[Federal Register: September 18, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 180)]
[Notices]
[Page 54644-54645]
[DOCID:fr18se06-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings  1

September 12, 2006.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER03-506-003.
    Applicants: TXU Portfolio Management Company LP.
    Description: TXU Portfolio Management Co, LP submits its triennial
market power update pursuant to FERC's 8/27/03 order.
    Filed Date: 08/24/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060905-0258.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 14, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER03-1326-006.
    Applicants: Colorado Green Holdings, LLC.
    Description: Colorado Green Holdings, LLC submits its triennial
Updated Market Power Analysis.
    Filed Date: 09/08/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060912-0377.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 29, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER04-925-012; ER99-830-018.
    Applicants: Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc.
    Description: Merrill Lynch Capital Services, Inc submits an errata
to amend the 8/18/06 notice of non-material change in status under
ER04-925 et al.
    Filed Date: 08/30/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060905-0030.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 20, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-795-004.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England Inc. submits its Regulation Clearing
Price compliance filing pursuant to the Commission's 3/7/06 order.
    Filed Date: 09/07/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060907-5030.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 28, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1473-000.
    Applicants: Duke Power Company LLC.
    Description: Duke Power Co, LLC submits a notice of cancellation of
the Large Generator Interconnection Agreement with Power Ventures
Group, LLC.
    Filed Date: 09/08/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060912-0367.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 29, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1474-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits modifications to its
Regional Transmission Expansion Planning Protocol under ER06-1474.
    Filed Date: 09/08/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060912-0368.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 29, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1475-000.
    Applicants: Avista Corporation.
    Description: Avista Corp submits revisions to its Open Access
Transmission Tariff, Volume 8, to be effective 11/9/06.
    Filed Date: 09/08/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060912-0373.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 29, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1477-000; ER06-1478-000.
    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.
    Description: Idaho Power Co submits an executed version of the
Caribou Transmission Interconnection Agreement with PacifiCorp.
    Filed Date: 09/07/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060912-0371.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 28, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1479-000.
    Applicants: Alloy Power L.L.C.
    Description: Alloy Power, LLC submits a Notice of Succession,
effective 8/25/06, it succeeded to the Rate Schedule FERC No. 1 of
Elkem Metals Co--Alloy, LP.
    Filed Date: 09/07/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060912-0372.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 28, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1480-000.
    Applicants: Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.; Black Hills
Power, Inc.
    Description: Black Hills Power, Inc et al. submits a revised
version of Schedules 9, 10, and 12 to its Joint OAT Tariff with Power
River Energy Corporation.
    Filed Date: 09/07/2006.
    Accession Number: 20060912-0370.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 28, 2006.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211

and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-15431 Filed 9-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 42)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 11364-11366]
[DOCID:fr03mr08-16]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0232; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-309-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330-200 and A340-300
Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    During fatigue tests (EF3) on the A340-600, multiple damage were
found in the upper side shell structure at skin and frame (FR) 84 &
85 interface, from stringer 6 to 15 LH/RH. This damage occurred
between 58,341 and 72,891 simulated Flight Cycles (FC).
    Due to the higher Design Service Goal and different design (e.g.
skin thickness) for A330-200 and A340-300 aircraft series, the
damage assessment concluded on [a] potential impact on these
aircraft series.
* * * * *
    The unsafe condition is loss of integrity of the upper shell
structure of the fuselage. The proposed AD would require actions that
are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 2, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1138; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0232;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-309-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2007-0269R1, dated October 15, 2007 (referred
to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    During fatigue tests (EF3) on the A340-600, multiple damage were
found in the upper side shell structure at skin and frame (FR) 84 &
85 interface, from stringer 6 to 15 LH/RH. This damage occurred
between 58,341 and 72,891 simulated Flight Cycles (FC).
    Due to the higher Design Service Goal and different design (e.g.
skin thickness) for A330-200 and A340-300 aircraft series, the
damage assessment concluded on [a] potential impact on these
aircraft series.
    In order to allow early detection of cracks which could avoid
possible crack propagation and consequently to maintain the
structural integrity of the upper side shell structure between FR84
and FR87, this Airworthiness Directive (AD) mandates an inspection
program of this area [for cracking] using a high frequency eddy
current (HFEC) method and a modification to improve the upper shell
structure.
    This Revision 1 is issued to clarify that this AD is not
applicable to aircraft A340-300 series on which both AIRBUS
modifications 44205 and 45012 have been embodied in production.

The unsafe condition is loss of integrity of the upper shell structure
of the fuselage between FR84 and FR87. Corrective actions include
contacting Airbus and repairing any crack. You may obtain further
information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A330-53-3152, dated April 10,
2007;

Service Bulletin A330-53-3157, dated July 5, 2006; and Service Bulletin
A340-53-4163, dated July 5, 2006. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 7 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 601 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $52,160 per product. Where
the service information lists required parts costs that are covered
under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these
costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties,
some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $701,680, or $100,240 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2008-0232; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-
309-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by April 2, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-200 and A340-300 series
airplanes, certificated in any category, all certified models; all
serial numbers on which Airbus Modification 44205 has been embodied
in production, except those on which Airbus Modification 52974 or
53223 has been embodied in production. This AD is not applicable to
Model A340-300 series airplanes on which both Modifications 44205
and 45012 have been embodied in production.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53:
Fuselage.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    During fatigue tests (EF3) on the A340-600, multiple damage were
found in the upper side shell structure at skin and frame (FR) 84 &
85 interface, from stringer 6 to 15 LH/RH. This damage occurred
between 58,341 and 72,891 simulated Flight Cycles (FC).
    Due to the higher Design Service Goal and different design (e.g.
skin thickness) for A330-200 and A340-300 aircraft series, the
damage assessment concluded on [a] potential impact on these
aircraft series.
    In order to allow early detection of cracks which could avoid
possible crack propagation and consequently to maintain the
structural integrity of the upper side shell structure between FR84
and FR87, this Airworthiness Directive (AD) mandates an inspection
program of this area [for cracking] using a high frequency eddy
current (HFEC) method and a modification to improve the upper shell
structure.
    This Revision 1 is issued to clarify that this AD is not
applicable to aircraft A340-300 series on which both AIRBUS
modifications 44205 and 45012 have been embodied in production.

The unsafe condition is loss of integrity of the upper shell
structure of the fuselage between FR84 and FR87. Corrective actions
include contacting Airbus and repairing any crack.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) For Airbus Model A330-200 series airplanes, as identified in
paragraph (c) of this AD, on which Modification 45012 has been
embodied in production: At the later of the compliance times
specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii) of this AD, do the
HFEC inspection for cracking, and corrective actions as applicable;
and modify the upper shell structure of the fuselage; in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of

Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3152, dated April 10, 2007. Do all
applicable corrective actions before further flight.
    (i) Prior to the compliance time shown in Table 1 of this AD
after the first flight of the airplane, depending on airplane
configuration.

     Table 1.--Compliance Times for Model A330 Series Airplanes With
                       Modification 45012 Embodied
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Airplane configuration                     Threshold
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-modification 48827 (WV20 to WV27)..  25,400 total flight cycles.
Post-modification 48827 (WV50 to WV56).  17,100 total flight cycles or
                                          94,700 total flight hours,
                                          whichever occurs first.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) For Airbus Model A330-200 and A340-300 series airplanes as
identified in paragraph (c) of this AD, on which Modification 45012
has not been embodied in production: At the later of the compliance
times specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(ii) of this AD,
modify the upper shell structure of the fuselage in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-
3157 or Service Bulletin A340-53-4163, as applicable, both dated
July 5, 2006.
    (i) Prior to the compliance time shown in Table 2 of this AD
after the first flight of the airplane.

    Table 2.--Compliance Times for Model A330-200 and A340-300 Series
              Airplanes Without Modification 45012 Embodied
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Airplane  series                         Threshold
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A330-200............................  6,600 total flight cycles.
A340-300............................  14,000 total flight cycles.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN:
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2007-0269R1,
dated October 15, 2007, Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3152, dated
April 10, 2007; Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3157, dated July 5,
2006; and Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4163, dated July 5, 2006;
for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 25, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-3969 Filed 2-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 142 (Tuesday, July 26, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44477-44481]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15920]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95327; File No. SR-OCC-2022-803]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of Advance Notice Related to an Expansion of The
Options Clearing Corporation's Non-Bank Liquidity Facility Program as
Part of Its Overall Liquidity Plan

July 20, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, entitled Payment, Clearing
and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (``Clearing Supervision Act'')
\1\ and Rule 19b-4(n)(1)(i) \2\ under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Exchange Act'' or ``Act''),\3\ notice is hereby given that on
July 7, 2022, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') an advance notice
as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been
prepared primarily by OCC. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the advance notice from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(n)(1)(i).
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Advance
Notice

    This advance notice is submitted in connection with a proposed
change to its operations to expand capacity under OCC's program for
accessing additional committed sources of liquidity that do not
increase the concentration of OCC's counterparty exposure (``Non-Bank
Liquidity Facility'') as part of OCC's overall liquidity plan. The
proposed changes do not require any changes to the text of OCC's By-
Laws or Rules. All terms with initial capitalization that are not
otherwise defined herein have the same meaning as set forth in the OCC
By-Laws and Rules.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ OCC's By-Laws and Rules can be found on OCC's public
website: https://www.theocc.com/Company-Information/Documents-and-Archives/By-Laws-and-Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Advance Notice

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the advance notice and
discussed any comments it received on the advance notice. The text of
these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV
below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A) and (B)
below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Advance Notice
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with
respect to the advance notice and none have been received. OCC will
notify the Commission of any written comments received by OCC.

(B) Advance Notices Filed Pursuant to Section 806(e) of the Payment,
Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act

Description of Change
    As the sole clearing agency for standardized U.S. securities
options listed on national securities exchanges registered with the
Commission (``listed options''), OCC is obligated to make certain
payments. In the event of a Clearing Member default, OCC would be
obligated to make payments, on time, related to that member's clear
transactions. To meet such payment obligations, OCC maintains access to
cash from a variety of sources, including, a requirement for members to
pledge cash collateral to OCC and various agreements with banks and
other counterparties (``liquidity facilities'') to provide OCC with
cash in exchange for collateral, such as U.S. Government securities.
OCC routinely considers potential market stress scenarios that could
affect such payment obligations. Based on such considerations, OCC now
believes that it should seek to expand its liquidity facility to
increase OCC's access to cash to manage a member default.
    OCC is proposing to expand the size of its liquidity facilities by
increasing the size of one of its liquidity facilities. Specifically,
this advance notice concerns a change to OCC's operations to expand
capacity under OCC's Non-Bank Liquidity Facility as part of OCC's
overall liquidity plan, which includes OCC's arrangements to access
cash in exchange for Government securities deposited by Clearing
Members in respect of their Clearing Fund

requirements to meet OCC's settlement obligations. OCC is not, as part
of this advance notice, proposing to require its members or other
market participants provide additional or different collateral to OCC.
Rather, the purpose of the proposal is to provide OCC with another
vehicle for accessing cash to meet its payment obligations, including
in the event that one of its members fails to meet its payment
obligations to OCC.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ OCC may use the Clearing Fund to address liquidity
shortfalls arising from the failure of any bank, securities or
commodities clearing organization, or investment counterparty to
perform any obligation to OCC when due. See OCC Rule 1006(f)(1)(C);
Exchange Act Release No. 94304 (Feb. 24, 2022), 87 FR 11776 (Mar. 2,
2022) (SR-OCC-2021-014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    OCC's current liquidity plan provides it with access to a diverse
set of funding sources, including banks (i.e., OCC's syndicated credit
facility),\6\ the Non-Bank Liquidity Facility program,\7\ and Clearing
Members' Cash Clearing Fund Requirement.\8\ The Non-Bank Liquidity
Facility program reduces the concentration of OCC's counterparty
exposure with respect to its overall liquidity plan by diversifying its
base of liquidity providers among banks and non-bank, non-Clearing
Member institutional investors, such as pension funds or insurance
companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Exchange Act Release No. 88971 (May 28, 2020), 85 FR
34257 (June 3, 2020) (SR-OCC-2020-804).
    \7\ See Exchange Act Release No. 89039 (June 10, 2020), 85 FR
36444 (June 16, 2020) (SR-OCC-2020-803) (``Notice of No Objection to
2020 Advance Notice''); Exchange Act Release No. 76821 (Jan. 4,
2016), 81 FR 3208 (Jan. 20, 2016) (SR-OCC-2015-805) (``Notice of No
Objection to 2015 Advance Notice''); Exchange Act Release No. 73979
(Jan. 2, 2015), 80 FR 1062 (Jan. 8, 2015) (SR-OCC-2014-809)
(``Notice of No Objection to 2014 Advance Notice'').
    \8\ See OCC Rule 1002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The currently approved Non-Bank Liquidity Facility program is
comprised of two parts: a Master Repurchase Agreement (``MRA'') and
confirmations with one or more institutional investors, which contain
certain individualized terms and conditions of transactions executed
between OCC, the institutional investors and their agents. The MRA is
structured like a typical repurchase arrangement in which the buyer
(i.e., the institutional investor) would purchase from OCC, from time
to time, Government securities (``Eligible Securities'').\9\ OCC, as
the seller, would transfer Eligible Securities to the buyer in exchange
for a payment by the buyer to OCC in immediately available funds
(``Purchase Price''). The buyer would simultaneously agree to transfer
the purchased securities back to OCC at a specified later date
(``Repurchase Date'') or on OCC's demand against the transfer of funds
by OCC to the buyer in an amount equal to the outstanding Purchase
Price plus the accrued and unpaid price differential (together,
``Repurchase Price''), which is the interest component of the
Repurchase Price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ OCC would use U.S. government securities that are included
in Clearing Fund contributions by Clearing Members and margin
deposits of any Clearing Member that has been suspended by OCC for
the repurchase arrangements. OCC Rule 1006(f) and OCC Rule 1104(b)
authorize OCC to obtain funds from third parties through securities
repurchases using these sources. The officers who may exercise this
authority include the Executive Chairman, Chief Executive Officer,
and Chief Operating Officer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The confirmations establish tailored provisions of repurchase
transactions permitted under the Non-Bank Liquidity Facility that are
designed to reduce concentration risk and to promote certainty of
funding and operational effectiveness based on the specific needs of a
party. For example, OCC would only enter into confirmations with an
institutional investor that is not a Clearing Member or affiliated
bank, such as pension funds or insurance companies, in order to allow
OCC to access stable and reliable sources of funding without increasing
the concentration of its exposure to counterparties that are affiliated
banks, broker/dealers, or futures commission merchants. In addition,
any such institutional investor is obligated to enter repurchase
transactions even if OCC experiences a material adverse change,\10\
funds must be made available to OCC within 60 minutes of OCC's
delivering eligible securities, and the institutional investor is not
permitted to rehypothecate purchased securities.\11\ Additionally, the
confirmations set forth the term and maximum dollar amounts of the
transaction permitted under the MRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ When included in a contract, a ``material adverse change''
is typically defined as a change that would have a materially
adverse effect on the business or financial condition of a company.
    \11\ See Notice of No Objection to 2014 Advance Notice, 80 FR at
1064.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2020, OCC set the aggregate amount it may seek through the Non-
Bank Liquidity Facility program to an amount up to $1 billion.\12\ OCC
has since secured from multiple pension funds commitments in an
aggregate amount of $1 billion. Since setting and securing commitments
up to that aggregate commitment limit, OCC has experienced an increase
in its stressed liquidity demands. Under OCC's Liquidity Risk
Management Framework (``LRMF''), OCC performs daily liquidity stress
testing to assess its Base Liquidity Resources \13\ and Available
Liquidity Resources \14\ against OCC's liquidity risk tolerance
(``Adequacy Scenarios''). Based in part on the results of this stress
testing, OCC's Rules provide authority for OCC to periodically adjust
Clearing Member's Cash Clearing Fund Requirement to ensure that OCC
maintains sufficient liquidity resources to cover its liquidity risk
exposures at all times. In response to increased stressed liquidity
demands in 2021, OCC exercised authority under OCC Rule 1002(a) to
increase the Cash Clearing Fund Requirement from $3.5 billion to $4
billion in July 2021, and from $4 billion to $5 billion in October
2021. This advance notice concerns a change to OCC's Non-Bank Liquidity
Facility program to give OCC greater capacity to source liquidity from
its non-bank liquidity providers as needed. OCC provided a summary of
OCC management's recommendation to expand OCC's external liquidity
sources as well as a discussion of the analysis underlying that
recommendation as presented to the Board in confidential Exhibit 3 to
File No. SR-OCC-2022-803.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Notice of No Objection to 2020 Advance Notice, 85 FR at
36446. $1 billion is the same as the aggregate value established at
the inception of the Non-Bank Liquidity Facility program. See Notice
of No Objection to 2014 Advance Notice, 80 FR at 1064 & n.11. In
2015, OCC filed an advance notice that set an aggregate value of at
least $1 billion and up to $1.5 billion. See Notice of No Objection
to 2015 Advance Notice, 81 FR at 3208.
    \13\ The LRMF defines ``Base Liquidity Resources'' to mean the
amount of committed liquidity resources maintained at all times by
OCC to meet its Cover 1 liquidity resource requirements under the
applicable regulations. Base Liquidity Resources are comprised of
qualifying liquid resources in the form of Clearing Fund cash
deposited in respect of the Cash Clearing Fund Requirement and
assets that are readily available and convertible into cash (i.e.,
Government securities) through prearranged funding arrangements,
such as the Non-Bank Liquidity Facility.
    \14\ The LRMF defines ``Available Liquidity Resources'' to
include Base Liquidity Resources plus allowable Clearing Fund cash
deposited in excess of the Cash Clearing Fund Requirement. Any
Clearing Member request to substitute Government securities for cash
deposits in excess of such Clearing Member's propitiate share of the
Clearing Fund Cash Requirement is subject to a two-day notice
period. See OCC Rule 1002(a)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Change
    In order to give OCC greater capacity to source liquidity from
external liquidity providers as needed, OCC would modify the Non-Bank
Liquidity Facility program to remove the aggregate commitment limit
identified in prior advance notices concerning the program. Instead,
OCC's Board of Directors by resolution would set the level of aggregate
commitments under the program from time to time to ensure that OCC
maintains sufficient liquidity

resources to cover its liquidity risk exposures at all times
considering such factors including, but not limited to: (1) the size
and make-up of the Clearing Fund; (2) the aggregate amount of OCC's
other liquidity sources; and (3) changing market and business
conditions. OCC would establish a target across all external liquidity
resources of at least $3 billion, which is the current aggregate amount
of external liquidity. OCC would continue to manage the allocation
between external liquidity sources to maintain a diverse set of
liquidity providers, including sources like the Non-Bank Liquidity
Facility that reduce concentration of OCC's counterparty exposures.
    Considering these factors, the Board of Directors has authorized
OCC to seek up to an additional $2.5 billion in external liquidity,
including through the Non-Bank Liquidity Facility program.
Specifically, the Board considered that:

    (1) OCC's current total Clearing Fund requirement, as of January
31, 2022, was approximately $15.8 billion, of which Clearing Members
had deposited approximately $5.5 billion in Government securities.
    (2) OCC's Base Liquidity Resources are currently $8 billion,
consisting of $5 billion in cash from the Clearing Fund Cash
Requirement, $2 billion from the syndicated credit facility, and $1
billion from OCC's current commitments under the Non-Bank Liquidity
Facility.
    (3) The agent for the liquidity providers under Non-Bank
Liquidity Facility has indicated that several pension funds and
other institutional investors have expressed interest in
establishing or expanding commitments under the facility.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Confidential Exhibit 3 to SR-OCC-2022-803 (Confidential
data and analysis that informed the Board's decision).

    OCC expects that it will source up to $500 million of this
liquidity through an expansion of the syndicated credit facility as
part of its annual renewal in June.\16\ In addition, OCC concurrently
has filed an advance notice to source liquidity through a bank
counterparty by executing another master repurchase agreement for up to
$1 billion (the ``Bank Repo Facility''), similar to the repurchase
agreement OCC executed with a bank counterparty in 2020,\17\ this time
with a bank counterparty to which OCC has more limited counterparty
credit exposure. Accordingly, OCC expects to source approximately $1
billion in additional liquidity under the Non-Bank Liquidity Facility.
As such, the proportion of bank versus non-bank sources of liquidity
would remain roughly equal to the current proportions, consistent with
OCC's objective to maintain access to a diverse set of funding sources.
However, to the extent that commitments under the syndicated credit
facility or master repurchase agreement with a bank counterparty are
less than anticipated, the Board has authorized OCC to seek additional
commitments under the Non-Bank Liquidity Facility program to make up
any difference. In the unlikely event that OCC is not able to onboard
any of the additional bank liquidity and sources the full $2.5 billion
under the Non-Bank Liquidity Facility program, OCC believes that the
change in proportions between bank and non-bank liquidity would still
be consistent with OCC's objective to maintain access to a diverse set
of funding sources. Based on current interest received from potential
counterparties, OCC believes that the risk that OCC would not be able
to obtain $2.5 billion in additional external liquidity through one of
more of these sources of liquidity to be low.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Exchange Act Release No. 88971, 85 FR at 34259
(providing conditions for future renewals of the syndicated credit
facility without an additional advance notice, including an increase
of up to $500 million in total).
    \17\ See Exchange Act Release No. 88317 (Mar. 4, 2020), 85 FR
13681 (Mar. 9, 2020) (SR-OCC-2020-801) (concerning the establishment
of a ``Bank Repo Facility'' with a bank counterparty in an amount of
$500 million).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Removing the present $1 billion dollar cap to the Non-Bank
Liquidity Facility program will also have the effect of removing one of
the events in which OCC would file an advance notice for entering into
individual commitments that OCC identified in a prior advance
notice.\18\ Consistent with the proposal to establish a target for
external liquidity and drawing from applicable conditions for filing
advance notices with respect to renewals of OCC's syndicated credit
facility and proposed Bank Repo Facility, OCC would submit another
advance notice with respect to the execution of individual commitments
under the Non-Bank Liquidity Facility only if: (i) OCC should seek to
execute a commitment at a level that would have the effect of reducing
external liquidity below the target of $3 billion; (ii) OCC should seek
to change the terms and conditions of the MRA or commitments thereunder
in a manner that materially affects the nature or level of risk
presented by OCC; \19\ or (iii) OCC should seek to execute a commitment
with a counterparty that has experienced a negative change to its
credit profile or a material adverse change since OCC last executed a
commitment with that counterparty. Consistent with another prior
advance notice, OCC may consider changes to (i) liquidity providers
provided that any new counterparty is subject to a credit review under
OCC's Third-Party Risk Management Framework \20\ and (ii) term lengths
consistent with those approved by OCC's Board considering factors
including, but not limited to, the initial committed length of the
term, market conditions, and OCC's liquidity needs.\21\ OCC would not
consider additional counterparties or different commitment terms within
these specified parameters as materially altering the terms and
conditions of MRAs or commitments under the Non-Bank Liquidity Facility
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Exchange Act Release No. 76821, 81 FR at 3209
(describing OCC's proposal to submit an advance notice in connection
with a renewal of commitments under the Non-Bank Liquidity Facility
if: (i) OCC determined that its liquidity needs merited commitments
above or below certain levels; (ii) OCC should seek to change the
terms and conditions of the Non-Bank Liquidity Facility; and (iii)
the commitment counterparty experienced a negative change to its
credit profile or a material adverse change since entering the
commitment or the latest renewal of the commitment). OCC
subsequently submitted an advance notice pursuant to that commitment
to support its ability to onboard multiple liquidity providers below
the identified commitment levels and with different term lengths to
replace expiring commitments. See Exchange Act Release No. 89039, 85
FR at 36445-46.
    \19\ For the purposes of clarity, OCC would not consider changes
to pricing or changes in representations, covenants, and terms of
events of default, to be changes to a term or condition that would
require the filing of a subsequent advance notice provided that
pricing is at the then prevailing market rate and changes to such
other provisions are immaterial to OCC as the seller and do not
impair materially OCC's ability to draw against the facility.
    \20\ See Third-Party Risk Management Framework, available at
Documents & Archives, https://www.theocc.com/Company-Information/Documents-and-Archives. While credit monitoring of insurance
companies that may become liquidity providers would necessarily be
different than credit monitoring of existing pension fund
counterparties, any new liquidity would be subject to the same
credit review for counterparties of the same type.
    \21\ See Exchange Act Release No. 89039, 85 FR at 36445-46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Provided that none of the conditions under which OCC would file a
subsequent advance notice are present, OCC would consider a new or
renewed commitment as being on substantially the same terms and
conditions as existing commitments under the Non-Bank Liquidity
Facility program such that executing such commitments would not be
subject to the requirement to file an advance notice filing pursuant to
Section 806(e)(1) of the Clearing Supervision Act.\22\ If OCC
determines to modify the conditions for a new or renewed commitment
under the Non-Bank Liquidity Facility in a subsequent filing, it would
include in that filing the proposed conditions to the terms of any
subsequent commitments or renewals

that could be done without an additional advance notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anticipated Effect On and Management of Risk
    Completing timely settlement is a key aspect of OCC's role as the
clearing agency performing central counterparty services for all listed
options. Expanding the Non-Bank Liquidity Facility program would
continue to promote the reduction of risks to OCC, its Clearing Members
and the options market in general because it would allow OCC to obtain
short-term funds from the Non-Bank Liquidity Facility to address
liquidity demands arising out of the default or suspension of a
Clearing Member, in anticipation of a potential default or suspension
of Clearing Members, the insolvency of a bank, another securities or
commodities clearing organization, or a counterparty with which OCC has
invested Clearing Member funds, or the failure of such a bank clearing
organization, or investment counterparty to meet an obligation to OCC
when due.
    The Non-Bank Liquidity Facility helps OCC minimize losses in the
event of a default, suspension, insolvency, or failure to achieve daily
settlement, by allowing it to obtain funds from sources not connected
to OCC's Clearing Members on extremely short notice to ensure clearance
and settlement of transactions in options and other contracts without
interruption. OCC believes that the reduced settlement risk presented
by OCC resulting from the proposed change would correspondingly reduce
systemic risk and promote the safety and soundness of the clearing
system. The ability to borrow funds from the Non-Bank Liquidity
Facility would allow OCC to avoid liquidating margin or clearing fund
assets in what would likely be volatile market conditions, which would
preserve funds available to cover any losses resulting from the failure
of a Clearing Member, bank, other clearing organization, or investment
counterparty.
    The proposed change to the Non-Bank Liquidity Facility program to
allow OCC to seek an aggregate commitment amount for up to the amount
determined by the Board of the Directors from time to time would help
OCC ensure the continued availability of its liquidity resources by
providing OCC with the capacity to seek additional funding amounts on
substantially the same terms, conditions, operations, and mechanics. In
addition, the proposed change to the program would ensure that the
approved amount would not be less than the currently approved amount of
up to $1 billion. Because the proposed change preserves substantially
the same terms and conditions as the MRA and the existing
conformations, OCC believes that the proposed change would not
otherwise affect or alter the management of risk at OCC.
Consistency With the Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act
    The stated purpose of the Clearing Supervision Act is to mitigate
systemic risk in the financial system and promote financial stability
by, among other things, promoting uniform risk management standards for
systemically important financial market utilities and strengthening the
liquidity of systemically important financial market utilities.\23\
Section 805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act \24\ also authorizes
the Commission to prescribe risk management standards for the payment,
clearing and settlement activities of designated clearing entities,
like OCC, for which the Commission is the supervisory agency. Section
805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act \25\ states that the objectives
and principles for risk management standards prescribed under Section
805(a) shall be to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 12 U.S.C. 5461(b).
    \24\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(a)(2).
    \25\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     promote robust risk management;
     promote safety and soundness;
     reduce systemic risks; and
     support the stability of the broader financial system.
    The Commission has adopted risk management standards under Section
805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act and the Exchange Act in
furtherance of these objectives and principles.\26\ Rule 17Ad-22
requires registered clearing agencies, like OCC, to establish,
implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that
are reasonably designed to meet certain minimum requirements for their
operations and risk management practices on an ongoing basis.\27\
Therefore, the Commission has stated \28\ that it believes it is
appropriate to review changes proposed in advance notices against Rule
17Ad-22 and the objectives and principles of these risk management
standards as described in Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision
Act.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22. See Exchange Act Release Nos. 68080
(October 22, 2012), 77 FR 66220 (November 2, 2012) (S7-08-11)
(``Clearing Agency Standards''); 78961 (September 28, 2016), 81 FR
70786 (October 13, 2016) (S7-03-14) (``Standards for Covered
Clearing Agencies'').
    \27\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \28\ See, e.g., Exchange Act Release No. 86182 (June 24, 2019),
84 FR 31128, 31129 (June 28, 2019) (SR-OCC-2019-803).
    \29\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC believes that the Non-Bank Liquidity Facility program, as
modified, is consistent with Section 805(b)(1) of the Clearing
Supervision Act \30\ because the proposed confirmations would provide
OCC with an additional source of committed liquidity to meet its
settlement obligations while at the same time being structured to
mitigate certain operational risks, as described above, that arise in
connection with this committed liquidity source. In this way, the
proposed changes are designed to promote robust risk management;
promote safety and soundness; reduce systemic risks; and support the
stability of the broader financial system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC believes that the Non-Bank Liquidity Facility program, as
modified, is also consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(7) under the Exchange Act.\31\ Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7) requires OCC to
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to effectively measure, monitor, and
manage liquidity risk that arises in or is borne by OCC, including
measuring, monitoring, and managing its settlement and funding flows on
an ongoing and timely basis, and its use of intraday liquidity, as
specified in the rule.\32\ In particular, Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(i) under
the Exchange Act \33\ directs that OCC meet this obligation by, among
other things, ``[m]aintaining sufficient liquid resources at the
minimum in all relevant currencies to effect same-day . . . settlement
of payment obligations with a high degree of confidence under a wide
range of foreseeable stress scenarios that includes, but is not limited
to, the default of the participant family that would generate the
largest aggregate payment obligation for [OCC] in extreme but plausible
market conditions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7).
    \32\ Id.
    \33\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the proposed change would allow OCC to seek a
readily available liquidity resource that would enable it to, among
other things, continue to meet its obligations in a timely fashion and
as an alternative to selling Clearing Member collateral under what may
be stressed and volatile market conditions. For these reasons, OCC
believes that the proposal is consistent with Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(7)(i).\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(ii) under the Exchange Act requires OCC to
establish,

implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to hold qualifying liquid resources sufficient to
satisfy payment obligations owed to Clearing Members.\35\ Rule 17Ad-
22(a)(14) of the Exchange Act defines ``qualifying liquid resources''
to include, among other things, lines of credit without material
adverse change provisions, that are readily available and convertible
into cash.\36\ The MRA under the Non-Bank Liquidity Facility would not
be subject to any material adverse change provision and would continue
to be designed to permit OCC to, among other things, help ensure that
OCC has sufficient, readily-available qualifying liquid resources to
meet the cash settlement obligations of its largest Clearing Member
Group. Therefore, OCC believes that the proposal is consistent with
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(ii).\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7)(ii).
    \36\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(a)(14).
    \37\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the foregoing reasons, OCC believes that the proposed changes
are consistent with Section 805(b)(1) of the Clearing Supervision Act
\38\ and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7) \39\ under the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b)(1).
    \39\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Advance Notice and Timing for
Commission Action

    The proposed change may be implemented if the Commission does not
object to the proposed change within 60 days of the later of (i) the
date the proposed change was filed with the Commission or (ii) the date
any additional information requested by the Commission is received. OCC
shall not implement the proposed change if the Commission has any
objection to the proposed change.
    The Commission may extend the period for review by an additional 60
days if the proposed change raises novel or complex issues, subject to
the Commission providing the clearing agency with prompt written notice
of the extension. A proposed change may be implemented in less than 60
days from the date the advance notice is filed, or the date further
information requested by the Commission is received, if the Commission
notifies the clearing agency in writing that it does not object to the
proposed change and authorizes the clearing agency to implement the
proposed change on an earlier date, subject to any conditions imposed
by the Commission.
    OCC shall post notice on its website of proposed changes that are
implemented. The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory
actions required with respect to the proposal are completed.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the advance
notice 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-OCC-2022-803 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2022-803. 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 advance notice that are filed with the
Commission, and all written communications relating to the advance
notice 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 such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of OCC and on OCC's website at
https://www.theocc.com/Company-Information/Documents-and-Archives/By-Laws-and-Rules.
    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-OCC-2022-803 and
should be submitted on or before August 16, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-15920 Filed 7-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 134 (Friday, July 12, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41846-41850]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16493]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2013-0180, FRL-9830-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New York State
Ozone Implementation Plan Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a
revision to the New York State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone
concerning the control of oxides of nitrogen. The SIP revision consists
of amendments to Title 6 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations
Part 200, ``General Provisions,'' Part 212, ``General Process Emission
Sources,'' Part 220, ``Portland Cement Plants and Glass Plants,'' and
Subpart 227-2, ``Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) For
Major Facilities of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX).'' The intended
effect of this action is to approve control strategies, required by the
Clean Air Act, which will result in emission reductions that will help
attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards for
ozone.

DATES: This rule will be effective August 12, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R02-OAR-2013-0180. All

documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, Air
Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-
1866. The Air Programs Branch dockets are available from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Air
Programs Branch telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirk J. Wieber, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,
New York 10007-1866,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What was included in New York's submittals?
II. What comments did EPA receive in response to its proposal?
III. What is EPA's evaluation of part 212, ``General Process
Emission Sources''?
IV. What is EPA's evaluation of part 220, ``Portland Cement Plants
and Glass Plants''?
V. What is EPA's evaluation of part 227-2, ``Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) For Major Facilities of Oxides of Nitrogen
(NOX)''?
VI. What other revisions did New York make?
VII. What is EPA's conclusion?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What was included in New York's submittals?

    On August 19, 2010 and December 15, 2010, the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), submitted to EPA
proposed revisions to the SIP, which included State adopted revisions
to four regulations contained in Title 6 of the New York Code of Rules
and Regulations (6 NYCRR) Part 200, ``General Provisions,'' Part 212,
``General Process Emission Sources,'' Part 220, ``Portland Cement
Plants and Glass Plants,'' and Part 227-2, ``Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) For Major Facilities of Oxides of Nitrogen
(NOX),'' with effective dates of January 1, 2011, September
30, 2010, July 11, 2010 and July 8, 2010, respectively.

II. What comments did EPA receive in response to its proposal?

    On April 10, 2013 (78 FR 21302), EPA proposed to approve New York's
revised Parts 200, 212, 220 and 227-2. For a detailed discussion on the
content and requirements of the revisions to New York's regulations,
the reader is referred to EPA's proposed rulemaking action.
    In response to EPA's April 10, 2013 proposed rulemaking action, EPA
received no public comments.

III. What is EPA's evaluation of part 212, ``General Process Emission
Sources''?

    The NYSDEC revised 6 NYCRR Part 212, by adding section 212.12,
``Hot mix asphalt production plants,'' to include control requirements
for hot mix asphalt production plants. These control requirements will
be specifically aimed at reducing NOX emissions resulting
from combustion during the aggregate drying and heating process.
    With the exception of section 212.12, NOX RACT
requirements under Part 212 affect only major facilities. Major
facilities or major sources are those that have a potential to emit
NOX emissions in excess of 100 tons/yr (upstate) and 25
tons/yr (downstate or in the New York Metropolitan Area). Most, if not
all, hot mix asphalt plants in New York State are minor sources. These
new requirements will therefore be targeted primarily at minor sources.
On February 28, 2013, New York submitted a letter to EPA certifying
that there are no ``major source'' asphalt production plants located in
New York State.
    Part 212 contains the required elements for a federally enforceable
rule: Emission control requirements, compliance procedures and test
methods, compliance dates and record keeping provisions. Therefore, EPA
is approving the revisions to Part 212.

IV. What is EPA's evaluation of part 220, ``Portland Cement Plants and
Glass Plants''?

    The NYSDEC revised 6 NYCRR Part 220, which is divided into two
subparts: 220-1 for portland cement plants; and 220-2 for glass
manufacturing plants. In addition to other requirements, the existing
regulation imposed RACT requirements on NOX emissions from
portland cement kilns. The NYSDEC revised Part 220 to require updated
NOX RACT for cement kilns at portland cement plants, and to
require NOX RACT for glass furnaces at glass plants. The
revisions will apply statewide to major facilities only. Major
facilities are those that have a potential to emit NOX
emissions that exceed 100 tons/yr (upstate) and 25 tons/yr (downstate).
    The NYSDEC is taking a RACT approach that requires a facility
specific analysis. The plant owner or operator will be required to
perform a facility specific RACT analysis for emissions of
NOX that includes proposed NOX RACT emission
limit(s), identifies the procedures and monitoring equipment to be used
to demonstrate compliance with the proposed NOX RACT
emission limit(s), and includes a schedule for equipment installation.
The RACT analysis will be submitted to the NYSDEC for review and
approval and subsequently submitted to EPA as a proposed revision to
the SIP.

Subpart 220-1 Portland Cement Plants

    It is EPA's understanding that there are three portland cement
plants located in New York State that are subject to the RACT
provisions of subpart 220-1 (Holcim, Lafarge and Lehigh). These three
facilities are also subject to New York's regional haze plan's best
available retrofit technologies (BART) provisions pursuant to 6 NYCRR
Part 249.
    On August 28, 2012 (77 FR 51915), EPA approved the BART
determinations for the three portland cement plants pursuant to Part
249. Although EPA believes that the BART determinations approved for
these facilities would also constitute RACT, New York is obligated to
perform RACT evaluations and submit the RACT determinations to EPA as
SIP revisions in order to satisfy the subpart 220-1.6(b)(4) RACT
requirement and sections 172(c)(1) and 182(b) of the Clean Air Act
(Act). In a letter dated February 28, 2013 to EPA, New York commits to
submit the applicable single source NOX RACT determinations
to EPA by December 1, 2013.
    EPA evaluated the provisions of subpart 220-1 for consistency with
the Act, EPA regulations, and EPA policy, and is conditionally
approving them based on New York submitting the individual single
source RACT determinations to EPA by December 1, 2013.

Subpart 220-2 Glass Plants

    It is EPA's understanding that there are four glass plants located
in New York State. Subpart 220-2 does not identify a specific control
strategy or emission limit as RACT for these facilities and requires
individual source specific RACT determinations. To date, EPA has not
received any of those source specific RACT determinations. However, in
a letter dated February 28, 2013 to EPA, New York commits to submit the
applicable single source NOX

RACT determinations to EPA by December 1, 2013.
    EPA evaluated the provisions of subpart 220-2 for consistency with
the Act, EPA regulations, and EPA policy, and is conditionally
approving them based on New York submitting the individual single
source RACT determinations to EPA by December 1, 2013.

V. What is EPA's evaluation of part 227-2, ``Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) for Major Facilities of Oxides of Nitrogen
(NOX)''?

    New York adopted revisions to Subpart 227-2 for the purpose of
imposing more stringent emission limits on major stationary sources of
NOX that contribute to local and regional nonattainment of
the 1997 and 2008 ozone standards. The revisions to Subpart 227-2
essentially entail increasing the stringency of emissions limits for
six of the source categories and lowering of the size thresholds for
two categories of sources. There are also two revisions that will allow
subject sources increased flexibility in achieving compliance--one
allows different owners to engage in a systems averaging plan and the
second allows a permanent shutdown by a date certain as a compliance
option.
    Regarding the systems averaging plan, EPA has not classified any 8-
hour ozone nonattainment areas in New York as ``severe.'' However, EPA
classified the New York City Metropolitan area (NYMA) as severe
nonattainment for the 1-hour standard. Although EPA revoked the 1-hour
standard, the ``severe'' classification for the NYMA 1-hour area was
retained to maintain consistency with existing SIP-approved regulations
and the ``anti-backsliding'' provisions of the Act. The counties
affected by the 1-hour ``severe'' classification are the same counties
defined by EPA for New York's marginal 2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area for the NYMA and include the same counties now being maintained
for the 1997 8-hour moderate ozone NYMA. As discussed in the April 10,
2013 proposed rule, since New York avoids potential confusion by
defining the affected counties in the ``severe nonattainment area,''
this is acceptable to EPA.
    Therefore, since the NYMA is the only area designated as severe for
ozone, sources in the NYMA cannot average with sources outside the
NYMA.
    EPA believes that the new presumptive emission limits and other
control requirements will result in additional NOX
reductions throughout the State thereby strengthening New York's ozone
SIP and will help the State attain and maintain the 1997 ozone standard
and help achieve attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. In
addition, New York's revised system averaging plan is acceptable to EPA
as it is enforceable through federally enforceable Title V operating
permits and it reflects current situations where there could be
multiple ownership of a particular facility.
    EPA evaluated the provisions of Part 227-2 for consistency with the
Act, EPA regulations, and EPA policy and is approving them.

VI. What other revisions did New York make?

    New York also made administrative changes to Part 200, ``General
Provisions'' which reflect implementation of the Part 212, 220 and 227-
2 provisions. The Part 200 revisions also reflect implementation of
provisions for three previously approved New York regulations, Part
228, ``Surface Coating Processes, Commercial and Industrial Adhesives,
Sealants and Primers,'' Part 234, ``Graphic Arts,'' and Part 241,
``Asphalt Pavement and Asphalt Based Surface Coating,'' (see 77 FR
13974). It is important to note that EPA is approving only those
revisions made to Part 200, specifically sections 200.1 and 200.9, as
effective January 1, 2011.

VII. What is EPA's conclusion?

    EPA has evaluated New York's submittal for consistency with the
Act, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. EPA is approving revisions made
to 6 NYCRR Part 200, ``General Provisions,'' Part 212, ``General
Process Emission Sources,'' Part 220, ``Portland Cement Plants and
Glass Plants,'' and Part 227-2, ``Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) For Major Facilities of Oxides of Nitrogen
(NOX)'' with effective dates of January 1, 2011, September
30, 2010, July 11, 2010 and July 8, 2010, respectively, as meeting the
SIP requirements of the Act. EPA is: Approving sections 200.1 and
200.9; approving Part 212; conditionally approving Part 220 based on
New York's commitment to submit the individual RACT determinations to
EPA as SIP revisions by December 1, 2013; and, approving Part 227-2.
These revisions meet the requirements of the Act and EPA's regulations,
and are consistent with EPA's guidance and policy. EPA is taking this
action pursuant to section 110 and part D of the Act and EPA's
regulations.
    EPA is conditionally approving New York's proposed revisions to 6
NYCRR Part 220 based on New York's February 28, 2013 letter, committing
to submit the applicable NOX RACT single source SIPs by
December 1, 2013.
    EPA is also correcting a typographical error to table (c), ``EPA
approved regulations'' in 40 CFR 52.1670 for the Part 241, ``Asphalt
Pavement and Asphalt Based Surface Coating'' entry which EPA approved
on March 8, 2012 (77 FR 13974).

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible

methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 10, 2013. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of
Nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: June 27, 2013.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart HH--New York

0
2. In 52.1670, the table in paragraph (c) is amended under Title 6 by:
0
a. Revising the entry for Part 200, Section 200.1;
0
b. Removing the entry for Sections 200.6, 200.7 and 200.9, and adding
in its place an entry for Sections 200.6 and 200.7, and an entry for
Section 200.9;
0
c. Revising the entries for Parts 212, 220, Subpart 227-2 and Part 241
to read as follows:

52.1670  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                EPA-Approved New York State Regulations and Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         State  effective
       New York State regulation               date         Latest EPA approval date            Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title 6:
    Part 200, General Provisions.......            1/1/11  7/12/13 [Insert page        The word odor is removed
    Section 200.1......................                     number where the document   from the Subpart
                                                            begins].                    200.1(d) definition of
                                                                                ``air contaminant or air
                                                                                pollutant.''
                                                                                Redesignation of non-
                                                                                attainment areas to
                                                                                attainment areas
                                                                                (200.1(av)) does not
                                                                                relieve a source from
                                                                                compliance with
                                                                                previously applicable
                                                                                requirements as per
                                                                                letter of Nov. 13, 1981
                                                                                from H. Hovey, NYSDEC.
                                                                                Changes in definitions
                                                                                are acceptable to EPA
                                                                                unless a previously
                                                                                approved definition is
                                                                                necessary for
                                                                                implementation of an
                                                                                existing SIP regulation.
                                                                                EPA is including the
                                                                                definition of
                                                                                ``Federally
                                                                                enforceable'' with the
                                                                                understanding that (1)
                                                                                the definition applies
                                                                                to provisions of a Title
                                                                                V permit that are
                                                                                correctly identified as
                                                                                Federally enforceable,
                                                                                and (2) a source accepts
                                                                                operating limits and
                                                                                conditions to lower its
                                                                                potential to emit to
                                                                                become a minor source,
                                                                                not to ``avoid''
                                                                                applicable requirements.
    Sections 200.6 and 200.7                      2/25/00  4/22/08, 73 FR 21548.
    Section 200.9                                  1/1/11  7/12/13 [Insert page        EPA is approving
                                                            number where the document   reference documents that
                                                            begins].                    are not already
                                                                                Federally enforceable.

                                                  * * * * * * *
    Part 212, General Process Emission            9/30/10  7/12/13 [Insert page        SIP revisions submitted
     Sources.                                               number where the document   in accordance with Sec.
                                                            begins].                     212.10(c)(3) and
                                                                                212.12(c) are effective
                                                                                only if approved by EPA.

                                                  * * * * * * *
    Part 220, Portland Cement Plants              7/11/10  7/12/13 [Insert page        SIP revisions submitted
     and Glass Plants.                                      number where the document   in accordance with Sec.
                                                            begins].                     220-1.6(b)(4) and 220-
                                                                                2.3(a)(4) are effective
                                                                                only if approved by EPA.

                                                  * * * * * * *
    Subpart 227-2, Reasonably Available            7/8/10  7/12/13 [Insert page        SIP revisions submitted
     Control Technology (RACT) For                          number where the document   in accordance with Sec.
     Major Facilities of Oxides of                          begins].                     227-2.3(c) are
     Nitrogen (NOX).                                                                    effective only if
                                                                                approved by EPA.

                                                  * * * * * * *
    Part 241, Asphalt Pavement and                 1/1/11  3/8/12, 77 FR 13974.
     Asphalt Based Surface Coating.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2013-16493 Filed 7-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Teleconference with Ashley Furniture and American Home Furnishings Alliance (AHFA), 9/20/13

Attendees:
Brian Adams (Ashley Furniture)
Rebecca Edelstein (EPA)
Peter Fynboh (Ashley Furniture)
Barbara Nuckles (Ashley Furniture)
Bill Perdue (AHFA)

On September 20, 2013, EPA staff spoke with Ashley Furniture and the American Home Furnishings Alliance (AHFA) by teleconference in reference to EPA's recently proposed regulations implementing the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act. Topics discussed included a 2009 deconstruction testing experiment, a recent (2013) furniture emissions experiment, laminated products, and chain of custody. Summary reports of both studies submitted by Ashley/AHFA are included in the docket. EPA encouraged Ashley Furniture and AHFA to provide additional information on the furniture study with their public comments submitted to the docket.


IMPORTANT NOTE TO USER:

This OMB form has been recreated in WP6.0 by OPPTS staff. The margins and lines are NOT block protected, so you must fill the form with caution, paying attention to any shifting of the existing text. The following tips should make this a simple task:

 Fill in the spaces by using the type over command. Otherwise you'll have to delete a space for each letter you add.

 Use the same font ( Times New Roman 8pt).

 Do not change table lines ( although you can delete an extra space line to provide more space elsewhere.

 It is not recommended that you convert this form to WP5.1, some of these features are not available in WP5.1, so the text will scramble.

If you have any problems or questions, please call your RID Desk Officer @ 260 2706. PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA/ Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response\ Office of Underground Storage Tanks 2. OMB control number b. G None a 2050 0068 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? X Yes G No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title Underground Storage Tanks: Technical & Financial Requirements & State Program Approval Procedures 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) 1360.06 9. Keywords Underground Storage Tanks 10. Abstract Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA), as amended, requires that the EPA develop standards for UST systems as may be necessary to protect human health and the environment, and procedures for approving State programs in lieu of the Federal program. EPA promulgated technical and financial requirements for owners and operators of USTs at 40 CFR Part 280, and State program approval procedures at 40 CFR Part 281. This ICR is a comprehensive presentation of all information collection requirements contained at 40 CFR Parts 280 and 281.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. X Farms b. P Business or other for profit e . X Federal Government c. X Not for profit institutions f. X State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 261,904 b. Total annual responses 500,000 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 6,025,543 d. Current OMB inventory 6,254,048 e. Difference  228,505 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 0 ________ 2. Adjustment _  228,505 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 57,132 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 306,428 c. Total annualized cost requested 363,560 d. Current OMB inventory _ 1,258,550 e. Difference  894,990 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 _______ 2. Adjustment  894,990 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. _ X_ Program planning oranagement b. __ Program evaluation f. _ X_ Research c. X_ General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. X Other ( describe) As needed 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Sammy K. Ng Phone: ( 703) 603 7166 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( I) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( I) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any 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."

OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95