Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 12645 

Paragraph 6012 Helicopter area navigation 

routes [new]. 

* * * * * 

TK–502 Westminster (EMI), MD to DECKR, 

PA [New] 

Westminster (EMI), MD VORTAC 

(Lat. 39°29′42′′ N., long. 76°58′43′′ W.) 

TAYLO, MD WP 

(Lat. 39°39′48′′ N., long. 76°27′43′′ W.) 

WINGO, PA WP 

(Lat. 39°45′59′′ N., long. 76°06′56′′ W.) 

SINON, PA WP 

(Lat. 40°02′14′′ N., long. 75°34′46′′ W.) 

GRIBL, PA WP 

(Lat. 40°14′30′′ N., long. 74°53′31′′ W.) 

TOLAN, NJ WP 

(Lat. 40°21′58′′ N., long. 74°25′23′′ W.) 

BALDE, NJ WP 

(Lat. 40°28′42′′ N., long. 74°11′33′′ W.) 

SPATE, NY WP 

(Lat. 40°31′22′′ N., long. 74°07′30′′ W.) 

DECKR, NY WP 

(Lat. 40°39′07′′ N., long. 74°02′42′′ W.) 

* * * * * 

TK–504 RUSEY, MD to BANKA, NJ [New] 

RUSEY, MD WP 

(Lat. 39°16′07′′ N., long. 76°11′19′′ W.) 

CIDOB, MD WP 

(Lat. 39°25′47′′ N., long. 75°58′43′′ W.) 

HAMOR, PA WP 

(Lat. 39°51′21′′ N., long. 75°47′17′′ W.) 

ARCUM, PA WP 

(Lat. 40°01′26′′ N., long. 75°20′54′′ W.) 

TULLY, PA WP 

(Lat. 40°10′38′′ N., long. 74°51′48′′ W.) 

BORKE, NJ WP 

(Lat. 40°10′12′′ N., long. 74°22′32′′ W.) 

BANKA, NJ WP 

(Lat. 40°22′53′′ N., long. 74°03′04′′ W.) 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 2, 

2011. 

Rodger A. Dean, 

Acting Manager, Airspace, Regulations and 

ATC Procedures Group. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5251 Filed 3–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0813; Airspace 

Docket No. 09–AEA–12] 

RIN 2120–AA66 

Proposed Revocation of VOR Federal 

Airway V–284; New Jersey 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM); withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is withdrawing the 

Notice of proposed rulemaking 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 3, 2010, to remove VHF 

omnidirectional range (VOR) Federal 

airway V–284, which extends between 

Sea Isle, NJ and Cedar Lake, NJ. Upon 

further consideration, the FAA has 

determined that an operational 

requirement for the airway still exists; 

therefore, withdrawal of the proposed 

rule is warranted. 

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, March 

8, 2011. The Director of the Federal 

Register approves this incorporation by 

reference action under 1 CFR part 51, 

subject to the annual revision of FAA 

Order 7400.9 and publication of 

conforming amendments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Gallant, Airspace, Regulations and ATC 

Procedures Group, Office of Airspace 

Services, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone: (202) 267–8783. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

History 

On September 3, 2010, the FAA 

published in the Federal Register an 

NPRM proposing to amend Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 

part 71 by removing VOR Federal 

Airway V–284 (75 FR 54058), Docket 

No. FAA–2010–0813. Interested parties 

were invited to participate in this 

rulemaking effort by submitting written 

comments on the proposal. Four 

comments were received. 

Discussion of Comments 

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots 

Association and three individuals 

submitted comments on the proposal. 

All commenters opposed the removal of 

V–284. The commenters stated that 

revocation of V–284 would reduce 

efficiency of operations for non-Global 

Positioning System equipped aircraft 

transiting the Delaware-New Jersey-New 

York City-Philadelphia areas. For such 

aircraft, the VOR Federal airway system 

remains the primary means of 

navigation for Instrument Flight Rules 

operations. The commenters also 

indicated that the elimination of this 

convenient and viable route could 

require pilots to deviate from their 

desired course, adding flight time and 

expense to their operations. 

FAA’s Conclusions 

Upon further consideration, we have 

determined that the removal of V–284 is 

not warranted at this time. Therefore, 

the NPRM is withdrawn. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Withdrawal 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

authority delegated to me, the FAA 

withdraws the NPRM published in the 

Federal Register on September 3, 2010 

(75 FR 54058) [FR Doc. 2010–22007]. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854; 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– 

1963 Comp., p. 389. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 2, 

2011. 

Rodger A. Dean, 

Acting Manager, Airspace, Regulations and 

ATC Procedures Group. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5244 Filed 3–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

17 CFR Part 242 

[Release No. 34–64018; File No. S7–27–10] 

RIN 3235–AK74 

Ownership Limitations and 

Governance Requirements for 

Security-Based Swap Clearing 

Agencies, Security-Based Swap 

Execution Facilities, and National 

Securities Exchanges With Respect to 

Security-Based Swaps Under 

Regulation MC 

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) is 

reopening the period for public 

comment on proposed Regulation MC 

under the Securities Exchange Act of 

1934 (‘‘Exchange Act’’), which is 

designed to mitigate potential conflicts 

of interest at clearing agencies that clear 

security-based swaps (‘‘security-based 

swap clearing agencies’’), security-based 

swap execution facilities (‘‘SB SEFs’’), 

and national securities exchanges that 

post or make available for trading 

security-based swaps (‘‘SBS exchanges’’). 

The proposal was originally published 

in Securities Exchange Act Release No. 

63107 (October 14, 2010), 75 FR 65882 

(October 26, 2010) (‘‘Regulation MC 

Proposing Release’’). The Commission is 

reopening the period for public 

comment to solicit further comment on 

Regulation MC in light of other more 

recent proposed rulemakings that 

concern conflicts of interest at securitybased swap clearing agencies and SB 

SEFs. 

DATES: Comments should be received on 

or before April 29, 2011. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

12646 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1The President signed the Dodd-Frank Act (Pub. 

L. 111–203, H.R. 4173) into law on July 21, 2010. 

2See Public Law 111–203, Section 765(a). The 

entities specified in Section 765(a) (collectively, 

‘‘Specified Entities’’) include a bank holding 

company with total consolidated assets of $50 

billion or more, a nonbank financial company 

supervised by the Board of Governors of the Federal 

Reserve System, an affiliate of such bank holding 

company or nonbank financial company, a securitybased swap dealer, a major security-based swap 

participant, or a person associated with a securitybased swap dealer or a major security-based swap 

participant. 

3See Public Law 111–203, Section 765(b). 

4Specifically, the Commission noted that these 

participants, for competitive or commercial reasons, 

may have an incentive to limit access by other 

participants to security-based swap clearing 

agencies, SB SEFs and SBS exchanges; to limit the 

scope of products cleared through security-based 

swap clearing agencies or traded on SB SEFs and 

SBS exchanges; to lower the risk management 

controls at security-based swap clearing agencies; 

and to put the commercial interests of the SB SEF 

or SBS exchange or the SB SEF’s or SBS exchange’s 

owners ahead of the SB SEF’s or SBS exchange’s 

market oversight responsibilities. See Regulation 

MC Proposing Release, 75 FR at 65884–65893. 

5Proposed Rule 701(a) of Regulation MC sets 

forth the ‘‘Voting Interest Focus Alternative,’’ which 

would create a limitation on ownership and voting 

of voting interests for participants of a securitybased swap clearing agency to no more than 20% 

on an individual basis and, in the aggregate, no 

more than 40% (‘‘aggregate cap’’). Proposed Rule 

701(a) would also limit members’ participation in 

the governance of the security-based swap clearing 

agency by requiring that at least 35% of the 

security-based swap clearing agency’s board of 

directors (‘board’’) and committees authorized to act 

on behalf of such board, including the risk 

committee, be composed of independent directors. 

The nominating committee of the security-based 

swap clearing agency’s board would be required to 

be composed of a majority of independent directors. 

See Regulation MC Proposing Release, 75 FR at 

65894–65899. 

Proposed Rule 701(b) of Regulation MC sets forth 

the ‘‘Governance Focus Alternative,’’ which would 

create a limitation on ownership of voting interests 

for participants of a security-based swap clearing 

agency to no more than 5% on an individual basis 

but would impose no aggregate cap. Proposed Rule 

701(b) would also limit members’ participation in 

the governance of the security-based swap clearing 

agency by requiring that at least a majority of the 

security-based swap clearing agency’s board and 

committees authorized to act for such board, 

including the risk committee, be composed of 

independent directors. The nominating committee 

of the security-based swap clearing agency’s board 

would be required to be composed solely of 

independent directors. See Regulation MC 

Proposing Release, 75 FR at 65899–65903. 

6Proposed Rule 702(b) of Regulation MC would 

impose a 20% limitation on ownership and voting 

of voting interests in a SB SEF or an SBS exchange 

by each participant of a SB SEF or member of an 

SBS exchange. Proposed Rules 702(d) and (g) would 

require that the board of a SB SEF or SBS exchange, 

any executive committee of such board, and any 

board committee with the authority to act on behalf 

of the board, be composed of a majority of 

independent directors, and proposed Rule 702(f) 

would require the nominating committee of the 

board of the SB SEF or SBS exchange to be 

composed solely of independent directors. 

Proposed Rule 702(e) would require the board of 

the SB SEF or SBS exchange to establish a 

regulatory oversight committee consisting solely of 

independent directors to oversee the SB SEF’s or 

SBS exchange’s regulatory program. Any 

recommendation of the regulatory oversight 

committee not adopted by the board of the SB SEF 

or SBS exchange would be required to be reported 

promptly to the Commission. Further, proposed 

Rule 702(h) would require the disciplinary 

processes of the SB SEF or SBS exchange to provide 

for compositional balance and to include at least 

one independent director. See Regulation MC 

Proposing Release, 75 FR at 65904–65912. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s Internet 

comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/proposed.shtml); or 

• Send an e-mail to rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File 

No. S7–27–10 on the subject line; or 

• Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

(http://www.regulations.gov). Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File No. 

S7–27–10. This file number should be 

included on the subject line if e-mail is 

used. To help us 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/proposed.shtml). 

Comments are also available for Web 

site viewing and printing in the 

Commission’s Public Reference Room, 

100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20549, on official business days 

between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. 

All comments received will be posted 

without change; we do not edit personal 

identifying information from 

submissions. You should submit only 

information that you wish to make 

available publicly. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Proposals relating to security-based 

swap clearing agencies: Catherine 

Moore, Senior Special Counsel, at (202) 

551–5710; and Joseph P. Kamnik, 

Special Counsel, at (202) 551–5710, 

Office of Clearance and Settlement, 

Division of Trading and Markets, 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20549–7010; proposals relating to SB 

SEFs and SBS exchanges: Nancy J. 

Burke-Sanow, Assistant Director, at 

(202) 551–5620; Susie Cho, Special 

Counsel, at (202) 551–5639; Sarah 

Schandler, Special Counsel, at (202) 

551–7145; Iliana Lundblad, AttorneyAdvisor, at (202) 551–5871; and Jasmin 

Sethi, Attorney-Advisor, at (202) 551– 

5781, Office of Market Supervision, 

Division of Trading and Markets, 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20549–7010. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

The Commission proposed Regulation 

MC pursuant to Section 765 of the Dodd 

Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

Protection Act (‘‘Dodd-Frank Act’’) to 

mitigate conflicts of interest with 

respect to security-based swap clearing 

agencies, SB SEFs, and SBS exchanges.1

Section 765(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act 

provides that the Commission shall 

adopt rules, which may include 

numerical limits on the control of, or 

the voting rights with respect to, any 

security-based swap clearing agency, or 

on the control of any SB SEF or SBS 

exchange, by certain specified entities.2

Under Section 765(b) of the Dodd-Frank 

Act, the Commission shall adopt such 

rules if it determines that they are 

necessary or appropriate to improve the 

governance of, or to mitigate systemic 

risk, promote competition or mitigate 

conflicts of interest in connection with 

a security-based swap dealer’s or major 

security-based swap participant’s 

conduct of business with, a securitybased swap clearing agency, SB SEF, or 

SBS exchange and in which such 

security-based swap dealer or major 

security-based swap participant has a 

material debt or equity investment.3

In the Regulation MC Proposing 

Release, the Commission identified 

conflicts of interest that may arise when 

a small number of participants, 

including participants that are Specified 

Entities, exercise undue control or 

influence over a security-based swap 

clearing agency, SB SEF or SBS 

exchange.4 To address these potential 

conflicts of interest, and pursuant to 

Section 765 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the 

Commission proposed certain 

restrictions in Regulation MC with 

respect to the ownership and voting 

interests in and the governance of 

security-based swap clearing agencies, 

SB SEFs and SBS exchanges. 

Specifically, the Commission proposed 

two alternative rules for security-based 

swap clearing agencies that would 

impose different degrees of voting and 

governance restrictions on such 

entities 5 and one set of rules that would 

impose ownership and governance 

limitations on SB SEFs and SBS 

exchanges.6

In the Regulation MC Proposing 

Release, the Commission sought 

commenters’ views with respect to the 

identified conflicts of interest and its 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 12647 

7Copies of comments received in response to the 

Regulation MC Proposing Release are available on 

the Commission’s Internet Web site, located at 

http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-27-10/ 

s72710.shtml. 

8Comments were solicited by the Commission at 

http://www.sec.gov/spotkight/dodd-frank/clearingsettlement.shtml. Comments in response to the 

Commission’s general solicitation are available at 

http://www.sec.gov/comments/df-title-vii/ 

mandatory-clearing/mandatory-clearing.shtml. 

There is no expiration to the comment period for 

the Commission’s general solicitation. 

9The commenters included individual investors, 

end-users, members of Congress, the U.S. 

Department of Justice, State legislators, labor 

organizations, potential security-based swap dealers 

and clearing agencies, and potential SBS exchanges 

or SB SEFs. See supra notes 7 and 8. 

10See, e.g., Letter from U.S. Congressman 

Stephen F. Lynch, 9th District, Massachusetts 

(October 18, 2010); Letter from Americans for 

Financial Reform (November 16, 2010); Letter from 

Karrie McMillan, General Counsel, Investment 

Company Institute (November 17, 2010); Letter from 

Mike Hisler, Co-Founder, The Swaps & Derivatives 

Market Association (November 26, 2010); and Letter 

from Christine A. Varney, Assistant Attorney 

General, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust 

Division (December 28, 2010). 

11See, e.g., Letters from Roger Liddell, Chief 

Executive, LCH.Clearnet Group Limited (September 

24, 2010 and November 5, 2010); Letter from R. 

Glenn Hubbard, Co-Chair, John L. Thornton, CoChair, and Hal S. Scott, Director, Committee on 

Capital Markets Regulation (November 15, 2010); 

Letter from James Hill, Managing Director, Morgan 

Stanley (November 17, 2010); Letters from Kathleen 

M. Cronin, Managing Director, General Counsel and 

Corporate Secretary, CME Group Inc. (November 17, 

2010 and November 24, 2010); and Letter from 

Robert Pickel, Executive Vice Chairman, 

International Swaps and Derivatives Association, 

Inc. (November 23, 2010). 

12Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63825 

(February 2, 2011), 76 FR 10948 (February 28, 2011) 

(‘‘SB SEF Proposing Release’’). 

13Specifically, proposed Rule 809 of proposed 

Regulation SB SEF would require a SB SEF to 

permit any security-based swap dealer, major 

security-based swap participant or broker to become 

a participant of the SB SEF as long as specified 

objective criteria are met; proposed Rule 811(b) 

would require a SB SEF to establish fair, objective, 

and not unreasonably discriminatory standards for 

granting impartial access to trading on the facility, 

and would specify that a SB SEF may not 

unreasonably prohibit or limit any person with 

respect to access to the services offered by the SB 

SEF by applying those standards in an unfair or 

unreasonably discriminatory manner; proposed 

Rule 811(b) also would require information on any 

grants, denials or limitations of access by the SB 

SEF to be reported on Form SB SEF (the proposed 

registration form for SB SEFs) and in the required 

annual report of the SB SEF’s Chief Compliance 

Officer; proposed Rule 811(c) would require a SB 

SEF to establish a compositionally balanced swap 

review committee to determine the security-based 

swaps that would trade on the SB SEF, as well as 

the security-based swaps that should no longer 

trade on the SB SEF; with respect to the 

determination regarding whether a particular 

security-based swap is ‘‘made available to trade,’’ 

that determination would be made pursuant to 

objective standards to be established by the 

Commission; and proposed Rule 820 would require 

that no less than 20% of the total number of 

directors on the SB SEF’s board be representative 

of SB SEF participants, and that at least one director 

on the SB SEF’s board be representative of 

investors. See SB SEF Proposing Release, supra 

note 12. 

14See SB SEF Proposing Release, supra note 12, 

76 FR at 10986. 

15Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64017 

(March 2, 2011) (‘‘Clearing Agency Proposing 

Release’’). 

16Public Law 111–203, Sections 763 and 805. 

17 15 U.S.C. 78q–1. 

18Specifically, proposed Rule 17Ad–25 under the 

Exchange Act would require that clearing agencies 

have policies and procedures to identify and 

address existing or potential conflicts of interest 

and to establish minimum governance standards for 

board or board committee members. Proposed Rules 

17Ad–22(c)(5) and (c)(7) under the Exchange Act 

would require clearing agencies to provide an 

opportunity for membership access to persons who 

are not dealers or security-based swap dealers and 

persons who have net capital of at least $50 million. 

In addition, Proposed Rule 17Ad–22(c)(6) under the 

Exchange Act would prohibit the use of minimum 

portfolio size and minimum volume transaction 

thresholds as a condition for membership. See 

Clearing Agency Proposing Release, supra note 15. 

19See Clearing Agency Proposing Release, supra 

note 15. 

20See Clearing Agency Proposing Release, supra 

note 15. 

proposed rules that are designed to 

mitigate those conflicts. The public 

comment period for proposed 

Regulation MC closed on November 26, 

2010. As of March 1, 2011, the 

Commission has received 100 comment 

letters relating to proposed Regulation 

MC.7 The Commission also received 6 

comment letters relating to Section 765 

of the Dodd-Frank Act that were 

received in response to the 

Commission’s general solicitation of 

comments regarding implementation of 

the Dodd-Frank Act.8 These letters were 

submitted by a broad spectrum of 

interested parties and reflect a wide 

array of views regarding the proposed 

limitations on ownership and voting 

interests and governance arrangements 

in proposed Regulation MC.9 A number 

of commenters generally supported the 

Commission’s efforts to address 

conflicts of interest at security-based 

swap clearing agencies, SB SEFs and 

SBS exchanges, and many of these 

commenters favored imposing more 

restrictive ownership and voting, or 

governance, requirements than were 

proposed in Regulation MC.10 A number 

of other commenters opposed some or 

all of the proposed restrictions and 

questioned whether it is necessary or 

appropriate for the Commission to adopt 

rules to mitigate conflicts of interest 

under Section 765 or whether the 

Commission should adopt rules without 

conducting a further review.11

On February 2, 2011, the Commission 

proposed an interpretation of the 

definition of ‘‘security-based swap 

execution facility,’’ as well as rules 

relating to the registration and 

regulation of SB SEFs.12 The SB SEF 

Proposing Release includes proposals 

that are designed, in part, to address 

conflicts of interest affecting SB SEFs.13

The SB SEF Proposing Release seeks 

commenters’ views regarding the 

interaction of proposed Regulation SB 

SEF with proposed Regulation MC. 

Specifically, the SB SEF Proposing 

Release asks commenters, taking into 

account both proposals, to address 

whether the proposals contained in 

proposed Regulation SB SEF would 

appropriately address conflicts of 

interest concerns for SB SEFs or 

whether they should be revised either as 

unnecessary or insufficient to address 

such conflicts of interest. The SB SEF 

Proposing Release also asks commenters 

to provide their views on whether there 

any redundancies or gaps for mitigating 

conflicts of interest for SB SEFs that 

should be addressed.14 The public 

comment period for proposed 

Regulation SB SEF expires on April 4, 

2011. 

On March 2, 2011, the Commission 

proposed rules regarding registration of 

clearing agencies and standards for the 

operation and governance of clearing 

agencies 15 in accordance with Sections 

763 and 805 of the Dodd-Frank Act 16

and Section 17A of the Exchange Act.17

Some of those proposed rules are 

designed, in part, to address conflicts of 

interest affecting clearing agencies, 

including security-based swap clearing 

agencies.18 In particular, the Clearing 

Agency Proposing Release includes 

proposed rules that would require all 

clearing agencies to have policies and 

procedures to identify and address 

existing or potential conflicts of interest 

and to establish minimum governance 

standards for board or board committee 

members.19 In addition, the Clearing 

Agency Proposing Release includes 

proposed rules that would require 

clearing agencies to provide opportunity 

for membership access to persons that 

are not dealers or security-based swap 

dealers and persons that have net 

capital of at least $50 million, while also 

prohibiting the use of minimum 

portfolio size and minimum volume 

transaction thresholds as a condition for 

membership, in order to decrease the 

potential for formal membership 

requirements to be applied anticompetitively.20 The Clearing Agency 

Proposing Release seeks commenters’ 

views regarding the interaction between 

proposed Regulation MC and the 

mitigation of conflicts provisions 

reflected in the Clearing Agency 

Proposing Release. The public comment 

period for the Clearing Agency 

Proposing Release closes on April 29, 

2011. 

When the Commission issued the SB 

SEF Proposing Release and Clearing 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

12648 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

21See SB SEF Proposing Release, supra note 12, 

at notes 82, 97, 127, 128, 134, 139, 141, 147, 172, 

208, 269 and 570 and accompanying text, and 76 

FR at 10979 and 10983–10986. See also Clearing 

Agency Proposing Release, supra note 15, at notes 

45 and 107 and accompanying text. 

Agency Proposing Release, it was 

mindful of its prior proposals under 

Regulation MC.21 However, the 

Commission recognizes that 

commenters who provided their views 

and suggestions on proposed Regulation 

MC did not have the benefit of 

considering the proposals in the SB SEF 

Proposing Release and the Clearing 

Agency Proposing Release, which also 

seek to address some potential conflicts 

of interest affecting these entities, when 

they submitted their comments. 

The Commission therefore is 

reopening the comment period to invite 

further comment on proposed 

Regulation MC, particularly in light of 

the additional proposals relating to 

mitigation of conflicts for security-based 

swap clearing agencies and SB SEFs that 

are contained in the Clearing Agency 

Proposing Release and SB SEF 

Proposing Release, respectively. 

II. Request for Comment 

Commenters are asked to consider the 

provisions designed to address conflicts 

of interest in the Regulation MC 

Proposing Release and in the Clearing 

Agency Proposing Release and the SB 

SEF Proposing Release, in the aggregate, 

when providing further comment on 

how the Commission should address 

potential conflicts of interest at securitybased swap clearing agencies and SB 

SEFS, respectively. Are some or all of 

the proposed requirements in the SB 

SEF Proposing Release and the Clearing 

Agency Proposing Release and the 

requirements in the Regulation MC 

Proposing Release mutually supportive? 

Why or why not? Should any of the 

proposed requirements discussed in the 

SB SEF Proposing Release, the Clearing 

Agency Proposing Release, or the 

Regulation MC Proposing Release 

relating to conflicts of interest be 

revised in light of the proposed 

requirements relating to conflicts of 

interests in the other releases? If so, 

which requirements should be revised 

and how? Are the proposed 

requirements discussed in the SB SEF 

Proposing Release, the Clearing Agency 

Proposing Release, or the Regulation MC 

Proposing Release relating to conflicts of 

interest, when considered together, 

sufficient to mitigate conflicts of interest 

for SB SEFs, SBS exchanges or securitybased swap clearing agencies, or should 

the Commission consider additional, or 

alternative, measures? Are any of the 

proposed requirements discussed in the 

SB SEF Proposing Release, the Clearing 

Agency Proposing Release, or the 

Regulation MC Proposing Release 

relating to conflicts of interest 

unnecessary in light of proposed 

requirements relating to conflicts of 

interest in the other releases? Why or 

why not? 

Comments may provide the 

Commission with further insights 

regarding what mechanisms, if any, may 

be necessary or appropriate to mitigate 

conflicts of interest and how the 

proposed requirements in the three 

proposals should be evaluated. 

Commenters should provide specific 

reasons and information to support their 

views and recommendations, including 

an analysis of why a recommendation 

would satisfy the statutory mandate 

contained in Section 765 of the DoddFrank Act regarding mitigation of 

conflicts of interest. The Commission 

asks that commenters, when possible, 

provide the Commission with empirical 

data to support their views. 

By the Commission. 

Dated: March 3, 2011. 

Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5183 Filed 3–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Mine Safety and Health Administration 

30 CFR Parts 70, 71, 72, 75, and 90 

RIN 1219–AB64 

Lowering Miners’ Exposure to 

Respirable Coal Mine Dust, Including 

Continuous Personal Dust Monitors 

AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health 

Administration, Labor. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comment. 

SUMMARY: The Mine Safety and Health 

Administration (MSHA) is requesting 

comments on the proposed rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 19, 2010, addressing Lowering 

Miners’ Exposure to Respirable Coal 

Mine Dust, Including Continuous 

Personal Dust Monitors. The proposed 

rule would improve health protections 

for coal miners by reducing their 

occupational exposure to respirable coal 

mine dust and lowering the risk that 

they will suffer material impairment of 

health or functional capacity over their 

working lives. 

DATES: All comments must be received 

or postmarked by midnight Eastern 

Daylight Saving Time on May 2, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Comments must be 

identified with ‘‘RIN 1219–AB64’’ and 

may be sent by any of the following 

methods: 

(1) Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

(2) Electronic mail: zzMSHAcomments@dol.gov. Include ‘‘RIN 1219– 

AB64’’ in the subject line of the message. 

(3) Facsimile: 202–693–9441. Include 

‘‘RIN 1219–AB64’’ in the subject line of 

the message. 

(4) Regular Mail: MSHA, Office of 

Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 

1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, 

Arlington, Virginia 22209–3939. 

(5) Hand Delivery or Courier: MSHA, 

Office of Standards, Regulations, and 

Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, 

Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia. Sign in 

at the receptionist’s desk on the 21st 

floor. 

MSHA will post all comments on the 

Internet without change, including any 

personal information provided. 

Comments can be accessed 

electronically at http://www.msha.gov 

under the ‘‘Rules & Regs’’ link. 

Comments may also be reviewed in 

person at the Office of Standards, 

Regulations, and Variances, 1100 

Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, 

Arlington, Virginia. Sign in at the 

receptionist’s desk on the 21st floor. 

MSHA will accept written comments 

and other appropriate information for 

the record from any interested party. All 

comments must be received or 

postmarked by midnight Eastern 

Daylight Saving Time on May 2, 2011. 

MSHA maintains a list that enables 

subscribers to receive e-mail notification 

when the Agency publishes rulemaking 

documents in the Federal Register. To 

subscribe, go to http://www.msha.gov/ 

subscriptions/subscribe.aspx. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

April E. Nelson, Acting Director, Office 

of Standards, Regulations, and 

Variances, MSHA, at 

nelson.april@dol.gov (e-mail); 202–693– 

9440 (voice); or 202–693–9441 

(facsimile). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Public Hearings 

On October 19, 2010 (75 FR 64412), 

MSHA published a proposed rule, 

Lowering Miners’ Exposure to 

Respirable Coal Mine Dust, Including 

Continuous Personal Dust Monitors. On 

February 15, 2011, MSHA concluded 

the last of seven public hearings on the 

proposed rule. Hearings were held on 

December 7, 2010, January 11, 13, and 

25, 2011, and February 8, 10, and 15, 

2011, in Beckley, West Virginia; 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS