[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60231-60232]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21444]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-231, OMB Control No. 3235-0229]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension: Form N-17D-1

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

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 350l-3520), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``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.
    Section 17(d) (15 U.S.C. 80a-17(d)) of the Investment Company Act
of 1940 (``Act'') authorizes the Commission to adopt rules that protect
funds and their security holders from overreaching by affiliated
persons when the fund and the affiliated person participate in any
joint enterprise or other joint arrangement or profit-sharing plan.
Rule 17d-1 under the Act (17 CFR 270.17d-1) prohibits funds and their
affiliated persons from participating in a joint enterprise, unless an
application regarding the transaction has been filed with and approved
by the Commission. Subparagraph (d)(3) of the rule provides an
exemption from this requirement for any loan or credit advance to, or
acquisition of securities or other property of, a small business
concern, or any agreement to do any of these transactions
(``investments'') made by a small business investment company
(``SBIC'') and a bank that is an affiliated person of (1) the SBIC or
(2) an affiliated person of the SBIC (``affiliated bank''). The
exemption requires the Commission to prescribe reports about the
investments, and the Commission has designated Form N-17D-1 (``form'')
as the form for reports required by rule 17d-1(d)(3).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 17 CFR 270.17d-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SBICs and their affiliated banks use form N-17D-1 to report any
contemporaneous investments in a small business concern. The form
provides shareholders and persons seeking to make an informed decision
about investing in an SBIC an opportunity to learn about transactions
of the SBIC that have the potential for self-dealing and other forms of
overreaching by affiliated persons at the expense of shareholders.
    Form N-17D-1 requires SBICs and their affiliated banks to report
identifying information about the small business concern and the
affiliated bank. The report must include, among other things, the
SBIC's and affiliated bank's outstanding investments in the small
business concern, the use of the proceeds of the investments made
during the reporting period, any changes in the nature and amount of
the affiliated bank's investment, the name of any affiliated person of
the SBIC or the affiliated bank (or any affiliated person of the
affiliated person of the SBIC or the affiliated bank) who has any
interest in the transactions, the basis of the affiliation, the nature
of the interest, and the consideration the affiliated person has
received or will receive.
    There are no SBICs currently registered with the Commission and,
thus, we estimate that annually there will be no transactions that
trigger the obligations to file the form.\2\ The Commission requests
authorization to maintain an inventory of one burden hour to ease
future renewals of Form N-17D-1's collection of information analysis
should an SBIC register with the Commission in the future and engage in
a transaction that would necessitate reporting on the form. If an SBIC
were to file on Form N-17D-1, we estimate the cost would be $237.\3\
The Commission will not keep responses on Form N-17D-1 confidential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Commission has not received a filing on Form N-17D-1
since March 23, 1987.
    \3\ The estimated wage figure is based on published rates for
Senior Accountants ($237). The $237/hour figure for a Senior
Accountant is from Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association's Management & Professional Earnings in the Securities
Industry 2013, modified by Commission staff to account for an 1,800-
hour work-year and multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm
size, employee benefits and overhead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is
not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection 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 by December 5, 2022.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information

under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Acting
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an
email to: [email protected].

    Dated: September 28, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-21444 Filed 10-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 62 (Monday, April 3, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16194-16195]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06421]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2221-038]

Empire District Electric Company; Notice of Intent To File
License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document (PAD),
Commencement of Pre-Filing Process, and Scoping; Request for Comments
on the PAD and Scoping Document, and Identification of Issues and
Associated Study Requests

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application for
a New License and Commencing Pre-filing Process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Based on data from Fiscal Year 2016, there were 520
projects, owned by 242 FERC-regulated private and public licensees.
Many of the licensees owned multiple projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Project No.: 2221-038.
    c. Dated Filed: January 26, 2017.
    d. Submitted By: Empire District Electric Company.
    e. Name of Project: Ozark Beach Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the White River near the Town of Forsyth, in Taney
County, Missouri. The project occupies 5.1 acres of United States lands
administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR part 5 of the Commission's
Regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Blake Mertens, Vice President of
Energy Supply and Delivery Operations, Empire District Electric
Company, P.O. Box 127, Joplin, MO 64802,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and Randy Richardson, Plant Manager,
Empire District Electric Company, 2537 Fir Road, Sarcoxie, MO 64862,
(417) 625-6138 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Colleen Corballis at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item o below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at
50 CFR, Part 402 and (b) the State Historic Preservation Officer, as
required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the
implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating Empire District Electric
Company as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out
informal consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. Empire District Electric Company filed with the Commission a
Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and
schedule), pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at
the address in paragraph h.
    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    o. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and
Commission's staff Scoping Document 1 (SD1), as well as study requests.
All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study requests should be sent to
Randy Richardson at the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all
comments on the PAD and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating
agency status, and all communications to and from Commission staff
related to the merits of

the potential application must be filed with the Commission.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
all documents using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>In lieu of electronic filing, please send a
paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing
should include docket number P-2221-038.
    All filings with the Commission must bear the appropriate heading:
``Comments on Pre-Application Document,'' ``Study Requests,''
``Comments on Scoping Document 1,'' ``Request for Cooperating Agency
Status,'' or ``Communications to and from Commission Staff.'' Any
individual or entity interested in submitting study requests,
commenting on the PAD or SD1, and any agency requesting cooperating
status must do so by May 26, 2017.
    p. Although our current intent is to prepare an environmental
assessment (EA), there is the possibility that an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) will be required. Nevertheless, this meeting will
satisfy the NEPA scoping requirements, irrespective of whether an EA or
EIS is issued by the Commission.

Scoping Meetings

    Commission staff will hold two scoping meetings in the vicinity of
the project at the times and places noted below. The daytime meeting
will focus on resource agency, Indian tribes, and non-governmental
organization concerns, while the evening meeting is primarily for
receiving input from the public. We invite all interested individuals,
organizations, and agencies to attend one or both of the meetings, and
to assist staff in identifying particular study needs, as well as the
scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the environmental
document. The times and locations of these meetings are as follows:

Evening Scoping Meeting

    Date: April 18, 2017.
    Time: 6:30 p.m.
    Location: Taney County Courthouse, 1st Floor Hearing Room, 132
David Street, Forsyth, MO 65653.
    Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Daytime Scoping Meeting

    Date: April 19, 2017.
    Time: 9:00 a.m.
    Location: Taney County Courthouse, 1st Floor Hearing Room, 132
David Street, Forsyth, MO 65653.
    Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    SD1, which outlines the subject areas to be addressed in the
environmental document, was mailed to the individuals and entities on
the Commission's mailing list. Copies of SD1 will be available at the
scoping meetings, or may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov,
using the ``eLibrary'' link. Follow the directions for accessing
information in paragraph n. Based on all oral and written comments, a
Scoping Document 2 (SD2) may be issued. SD2 may include a revised
process plan and schedule, as well as a list of issues, identified
through the scoping process.

Environmental Site Review

    The potential applicant and Commission staff will conduct an
Environmental Site Review of the project on Tuesday, April 18, 2017,
starting at 1:00 p.m. All participants should meet at the Ozark Beach
Dam parking lot, located at 3292 State Highway Y, Forsyth, MO 65653.
All participants are responsible for their own transportation. Anyone
planning on participating in the site visit, or with questions about
it, should contact Mr. Randy Richardson of Empire District Electric
Company at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>on or
before April 11, 2017.

Meeting Objectives

    At the scoping meetings, staff will: (1) Initiate scoping of the
issues; (2) review and discuss existing conditions and resource
management objectives; (3) review and discuss existing information and
identify preliminary information and study needs; (4) review and
discuss the process plan and schedule for pre-filing activity that
incorporates the time frames provided for in Part 5 of the Commission's
regulations and, to the extent possible, maximizes coordination of
federal, state, and tribal permitting and certification processes; and
(5) discuss the appropriateness of any federal or state agency or
Indian tribe acting as a cooperating agency for development of an
environmental document.
    Meeting participants should come prepared to discuss their issues
and/or concerns. Please review the PAD in preparation for the scoping
meetings. Directions on how to obtain a copy of the PAD and SD1 are
included in paragraph n of this document.

Meeting Procedures

    The meetings will be recorded by a stenographer and will be placed
in the public records of the project.

    Dated: March 24, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-06421 Filed 3-31-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 15, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 50)]
[Notices]
[Page 12242-12244]
[DOCID:fr15mr07-116]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55424; File No. SR-Phlx-2006-63]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 3 to the Proposed Rule Change, and
Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change as Amended,
Relating to a Philadelphia Board of Trade Enterprise License Fee for
Dissemination of Certain Market Data

March 8, 2007.

I. Introduction

    On September 28, 2006, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.
(``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposal to add an Enterprise License Fee of $10,000
per year or $850 per month that would be assessed by the Exchange's
wholly owned subsidiary, the Philadelphia Board of Trade (``PBOT''), on
eligible market data vendors or subvendors (collectively ``Vendors'')
for certain index values that subscribers receive over PBOT's Market
Data Distribution Network (``MDDN''). The Phlx filed Amendment No. 1 to
the proposed rule change on November 1, 2006 and filed Amendment No. 2
on December 20, 2006. The proposed rule change, as amended, was
published for comment in the Federal Register on December 28, 2006.\3\
The Phlx filed Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change on March 2,
2007.\4\ The Commission received no comments regarding the proposal.
The Commission hereby issues notice of the filing of Amendment No. 3
and simultaneously grants accelerated approval to the proposed rule
change as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54978 (December 20,
2006), 71 FR 78254.
    \4\ In Amendment No. 3, Phlx clarified (1) in its fee schedule
that a retail broker dealer is conducting a material portion of its
business via one or more Internet Web sites if at least 20% of the
broker-dealer's business were conducted via the Internet; and (2)
that the current and closing index values underlying all of Phlx's
proprietary indexes are being disseminated through PBOT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Phlx proposes to add an Enterprise License Fee for eligible
Vendors of market data disseminated

over PBOT's MDDN.\5\ The Phlx has licensed the current and closing
index values underlying all of the Phlx's proprietary indexes to PBOT
for the purpose of selling, reproducing, and distributing the index
values over PBOT's MDDN (``Market Data''). On each trading day, the
Exchange or its third party designee calculates and makes available to
PBOT a real-time index value every 15 seconds and a closing index value
at the end of each trading day. In exchange for subscriber fees paid to
PBOT, market data vendors are allowed to widely disseminate all the
values of Phlx's proprietary indexes to their subscribers.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The MDDN is an internet protocol multicast network developed
by PBOT and SAVVIS Communications.
    \6\ PBOT has contracted with one or more major Market Data
Vendors to receive real-time and closing index values over the MDDN
and promptly redistribute such values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As approved by the Commission, PBOT charges the following
subscriber fees to Vendors of Market Data for all the values of Phlx's
proprietary indexes disseminated by PBOT's MDDN: \7\ a monthly fee of:
(a) $1.00 per ``Device,'' \8\ that is used by Vendors and their
subscribers to receive and re-transmit Market Data on a real-time basis
(``device fee''), and (b) $.0025 per request for snapshot data,\9\
which is essentially Market Data that is refreshed no more frequently
than once every 60 seconds, or $1,500 per month for unlimited snapshot
data requests (``snapshot fee'').\10\ All market data vendors which
provide market data to 200,000 or more Devices in any month qualify for
a 15% Administrative Fee credit for that month, to be deducted from the
monthly Subscriber Fees that they collect and are obligated to pay PBOT
under the Vendor/Subvendor Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53790 (May 11,
2006), 71 FR 28738 (May 17, 2006) (``Original Approval Order''). The
subscriber fees are set out in agreements that PBOT executed with
various market data vendors for the right to receive, store, and
retransmit the current and closing index values transmitted over the
MDDN.
    \8\ The agreements provide that ``Device'' shall mean, in case
of each Subscriber and in such Subscriber's discretion, either any
Terminal or any End User. A Subscriber's Device may be exclusively
Terminals, exclusively End Users or a combination of Terminals or
End Users and shall be reported in a manner that is consistent with
the way the Vendor identifies such Subscriber's access to Vendor's
data. An ``End User'' is defined as an individual authorized or
allowed by a Vendor to access and display real-time market data that
is distributed by PBOT over the MDDN; and a ``Terminal'' is any type
of equipment (fixed or portable) that accesses and displays such
market data.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55111 (January 16,
2007), 72 FR 3188 (January 24, 2007) (increasing the snapshot fee to
$.0025 per request).
    \10\ The index values may also be made available by Vendors on a
delayed basis (i.e., no sooner than twenty minutes following receipt
of the data by vendors) at no charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to add an Enterprise License Fee of $10,000
per year or $850 per month that would be available to eligible Vendors
as an alternative to the device fee or snapshot fee.\11\ A Vendor is
eligible for the Enterprise License Fee if it is a firm acting as a
retail broker-dealer conducting a material portion of its business via
one or more proprietary Internet Web sites by which the firm
distributes Market Data to predominately non-professional Market Data
users with whom the firm has a brokerage relationship (``Eligible
Firm'').\12\ An Eligible Firm may also distribute Market Data to
professional users with whom such firm has a brokerage relationship,
provided such Market Data distribution is predominantly to non-
professional users.\13\ As stated in the proposed fee schedule, the
Eligible Firm's Market Data distribution to professional users cannot
exceed 10%.\14\ The 15% Administrative Fee credit discount also applies
to the Enterprise License Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ A firm that qualifies for the Enterprise License Fee may
instead choose to pay the device fee and/or the snapshot fee as
appropriate.
    \12\ To be eligible for the Enterprise License Fee, the
Exchange's fee schedule states that an Eligible Firm will be
considered to conduct a material portion of its business via one or
more Internet Web sites if at least twenty percent (20%) of the
firm's business were conducted via the Internet.
    \13\ A non-professional user is defined in the fee schedule as
any natural person who is not: (a) registered or qualified in any
capacity with the Commission, the Commodities Futures Trading
Commission, any state securities agency, any securities exchange or
association, or any commodities or futures contract market or
association; (b) engaged as an ``investment advisor'' as that term
is defined in Section 202(11) of the Investment Advisors Act of
1940, 15 U.S.C. 80b-2(11), (whether or not registered or qualified
under that Act); nor, (c) employed by a bank or other organization
exempt from registration under federal or state securities laws to
perform functions that would require registration or qualification
if such functions were performed for an organization not so exempt.
    \14\ As an example, if data recipient ABC Corp. has 100
customers that receive PBOT Market Data of which 10 are professional
users and 90 are retail (non-professional) users the Enterprise
License Fee would be available to the firm because 10 professional
users/100 total users = 10%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To be eligible for the Enterprise License Fee, an Eligible Firm
must certify to PBOT that it qualifies for the Enterprise License Fee,
including that market distribution is predominantly to non-professional
users, and must immediately notify PBOT if it can no longer certify its
qualification.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ A firm that has entered into an agreement with PBOT to
receive Market Data over the MDDN but is not qualified for the
Enterprise License Fee may pay the device fee and/or the snapshot
fee as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 amended, 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 No. SR-Phlx-2006-63 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2006-63. 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. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Phlx.
    All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2006-63
and should be submitted on or before April 5, 2007.

IV. Discussion

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to

a national securities exchange \16\ and, in particular, the
requirements of Section 6 of the Act.\17\ Specifically, the Commission
finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act,\18\ which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the reduced alternate fee structure
available through the Enterprise License Fee to eligible market data
recipients should help to encourage a wider distribution of market
data, especially to non-professional customers. The Commission notes
that other industry organizations have similar fee structures which
make various market data available to non-professional subscribers for
a discounted fee relative to professional subscribers. For example, the
Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (``Nasdaq'') has fees schedules that are
higher for professional or corporate subscribers than for non-
professional subscribers for UTP Level 1 fees, TotalView fees, and
Nasdaq MAX fees.\19\ The Options Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA''),
a national market system plan, also offers a reduced fee to
nonprofessional subscribers, which is not available to professional
options data subscribers.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Nasdaq offers a TotalView Non-Professional Enterprise Fee
License to qualified firms that distribute TotalView to their non-
professional users with whom they have a professional relationship.
A description of Nasdaq market data fees is available at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/trader/mds/nasdaqother/pricing.stm
 (last

visited on January 17, 2007).
    \20\ A description of OPRA market data fees is available at
http://www.opradata.com/pdf/prof_pub_fee_schd_revised.pdf (last

visited on January 17, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also believes that Phlx's eligibility standards in
determining the type of retail broker-dealers who can use the new
Enterprise License Fee appears to be reasonably related to its purpose
of providing a discount to those retail broker-dealers who have
primarily a proprietary Internet based business to non-professional
users.\21\ As noted above, eligible firms are also free to pay, as an
alternative, the device fee or snapshot fee should they so choose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See supra notes 12-15 and accompanying text for eligibility
standards for the Enterprise License Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the above, the Commission believes that the proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\22\ in that the proposed
rule change provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among the Exchange's members and issuers and
other persons using its facilities. The Commission also continues to
believe that PBOT's MDDN fee structure is consistent with Rule 603
under the Act \23\ regarding the distribution, consolidation, and
display of information with respect to quotations for and transactions
in NMS stocks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \23\ 17 CFR 242.603.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds good cause for approving Amendment No. 3 to
the proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after the notice is
published for comment in the Federal Register pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act.\24\ Amendment No. 3 clarifies the Exchange's
proposal and does not raise any new regulatory issues. Further, the
materiality standard in the Eligible Firm definition drafted into the
fee schedule pursuant to Amendment No. 3 was the same standard
published for comment with the filing and no comments were received.
Finally, the Commission believes that it is appropriate to accelerate
approval of the proposed rule change so that the Exchange can
immediately provide the discounted fee to eligible firms that will
disseminate the index values of Phlx's proprietary index options.
Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause to approve Amendment No. 3
prior to the thirtieth day after the notice is published for comment in
the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\25\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2006-63), as amended,
be, and it hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-4722 Filed 3-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69691-69693]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27770]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-1999-D-4079]

Draft Guidance for Industry on Product Name Placement, Size, and
Prominence in Advertising and Promotional Labeling; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled ``Product Name
Placement, Size, and Prominence in Advertising and Promotional
Labeling.'' When finalized, the draft guidance will replace the
guidance of the same title issued January 25, 2012. The draft guidance
clarifies the requirements for product name placement, size,
prominence, and frequency in promotional labeling and advertising for
prescription human drugs, including biological drug products, and
prescription animal drugs and articulates the circumstances under which
FDA intends to exercise enforcement discretion.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by January 21, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the draft
guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or
the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development (HFM-40), Center
for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration,
1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448; or the
Communications Staff (HFV-12), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and
Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855. Send one
self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your
requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the draft guidance document.
    Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regarding human prescription drugs:
Cynthia Ng, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 3278, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regarding prescription human biological products: Stephen Ripley,
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-17), Food and Drug
Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-
1448,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regarding animal prescription drugs: Julie Garnier, Center for
Veterinary Medicine (HFV-216), Food and Drug Administration, 7519
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry
entitled ``Product Name Placement, Size, and Prominence in Advertising
and Promotional Labeling.'' In the Federal Register of January 25, 2012
(77 FR 3779), FDA announced the availability of a guidance entitled
``Product Name Placement, Size, and Prominence in Advertising and
Promotional Labeling.'' The 2012 guidance discusses the requirements
for product name placement, size, prominence, and frequency in
promotional labeling and advertising for prescription human and animal
drugs and biological products. The draft guidance clarifies these
requirements and articulates the circumstances under which FDA intends
to exercise enforcement discretion.
    The disclosure of the product name in promotional labeling and
advertising for all prescription human and animal drug and biological
products is important for the proper identification of such products to
ensure their safe and effective use.
    The placement, size, prominence, and frequency of proprietary and
established names for human and animal prescription drug products are
specified in labeling and advertising regulations (21 CFR 201.10(g) and
(h); 202.1(b), (c), and (d)). These regulations are also applicable to
biological product labeling and advertising materials.
    The recommendations in the draft guidance pertain to product names
in traditional print media promotion (e.g., journal ads, detail aids,
brochures), audiovisual promotional labeling (e.g.,

videos shown in a health care provider's office), broadcast media
promotion (e.g., television advertisements, radio advertisements), and
electronic and computer-based promotional labeling and advertisements
such as Internet promotion, social media, emails, CD-ROMs, and DVDs.
    Following issuance of the guidance in 2012, FDA recognized the need
for additional clarification and explanation of how FDA would exercise
its enforcement discretion.
    This draft guidance updates the 2012 guidance as follows:
     Clarifies issues about intervening matter in relation to
the juxtaposition of the proprietary and established name;
     States that FDA intends to exercise enforcement discretion
regarding the requirements surrounding the use of the established name
on pages or spreads and offers an example of what is expected;
     Clarifies the requirements regarding the use of
proprietary names in the running text;
     States that FDA intends to exercise enforcement discretion
regarding the established name's presentation in columns;
     Removes the recommendation that the established name be
included in the audio portion of an audiovisual promotion; and
     Clarifies issues relating to the established name's
presentation on Web pages or electronic screens.
    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on product name
placement, size, and prominence in advertising and promotional
labeling. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person
and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach
may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the
applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) (44 U.S.C.
3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information that
they conduct or sponsor. ``Collection of information'' is defined in 44
U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or
requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records,
or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the
PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a
60-day notice in the Federal Register for each proposed collection of
information before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To
comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed
collection of information set forth in this document.
    This draft guidance also refers to previously approved collections
of information found in FDA regulations. The collections of information
in Sec.  202.1 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0686.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
    Title: Product Name Placement, Size, and Prominence in Advertising
and Promotional Labeling.
    Description of Respondents: Respondents to this collection of
information are manufacturers and distributors (firms) of prescription
human drug products, including biological drug products, and
prescription animal drug products.
    Burden Estimate: The draft guidance pertains to the requirement for
prescription drug advertising and promotional labeling to include the
established name in conjunction with the proprietary name.
    The draft guidance, in part, explains FDA's current policy as
follows:
     Firms should include the established name at least once
per page or spread where the proprietary name most prominently appears.
     The established name should be placed either directly
beside or below the proprietary name without any intervening matter.
     The size of the established name should be at least half
the size of the presentation of the proprietary name wherever the
established name is required.
     For superimposed text that is equivalent to a headline or
tagline, the established name should be presented alongside the most
prominent presentation of the proprietary name in audiovisual
promotional materials.
     For electronic and computer-based promotion, the
established name should accompany the proprietary name at least once
per Web page or screen, and this should generally be where the
proprietary name most prominently appears on the Web page or screen.
    Thus, the draft guidance recommends that firms disclose certain
information to others when fulfilling the product name placement
requirements. This ``third-party disclosure'' constitutes a
``collection of information'' under the PRA.
    FDA estimates that approximately 400 firms disseminate
approximately 82,100 advertisements and promotional pieces each year.
FDA estimates that it will take firms approximately 3 hours to compile
and draft the information needed to fulfill the product name placement,
size, and prominence requirement in advertising and promotional
labeling.

                                               Table 1--Estimated Annual Third-Party Disclosure Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
  Product name placement, size, and prominence in  advertising and      Number of     disclosures per    Total annual   Average  burden    Total hours
                        promotional labeling                           respondents       respondent      disclosures    per  disclosure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submissions Related to Product Name Placement, Size, and Prominence             400              205           82,100                3          246,300
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either written comments regarding
this document to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) or
electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov. It is only necessary
to send one set of comments. 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.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm, or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: November 14, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-27770 Filed 11-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14189-14194]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04580]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97001; File No. SR-FICC-2023-003]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Revise the Description of
the Stressed Period Used To Calculate the Value-at-Risk Charge and Make
Other Changes

March 1, 2023.
    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 February 17, 2023, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'')
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. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The proposed rule change \3\ consists of amendments to the GSD
Methodology Document--GSD Initial Market Risk Margin Model (``GSD QRM
Methodology Document'') \4\ and the MBSD Methodology and Model
Operations Document--MBSD Quantitative Risk Model (``MBSD QRM
Methodology Document'',\5\ and collectively with the GSD QRM
Methodology Document, the ``QRM Methodology Documents'') in order to
revise the description of the stressed period used to calculate the VaR
Charge (as defined below). FICC is also proposing to amend the GSD QRM
Methodology Document in order to clarify the language describing the
floor parameters used for the calculation of the VaR Floor. In
addition, FICC is proposing to amend the QRM Methodology Documents to
make certain technical changes, as described in greater detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Capitalized terms used herein and not defined shall have the
meaning assigned to such terms in the FICC's Government Securities
Division (``GSD'') Rulebook (``GSD Rules'') and FICC's Mortgage-
Backed Securities Division (``MBSD'') Clearing Rules (``MBSD
Rules'', and together with the GSD Rules, the ``Rules''), available
at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures.aspx.
    \4\ The GSD QRM Methodology Document was filed as a confidential
exhibit in the rule filing and advance notice for GSD sensitivity
VaR. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 83362 (June 1, 2018),
83 FR 26514 (June 7, 2018) (SR-FICC-2018-001) and 83223 (May 11,
2018), 83 FR 23020 (May 17, 2018) (SR-FICC-2018-801). The GSD QRM
Methodology has been subsequently amended. See Securities Exchange
Act Release Nos. 85944 (May 24, 2019), 84 FR 25315 (May 31, 2019)
(SR-FICC-2019-001), 90182 (October 14, 2020), 85 FR 66630 (October
20, 2020) (SR-FICC-2020-009), 93234 (October 1, 2021), 86 FR 55891
(October 7, 2021) (SR-FICC-2021-007), and 95605 (August 25, 2022),
87 FR 53522 (August 31, 2022) (SR-FICC-2022-005).
    \5\ The MBSD QRM Methodology was filed as a confidential exhibit
in the rule filing and advance notice for MBSD sensitivity VaR. See
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 79868 (January 24, 2017), 82 FR
8780 (January 30, 2017) (SR-FICC-2016-007) and 79843 (January 19,
2017), 82 FR 8555 (January 26, 2017) (SR-FICC-2016-801). The MBSD
QRM Methodology has been amended. See Securities Exchange Act
Release Nos. 85944 (May 24, 2019), 84 FR 25315 (May 31, 2019) (SR-
FICC-2019-001), 90182 (October 14, 2020), 85 FR 66630 (October 20,
2020) (SR-FICC-2020-009), 92303 (June 30, 2021), 86 FR 35854 (July
7, 2021) (SR-FICC-2020-017) and 95070 (June 8, 2022), 87 FR 36014
(June 14, 2022) (SR-FICC-2022-002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
    FICC has observed significant volatility in the U.S. government
securities market due to tightening monetary policy, increasing
inflation, and recession fears. The significant volatility has led to
greater risk exposures for FICC. In order to mitigate the increased
risk exposures, FICC has to quickly and timely respond to rapidly
changing market conditions. For example, in order to respond to rapidly
changing market conditions, FICC may need to quickly and timely adjust
the look-back period that FICC uses for purposes of calculating the VaR
Charge with an appropriate stressed period, as needed, to enable FICC
to calculate and collect adequate margin from members. Accordingly,
FICC is proposing to amend the QRM Methodology Documents by revising
the description of the stressed period used to calculate the VaR Charge
in order to enable FICC to quickly and timely adjust the look-back
period used for calculating the VaR Charge with an appropriate stressed
period, as needed. Adjustments to the look-back period could affect the
amount of the VaR Charge that GSD Members are assessed by either
increasing or decreasing such charge to reflect the level of risk the
activities of the GSD Members presented to FICC.
    FICC is also proposing to amend the GSD QRM Methodology Document in
order to clarify the language describing the floor parameters used for
the calculation of the VaR Floor. In addition, FICC is proposing to
amend the QRM Methodology Documents to make certain technical changes.
    FICC, through GSD and MBSD, serves as a central counterparty
(``CCP'') and provider of clearance and settlement services for the
U.S. government securities and mortgage-backed securities markets. A
key tool that FICC uses to manage its credit exposures to its members
is the daily collection of margin from each member. The aggregated
amount of all GSD and MBSD members' margin constitutes the GSD Clearing
Fund and MBSD Clearing Fund (collectively referred to herein as the
``Clearing Fund''), which FICC would be able to access should a
defaulted member's own margin be insufficient to satisfy losses to FICC
caused by the liquidation of that member's portfolio. Each member's
margin consists of a number of applicable components, including a
value-at-risk (``VaR'') charge (``VaR Charge'') designed to capture the
potential market price risk associated with the securities in a
member's portfolio. The VaR Charge is typically the largest component
of a member's margin requirement. The VaR Charge is designed to cover
FICC's projected liquidation losses with respect to a defaulted
member's portfolio at a 99% confidence level.
    FICC calculates VaR Charge by using a methodology referred to as
the sensitivity approach. The sensitivity approach leverages external
vendor expertise in supplying the market risk attributes, which would
then be incorporated by FICC into the GSD and MBSD models to calculate
the VaR Charge. Specifically, FICC sources security-level risk
sensitivity data and

relevant historical risk factor time series from an external vendor for
all eligible securities. The sensitivity data is generated by a vendor
based on its econometric, risk and pricing models.
(1) Revise the Description of the Stressed Period Used To Calculate the
VaR Charge
    The sensitivity approach provides FICC with the ability to adjust
the look-back period that FICC uses for purposes of calculating the VaR
Charge. In particular, the sensitivity approach leverages external
vendor data to incorporate a look-back period of 10 years, which allows
the GSD and MBSD models to capture periods of historical volatility. In
the event FICC observes that the 10-year look-back period does not
contain a sufficient number of stressed market conditions, FICC will
include an additional period of historically observed stressed market
conditions to the 10-year look-back period.
    The QRM Methodology Documents currently describe the additional
stressed period as a configurable continuous period (typically one
year). In addition, the GSD QRM Methodology Document further specifies
the duration of the stressed period as one-year of stressed market
condition. To ensure the GSD and MBSD models are performing as
designed, FICC regularly reviews metrics from various assessments, such
as the proportion of failure (``POF'') test being used to determine
whether the number of member deficiencies, if any, are statistically
significant. While recent POF test results indicate that the GSD and
MBSD models still perform as designed, FICC has observed a number of
instances, for example in certain U.S. Treasury security tenors, where
market volatility produced price returns in excess of the 99%
confidence level calibration of the VaR models in recent months due to
heightened volatility in the market.
    In order to provide FICC with more flexibility with respect to the
inclusion of sufficient number of stressed market conditions in the
look-back period so FICC can respond to rapidly changing market
conditions more quickly and timely, FICC is proposing to eliminate this
detailed description of the stressed period from Sections 2.10.1 (The
list of key parameters) and A<IP_ADDRESS> (Stressed VaR Calculation) of the
GSD QRM Methodology Document, as well as Section 5.17.1 (Stressed VaR
Calculation) of the MBSD QRM Methodology Document, and replace it with
a more general description. Specifically, the proposed new description
of the stressed period would provide in Section A<IP_ADDRESS> of the GSD
QRM Methodology Document and Section 5.17.1 of the MBSD QRM Methodology
Document that the ``stressed period'' shall be a period of time that
FICC may add, in its sole discretion, to the 10-year historical look-
back period that includes stressed market conditions that are not
otherwise captured in the look-back period. The proposed new
description would also provide that a stressed period, if added to the
look-back period, shall be no shorter than 6 months and no longer than
36 months, and comprised of either one continuous period specified by a
start date and an end date or comprised of more than one non-continuous
period. In addition, the proposed new description would provide that in
determining whether it is necessary to add a stressed period to the 10-
year historical look-back period and the appropriate length of the
added stressed period, FICC would review all relevant information
available to it at the time of such determination, including, for
example, (1) the nature of the stressed market conditions in the
current 10-year historical look-back period, (2) backtesting coverage
ratios, and (3) market volatility observed by FICC, in its sole
discretion. Furthermore, the proposed new description would provide
that changes to the stressed period shall be approved through FICC's
model governance process, and any current stressed period shall be
documented and published to FICC members at the time such stressed
period becomes effective.
    FICC believes that having a more general description would enable
FICC to adjust the stressed period more quickly and timely because the
adjustment process, such as constructing a stressed period comprised of
more than one year's historical data that may not be continuous,\6\
would be more streamlined and not require a rule change.\7\ By being
able to quickly and timely make adjustments to the stressed period,
FICC would have the flexibility to respond to rapidly changing market
conditions more quickly and timely. Having the flexibility to respond
to rapidly changing market conditions more quickly and timely would in
turn help better ensure that FICC calculates and collects adequate
margin from members as well as risk manages its credit exposures to its
members.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ FICC believes constructing a longer than one-year stressed
period, or a stressed period that may not be continuous, would
enable FICC to (i) better cope with market volatility spikes by
increasing the calibrated volatility level of the VaR models, i.e.,
longer stressed periods generally result in higher calibrated
volatility levels, and (ii) capture a sufficient number of stressed
market conditions.
    \7\ Pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-
Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and Rule 19b-
4(n)(1)(i) under the Act, if a change materially affects the nature
or level of risks presented by FICC, then FICC is required to file
an advance notice filing. 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1) and 17 CFR 240.19b-
4(n)(1)(i).
    \8\ FICC is currently contemplating changing the stressed period
at GSD from one year to 1.5 year while keeping the current one-year
stressed period at MBSD unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nonetheless, as described in the QRM Methodology Documents, the
look-back period would continue to be tracked in the monthly model
parameter report and any changes to the look-back period \9\ would
continue to be subject to DTCC's internal model governance process as
described in the Clearing Agency Model Risk Management Framework.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The look-back period includes the stressed period, if any.
    \10\ The Clearing Agency Model Risk Management Framework
(``Framework'') sets forth the model risk management practices that
FICC and its affiliates The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') and
National Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC,'' and together
with FICC and DTC, the ``Clearing Agencies'') follow to identify,
measure, monitor, and manage the risks associated with the design,
development, implementation, use, and validation of quantitative
models. The Framework is filed as a rule of the Clearing Agencies.
See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 81485 (August 25, 2017), 82
FR 41433 (August 31, 2017) (File Nos. SR-DTC-2017-008; SR-FICC-2017-
014; SR-NSCC-2017-008), 88911 (May 20, 2020), 85 FR 31828 (May 27,
2020) (File Nos. SR-DTC-2020-008; SR-FICC-2020-004; SR-NSCC-2020-
008), 92380 (July 13, 2021), 86 FR 38140 (July 19, 2021) (File No.
SR-FICC-2021-006), 92381 (July 13, 2021), 86 FR 38163 (July 19,
2021) (File No. SR-NSCC-2021-008), 92379 (July 13, 2021), 86 FR
38143 (July 19, 2021) (File No. SR-DTC-2021-003), 94271 (February
17, 2022), 87 FR 10411 (February 24, 2022) (File No. SR-FICC-2022-
001), 94272 (February 17, 2022) 87 FR 10419 (February 24, 2022)
(File No. SR-NSCC-2022-001), and 94273 (February 17, 2022), 87 FR
10395 (February 24, 2022) (File No. SR-DTC-2022-001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Clarify the Floor Parameter Language
    The VaR Charge is subject to a minimum amount (the ``VaR Floor'')
that FICC employs as an alternative to the amount calculated by the VaR
model for portfolios where the VaR Floor \11\ is greater than the
model-based charge amount. A VaR Floor addresses the risk that the VaR
model may calculate too low a VaR Charge for certain portfolios where
the VaR model applies substantial risk offsets among long and short
positions in different classes of securities that have a high degree of
historical correlation. Because this high degree of historical price
correlation may not apply in future changing market conditions, FICC
applies a VaR Floor in order to protect FICC against such risk in the
event that FICC is

required to liquidate a large securities portfolio in stressed market
conditions.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See definition of ``VaR Charge'' in GSD Rule 1
(Definitions), supra note 3.
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 83362 (June 1,
2018), 83 FR 26514 (June 7, 2018) (SR-FICC-2018-001) and 83223 (May
11, 2018), 83 FR 23020 (May 17, 2018) (SR-FICC-2018-801).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    VaR Floor at GSD is determined by multiplying the absolute value of
the sum of the Net Long Positions and Net Short Positions of Eligible
Securities, grouped by product and remaining maturity, by a percentage
designated by FICC from time to time for such group. Currently, the GSD
Rules provide that for (i) U.S. Treasury and agency securities, such
percentage shall be a fraction, no less than 10%, of the historical
minimum volatility of a benchmark fixed income index (i.e., haircut
rate) for such group by product and remaining maturity and (ii)
mortgage-backed securities, such percentage shall be a fixed percentage
that is no less than 0.05%.\13\ However, the GSD QRM Methodology
Document specifies these percentages (referred to as floor parameters
therein) for government bond and MBS Pool as simply 10% and 5 Bps,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    To avoid inconsistency with the GSD Rules, FICC is proposing
clarifying changes to the floor parameter language in Section 2.10.1 of
the GSD QRM Methodology Document. Specifically, FICC is proposing to
revise the description of the floor parameter for government bond by
deleting the reference to 10% and adding language that state the
parameter is a percentage as designated by FICC from time to time
pursuant to the GSD Rules and applied to the haircut rate of the
respective government bonds. Similarly, for the description of the
floor parameter for MBS Pool, FICC is proposing to revise it by
deleting the reference to 5 Bps and adding language that state the
parameter is a percentage as designated by FICC from time to time
pursuant to the GSD Rules.
    In addition, FICC is proposing to add a sentence making it clear
that the floor parameters are tracked in the monthly model parameter
report and that any future changes to the floor parameters would be
subject to DTCC's internal model governance process set forth in the
Clearing Agency Model Risk Management Framework.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, consistent with the proposed changes to the floor
parameters described above, FICC is proposing to delete from the GSD
QRM Methodology Document the language in Sections 3.2.2 (Calculation of
haircut of Treasury and Agency bonds without sensitivity analytics
data) and 3.5 (Total VaR, Core Charge and Standalone VaR) that
references the floor parameters for government bond and MBS pool
positions being tentatively set to 10% and 0.05%, respectively.
(3) Technical Changes
    FICC is proposing to make certain technical changes to the GSD QRM
Methodology Document. Specifically, FICC proposes to clarify in
Sections 1.1 (Purpose and scope), A4.5.16 (Stressed VaR), and A<IP_ADDRESS>
(Stressed VaR Calculation) of the GSD QRM Methodology Document that
``SVaR'' refers to sensitivity VaR and not stressed VaR. In addition,
FICC is also proposing to fix typographical errors in Sections 2.10.1
(The list of key parameters) and A<IP_ADDRESS> (Stressed VaR Calculation)
of the GSD QRM Methodology Document.
Impact Study
    FICC conducted an impact study for the period from January 2021 to
October 2022 (``Impact Study'') which reviewed the overall impact of
the contemplated change to the stressed period (i.e., changing the
current stressed period of one year (September 2008 to August 2009) to
a stressed period of 1.5 years (January 2008 to June 2009) on the GSD
VaR model backtesting coverage and VaR Charge amounts as well as the
effect on the GSD Members during the Impact Study period. The results
of the Impact Study indicates that, if a stressed period of 1.5 years
had been in place for GSD, the GSD's rolling 12-month VaR model
backtesting coverage ratio would have improved by 29 bps (from 98.52%
to 98.81%) as of October 2022 and the associated VaR Charge increase
for GSD would be approximately $387 million (or 2.1%) on average during
that period.
    The three GSD Members with the largest average daily VaR Charge
increases in dollar amount during the Impact Study period would have
had increases of approximately $43.7 million, $43.24 million, and
$39.55 million representing an average daily increase for such Members
of 3.4%, 4.4%, and 2.8%, respectively. The three GSD Members with the
largest average daily VaR Charge increases as a percentage of VaR
Charges paid by such Members during the Impact Study period would have
had an average daily increase of 16.6%, 15.7% and 12.7%, respectively,
had the contemplated stressed period been in place.
    The three GSD Members with the largest average daily VaR Charge
decreases in dollar amount during the Impact Study period would have
had decreases of approximately $8.59 million, $7.93 million, and $7.24
million representing an average daily decrease for such Members of
4.3%, 1.3%, and 2.9%, respectively. The three GSD Members with the
largest average daily VaR Charge decreases as a percentage of VaR
Charges paid by such Members during the Impact Study period would have
had an average daily decrease of 4.3%, 4.0% and 3.4%, respectively, had
the contemplated stressed period been in place.
Implementation Timeframe
    Subject to approval by the Commission, FICC would implement the
proposed rule changes by no later than 60 Business Days after such
approval and would announce the effective date of the proposed changes
by an Important Notice posted to its website.
2. Statutory Basis
    FICC believes this proposal is consistent with the requirements of
the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a
registered clearing agency. Specifically, FICC believes that the
proposed changes to the QRM Methodology Documents described above are
consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act, for the reasons
described below.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the rules
of a clearing agency be designed to assure the safeguarding of
securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the
clearing agency or for which it is responsible.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC believes that the proposed changes to the QRM Methodology
Documents described in Item II(A)1(1) above to revise the description
of the stressed period used to calculate the VaR Charge are designed to
assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the
custody or control of FICC or for which it is responsible, consistent
with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\17\ As described above, FICC
believes these proposed changes would provide FICC with more
flexibility with respect to the adjustment of the stressed period and
thus allow FICC to respond to rapidly changing market conditions more
quickly and timely. FICC believes that having more flexibility with
respect to this adjustment would enable FICC to more accurately
calculate the necessary margin from members while continuing to limit
its exposure to members such that, in the event of a member default,
FICC's operations would not be disrupted and non-defaulting members

would not be exposed to losses they cannot anticipate or control. In
this way, these proposed changes are designed to assure the
safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody and
control of FICC or for which it is responsible, consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC believes that the (i) proposed changes to the floor parameter
language as described in Item II(A)1(2) above and (ii) the proposed
technical changes described in Item II(A)1(3) above would enhance the
clarity of the GSD QRM Methodology Document for FICC. As the GSD QRM
Methodology Document is used by FICC Risk Management personnel
regarding the calculation of margin requirements, it is therefore
important that FICC Risk Management has a clear description of the
calculation of the margin methodology. Having a clear description of
the calculation of the margin methodology would promote an accurate and
smooth functioning of the margining process. Having an accurate and
smooth functioning of the margining process would enable FICC to more
accurately calculate the necessary margin from members and, as
described above, assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which
are in the custody or control of FICC or for which it is responsible,
consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) under the Act \20\ requires a covered
clearing agency to 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 exposures arising from its payment, clearing, and settlement
processes by maintaining sufficient financial resources to cover its
credit exposure to each participant fully with a high degree of
confidence. FICC believes that the proposed changes in Item II(A)1(1)
above are consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i)
under the Act.\21\ As described above, FICC believes these proposed
changes to revise the description of the stressed period used to
calculate the VaR Charge would provide FICC with more flexibility with
respect to the adjustment of the stressed period. FICC believes that
having more flexibility with respect to the adjustment of the stressed
period would allow FICC to respond to rapidly changing market
conditions more quickly and timely. Having the ability to respond to
rapidly changing market conditions more quickly and timely would in
turn help FICC better measure, monitor, and manage its credit exposures
to participants and those exposures arising from its payment, clearing,
and settlement processes. Moreover, the added flexibility would allow
FICC to collect more accurate margin amounts that would help offset the
risks presented to FICC by the changing market conditions, thus help
ensure that FICC maintains sufficient financial resources to cover its
credit exposure to each participant fully with a high degree of
confidence. Therefore, FICC believes that the proposed changes
described in Item II(A)1(1) above are consistent with the requirements
of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) under the Act.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(i).
    \21\ Id.
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) under the Act \23\ requires a covered
clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to cover, if the covered
clearing agency provides central counterparty services, 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. FICC believes that the proposed changes
in Item II(A)1(1) above are consistent with the requirements of Rule
17Ad-22(e)(6)(i).\24\ Specifically, FICC believes that the proposed
changes to replace the current detailed description of the stressed
period with a more general description, as described above, would
provide FICC with more flexibility to respond to rapidly changing
market conditions more quickly and timely because FICC would be able to
make adjustments to the stressed period without a rule change. Having
this flexibility would enable FICC to better risk manage its credit
exposure to its members because FICC would then be able to make
appropriate and timely adjustments to the stressed period, as described
above. Being able to adjust the stressed period quickly and timely
would allow FICC to continue to produce margin levels commensurate with
the risks and particular attributes of each relevant product,
portfolio, and market. Therefore, FICC believes this proposed change is
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) under the Act.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(i).
    \24\ Id.
    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(v) under the Act \26\ requires a covered
clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to cover, if the covered
clearing agency provides central counterparty services, its credit
exposures to its participants by establishing a risk-based margin
system that, at a minimum, uses an appropriate method for measuring
credit exposure that accounts for relevant product risk factors and
portfolio effects across products. FICC believes that the proposed
changes in Item II(A)1(1) above are consistent with the requirements of
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(v).\27\ Specifically, FICC believes that the
proposed changes to replace the current detailed description of the
stressed period with a more general description, as described above,
would provide FICC with more flexibility to respond to rapidly changing
market conditions more quickly and timely because FICC would be able to
make adjustments to the stressed period without a rule change. Having
this flexibility would enable FICC to better risk manage its credit
exposure to its members because FICC would then be able to make
appropriate and timely adjustments to the stressed period, as described
above. Being able to adjust the stressed period quickly and timely
would allow FICC to continue to produce margin levels commensurate with
relevant product risk factors and portfolio effects across products.
Therefore, FICC believes this proposed change is consistent with Rule
17Ad-22(e)(6)(v) under the Act.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(v).
    \27\ Id.
    \28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FICC believes proposed changes described in Item II(A)1(1) above
may have an impact on competition because these changes could result in
members being assessed a higher margin than they would have been
assessed under the current description of the stressed period. When
these proposed changes result in a higher VaR Charge, they could burden
competition for members that have lower operating margins or higher
costs of capital compared to other members. However, the increase in
VaR Charge would be in direct relation to the specific risks presented
by each member's portfolio, and each member's margin requirement would
continue to be calculated with the same parameters and at the same
confidence level for each member. Therefore, members that have a
similar portfolio, regardless of the type of member, would have similar
impacts on their margin

requirement amounts. As such, FICC believes any burden on competition
imposed by the proposed changes described in Item II(A)1(1) would not
be significant and, regardless of whether such burden on competition
could be deemed significant, would be necessary and appropriate, as
permitted by Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act for the reasons described
in this filing and further below.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC believes any burden on competition imposed by the proposed
changes described in Item II(A)1(1) would not be significant. As the
result of the Impact Study indicates, if a stressed period of 1.5 years
had been in place for GSD, the associated VaR Charge increase at GSD
would be approximately $387 million (or 2.1%) on average.
    However, even if the burden on competition imposed by the proposed
changes described in Item II(A)1(1) were deemed significant, FICC
believes that any such burden on competition would be necessary
because, as described above, the proposed changes would provide FICC
with more flexibility with respect to the adjustment of the stressed
period and allow FICC to respond to rapidly changing market conditions
more quickly and timely. Having more flexibility with respect to this
calculation would thus help better ensure that FICC calculates and
collects adequate margin from members and thereby assure the
safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody and
control of FICC or for which it is responsible, consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, FICC believes the proposed changes described in Item
II(A)1(1) are necessary to support FICC's compliance with Rules 17Ad-
22(e)(4)(i), (e)(6)(i), and (e)(6)(v) under the Act.\31\ Specifically,
as described above, FICC believes these proposed changes would provide
FICC with more flexibility with respect to the adjustment of the
stressed period. Having more flexibility with respect to these
adjustments would allow FICC to respond to rapidly changing market
conditions more quickly and timely. Having the ability to respond to
rapidly changing market conditions more quickly and timely would in
turn help FICC better measure, monitor, and manage its credit exposures
to participants and those exposures arising from its payment, clearing,
and settlement processes, consistent with the requirements of Rule
17ad-22(e)(4)(i) under the Act.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(i), (e)(6)(i), and (e)(6)(v).
    \32\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC also believes these proposed changes would enable FICC to be
better equipped to respond to rapidly changing market conditions. FICC
believes having this flexibility would help lead to a better risk
management practice because it would enable FICC to adjust the stressed
period in response to fast changing market conditions. Being able to
adjust the stressed period in response to fast changing market
conditions would enable FICC to produce margin levels more commensurate
with the risks it faces as a CCP and help FICC cover its credit
exposures to its participants, consistent with the requirements of
Rules 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) and (e)(6)(v) under the Act.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) and (e)(6)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC also believes that any burden on competition that may be
imposed by the proposed changes described in Item II(A)1(1) would be
appropriate in furtherance of the Act because, as described above,
these proposed changes have been specifically designed to assure the
safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody and
control of FICC or for which it is responsible, as required by Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\34\ As described above, the proposed changes
to revise the description of the stressed period used to calculate the
VaR Charge would also enable FICC to produce margin levels commensurate
with the risks and particular attributes of each member's portfolio.
Therefore, because the proposed changes are designed to provide FICC
with an appropriate measure of the risks presented by members'
portfolios, FICC believes these proposed changes are appropriately
designed to meet its risk management goals and regulatory obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC believes that the proposed changes described in Item II(A)1(1)
above may also promote competition because these changes could also
result in members being assessed a lower margin than they would have
been assessed under the current description of the stressed period, and
thereby could potentially lower operating costs for members.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ As the result of the Impact Study indicates, if FICC were
to change the stressed period pursuant to the proposed changes
described in Item II(A)1(1), some members would be assessed a lower
margin than they would have been assessed under the current
continuous one-year stressed period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the proposed changes described in Items II(A)1(2)
and II(A)1(3) above to make clarifying and technical changes to the GSD
QRM Methodology Document, FICC does not believe these proposed changes
would have any impact on competition because these proposed changes
would only enhance the clarity of the GSD QRM Methodology Document,
which would promote an accurate and smooth functioning of the margining
process at FICC and would not affect the substantive rights and
obligations of members.

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

    FICC has not received or solicited any written comments relating to
this proposal. If any additional 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
SEC's Division of Trading and Markets at [email protected] or
202-551-5777.
    FICC reserves the right not to respond to any comments received.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-FICC-2023-003 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-FICC-2023-003. 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 FICC 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-FICC-2023-003 and should be submitted on
or before March 28, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-04580 Filed 3-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 2, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 52999]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21707]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket Number USCG-2015-0739]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Upper Mississippi River, Rock
Island, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Rock Island Railroad and Highway
Drawbridge across the Upper Mississippi River, mile 482.9, at Rock
Island, Illinois. The deviation is necessary to allow the Quad City
Marathon to cross the bridge. This deviation allows the bridge to be
maintained in the closed-to-navigation position for four and a half
hours.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 7:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on
September 27, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0739] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation. 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Eric A. Washburn, Bridge
Administrator, Western Rivers, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Cheryl F. Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Army Rock Island Arsenal requested
a temporary deviation for the Rock Island Railroad and Highway
Drawbridge, across the Upper Mississippi River, mile 482.9, at Rock
Island, Illinois to remain in the closed-to-navigation position for a
four and a half hour period from 7:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., September 27,
2015, while the Quad City Marathon is held between the cities of
Davenport, IA and Rock Island, IL.
    The Rock Island Railroad and Highway Drawbridge currently operates
in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, which states the general requirement
that drawbridges shall open promptly and fully for the passage of
vessels when a request to open is given in accordance with the subpart.
    There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section
of the Upper Mississippi River.
    The Rock Island Railroad and Highway Drawbridge, in the closed-to-
navigation position, provides a vertical clearance of 23.8 feet above
normal pool. Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of
commercial tows and recreational watercraft. This temporary deviation
has been coordinated with waterway users. No objections were received.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: August 27, 2015.
David M. Frank,
Bridge Administrator, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-21707 Filed 9-1-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P