[Federal Register: July 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 130)]
[Notices]
[Page 37285-37287]
[DOCID:fr09jy07-125]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56004; File No. SR-NASD-2004-130]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 3 and Order Granting
Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change as Modified by Amendment
Nos. 2 and 3 Relating to Amendments to Rule 2320(g) (Three Quote Rule)
and Corresponding Recordkeeping Requirements under Rule 3110(b)

July 2, 2007.

I. Introduction

    On August 27, 2004, the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. (``NASD'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'' or ``SEC''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder, \2\ a proposed rule change to amend NASD Rule 2320(g)
(``Three Quote Rule'') to exempt from the Three Quote Rule certain
transactions in foreign securities of a foreign issuer that are part of
an index calculated by the FTSE Group. On May 8, 2006, NASD filed
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\3\ On October 19, 2006,
NASD filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change.\4\ The proposed
rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, was published for comment
in the Federal Register on October 31, 2006.\5\ The Commission received
ten comment letters on the proposal.\6\ On April 3, 2007, NASD filed
Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change \7\ and a response to the
comment letters.\8\ This order provides notice of Amendment No. 3 and
approves the proposed rule change as modified by Amendment Nos. 2 and 3
on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 replaced and superseded in its entirety the
text of the original filing.
    \4\ Amendment No. 2 replaced and superseded in its entirety the
text of the original filing, as amended.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54650 (October 25,
2006), 71 FR 63812 (``Notice'').
    \6\ See letters from James Duncan, Senior Vice President &
Director, International Trading, and Andrew Jappy, Chief Information
Officer & EVP, Canaccord Capital Corporation, dated November 21,
2006 (``Canaccord Letter''); Achilles M. Perry, Associate General
Counsel, CIBC World Markets Corp., dated November 21, 2006 (``CIBC
Letter''); Grant Vingoe, Esq., Partner, Arnold Porter LLP, dated
November 21, 2006 (``Arnold Porter Letter''); Bill Yancey, Chairman
of the Board, and John C. Giesea, President and CEO, Security
Traders Association, dated November 21, 2006 (``STA Letter''); Rik
Parkhill, Executive Vice President, TSX Group, Inc., President, TSX
Markets, dated November 29, 2006 (``TSX Letter''); George W. Lennon,
President, Canadian Security Traders Association, Inc., dated
December 1, 2006 (``CSTA Letter''); Christopher Climo, Managing
Director, Compliance and Chief Compliance Officer, TD Securities,
Inc., dated December 7, 2006 (``TD Securities Letter''); James E.
Twiss, Chief Policy Counsel, Market Regulation Services Inc., dated
December 8, 2006 (``RS Letter''); Debra V. Moore, Manager--NASDAQ/
OTC Equity Trading, and Glenn A. Hoback, Implementation Consultant--
Internal Controls, Wachovia Securities, LLC, dated December 14, 2006
(``Wachovia Letter''); and Bryce Engel, Chief Brokerage Operations
Officer, TD AMERITRADE, Inc., dated December 21, 2006 (``TD
Ameritrade Letter'').
    \7\ In Amendment No. 3, NASD proposes, among other things, to
codify the existing exemptions relating to transactions in a non-
exchange-listed security (as defined below) that are securities
listed on a Canadian exchange.
    \8\ See letter from Andrea D. Orr, Assistant General Counsel,
NASD, to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Commission, dated April 3, 2007
(``NASD Response Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    Currently, the Three Quote Rule requires NASD members who execute a
transaction in a non-exchange-listed security \9\ for or with a
customer to contact and obtain the quotations from three dealers (or
all dealers if less than three) to determine the best inter-dealer
market for that security. The Three Quote Rule, however, does not apply
if two or more priced quotations for a non-exchange-listed security are
displayed in an inter-dealer quotation system that permits quotation
updates on a real-time basis. NASD proposes to expand the categories of
transactions that would be exempted from the Three Quote Rule. First,
NASD proposes to exempt a transaction for or with a customer in a non-
exchange-listed security of a foreign issuer that is part of the FTSE
All-World Index, if such transaction is executed during the regular
business hours of the foreign market for the foreign security and no
trading halt or other similar trading or quoting restriction is in
effect in any foreign market on which such security is listed. Second,
in response to comments following publication of its proposal, NASD
proposes to codify certain exemptions previously issued by NASD staff
under the Three Quote Rule's exemptive process.\10\ Specifically, NASD
proposes to exempt a transaction for or with a customer pertaining to
the execution of an order in a non-exchange-listed security that is
listed on a Canadian exchange as long as the customer order is executed
by the NASD member or a person associated with the member on a Canadian
exchange in an agency or riskless principal capacity and the member or
a person associated with the member conducts regular and rigorous
reviews of the equality of the execution of such orders in such
securities, pursuant to the member's duty of best execution. NASD has
also proposed to amend its recordkeeping requirement to provide a
corresponding exclusion with respect to these proposed exemptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ NASD Rule 6610(c) defines the term ``non-exchange-listed
security'' as ``any equity security that is not traded on any
national securities exchange'' and ``shall not include `restricted
securities,' as defined by SEC Rule 144(a)(3) under the Securities
Act of 1933, nor any securities designated in the PORTAL Market, the
Rule 6700 Series.''
    \10\ See, e.g., Letter to Kenneth W. Perlman, General Counsel,
Mayer & Schweitzer, Inc., from Alden S. Adkins, Senior Vice
President and General Counsel, NASD Regulation, Inc., on May 29,
1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed rule change, NASD members would continue to be
required to comply with their best execution obligations under NASD
Rule 2320 and, to the extent applicable, the suitability obligations
under NASD Rule 2310.

III. Summary of Comments and NASD's Response

    The Commission received ten comment letters on the proposal.\11\
NASD submitted the NASD Response Letter,\12\ and corresponding
Amendment No. 3 to address the issue regarding application of the
proposed rule change to Canadian-listed securities that was raised by
the commenters. While some commenters expressed general support for
NASD's proposal to exempt from the Three Quote Rule

foreign securities that are part of the FTSE All-World Index,\13\ all
of the commenters objected to NASD's proposed withdrawal of the
exemptions from the Three Quote Rule for Canadian issuers' securities.
Specifically, NASD proposed to withdraw all existing exemptions granted
under the Three Quote Rule with respect to Canadian securities executed
on a Canadian exchange in an agency or riskless principal basis.\14\
Were these exemptions withdrawn, NASD members would be required to
comply with the Three Quote Rule in connection with transactions in
Canadian securities that are not part of the FTSE All-World Index. The
commenters argued that this result would be contrary to the duty of
best execution,\15\ would cause significant delays in execution,\16\
and would increase the cost of transactions in Canadian securities that
are not part of the FTSE All-World Index.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra note 6.
    \12\ See supra note 8.
    \13\ See, e.g., Canaccord Letter, CIBC Letter, STA Letter, TSX
Letter, CSTA Letter, and TD Ameritrade Letter.
    \14\ See Notice, supra note 5, 71 FR at 63813 n.13.
    \15\ See, e.g., Canaccord Letter, STA Letter, TXS Letter, CSTA
Letter, RS Letter, and Wachovia Letter.
    \16\ See, e.g., Canaccord Letter, CIBC Letter, Arnold Porter
Letter, STA Letter, TD Securities Letter, Wachovia Letter, and TD
Ameritrade Letter.
    \17\ See, e.g., STA Letter and TD Securities Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the comments, NASD revised its previous position and
clarified that the proposal would not supersede any exemptions
previously granted. Contemporaneously with the NASD Response Letter,
NASD filed Amendment No. 3 to codify the relief previously granted in
the existing exemptions.

IV. Discussion

    After careful review, the Commission believes that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
regulations thereunder applicable to NASD.\18\ In particular, the
Commission believes that the proposal is consistent with section
15A(b)(6) of the Act \19\ and section 15A(b)(9) of the Act.\20\ Section
15A(b)(6) of the Act requires that the rules of a national securities
association be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. Section 15A(b)(9) of the Act
requires that rules of an association not impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission notes
that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission approved NASD's proposal to institute the Three
Quote Rule in 1988.\21\ The Three Quote Rule was an amendment to NASD's
interpretation relating to best execution of retail transactions in
non-Nasdaq securities. The Three Quote Rule's purpose is to assure that
NASD members fulfill their duty to provide customers with best
execution for transactions in non-exchange-listed securities,
especially illiquid securities with non-transparent prices. The
Commission subsequently approved NASD's proposal providing NASD staff
authority to grant exemptions from the Three Quote Rule in 1997.\22\
Subsequently, NASD granted exemptions from the Three Quote Rule for
customer transactions in Canadian securities executed on a Canadian
exchange.\23\ In 2000, the Commission approved NASD's proposal to limit
the Three Quote Rule's applicability to those situations when fewer
than two priced quotes for a non-Nasdaq security are posted in an
inter-dealer quotation medium.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 25637 (May 2,
1988), 53 FR 16488 (May 9, 1988).
    \22\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 39266 (October 22,
1997), 62 FR 56217 (October 29, 1997).
    \23\ See supra note 10.
    \24\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43319 (September
21, 2000), 65 FR 58589 (September 29, 2000). Pursuant to this
exception, if two or more priced quotations for a non-exchange-
listed security are displayed in an inter-dealer quotation system
that permits quotation updates on a real-time basis, then NASD
members are not required to obtain quotes from three dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that NASD's proposal to add the two new
exceptions to the Three Quote Rule is consistent with the Act. In its
order granting NASD staff exemptive authority with respect to the Three
Quote Rule, the Commission noted that ``one situation where exemptive
relief might be applied would be trading in certain foreign securities.
In some circumstances the foreign exchange market may constitute the
best market for the securities that are listed on that market, and the
time delay involved in contacting three dealers in advance of a
customer transaction could hinder obtaining the best execution for the
customer.''\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 39266 (October 22,
1997), 62 FR 56217 (October 29, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, the Commission believes that it is reasonable for NASD to
exempt from the Three Quote Rule transactions in a foreign security
that are included in the FTSE All-World Index and transactions in a
security listed on a Canadian exchange, subject to the conditions
specified in the amended Three Quote Rule. The Commission notes that,
whether or not a transaction in a non-exchange-listed security is
subject to the Three Quote Rule, the NASD member executing the
transaction must satisfy its duty of best execution.

V. Accelerated Approval

    The Commission finds good cause to approve NASD's proposal, as
amended, prior to the thirtieth day after the amendment is published
for comment in the Federal Register pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act. NASD submitted Amendment No. 3 in response to comments received on
its proposal. The amendment codifies exemptions NASD staff previously
issued under the Three Quote Rule's exemptive process,\26\ and as
described above, proposes a corresponding exclusion to the
recordkeeping requirements if a member establishes and documents the
exemption. Accordingly, Amendment No. 3 does not raise any new issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See supra note 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission therefore finds good cause to approval NASD's
proposal on an accelerated basis.

VI. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning Amendment No. 3, including whether Amendment No. 3
is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the
following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NASD-2004-130 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2004-130. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent

amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NASD-2004-130 and should be submitted on or before July
30, 2007.

VII. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\27\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NASD-2004-130), as modified
by Amendment Nos. 2 and 3, be, and hereby is, approved on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-13200 Filed 7-6-07;8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 231 (Monday, December 6, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69109-69111]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26336]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93678; File No. SR-NSCC-2021-014]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed
Rule Change To Enhance the Transparency of the Calculation of the
Backtesting Charge

November 30, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\  and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 23, 2021, National Securities Clearing Corporation
(``NSCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the clearing agency.
NSCC filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of
the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The proposed rule change of NSCC consists of modifications to
Procedure XV (Clearing Fund Formula and Other Matters) of the NSCC
Rules & Procedures (``Rules'') to provide additional transparency into
the calculation of the Backtesting Charge that may be collected by NSCC
as part of Members' Required Fund Deposits to the Clearing Fund by
clarifying that such calculation does not include amounts already
collected from a Member as a Backtesting Charge, as described in
greater detail below.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Terms not defined herein are defined in the Rules, available
at http://dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/rules/
nscc_rules.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
(a) Purpose
    NSCC is proposing amendments to the Rules that would provide
additional transparency into the calculation of the Backtesting Charge
by clarifying that such calculation does not include amounts already
collected from a Member as a Backtesting Charge. NSCC is not proposing
to change how it calculates Members' backtesting coverage or any
applicable Backtesting Charge and is proposing only to include
additional transparency in the Rules in describing those calculations,
as described in greater detail below.
Overview of NSCC's Clearing Fund and the Backtesting Charge
    As part of its market risk management strategy, NSCC manages its
credit exposure to Members by determining the appropriate Required Fund
Deposits to the Clearing Fund and monitoring its sufficiency, as
provided for in the Rules.\6\ The Required Fund Deposit serves as each
Member's margin. The objective of a Member's Required Fund Deposit is
to mitigate potential losses to NSCC associated with liquidating a
Member's portfolio in the event NSCC ceases to act for that Member
(hereinafter referred to as a ``default'').\7\ The aggregate of all
Members' Required Fund Deposits constitutes the Clearing Fund of NSCC.
NSCC would access its Clearing Fund should a defaulting Member's own
Required Fund Deposit be insufficient to satisfy losses to NSCC caused
by the liquidation of that Member's portfolio. Pursuant to the Rules,
each Member's Required Fund Deposit consists of a number of applicable
components, each of which is calculated to address specific risks faced
by NSCC, as identified within Procedure XV of the Rules.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Rule 4 (Clearing Fund) and Procedure XV (Clearing Fund
Formula and Other Matters), id. NSCC's market risk management
strategy is designed to comply with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4) under the
Act, where these risks are referred to as ``credit risks.'' 17 CFR
240.17Ad-22(e)(4).
    \7\ The Rules identify when NSCC may cease to act for a Member
and the types of actions NSCC may take. For example, NSCC may
suspend a firm's membership with NSCC or prohibit or limit a
Member's access to NSCC's services in the event that a Member
defaults on a financial or other obligation to NSCC. See Rule 46
(Restrictions on Access to Services) of the Rules, supra note 6.
    \8\ Supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC employs daily backtesting to determine the adequacy of each
Member's Required Fund Deposit. NSCC compares the Required Fund Deposit
\9\ for each Member with the simulated liquidation gains/losses using
the actual positions in the Member's portfolio, and the actual
historical security returns. NSCC investigates the cause(s) of any
backtesting deficiencies. As a part of this investigation, NSCC pays
particular attention to Members with backtesting deficiencies that
bring the results for that Member below the 99 percent confidence
target (i.e., greater than two backtesting deficiency days in a rolling
twelve-month period) to determine if there is an identifiable cause of
repeat backtesting deficiencies. NSCC also evaluates whether multiple
Members may experience backtesting

deficiencies for the same underlying reason.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For backtesting comparisons, NSCC uses the Required Fund
Deposit amount without regard to the actual collateral posted by the
Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Backtesting Charge, as described in Section I(B)(3) of
Procedure XV, may be an additional component of a Member's Required
Fund Deposit that NSCC may assess at either the start of the day
(referred to in the Rules as the ``Regular Backtesting Charge'') or on
an intraday basis (the ``Intraday Backtesting Charge).\10\ More
specifically, NSCC may assess a Backtesting Charge against any Member
that has a 12-month trailing backtesting coverage below the 99 percent
backtesting coverage target. If assessed, a Member's Backtesting Charge
is generally equal to the Member's third largest deficiency, when
calculating the Regular Backtesting Charge, and fifth largest
deficiency, when calculating the Intraday Backtesting Charge, that
occurred during the previous 12 months.\11\ As described in Procedure
XV, NSCC may adjust the Backtesting Charge if it determines that
circumstances particular to a Member's settlement activity and/or
market price volatility warrant a different approach to determining or
applying such charge in a manner consistent with achieving NSCC's
backtesting coverage target.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Section I(B)(3) of Procedure XV (Clearing Fund Formula and
Other Matters) of the Rules, supra note 6. See also Release No.
79167 (October 26, 2016), 81 FR 75883 (November 1, 2016) (File Nos.
SR-FICC-2016-006; SR-NSCC-2016-004).
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC calculates the Backtesting Charge monthly and, based on those
calculations, may either impose a new Backtesting Charge or remove an
existing Backtesting Charge, or it may either increase or decrease a
Member's existing Backtesting Charge as necessary to maintain its
target backtesting coverage. When calculating a Member's backtesting
coverage for purposes of the Backtesting Charge and when calculating
any applicable Backtesting Charge, NSCC does not include amounts
already collected from that Member as a Backtesting Charge. As
described above, the objective of the Backtesting Charge is to increase
Required Fund Deposits for Members that are likely to experience
backtesting deficiencies by an amount sufficient to maintain such
Member's backtesting coverage above the 99 percent confidence
threshold. By excluding the Backtesting Charge in these calculations,
NSCC is able to more accurately evaluate Members' historical
backtesting deficiencies and coverage ratios to determine if any
adjustment to a Member's Backtesting Charge is appropriate.
Proposed Revisions To Clarify the Calculation of the Backtesting Charge
    NSCC is proposing to revise Section I(B)(3) of Procedure XV to
provide additional transparency into the calculation of the Backtesting
Charge.\13\ As described above, Procedure XV states that the
Backtesting Charge may apply to Members that have 12-month trailing
backtesting coverage below the 99 percent backtesting coverage target
and that the Regular Backtesting Charge is calculated as the Member's
third largest deficiency that occurred during the previous 12 months,
and the Intraday Backtesting Charge is calculated as the Member's fifth
largest deficiency in that same time period. Currently, however,
Procedure XV does not state that NSCC does not include amounts already
collected as a Backtesting Charge from a Member in calculating either
that Member's backtesting coverage or calculating any applicable
Backtesting Charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, in order to add additional transparency to the Rules
regarding the calculation of the Backtesting Charge, NSCC is proposing
to amend Section I(B)(3) of Procedure XV to state that, for purposes of
calculating a Member's backtesting coverage and any applicable
Backtesting Charge, NSCC would not include amounts already collected as
a Backtesting Charge from that Member.
2. Statutory Basis
    NSCC believes that the proposed changes are consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a registered clearing agency. In particular, NSCC
believes the proposed changes are consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
of the Act,\14\ and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii) promulgated under the Act,
\15\ for the reasons described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires that the rules of NSCC be
designed to, among other things, promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions.\16\ NSCC believes
the proposed changes are consistent with the requirements of Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act because such changes would clarify and improve
the transparency of the Rules regarding the calculation of the
Backtesting Charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More specifically, the proposed changes would amend Section I(B)(3)
of Procedure XV to provide Members with additional information
regarding the calculation of the Backtesting Charge by stating that,
for purposes of calculating a Member's backtesting coverage and any
applicable Backtesting Charge, NSCC would not include amounts already
collected as a Backtesting Charge from that Member. By enhancing the
clarity and transparency of the Rules, the proposed changes would allow
Members to more efficiently and effectively conduct their business in
accordance with the Rules, which NSCC believes would promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions. As
such, NSCC believes that the proposed changes would be consistent with
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii) under the Act requires, in part, that NSCC
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to provide for sufficient information to
enable participants to identify and evaluate the risks, fees, and other
material costs they incur by participating in the covered clearing
agency.\18\ By providing Members with additional information regarding
the calculation of the Backtesting Charge and clarifying that it would
not include amounts already collected as a Backtesting Charge from that
Member in such calculations, the proposed changes improve the
transparency of the Rules. By providing Members with additional
information that would enable them to evaluate the risks and material
costs they incur by participating in NSCC, NSCC believes the proposed
changes are consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(23)(ii).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii).
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NSCC does not believe the proposed rule changes would impact
competition. The proposed rule changes would merely enhance the clarity
and transparency of the Rules and is not proposing any changes to the
calculation of Members' Required Fund Deposits. Therefore, the proposed
changes would not affect NSCC's operations or the rights and
obligations of membership. As such, NSCC believes the proposed rule
changes would not have any impact on competition.

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

    NSCC has not received or solicited any written comments relating to
this proposal. If any written comments are received, they will be
publicly filed as an Exhibit 2 to this filing, as required by Form 19b-
4 and the General Instructions thereto.
    Persons submitting comments are cautioned that, according to
Section IV (Solicitation of Comments) of the Exhibit 1A in the General
Instructions to Form 19b-4, the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. Commenters should
submit only information that they wish to make available publicly,
including their name, email address, and any other identifying
information.
    All prospective commenters should follow the Commission's
instructions on how to submit comments, available at https://www.sec.gov/regulatory-actions/how-to-submit-comments. General
questions regarding the rule filing process or logistical questions
regarding this filing should be directed to the Main Office of the
Commission's Division of Trading and Markets at
[email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    NSCC reserves the right not to respond to any comments received.

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

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NSCC-2021-014 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2021-014. 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-2021-014 and should be submitted on
or before December 27, 2021.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-26336 Filed 12-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 215 (Monday, November 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78134-78136]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26844]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP16-492-000]

EcoEl[eacute]ctrica, L.P.; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed LNG Terminal Sendout Capacity
Increase Project, and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the LNG Terminal Sendout Capacity
Increase Project involving operation of facilities by
EcoEl[eacute]ctrica, L.P. (EcoEl[eacute]ctrica) in Pe[ntilde]uelas,
Puerto Rico. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making
process to determine whether the project is in the public interest.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with
your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they
need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and
properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission
receives them in

Washington, DC on or before December 1, 2016.
    If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the
opening of this docket on August 11, 2016, you will need to file those
comments in Docket No. CP16-492-000 to ensure they are considered as
part of this proceeding.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.

Public Participation

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at
(202) 502-8258 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please carefully follow these
instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief,
text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' If you are filing a comment on a particular project,
please select ``Comment on a Filing'' as the filing type; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number
(CP16-492-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    EcoEl[eacute]ctrica proposes to use spare vaporization capacity to
supply an additional 93 milllion standard cubic feet per day of natural
gas. According to EcoEl[eacute]ctrica, no changes will be made to the
design of the existing liquefied natural gas (LNG) vaporization system
or to the existing LNG storage tank or in-tank LNG sendout pumps as
part of the project. The project would not include any construction
activities and no ground disturbance would be required for construction
or operation of this project.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to all those
receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov
using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call
(202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to
the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of an
Authorization. NEPA also requires us \2\ to discover and address
concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred
to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the
analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this
notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of the
issues to address in the EA. We will consider all filed comments during
the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the operation of the proposed project under these general headings:
     Air quality and noise;
     public safety; and
     cumulative impacts
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to
lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA
will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on
the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish
and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We
will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations
to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and
address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the
Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law
and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of
this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the
EA.\3\ Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status
should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the
Public Participation section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; other interested parties; and
local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected
landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who own homes
within certain distances of aboveground facilities and anyone who
submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental
mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the
information related to this environmental review to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed project.
    If we publish and distribute the EA, copies of the EA will be sent
to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you
would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD
version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please
return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in
the ``Document-less Intervention Guide'' under the ``e-filing'' link on
the Commission's Web site. Motions to intervene are more fully
described at http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site at www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and

enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the Docket
Number field (i.e., CP16-492). Be sure you have selected an appropriate
date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: November 1, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-26844 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 85 (Friday, May 1, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25486-25487]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09297]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-513, OMB Control No. 3235-0571]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 206(4)-6

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collections of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit these
existing collections of information to the Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    The title for the collection of information is ``Rule 206(4)-6''
under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-1 et seq.)
(``Advisers Act'') and the collection has been approved under OMB
Control No. 3235-0571. The Commission adopted rule 206(4)-6 (17 CFR
275.206(4)-6), the proxy voting rule, to address an investment
adviser's fiduciary obligation to clients who have given the adviser
authority to vote their securities. Under the rule, an investment
adviser that exercises voting authority over client securities is
required to: (i) Adopt and implement written policies and procedures
that are reasonably designed to ensure that the adviser votes client
securities in the best interest of clients, including procedures to
address any material conflict that may arise between the interests of
the adviser and the client; (ii) disclose to clients how they may
obtain information from the adviser on how the adviser has voted with
respect to their securities; and (iii) describe to clients the
adviser's proxy voting policies and procedures and, on request, furnish
a copy of the policies and procedures to the requesting client. The
rule is designed to assure that advisers that vote proxies for their
clients vote those proxies in their clients' best interest and provide
clients with information about how their proxies were voted.
    Rule 206(4)-6 contains ``collection of information'' requirements
within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The respondents are
investment advisers registered with the Commission that vote proxies
with respect to clients' securities. Advisory clients of these
investment advisers use the information required by the rule to assess
investment advisers' proxy voting policies and procedures and to
monitor the advisers' performance of their proxy voting activities. The
information required by Adviser's Act rule 204-2, a recordkeeping rule,
also is used by the Commission staff in its examination and oversight
program. Without the information collected under the rules, advisory
clients would not have information they need to assess the adviser's
services and monitor the adviser's handling of their accounts, and the
Commission would be less efficient and effective in its programs.
    The estimated number of investment advisers subject to the
collection of information requirements under the rule is 12,265. It is
estimated that each of these advisers is required to spend on average
10 hours annually documenting its proxy voting procedures under the
requirements of the rule, for a total burden of 122,650 hours. We
further estimate that on average, approximately 279 clients of each
adviser would request copies of the underlying policies and procedures.
We estimate that it would take these advisers 0.1 hours per client to
deliver copies of the policies and procedures, for a total burden of

342,194 hours. Accordingly, we estimate that rule 206(4)-6 results in
an annual aggregate burden of collection for SEC-registered investment
advisers of a total of 464,844 hours.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collections of
information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burdens
of the collections of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burdens of the collections of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a
valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to David Bottom, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Cynthia
Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: April 28, 2020.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-09297 Filed 4-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 68 (Friday, April 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 20852]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07537]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL OP-OFA-011]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

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

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) Filed March 28,
2022 10 a.m. EST Through April 4, 2022 10 a.m. EST
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20220043, Draft, USACE, TX, Harris Reservoir Expansion Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Prepared for Permit Application
No. SWG-2016-01027, Comment Period Ends: 05/23/2022, Contact: Jayson
Hudson<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20220044, Draft, FERC, LA, Commonwealth LNG Project, Comment
Period Ends: 05/23/2022, Contact: Office of External Affairs 866-208-
3372.
EIS No. 20220045, Final, RUS, OK, Skeleton Creek Solar and Battery
Storage Project, Review Period Ends: 05/09/2022, Contact: Kristen
Bastis<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20220046, Draft, USA, HI, Army Training Land Retention at
P[omacr]hakuloa Training Area, Comment Period Ends: 06/07/2022,
Contact: Mr. Michael Donnelly<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20220047, Final Supplement, NHTSA, REG, Corporate Average Fuel
Economy Standards for Model Years 2024-2026, Contact: Vinay
Nagabhushana<PHONE_NUMBER>. Under 49 U.S.C. 304a(b), NHTSA has
concurrently issued a final environmental impact statement and record
of decision. Therefore, the 30-day wait/review period under NEPA does
not apply to this action.
EIS No. 20220048, Final, DOE, NAT, Proposed Energy Conservation
Standards for Manufactured Housing, Review Period Ends: 05/09/2022,
Contact: Kristin Kerwin<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Amended Notice

EIS No. 20220034, Draft Supplement, USACE, LA, WITHDRAWN--West Shore
Lake Pontchartrain Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction Study,
Contact: Landon Parr<PHONE_NUMBER>. Revision to FR Notice Published 03/
18/2022; Officially Withdrawn per request of the submitting agency.

    Dated: April 4, 2022.
Cindy S. Barger,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2022-07537 Filed 4-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P