F Factor, scf/MMBtu
% CO2  =  percent carbon dioxide in flue gas
Conversion: 1 lb/scf = 1.6 x 10[10] ug/dscm

An Fc value of 2,313 scf/MMBtu was used for the calculations.  This Fc value is the average of the Fc values available from the two IGCC units in the MATS project database. A carbon dioxide content of nine percent (9 %) was used for the calculations.

Results

The results are calculated and reported as three times (3x) the RDL because EPA's guidance is to compare the calculated MACT floor to three times the RDL value, and to use the higher of the two values.  Tables 1, 2, and 3 present the results for Method 29 metals, filterable PM, and HCl, respectively. Note, to convert the calculated RDL values from units of lb/MMBtu to units of lb/MWh, we derived a conversion factor of 10 MMBtu/MW from the 2010 EU MACT ICR data. This is an average factor derived from data and was needed so the minimum RDLs calculated in accordance with Method 19 could be compared to the output based UPLs in units of lb/MWh.  For all coal, oil and pet coke, we used a 3 x RDL value of 6.4E-4 for PM and 4.0E-5 for HCl.

Table 1.  Calculation of Three Times the Representative Detection Level for Metals for Method 29

                               Method 29 Metals

        3 x Representative Detection Level (RDL), 4 dscm sample volume

ug/dscm
lb/dscf
                               lb/MMBtu at 6% O2
                              lb/MMBtu at 9% CO2

                                   All Coal
                                      Oil
                                   Pet coke
                                     IGCC

                                   Fd, Fc =

                                                                          9,780
                                                                          9,190
                                                                          9,830
                                     2,313
Antimony

                                                                        8.3E-01
                                                                        5.1E-11
                                                                        7.1E-07
                                                                        6.6E-07
                                                                        7.1E-07
                                    1.3E-06
Arsenic

                                                                        3.0E-01
                                                                        1.9E-11
                                                                        2.6E-07
                                                                        2.4E-07
                                                                        2.6E-07
                                    4.8E-07
Beryllium

                                                                        6.0E-02
                                                                        3.7E-12
                                                                        5.1E-08
                                                                        4.8E-08
                                                                        5.2E-08
                                    9.6E-08
Cadmium

                                                                        2.3E-02
                                                                        1.4E-12
                                                                        1.9E-08
                                                                        1.8E-08
                                                                        1.9E-08
                                    3.6E-08
Chromium

                                                                        2.3E-01
                                                                        1.4E-11
                                                                        1.9E-07
                                                                        1.8E-07
                                                                        1.9E-07
                                    3.6E-07
Cobalt

                                                                        2.3E-01
                                                                        1.4E-11
                                                                        1.9E-07
                                                                        1.8E-07
                                                                        1.9E-07
                                    3.6E-07
Lead

                                                                        2.3E-01
                                                                        1.4E-11
                                                                        1.9E-07
                                                                        1.8E-07
                                                                        1.9E-07
                                    3.6E-07
Manganese

                                                                        2.3E-01
                                                                        1.4E-11
                                                                        1.9E-07
                                                                        1.8E-07
                                                                        1.9E-07
                                    3.6E-07
Nickel

                                                                        4.1E+00
                                                                        2.5E-10
                                                                        3.5E-06
                                                                        3.3E-06
                                                                        3.5E-06
                                    6.5E-06
Selenium

                                                                        6.0E-01
                                                                        3.7E-11
                                                                        5.1E-07
                                                                        4.8E-07
                                                                        5.2E-07
                                    9.6E-07
total

                                                                        5.8E-06
                                                                        5.4E-06
                                                                        5.8E-06
                                    1.1E-05

Table 2.  Calculation of Three Times the Representative Detection Level for Filterable Particulate Matter

                                 Sample Volume

            3 x Representative Detection Level (RDL), 4 dscm sample
                                     dscm

ug/dscm
lb/dscf
                               lb/MMBtu at 6% O2
                              lb/MMBtu at 9% CO2

                                   All Coal
                                      Oil
                                   Pet coke
                                     IGCC

                                   Fd, Fc =

                                                                          9,780
                                                                          9,190
                                                                          9,830
                                     2,313
                                       1

                                                                           3000
                                                                        1.9E-07
                                                                        2.6E-03
                                                                        2.4E-03
                                                                        2.6E-03
                                    4.8E-03
                                       2

                                                                           1500
                                                                        9.4E-08
                                                                        1.3E-03
                                                                        1.2E-03
                                                                        1.3E-03
                                    2.4E-03
                                       3

                                                                           1000
                                                                        6.2E-08
                                                                        8.6E-04
                                                                        8.0E-04
                                                                        8.6E-04
                                    1.6E-03
                                       4

                                                                            750
                                                                        4.7E-08
                                                                        6.4E-04
                                                                        6.0E-04
                                                                        6.5E-04
                                    1.2E-03

Table 3.  Calculation of Three Times the Representative Detection Level for HCl

                                 Sample Volume

            3 x Representative Detection Level (RDL), 4 dscm sample
                                     dscm

ug/dscm
lb/dscf
                               lb/MMbtu at 6% O2
                              lb/MMBtu at 9% CO2

                                   All Coal
                                      Oil
                                   Pet coke
                                     IGCC

                                   Fd, Fc =

                                                                          9,780
                                                                          9,190
                                                                          9,830
                                     2,313
                                       1

                                                                        1.8E+02
                                                                        1.1E-08
                                                                        1.5E-04
                                                                        1.4E-04
                                                                        1.5E-04
                                    2.9E-04
                                       2

                                                                        9.0E+01
                                                                        5.6E-09
                                                                        7.7E-05
                                                                        7.2E-05
                                                                        7.7E-05
                                    1.4E-04
                                       3

                                                                        6.0E+01
                                                                        3.7E-09
                                                                        5.1E-05
                                                                        4.8E-05
                                                                        5.2E-05
                                    9.6E-05
                                       4

                                                                        4.5E+01
                                                                        2.8E-09
                                                                        3.9E-05
                                                                        3.6E-05
                                                                        3.9E-05
                                    7.2E-05


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 162 (Friday, August 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50860-50861]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20738]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0753]

Recreational Boating Accident Reporting Manual, COMDTINST
M16782.1

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has developed a draft Recreational Boating
Accident Reporting Manual, COMDTINST M16782.1, to replace Standard
Method of Reporting (Boating Accidents), CG-449, which was last
published in September 1973. We seek public comment on this draft.

DATES: Comments must be received by the Coast Guard on or before
November 19, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments using one of the listed methods, and
see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for more information on public comments.
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document
call or email Susan Weber;<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>For
information about viewing or submitting material to the docket, call
Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-
9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at
http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but
please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it
will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully
transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment,
it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when
it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you
include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a
telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact
you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number [USCG-2015-0753] in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change the rule
based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number (USCG-2015-0753) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our 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 a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES.
Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If
we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a
time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Discussion

    The Coast Guard's National Recreational Boating Safety Program aims
to reduce accidents, injuries and deaths on America's waterways and to
facilitate safe enjoyable boating. It promotes greater uniformity among
States and localities in boating safety laws, enforcement, and
administration. The Program also requires boating safety reporting by
States and boaters involved in accidents. This notice announces the
availability of a new draft accident reporting manual and seeks comment
on its content.
    The manual addresses the following broad topics:
     Regulations, vessel determinations, accident scenarios
policy, and definitions of terms.
     Report form and reporting system.
     Expected roles of the Coast Guard and State.

     Investigation and data entry expectations.
    Comments can discuss any aspects or other concerns about the
Manual. Submissions will be reviewed internally to determine whether
amendments need to be made to the Manual.
    This notice is issued under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 6102 and 5
U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: August 17, 2015.
Verne B. Gifford,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Inspections and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-20738 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


21;"><SPAN STYL


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 56 (Thursday, March 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16890-16891]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6838]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Second Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 226, Audio Systems and
Equipment

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of meeting RTCA Special Committee 226, Audio Systems and
Equipment.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
second meeting of RTCA Special Committee 226, Audio Systems and
Equipment.

DATES: The meeting will be held April 17-19, 2012, from 9 a.m.-5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 213. The agenda will
include the following:

April 17-19, 2012

 Welcome and Administrative Remarks
 Introductions
 Agenda Overview
 Review previous action items
 Finalize and approve changes to TOR
 Solicit proposals for further changes to DO-214
 Continue discussion on the following:
     Risks of usage of adaptive technology during test
     Proposed committee letter to invite additional headsets,
MIC's and CVR manufacturers
     Addition of noise test requirement to the vibration test
variable nature of Oxygen Mask Microphone and Hand Microphone
performance in the marketplace
     Proposal to remove CVR Area Microphone requirements from
standard in lieu of ED-112
     FAA info letter addressing use of Active Noise Reduction
(ANR) and Powered ANR headsets to discuss concern of EMI, EMC effects
on power leads affecting communications
     Support from NTSB with regards to ANR
     Sensitivity versus output power as they correlate with its
specified ratings
 Continue review of DO-214 and draft updates/changes
 Draft language for noise test requirement to combine with the
vibration test
 Other Business
 Establish Agenda for Next Meeting

 Adjourn

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 15, 2012.
John Raper,
Manager, Business Operations Branch, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-6838 Filed 3-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 63 (Tuesday, April 2, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19716-19717]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07579]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0331]

International Consortium of Cardiovascular Registries

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public
meeting entitled ``International Consortium of Cardiovascular
Registries.'' The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the development
of an international consortium of cardiovascular registries with a
broad array of interested stakeholders. The initial pilot phase of this
effort will be developing relationships and analysis strategies for
transcatheter cardiac valve registries, with the understanding that
these efforts would be expanded to additional cardiovascular devices in
the future.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on April 22, 2013, from 8
a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: The public meeting will be held at FDA's White Oak
Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great
Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Entrance for the public
meeting participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where
routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and
security information, please refer to http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/BuildingsandFacilities/WhiteOakCampusInformation/ucm241740.htm.
    Contact Persons: Benjamin Eloff, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4210, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Danica Marinac-Dabic, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4110, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-
6689<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Registration: Registration is free and will be on a first-come,
first-served basis. Persons interested in attending this public meeting
must register online by 5 p.m. on April 11, 2013. Early registration is
recommended because facilities are limited and, therefore, FDA may
limit the number of participants from each organization. If time and
space permit, onsite registration on the day of the public meeting will
be provided beginning at 7 a.m.
    To register for the public meeting, please visit FDA's Medical
Devices News & Events--Workshops & Conferences calendar at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/default.htm.
Select this public meeting from the posted events list. Please provide
complete contact information for each attendee, including name, title,
affiliation, mailing address, email address, and telephone number.
Those without Internet access should contact Susan Monahan to register
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>). Registrants will receive
confirmation after they have been accepted. You will be notified if you
are on a waiting list.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Susan Monahan<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>) no
later than April 11, 2013.
    Streaming Webcast of the Public Meeting: This meeting will also be
available via Webcast. Persons interested in viewing the Webcast must
register online by 5 p.m. on April 11, 2013. Early registration is
recommended because Webcast connections are limited. Organizations are
requested to register all participants, but to view using one
connection per location. Webcast participants will be sent technical
system requirements after registration and connection access
information after April 16, 2013. If you have never attended a Connect
Pro event before, test your connection at https://collaboration.fda.gov/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm. To get
a quick overview of the Connect Pro program, visit http://www.adobe.com/go/connectpro_overview. (FDA has verified the Web site
addresses in this document, but FDA is not responsible for any
subsequent changes to the Web sites after this document publishes in
the Federal Register.)
    Comments: FDA is holding this public meeting to obtain information
on the topics identified in section II. 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 meeting
topics. The deadline for submitting comments related to this public
meeting is May 22, 2013. No commercial or promotional material will be
permitted to be presented or distributed at the meeting.
    Regardless of attendance at the public meeting, interested persons
may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. It is only necessary to send one set of
comments. Please identify comments with the docket number found in
brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen
in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, and

will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Transcripts: Transcripts will not be provided.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Cardiovascular procedures are performed in hundreds of thousands of
patients every year to treat all manner of cardiovascular disease from
coronary artery disease to peripheral vascular disease, intracardiac
ablation to surgical interventions, implant of stents to implants of
pacemakers, defibrillators, and their associated leads. Information
obtained from clinical trials is often limited due to small size, short
followup, and lack of generalizability. Observational studies and
registries have become increasingly important data sources for
assessing the performance of cardiovascular therapeutic medical devices
in the real-world setting. However, these registries are often limited
in scope and size to a specific country, region, or health care
provider system.
    Developing a comprehensive understanding of the performance of
these devices requires not only an indepth analysis across data sources
to link device use to clinical outcomes, but also to incorporate data
from international experience with these devices and procedures. FDA is
holding this workshop to discuss the development of an international
consortium of cardiovascular registries that would allow for broad-
based analysis and surveillance of medical device exposure and related
clinical outcomes. This effort follows on the successful model of the
International Consortium of Orthopedic Registries (ICOR), which has
developed a framework for distributed analysis across their member
registries around the world. The development of a similar consortium of
cardiovascular registries will begin with a narrowed scope
incorporating transcatheter valve therapy devices and procedures.
    At the end of this workshop, FDA intends that the participants and
stakeholders will develop a comprehensive plan for the development of
an operational international consortium of cardiovascular registries.
This plan will identify specific issues that must be addressed and
provide a ``roadmap'' for full implementation.

II. Topics

    Topics to be discussed at this meeting include:
     The role of registry consortia in postmarket surveillance,
     Goals of the International Consortium of Cardiovascular
Registries,
     Lessons learned from the development of the ICOR,
     Development of an international consortium of
transcatheter valve registries as a pilot phase,
     Analysis of near- and long-term outcomes reported through
registries, and
     Discussion of capabilities, challenges, and limitations of
existing transcatheter valve registries.

    Dated: March 27, 2013.
Peter Lurie,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. 2013-07579 Filed 4-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


Statement Supporting the Renewal of the Revisions to the Tier I and Tier II Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory Forms for Community Right-to-Know Reporting Requirements of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act

1.	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

      1(a)	Title of the Information Collection Request

       Hazardous Chemical Reporting:  Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory Forms (Tier I and Tier II).  EPA No. 2436.03, OMB No. 2050-0206.

      1(b)	Short Characterization

      This information collection request (ICR) estimates the burden and costs associated with reviewing and updating the new data elements added in July 2012 to the Hazardous Chemical Inventory forms, Tier I and Tier II, under section 312 of EPCRA.                Sections 311 and 312 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) apply to the owner or operator of any facility that is required to prepare or have available a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for a hazardous chemical under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and its implementing regulations.  Under section 311 of EPCRA, these facilities are required to submit an MSDS to the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC), the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC), and the local fire department for each hazardous chemical stored on-site in a quantity greater than the reporting threshold.  Alternatively, a list of subject chemicals, grouped by hazard type, may be submitted.  The reporting threshold is 10,000 pounds unless the chemical is specifically listed as an Extremely Hazardous Substance (EHS) under EPCRA section 302, in which case the reporting threshold becomes 500 pounds or the Threshold Planning Quantity (TPQ), whichever is less.  The reporting threshold for gasoline (all grades combined) is 75,000 gallons and for diesel fuel (all grades combined) is 100,000 gallons, when stored entirely underground at retail gas stations that are in compliance with Underground Storage Tanks (UST) regulations.  Section 312 of EPCRA requires owners and operators of facilities subject to section 311 to annually report the inventories of those chemicals reported under section 311.  The implementing regulations and reporting thresholds are codified in 40 CFR part 370.              The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to publish two emergency and hazardous chemical inventory forms, known as "Tier I" and "Tier II," for use by these facilities.  These forms were published in October 1987 and amended in July 1990.  On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48093), EPA proposed some additional data elements in the facility information section of the Tier I and II forms and proposed to revise some existing data elements in the chemical reporting section of the Tier II form.  The final rule was published on July 13, 2012 (77 FR 41300).                The Tier I form provides the minimum amount of information necessary to comply with section 312.  Any facility that is required to submit an MSDS or list of chemicals under section 311 must submit a Tier I form annually on March 1, incorporating the chemicals reported under section 311.  Tier I form is submitted to the SERC, LEPC, and local fire department.  The Tier II form, which provides chemical-specific information, is submitted in lieu of the Tier I form only if specifically requested by the SERC or LEPC.         States were always given the flexibility to implement EPCRA as appropriate for their State to meet the goals of EPCRA, which is to prepare for and respond to releases of EHSs and to provide the public with information on potential chemical risks in their communities.  This flexibility includes adding more chemicals, setting lower reporting thresholds and creating a reporting form or format that includes more information than the federal reporting requirements.  Many States have more stringent requirements, such as additional chemicals and lower reporting thresholds.  Some States developed their own inventory reporting form, including electronic reporting format and certification.  Other States use the federal inventory reporting form or the federal electronic reporting format, Tier2 Submit.                The data elements that EPA added in July 2012 are on the federal emergency and hazardous chemical inventory reporting forms, Tier I and Tier II.  The data elements added were requested by state and local agencies for improving their emergency response plans and for coordinating response during an emergency.  EPA also revised some existing data elements in the chemical reporting section of the Tier II form to ease reporting for facilities and make the forms more user-friendly for state and local agencies.                During the 2012 final rule phase, EPA estimated that approximately 390,000 manufacturing and non-manufacturing facilities are subject to reporting and recordkeeping requirements under EPCRA sections 311 and 312.  However, the base ICR (ICR 1352.13, OMB Control No. 2050-0072) for the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for 40 CFR part 370, which was recently approved by OMB, estimates 400,000 facilities.  For this renewal ICR, EPA estimates that 400,000 facilities subject to the regulations would incur burden for reviewing and updating the new data elements that were added to the Tier II form.        2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

      2(a)	Need/Authority for the Collection

      The authority for these requirements is EPCRA section 312 (42 U.S.C. §11022).

      Section 312 requires the same owners or operators of facilities subject to section 311 to annually report the inventories of the chemicals reported under section 311.  Section 312(g) requires EPA to publish emergency and hazardous chemical inventory forms for use by facilities subject to this section.  In final rules published in the Federal Register on October 15, 1987, and amended on July 26, 1990, EPA published the two "formats" required under EPCRA, "Tier I" and "Tier II."  Tier I is the minimum amount of information necessary to comply with the section.  Using Tier I, facilities aggregate reportable chemicals by hazard type and provide the quantities and locations of the chemicals.  The Tier II Form is chemical-specific information and only needs to be submitted (in lieu of the Tier I Form) if specifically requested by the SERC or LEPC.              EPA added some new data elements to the Tier I and Tier II forms and revised some existing data elements in the chemical reporting section of the Tier II form on July 13, 2012 (77 FR 41300).

      2(b)	Practical Utility/Users of the Data

      The reports required under sections 311 and 312 are submitted to the state and local officials which will be then accessible to the public.  The public will have knowledge of the hazards in their community.  State and local officials use the information submitted to them for developing and modifying emergency response plans for their community.          3.	NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

      3(a)	Non-Duplication

      Many states have laws that require information similar to that called for by sections 311 and 312 of EPCRA.  EPA allows the state program to suffice for reporting provided that the minimum reporting requirements are met.                3(b) Public Notice               In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Agency has notified the public through the Federal Register Notice on the renewal of this ICR on October 16, 2015 (80 FR 62526).  EPA received one comment supporting the Tier II form revisions and the burden EPA estimated during the final rule phase.                 3(c) Consultations        	During the renewal process of the base ICR, 1352.13, EPA contacted few facilities to estimate the burden imposed for complying with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements under 40 CFR part 370  (see section 3(c) of that document).  ICR 1352.13 shows burden hours and costs to comply with all the requirements of the regulations, including submitting the Tier II form.  This ICR, 2436.03, only calculates the hours imposed on facilities reviewing and updating the new data elements finalized in 2012.

      The new data elements that were added in 2012 were on page one of the Tier I and Tier II form, related to facility personnel contact information, such as emergency personnel, facility emergency coordinator etc.  The facilities that EPA contacted for the base ICR informed us that our original estimate of 15 minutes (0.25 hours) is sufficient for reviewing the data elements annually on page one of the Tier II form.  Note:  All states now require the federal Tier II form or the state developed form or electronic reporting format.  Tier I is no longer accepted by any state.                3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

      The reporting deadlines for sections 311 and 312 are set by statute.  EPA has no authority to allow less frequent collection.

      3(e)	General Guidelines

      The collection activities specified in this ICR adhere to the guidelines specified by OMB.

      3(f)	Confidentiality

      The respondent may claim specific chemical identities as trade secret in reports submitted under Section 312 and in the list of chemicals and material safety data sheets submitted under Section 311.  Such information must be submitted according to EPCRA sections 322 and 323 (40 CFR Part 350).

      All trade secrecy claims submitted to EPA under EPCRA are handled and stored according to procedures set out in the Manual for Physical Handling, Security, and Protection of Files containing Trade Secret Claims Submitted under Sections 303, 311, and 312 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), March 2010.  These procedures were developed for EPCRA trade secrecy claims with the knowledge that these documents are sensitive.  Handling and review of documents containing EPCRA trade secret information is permitted only by persons who have obtained formal clearance to access the information based on a work-related need to engage in these activities.  When not being processed or reviewed by authorized individuals, the claim submissions containing trade secret information are stored in restricted access areas.  To ensure that appropriate handling procedures are activated and the confidentiality of EPCRA trade secret submissions is maintained, the Agency attaches a cover sheet to the top of each trade secret document and otherwise marks the document to clearly identify the document as "confidential".

      3(g)	Sensitive Questions       The information gathering activities under this renewal ICR do not involve any sensitive questions.

4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

      4(a)	Respondents

      Section 312 is applicable to all facilities that are required to prepare or have available an MSDS for a hazardous chemical as required under OSHA and its implementing regulations.  Section 1910.1200 of the OSHA regulations provides exemptions from the definition of hazardous chemical.                In addition, Section 311(e) of EPCRA excludes the following substances:

      ::	Any food, food additive, color additive, drug, or cosmetic regulated by the Food and Drug Administration;              ::	Any substance present as a solid in any manufactured item to the extent exposure to the substance does not occur under normal conditions of use;              ::	Any substance to the extent it is used for personal, family, or household purposes, or is present in the same form and concentration as a product packaged for distribution and use by the general public;              ::	Any substance to the extent it is used in a research laboratory, hospital, or other medical facility under the direct supervision of a technically qualified individual; and              ::	Any substance to the extent it is used in routine agricultural operations or is a fertilizer held for sale by a retailer to the ultimate customer.

      Also, reporting thresholds have been established under sections 311 and 312 (codified in 40 CFR part 370).  A facility must report those hazardous chemicals that are present at the facility at any time at or above the following levels:         For EHSs, 500 pounds or the threshold planning quantity (TPQ), whichever is less.                  For hazardous chemicals other than EHSs, the reporting threshold is 10,000 pounds.         For gasoline, 75,000 gallons (all grades combined) and 100,000 gallons for diesel fuel (all grades combined), when stored entirely underground at retail gas stations that are in compliance with UST regulations.

      4(b)	Information Requested

      4(b)(i)	Data Items

      On or before March 1 of each year, facilities having hazardous chemicals present at the facility above the reporting thresholds must submit a Tier I Form.  However, the Tier II Form must be submitted upon request by the SERC, LEPC or the fire department with jurisdiction over the facility  Currently all states require facilities to submit the federal Tier II inventory form or the state developed inventory reporting form or electronic reporting format.  Some states require facilities to use Tier2 Submit, the electronic software developed by EPA.                 The Tier I Form includes the following information as required by the statute:         An estimate in ranges of the maximum amount of hazardous chemicals in each hazardous category present at the facility at any time during the previous year;          An estimate in ranges of the average daily amount of hazardous chemicals on-site in each hazard category present at the facility during the preceding calendar year; and

 The general location of hazardous chemicals in each category.

EPA has added the following information on the Tier I form in the final rules published on October 15, 1987 (52 FR 38344), July 26, 1990 (55 FR 30632) and November 3, 2008 (73 FR 65452).         NAICS code and Dun and Bradstreet number of the facility         Emergency contact (added to give SERCs, LEPCs, and local fire departments a contact at the facility who could clarify information at any time, particularly in the event of an emergency); and         Number of days on-site (added to produce a more accurate estimate of the average daily amount, particularly for those chemicals that are on-site for only a short period of time each year).

The Tier II Form includes the following information as required by statute:         The chemical name or the common name of the chemical as provided on the material safety data sheet;         An estimate (in ranges) of the maximum amount of the hazardous chemical present at the facility at any time during the preceding calendar year;         An estimate (in ranges) of the average daily amount of hazardous chemical present at the facility during the preceding calendar year;         A brief description of the manner of storage of the hazardous chemical; and         The location of the hazardous chemical within the facility.

The following data elements were added to the Tier II form in the final rules published on October 15, 1987, July 26, 1990 and November 3, 2008.

        CAS number to identify more accurately each chemical that is reported;          The physical state to help identify the type of hazard a chemical represents in an emergency;         The physical and health hazards associated with the chemical;         Primary NAICS code and Dun and Bradstreet number of the facility         Two emergency contacts (added to give SERCs, LEPCs, and local fire departments a contact at the facility who could clarify information at any time, particularly in the event of an emergency); and

 Number of days on-site (added to produce a more accurate estimate of the average daily amount, particularly for those chemicals that are on-site for only a short period of time each year).        	On July 13, 2012, EPA added some new data elements to Tier I and Tier II forms and revised some existing data elements in the chemical reporting section of the Tier II form.  Although Tier I inventory form is no longer used by any state, the statute requires EPA to publish both forms so changes were also finalized on the Tier I inventory form.  The following data elements were added in July 2012.

 Latitude and Longitude of the facility;

 Maximum Number of Occupants;

 An indication whether the location of the facility is manned or unmanned;

 Facility identification numbers assigned under the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory and the Risk Management Programs;

 Email address for the owner or operator of the company;

 Name, title, email address, phone number and 24-hour phone number of the facility emergency coordinator;

 Name, title, email address, phone number of the person knowledgeable of the information reported on the Tier I and Tier II forms;

 Email address of the emergency contact(s);

 To indicate whether the facility is subject to EPCRA section 302; and

 To indicate whether the facility is subject to Clean Air Act (CAA) section 112 (r), also known as the Risk Management Program.

The following data elements were added to the forms as optional. 	  Name, address, phone number, Dun & Bradstreet number and email address of the parent company; and         Phone number of the facility.

	Since the statute specifically states that an estimate in ranges for the maximum amount and average daily amount should be reported on the Tier I and Tier II inventory forms, the regulations may only require reporting of these amounts in ranges.  Prior to the 2012 final rule, the range codes listed  were very broad.  However, in order for the States, local agencies and emergency response officials to have information on the maximum amount and average daily amount that are closer to the actual amounts present at the facility, EPA established new ranges in July 2012.  The new ranges are currently listed on both Tier I and Tier II forms.

	In the final rule published on July 13, 2012, EPA also revised some data elements under the chemical reporting section of the Tier II inventory form.  Prior to that rule, the form only included one entry to report pure chemical and mixtures.  The form now contains two separate entries, one for pure chemical and one for mixture, which will make reporting easier for facilities and make the form more user friendly for states and local agencies.

	4(b)(ii)	Respondent Activities

      To determine if the facility is subject to section 311, a facility must look at inventory records for all of its chemicals that are required to have MSDSs.  The facility would also have to review the EHS list to determine if any of the chemicals are subject to a lower reporting threshold.

      If the facility determines that it has hazardous chemicals that must be reported, it must determine the address of the SERC, LEPC, and local fire department.  Copies of the MSDSs for these chemicals may be submitted, or if preferred, the facility may provide a list of the subject chemicals grouped by hazard type.  To use the list option, the facility would have to read the MSDS to determine into which of the five hazard types the chemical falls and to identify it on the list.

      The same chemicals that a facility would need to report under section 311 would need to be reported under section 312.  To complete the Tier I form, the facility would need to monitor its inventory records for the chemical (to determine the inventory information), add the quantities together for chemicals having the same hazards, and determine the correct code for the total quantity.

      A site map may be easier to show locations of hazardous chemicals, or the facility may choose to provide the general location.              As mentioned in the previous section of this document, all states now require facilities to submit the federal Tier II inventory form or the state developed inventory reporting format, including electronic submission.

	 5.	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED:  AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

      5(a)	Agency Activities

      No information provided under sections 311 and 312 is sent to EPA.  All of the information is collected and kept at the state and local agencies.                EPA developed the electronic reporting format, Tier2 Submit and is modified annually.  EPA also input State required data fields in the Tier2 Submit requested by the State.  Approximately 10 states request EPA to input new data fields annually.                5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management

      EPA does not receive the data; therefore, EPA does not have any special data collection methodology and management.  EPA created computer software for use by facilities to submit Tier II reports, Tier2 Submit.  Approximately 20 states use Tier2 Submit.  Other states have created their own software using their own resources and require facilities to submit electronically (online or diskette).  Few states still accept paper submission.

      5(c)	Small Entity Flexibility

      The burden hours for small businesses are considered to be smaller than those for large facilities because of the reduced number of chemicals present at smaller facilities.  However, for the new data elements added to the Tier II form, EPA is considering the same burden for small and large facilities.

      5(d)	Collection Schedule

      The frequency of collection for these sections of EPCRA is required by the statute.  The facilities subject to Section 312 is required to submit either Tier I or Tier II (upon request) by March 1 annually.   As stated earlier in this document, all states now require facilities to submit Tier II or the state equivalent inventory form or format.

6.	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

      6(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden

      EPA estimates that approximately 400,000 facilities may be subject to section 312 reporting requirements.  For this ICR, these facilities are required to annually review the data elements on page one of the Tier II form and update them, if necessary.  Out of the 400,000 facilities, there are 120,000 manufacturers and 280,000 non-manufacturers.  EPA estimates the same unit burden for small, medium and large facilities since the time required to review the data elements would be the same for all facilities.

	 The ICR developed for July 2012 final rule accounted for rule familiarization and the initial reporting of the data elements added to the Tier II form.  In that ICR, EPA also assumed that it would only take facilities 0.25 hours in subsequent years to review the new data elements and revise if necessary.  So, for 400,000 facilities, EPA estimates a total of 100,000 hours for reviewing and updating the data elements on page one of the Tier II form.

      6(b)	Estimating Respondent Costs

      The annual costs to manufacturers were estimated by multiplying the respondent burden estimate for manufacturing facilities by the labor rate for the technical staff for reviewing and revising the data elements on page one of the Tier II form. The annual costs to non-manufacturers were estimated by multiplying the respondent burden estimate for non-manufacturing facilities by the labor rate for the technical staff responsible for reviewing and revising the data elements on page one of the Tier II form.   				       EPA estimates an hourly respondent labor cost for a technical staff at a manufacturing facility is $67.56, including wages and benefits.  Hourly respondent labor cost for a technical staff at a non-manufacturing facility is estimated at $54.01.  (Source:  Bureau of Labor and Statistics, December 2015)

	Capital and O&M Costs        	There are no capital or O&M costs associated with this ICR.

      6(c)	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

      EPA estimates no annual Agency recordkeeping burden associated with this ICR.  Only state and local government entities will incur burden and cost to manage information submitted by facilities.                6(d)	Estimating Total Annual Respondent Burden

      EPA believes that the new data elements added to the Tier II form in 2012 may not change annually, but in order for state and local agencies to have updated information for planning and response, facilities must review and update the information annually.  For this activity, EPA estimates that the total respondent burden for 400,000 facilities (120,000 manufacturers and 280,000 non-manufacturers) is 100,000 hours, at a cost of $3,760,400.  The burden for rule familiarization for facility respondents for the new data elements added in July 2012 final rule was accounted for in the ICR for the final rule, ICR 2436.02.              There is no burden incurred for state and local agencies during the renewal period of this ICR.  The one-time burden for modifying their software with the new data elements added in 2012 was accounted for in the ICR of that final rule, ICR 2436.02. 	       6(e)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost

      The Annual burden for reviewing and updating the data elements on page one of the Tier II form and making any necessary revisions in subsequent years is estimated to be 100,000 hours at a labor cost of $3,760,400.  There is no additional burden due to the revision of the chemical reporting section of the Tier II form.                6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden              There was a decrease of 62,500 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This decrease was because the one-time burden for respondents to modify their software was completed in 2012.               6(g)	Burden Statement

      For this ICR, the average unit burden for reviewing and updating the data elements on page one of the Tier II form is estimated 0.25 hours for facilities.              The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average .25 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.  An agency may not conduct or sponsor such a request and a person or facility is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

 	To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket, Docket ID number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0763, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the superfund docket in the EPA docket center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.  The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the superfund is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov.  This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When in the system, select "search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above.   Also, you can send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0763 and OMB Control Number 2050-0072 in any correspondence.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 42 (Friday, March 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9042-9046]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04238]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82781; File No. SR-NSCC-2017-020]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting
Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1, To Enhance the Calculation of the Volatility Component
of the Clearing Fund Formula That Utilizes a Parametric Value-at-Risk
Model and Eliminate the Market Maker Domination Charge

February 26, 2018.
    National Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC'') filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') on December
28, 2017 proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2017-020 pursuant to Section
19b(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\2\ The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on January 19, 2018.\3\ The
Commission did not receive any comments on the proposed rule change. On
January 10, 2018, NSCC filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comment
on Amendment No. 1 from interested persons and is approving the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1 (hereinafter, the
``Proposed Rule Change''), on an accelerated basis.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82494 (January 12,
2018), 83 FR 2828 (January 19, 2018) (SR-NSCC-2017-020)
(``Notice'').
    \4\ In Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change, NSCC amended
and replaced in its entirety the originally filed confidential
Exhibit 3a with a new confidential Exhibit 3a in order to remove
references to a practice that was not intended for consideration as
part of the filing.
    \5\ NSCC also filed the proposed rule change as advance notice
SR-NSCC-2017-808 pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of the Payment,
Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 and Rule 19b-
4(n)(1)(i) under the Exchange Act. 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1) and 17 CFR
240.19b-4(n)(1)(i), respectively. On January 10, 2018, NSCC filed
Amendment No. 1 to the advance notice to amend and replace in its
entirety the originally filed confidential Exhibit 3a in order to
remove references to a practice that was not intended for
consideration as part of the filing. Notice of filing of the advance
notice, as modified by Amendment No. 1 (``Advance Notice''), was
published in the Federal Register on February 8, 2018. Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 82631 (February 5, 2018), 83 FR 5658
(February 8, 2018) (SR-NSCC-2017-808). The Commission did not
receive any comments on the Advance Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Proposed Rule Change consists of changes to NSCC's Rules &
Procedures (``Rules'') \6\ that would enhance NSCC's method for
calculating the daily margin requirement for each NSCC member
(``Member'').\7\ Specifically, NSCC proposes to (1) add three new ways
to calculate the volatility component of its Members' margin
requirements, and (2) eliminate an outdated component of the margin
calculation, as described more fully below.\8\ NSCC states that the new
volatility component calculations would enable NSCC to mitigate the
credit risks presented by Member portfolios in a broader range of
scenarios and market conditions than NSCC's current volatility
component calculation.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NSCC's Rules, available at http://dtcc.com/~/media/Files/
Downloads/legal/rules/nscc_rules.pdf.
    \7\ Notice, 83 FR at 2828-32.
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A key tool that NSCC uses to manage its credit exposures to Members
is the daily calculation and collection of margin from each Member
(``Required Deposit'').\10\ NSCC collects Required Deposits from
Members to mitigate NSCC's potential losses associated with the
liquidation of a Member's portfolio should the Member default.\11\ The
aggregate of all Members' Required Deposits constitutes NSCC's Clearing
Fund, which NSCC can access should a defaulting Member's own Required
Deposit be insufficient to satisfy NSCC's losses caused by the
liquidation of the Member's portfolio.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Notice, 83 FR at 2828-29.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Evenly-Weighted Volatility Estimation

    Each Member's Required Deposit consists of several components.\13\
Generally, the largest component of a Member's Required Deposit is the
volatility component, which is designed to capture the market price
risk associated with each Member's portfolio at a 99th percentile level
of confidence.\14\ NSCC currently calculates the volatility component
using a parametric Value-at-Risk (``VaR'') model.\15\ NSCC's current
VaR calculation places more emphasis on recent market observations
(such as recent price history) for the purpose of estimating current
market price volatility levels, based on the assumption that the most
recent price history is more relevant and accurate for measuring
current market price volatility levels (referred to as an
``exponentially-weighted volatility estimation'').\16\ However,
volatility in the equity markets often rapidly reverts to more commonly
observed levels, followed by a subsequent spike.\17\ While a VaR
calculation that applies exclusively an exponentially-weighted
volatility estimation can capture sudden increases in volatility, it
may result in a swift decline in margin that does not adequately
capture the risks related to a rapid decrease in market price
volatility levels.\18\ NSCC proposes to mitigate this shortcoming by
adding another method for computing the VaR calculation that does not
diminish the value of older market observations.\19\ Specifically, NSCC
proposes to add a VaR calculation that gives equal weight to all
historical volatility observations during a specified look-back period
(referred to by NSCC as an ``evenly-weighted volatility
estimation''),\20\ which could result in margin requirement amounts
during non-volatile periods greater than margin requirement amounts
based upon the exponentially-weighted volatility estimation.\21\ Under
the proposal, NSCC would calculate both the exponentially-weighted
volatility estimation and the evenly-weighted volatility estimation,
and the greater result would represent the ``Core Parametric
Estimation.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Procedure XV (Clearing Fund Formula and Other Matters)
of the Rules, supra note 6.
    \14\ Notice, 83 FR at 2829.
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ Id.
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ Notice, 83 FR at 2828-29.
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ Id.
    \22\ Notice, 83 FR at 2829-30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Gap Risk Measure

    In addition to the Core Parametric Estimation, NSCC proposes to add
a second method for determining the volatility component of a Member's
Required Deposit.\23\ This second method, referred to as the Gap Risk
Measure, would help address risks that are unique to Member portfolios
that hold a concentrated position in a specific security.\24\ More
specifically, when a Member's portfolio holds a concentrated position
in a specific

security, such that the position represents a significant percentage of
the entire portfolio's value, the portfolio may be more susceptible to
risks associated with issuer-specific events affecting the price of the
concentrated security.\25\ Such events include earning reports,
management changes, merger announcements, insolvency, or other
unexpected issuer-specific events (collectively, ``Gap Risk
Events'').\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Notice, 83 FR at 2830-31.
    \24\ Id.
    \25\ Id.
    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC has observed that portfolios with a concentration level of
more than 30 percent in a specific security tend to have backtesting
coverage below the 99 percent confidence level.\27\ To mitigate the
concentration risk posed by such portfolios, NSCC proposes the Gap Risk
Measure, which would apply to all individual equities in a Member's
portfolio, but only when the Member holds a position in a security that
meets a 30 percent concentration threshold relative to the remainder of
the portfolio.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Id.
    \28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC also has observed that exchange-traded products (``ETPs'')
that track to a broad market index are generally not susceptible to Gap
Risk Events.\29\ Accordingly, NSCC would not apply the Gap Risk Measure
to positions in such index-based ETPs, even if the 30 percent
concentration threshold is met.\30\ However, non-index-based ETPs and
index-based ETPs that track a narrow market index are susceptible to
Gap Risk Events, and would, therefore, be subject to the Gap Risk
Measure, provided that the 30 percent concentration threshold is
met.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Id.
    \30\ Id.
    \31\ Id. NSCC states that it would use a third-party market
provider to identify index-based ETPs. Id. The third-party market
provider would identify index-based ETPs as those with criteria that
require the portfolio returns to track to a broad market index. Id.
ETPs that do not meet this criteria would not be considered index-
based ETPs and, therefore, would be included in the Gap Risk Measure
calculation. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When applicable, NSCC would calculate the Gap Risk Measure by
multiplying the gross market value of the largest (non-index) position
in the portfolio by a percent of not less than 10 percent.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Id. NSCC would determine such percent 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 volatility
component, giving equal rank to each to determine which has the
highest movement over that three-day period. Id. NSCC would use a
look-back period of not less than ten years that includes a one-year
stress period. Id. 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. Id. The result would then be rounded up
to the nearest whole percentage. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Portfolio Margin Floor

    In addition to the Core Parametric Estimation and the Gap Risk
Measure, NSCC proposes to add a third method for determining the
volatility component of a Member's Required Deposit.\33\ This third
method, referred to as the Portfolio Margin Floor, would help address
risks that may not be adequately accounted for by the Core Parametric
Estimation or the Gap Risk Measure.\34\ For example, a volatility
component based solely on a parametric VaR model calculation may prove
inadequate where there is low market price volatility and the portfolio
holds either large gross market values or large net directional market
values.\35\ In such cases, the model may not collect sufficient margin,
which could hinder NSCC's ability to effectively liquidate or hedge the
Member's portfolio in three business days.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Notice, 83 FR at 2831.
    \34\ Id.
    \35\ Id.
    \36\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC proposes the Portfolio Margin Floor to operate as a floor to
(i.e., minimum amount of) a Member's volatility component.\37\
Specifically, the Portfolio Margin Floor would be based on the balance
and direction of the positions in the Member's portfolio and would be
designed to be proportional to the market value of the portfolio.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Id.
    \38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Portfolio Margin Floor would be the sum of two separate
calculations, both of which would measure the market value of the
portfolio based on the direction of net positions in the portfolio.\39\
First, NSCC would calculate the net directional market value of the
portfolio by calculating the absolute difference between the market
value of the long positions and shorts positions in the portfolio,\40\
then multiplying that amount by a percentage.\41\ Second, NSCC would
calculate the balanced market value of the portfolio by taking the
lowest market value of either the long or short positions in the
portfolio,\42\ then multiplying that value by a percentage.\43\ The
combined results of these two calculations would constitute the final
Portfolio Margin Floor amount.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Id.
    \40\ For example, if the market value of the long positions is
$100,000, and the market value of the short positions is $200,000,
the net directional market value of the portfolio would be $100,000.
Id.
    \41\ Id. NSCC would determine the applicable percentage by
examining the annual historical volatility levels of benchmark
indices over a historical look-back period. Id.
    \42\ For example, if the market value of the long positions is
$100,000, and the market value of the short positions is $110,000,
the balanced market value of the portfolio would be $100,000. Id.
    \43\ Id. NSCC would determine the applicable percentage to be an
amount that covers the transaction costs and other relevant risks
associated with the positions in the portfolio. Id.
    \44\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, in order to choose the amount to be charged as the
volatility component of a Member's Required Deposit, NSCC would compare
the amounts calculated by the Portfolio Margin Floor, the Gap Risk
Measure (if applicable), and the Core Parametric Estimation. NSCC then
would use the highest of those three calculations as the volatility
component of the Member's Required Deposit.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Elimination of the Market Maker Domination Component

    NSCC proposes to eliminate the Market Maker Domination Component
(``MMD Charge'') from its Clearing Fund formula.\46\ The MMD Charge is
an existing component of the Clearing Fund formula calculated for
Members that are Market Makers and Members that clear for Market
Makers.\47\ The MMD Charge was developed to address the risks presented
by concentrated positions (of the overall unsettled long position in
the security) held by Market Makers.\48\ More specifically, the charge
is designed to address securities that are susceptible to marketability
and liquidation impairment because of the relative size of the
positions that NSCC would have to liquidate or hedge in the case of a
Market Maker default.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Notice, 83 FR at 2831-32.
    \47\ Id; see also Procedure XV, Section I(A)(1)(d) of the Rules,
supra note 6.
    \48\ Notice, 83 FR at 2831-32.
    \49\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the current Rules, NSCC may impose the MMD Charge if the
Market Maker (either the Member or the correspondent of the Member)
holds a position that is greater than 40 percent of the overall
unsettled long position (i.e., the sum of each clearing broker's net
long position) in a specific security.\50\ NSCC calculates the MMD
Charge as the sum of each of the absolute values of the net positions
in the relevant securities, less the reported amount of excess net
capital for that Member.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Id.
    \51\ Id. NSCC does not apply the excess net capital offset for
Members with the weakest credit rating (i.e. 7) on the Credit Risk
Rating Matrix. See Procedure XV, Sections I(A)(1)(d) and I(A)(2)(c)
of the Rules, supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC states that since implementation of the MMD Charge,

several developments in the U.S. equity markets (e.g., improved price
transparency, access across exchange venues, and participation by
market liquidity providers) have reduced the risks that the MMD Charge
was designed to address.\52\ NSCC further states that the MMD Charge
may not effectively address concentration risk because the MMD Charge
(1) only applies to positions in certain securities, as described
above, (2) does not address concentration risk presented by positions
in securities that are not listed on NASDAQ or in securities traded by
firms that are not Market Makers, and (3) does not account for
concentration in market capitalization categories.\53\ NSCC states that
the proposed Gap Risk Measure would provide better concentration risk
coverage than the MMD Charge because the former would apply to all
Members, whereas the latter only applies to Market Makers.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Notice, 83 FR at 2831-32.
    \53\ Id.
    \54\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act \55\ directs the Commission
to approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if
it finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Exchange Act and rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to such organization. The Commission believes that the
Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the Exchange Act, specifically
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(4) and
(6) under the Exchange Act.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \56\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F); 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4) and (6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent
with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act.\57\ Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
of the Exchange Act requires that the rules of a registered clearing
agency must be designed to, among other things, assure the safeguarding
of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the
clearing agency or for which it is responsible.\58\ As discussed above,
NSCC proposes to add three new ways to calculate the volatility
component of its Members' daily margin requirement. The new volatility
component calculations, as discussed in detail below, are designed to
help NSCC better mitigate the credit risks presented by Member
portfolios in a broader range of scenarios and market conditions than
NSCC's current volatility component calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \58\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, as described above, NSCC currently calculates the volatility
component of each Member's Required Deposit using a VaR calculation
that relies exclusively on an exponentially-weighted volatility
estimation. However, the current VaR calculation places more emphasis
on recent market observations, which may result in a swift decline in
margin that does not adequately capture the risks related to a rapid
decrease in market price volatility levels. To address this
shortcoming, NSCC proposes to (1) add a VaR calculation that relies on
an evenly-weighted volatility estimation (i.e., that gives equal weight
to all historical volatility observations during a specified look-back
period), (2) compare the amounts of both VaR calculations (i.e., based
on both evenly- and exponentially-weighted volatility estimations), and
(3) use the greater amount as the Core Parametric Estimation.
Accordingly, the Commission believes adding the VaR calculation based
on an evenly-weighted volatility estimation would enable NSCC to more
effectively limit its credit exposure to Members in market conditions
that reflect a rapid decrease in market price volatility levels.
    Second, as described above, when a Member's portfolio holds a
concentrated position in a specific security beyond a significant
percentage of the entire portfolio's value, the portfolio may be more
susceptible to Gap Risk Events. In such a scenario, NSCC's current
volatility component calculation may result in inadequate margin
coverage. To address this issue, NSCC has proposed the Gap Risk Measure
as an alternative volatility component calculation. The Gap Risk
Measure is designed to provide better margin coverage in such a
scenario as it would apply to all individual equities (including non-
index-based and narrow-index-based ETPs, as described above) when a
Member maintains a position in its portfolio that exceeds the 30
percent concentration threshold. Accordingly, the Commission believes
adding the Gap Risk Measure would enable NSCC to more effectively limit
its credit exposure to Members in certain scenarios in which a Member
holds a security that meets the 30 percent concentration threshold
relative to the remainder of its portfolio.
    Third, as described above, when a Member's portfolio holds either
large gross market values or large net directional market values in a
period of low market price volatility, NSCC's current volatility
component calculation may not result in adequate margin, which could
hinder NSCC's ability to effectively liquidate or hedge the Member's
portfolio in the event of the Member's default. To address this
concern, NSCC proposes the Portfolio Margin Floor, which would operate
as a floor to (i.e., minimum amount of) the volatility component of a
Member's Required Deposit. Accordingly, the Commission believes adding
the Portfolio Margin Floor would enable NSCC to more effectively limit
its credit exposure to Members in certain scenarios, such as when a
Member's portfolio holds either large gross market values or large net
directional market values and market prices exhibit low volatility.
    Finally, to help ensure that the amount of margin that NSCC
collects as the volatility component of a Member's Required Deposit
would help mitigate each of the specific concerns addressed by the Core
Parametric Estimation, Gap Risk Measure, and Portfolio Margin Floor,
NSCC would assess the largest amount of those three calculations as the
volatility component of the Member's Required Deposit.
    In addition to the three proposed volatility component
calculations, NSCC also proposes to eliminate the MMD Charge. As
described above, NSCC has found the MMD Charge to be an inefficient and
ineffective component of the Clearing Fund formula that may not
accurately capture the credit risk presented by a Member's portfolio.
More specifically, the charge does not cover a range of scenarios and
market conditions that would be covered by the proposed Gap Risk
Measure. Moreover, in contrast to the proposed Gap Risk Measure, the
MMD Charge (1) only applies to positions in certain securities, (2)
does not address concentration risk presented by positions in
securities that are not listed on NASDAQ, (3) does not account for
concentration in market capitalization categories, and (4) only applies
to Market Makers. Accordingly, NSCC's proposal to eliminate the MMD
Charge is designed to remove an obsolete component from the Clearing
Fund formula.
    Taken together, each of the above described changes would enhance
NSCC's current method for calculating each Member's volatility
component, enabling NSCC to produce margin levels more commensurate
with the risks associated with its Members' portfolios in a broader
range of scenarios and market conditions, and, thus, more

effectively cover its credit exposure to its Members. By better
limiting NSCC's credit exposure to its Members, the Proposed Rule
Change is designed to help ensure that, in the event of a Member
default, NSCC's operations would not be disrupted and non-defaulting
Members would not be exposed to losses that they cannot anticipate or
control. In this way, the Proposed Rule Change is designed to help
assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the
custody or control of NSCC or for which it is responsible, consistent
with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Commission believes that the changes proposed in the Proposed
Rule Change are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) under the
Exchange Act, which requires that NSCC 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.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the Commission believes the proposed VaR
calculation based on an evenly-weighted volatility estimation would
enable NSCC to better manage its credit exposure to Members in market
conditions that reflect a rapid decrease in market price volatility
levels; the proposed Gap Risk Measure would enable NSCC to better
manage its credit exposure to Member portfolios that are more
susceptible to Gap Risk Events; and the proposed Portfolio Margin Floor
would enable NSCC to better manage its credit exposure to Members in
certain scenarios, such as when a Member's portfolio holds either large
gross market values or large net directional market values and market
prices exhibit low volatility. Furthermore, NSCC would assess a Member
the largest of these three calculations as the Member's volatility
component to its Required Deposit.
    Each of these proposed changes is designed to help NSCC more
effectively identify, measure, monitor, and manage its credit exposures
to its Members. In doing so, the proposed changes would enable NSCC to
more accurately assess the volatility component of a Member's Required
Deposit and, thus, help NSCC maintain sufficient financial resources to
cover its credit exposure to each Member fully with a high degree of
confidence. Therefore, the Commission finds that the changes proposed
in the Proposed Rule Change are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i)
under the Exchange Act.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Commission believes that the changes proposed in the Proposed
Rule Change are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) under the
Exchange Act, which requires that NSCC 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.\62\ Furthermore, the
Commission believes that the changes proposed in the Proposed Rule
Change are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(v) under the Exchange
Act, which requires that NSCC establish, implement, maintain and
enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to use an
appropriate method for measuring credit exposure that accounts for
relevant product risk factors and portfolio effects across
products.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(i).
    \63\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the Commission believes the proposed VaR
calculation based on an evenly-weighted volatility estimation would
enable NSCC to better manage its credit exposure to Members in certain
market conditions with a rapid decrease in market price volatility
levels; the proposed Gap Risk Measure would enable NSCC to better
manage its credit exposure to Member portfolios that are more
susceptible to Gap Risk Events; and the proposed Portfolio Margin Floor
would enable NSCC to better manage its credit exposure to Members in
certain scenarios, such as low market price volatility when a Member's
portfolio holds either large gross market values or large net
directional market values and market prices exhibit low volatility.
Moreover, NSCC would assess a Member the largest of these three
calculations as the Member's volatility component to its Required
Deposit.
    These three proposed volatility component calculations are designed
to help improve NSCC's risk-based margin system by enabling NSCC to
produce margin levels that are more commensurate with the risks and
particular attributes of the relevant products, portfolios, and markets
that NSCC serves. Additionally, as described above, the three proposed
volatility component calculations are designed to use methods that are
more appropriately tailored for measuring credit exposure that account
for specific risk factors and portfolio effects. Therefore, the
Commission finds that the changes proposed in the Proposed Rule Change
are consistent with Rules 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) and (v) under the Exchange
Act.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) and (v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Exchange
Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NSCC-2017-020 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2017-020. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the

filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of NSCC and on DTCC's website (http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). All comments received will be posted without
change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact
or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2017-020
and should be submitted on or before March 23, 2018.

IV. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1

    The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the thirtieth day
after the date of publication of the notice of Amendment No. 1 in the
Federal Register. As discussed above, NSCC submitted Amendment No. 1 to
replace in its entirety the originally filed confidential Exhibit 3a
with a new confidential Exhibit 3a in order to remove references to a
practice that was not intended for consideration as part of the filing.
The Commission believes that Amendment No. 1 does not raise any novel
issues or alter the proposed changes in any way. In addition, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Exchange Act and applicable
rules thereunder for the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, the
Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis, pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent
with the requirements of the Exchange Act, in particular, with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Exchange Act \66\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act,\67\ that proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2017-020, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and it hereby is, approved on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \68\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\68\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-04238 Filed 3-1-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P