[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 167 (Wednesday, August 30, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59968-59976]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18670]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98213; File No. SR-NSCC-2023-007]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Modify the
Amended and Restated Stock Options and Futures Settlement Agreement and
Make Certain Revisions to the NSCC Rules

August 24, 2023.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 10, 2023, National Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the clearing agency. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The proposed rule change consists of amendments to (1) modify the
Amended and Restated Stock Options and Futures Settlement Agreement
dated August 5, 2017 between NSCC and The Options Clearing Corporation
(``OCC,'' and together with NSCC, the ``Clearing Agencies'')
(``Existing Accord'') \3\ and (2) make certain revisions to Rule 18,
Procedure III and Addendum K of the NSCC Rules & Procedures (``NSCC
Rules'') \4\ in connection with the proposed modifications to the
Existing Accord, as described in greater detail below.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Existing Accord was previously approved by the
Commission. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 81266, 81260
(Jul. 31, 2017) (File Nos. SR-NSCC-2017-007; SR-OCC-2017-013), 82 FR
36484 (Aug. 4, 2017).
    \4\ Capitalized terms not defined herein are defined in the NSCC
Rules available at www.dtcc.com/-/media/Files/Downloads/legal/rules/nscc_rules.pdf.
    \5\ OCC also has filed a proposed rule change and an advance
notice with the Commission in connection with this proposal. See
File Nos. SR-OCC-2023-007 and SR-OCC-2023-801 (the ``OCC Filing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
Executive Summary
    NSCC is a clearing agency that provides clearing, settlement, risk
management, and central counterparty services for trades involving
equity securities. OCC is the sole clearing agency for standardized
equity options listed on national securities exchanges registered with
the Commission, including options that contemplate the physical
delivery of equities cleared by NSCC in exchange for cash (``physically
settled'' options).\6\ OCC also clears certain futures contracts that,
at maturity, require the delivery of equity securities cleared by NSCC
in exchange for cash. As a result, the exercise/assignment of certain
options or maturation of certain futures cleared by OCC effectively
results in stock settlement obligations. NSCC and OCC maintain a legal
agreement, generally referred to by the parties as the ``Accord''
agreement, that governs the processing of such physically settled
options and futures cleared by OCC that

result in transactions in underlying equity securities to be cleared by
NSCC (``Existing Accord'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The term ``physically-settled'' as used throughout the OCC
Rulebook refers to cleared contracts that settle into their
underlying interest (i.e., options or futures contracts that are not
cash-settled). When a contract settles into its underlying interest,
shares of stock are sent, i.e., delivered, to contract holders who
have the right to receive the shares from contract holders who are
obligated to deliver the shares at the time of exercise/assignment
in the case of an option, and maturity in the case of a future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Existing Accord establishes terms under which NSCC accepts for
clearing certain securities transactions that result from the exercise
and assignment of relevant options contracts and the maturity of
futures contracts that are cleared and settled by OCC.\7\ It also
establishes the time when OCC's settlement guaranty in respect of those
transactions ends and NSCC's settlement guaranty begins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Under the Existing Accord, such options and futures are
defined as ``E&A/Delivery Transactions,'' which refers to ``Exercise
& Assignment Delivery Transactions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Existing Accord allows for a scenario in which NSCC could
choose not to guarantee the settlement of such securities arising out
of transactions. Specifically, NSCC is not obligated to guarantee
settlement until its member has met its collateral requirements at
NSCC. If NSCC chooses not to guarantee settlement, OCC would engage in
an alternate method of settlement outside of NSCC. This scenario
presents two primary problems. First, the cash required for OCC and its
Clearing Members in certain market conditions to facilitate settlement
outside of NSCC could be significantly more than the amount required if
NSCC were to guarantee the relevant transactions. This is because
settlement of the transactions in the underlying equity securities
outside of NSCC would mean that they would no longer receive the
benefit of netting through the facilities of NSCC. In such a scenario,
the additional collateral required from Clearing Members to support
OCC's continuing settlement guarantee would also have to be
sufficiently liquid to properly manage the risks associated with those
transactions being due on the second business day following the option
exercise, or the relevant futures contract maturity date.
    Based on an analysis of scenarios using historical data where it
was assumed that OCC could not settle transactions through the
facilities of NSCC, the worst-case outcome resulted in extreme
liquidity demands--of over $300 billion--for OCC to effect settlement
via an alternative method, e.g., by way of gross broker-to-broker
settlement, as discussed in more detail below. OCC Clearing Members, by
way of their contributions to the OCC Clearing Fund, would bear the
brunt of this demand. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that OCC
Clearing Members could fund the entire amount of any similar real-life
scenarios. By contrast, projected GSPs identified during the study
ranged from approximately $419 million to over $6 billion, also as
discussed in more detail below.
    The second primary problem relates to the significant operational
complexities if settlement occurs outside of NSCC. More specifically,
netting through NSCC reduces the volume and value of settlement
obligations. For example, in 2022 it is estimated that netting through
NSCC's continuous net settlement (``CNS'') accounting system \8\
reduced the value of CNS settlement obligations by approximately 98% or
$510 trillion from $519 trillion to $9 trillion. If settlement occurred
outside of NSCC, on a broker-to-broker basis between OCC Clearing
Members, for example, shares would not be netted, and Clearing Members
would have to coordinate directly with each other to settle the
relevant transactions. The operational complexities and uncertainty
associated with alternate means of settlement would impact every market
participant involved in a settlement of OCC-related transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Rule 11 (CNS System) and Procedure VII (CNS Accounting
Operation) of the NSCC Rules, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address these problems, the Clearing Agencies are proposing to
amend and restate the Existing Accord and make related changes to their
respective rules that would allow OCC to elect to make a cash payment
to NSCC following the default of a Common Member \9\ that would cause
NSCC to guarantee settlement of that Common Member's transactions and,
therefore, cause those transactions to be settled through processing by
NSCC. As part of this proposal, OCC also would enhance its daily
liquidity stress testing processes and procedures to account for the
possibility of OCC making such a payment to NSCC in the event of a
Common Member default. By making these enhancements to its stress
testing, OCC could include the liquid resources necessary to make the
payment in its resource planning. The Clearing Agencies believe that by
NSCC accepting such a payment from OCC the operational efficiencies and
reduced costs related to the settlement of transactions through NSCC
would limit market disruption following a Common Member default because
settlement through NSCC following such a default would be less
operationally complex and would be expected to require less liquidity
and other collateral from market participants than the processes
available to OCC for closing out positions. Additionally, proposed
enhancements by OCC to its liquidity stress testing would add
assurances that OCC could make such a payment in the event of a Common
Member default. The Clearing Agencies believe that their respective
clearing members and all other participants in the markets for which
OCC provides clearance and settlement would benefit from OCC's ability
to choose to make a cash payment to effect settlement through the
facilities of NSCC. This change would provide more certainty around
certain default scenarios and would blunt the financial and operational
burdens market participants could experience in the case of most
clearing member defaults.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A firm that is both an OCC Clearing Member and an NSCC
Member or is an OCC Clearing Member that has designated an NSCC
Member to act on its behalf is referred to herein as a ``Common
Member''. The term ``Clearing Member'' as used herein has the
meaning provided in OCC's By-Laws. See OCC's By-laws & Rules,
available at www.theocc.com/Company-Information/Documents-and-Archives/By-Laws-and-Rules. The term ``Member'' as used herein has
the meaning provided in NSCC's Rules. See supra note 4.
    \10\ OCC filed its analysis of the financial impact of alternate
means of settlement as an exhibit to the OCC Filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    OCC acts as a central counterparty clearing agency for U.S.-listed
options and futures on a number of underlying financial assets
including common stocks, currencies and stock indices. In connection
with these services, OCC provides the OCC Guaranty pursuant to its By-
Laws and Rules. NSCC acts as a central counterparty clearing agency for
certain equity securities, corporate and municipal debt, exchange
traded funds and unit investment trusts that are eligible for its
services. Eligible trading activity may be processed through NSCC's CNS
system or Balance Order Account system,\11\ where all eligible compared
and recorded transactions for a particular settlement date are netted
by issue into one net long (buy), net short (sell) or flat position. As
a result, for each day with activity, each Member has a single deliver
or receive obligation for each issue in which it has activity. In
connection with these services, NSCC also provides the NSCC Guaranty
pursuant to Addendum K of the NSCC Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Rule 8 (Balance Order and Foreign Security Systems) and
Procedure V (Balance Order Accounting Operation) of the NSCC Rules,
supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC's Rules provide that delivery of, and payment for, securities
underlying certain exercised stock options and matured single stock
futures that are physically settled are generally effected through the
facilities of NSCC and are

not settled through OCC's facilities.\12\ OCC and NSCC executed the
Existing Accord to facilitate, via NSCC's systems, the physical
settlement of securities arising out of options and futures cleared by
OCC. OCC Clearing Members that clear and settle physically settled
options and futures transactions through OCC also are required under
OCC's Rules \13\ to be Members of NSCC or to have appointed or
nominated a Member of NSCC to act on its behalf. As noted above, these
firms are referred to as ``Common Members'' in the Existing Accord.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Chapter IX of OCC's Rules (Delivery of Underlying
Securities and Payment), supra note 9.
    \13\ See OCC Rule 901, supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of the Existing Accord
    The Existing Accord governs the transfer between OCC and NSCC of
responsibility for settlement obligations that involve a delivery and
receipt of stock in the settlement of physically settled options and
futures that are cleared and settled by OCC and for which the
underlying securities are eligible for clearing through the facilities
of NSCC (``E&A/Delivery Transactions''). It also establishes the time
when OCC's settlement guarantee (the ``OCC Guaranty'') ends and NSCC's
settlement guarantee (the ``NSCC Guaranty'') \14\ begins with respect
to E&A/Delivery Transactions. However, in the case of a Common Member
default \15\ NSCC can reject these settlement obligations, in which
case the settlement guaranty would not transfer from OCC to NSCC, and
OCC would not have a right to settle the transactions through the
facilities of NSCC. Instead, OCC would have to engage in alternative
methods of settlement that have the potential to create significant
liquidity and collateral requirements for both OCC and its non-
defaulting Clearing Members.\16\ More specifically, this could involve
broker-to-broker settlement between OCC Clearing Members.\17\ This
settlement method is operationally complex because it requires
bilateral coordination directly between numerous Clearing Members
rather than relying on NSCC to facilitate multilateral netting to
settle the relevant settlement obligations. As described above, it also
potentially could result in significant liquidity and collateral
requirements for both OCC and its non-defaulting Clearing Members
because the transactions would not be netted through the facilities of
NSCC. Alternatively, where NSCC accepts the E&A/Delivery Transactions
from OCC, the OCC Guaranty ends and the NSCC Guaranty takes effect. The
transactions are then netted through NSCC's systems, which allows
settlement obligations for the same settlement date to be netted into a
single deliver or receive obligation. This netting reduces the costs
associated with securities transfers by reducing the number of
securities movements required for settlement and further reduces
operational and market risk. The benefits of such netting by NSCC may
be significant with respect to the large volumes of E&A/Delivery
Transactions processed during monthly options expiry periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Addendum K and Procedure III of the NSCC Rules, supra
note 4.
    \15\ A Common Member that has been suspended by OCC or for which
NSCC has ceased to act is referred to as a ``Mutually Suspended
Member.''
    \16\ For example, OCC evaluated certain Clearing Member default
scenarios in which OCC assumed that NSCC would not accept the
settlement obligations under the Existing Accord, including the
default of a large Clearing Member coinciding with a monthly options
expiration. OCC has estimated that in such a Clearing Member default
scenario, the aggregate liquidity burden on OCC in connection with
obligations having to be settled on a gross, broker-to-broker basis
could reach a significantly high level. For example, in January
2022, the largest gross broker-to-broker settlement amount in the
case of a larger Clearing Member default would have resulted in
liquidity needs of approximately $384,635,833,942. OCC provided the
data and analysis as an exhibit to the OCC Filing.
    \17\ In broker-to-broker settlement, Clearing Member parties are
responsible for coordinating settlement--delivery and payment--among
themselves on a transaction-by-transaction basis. Once transactions
settle, the parties also have an obligation to affirmatively notify
OCC so that OCC can close out the transactions. If either one of or
both of the parties do not notify OCC, the transaction would remain
open on OCC's books indefinitely until the time both parties have
provided notice of settlement to OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the Existing Accord, on each trading day NSCC delivers
to OCC a file that identifies the securities, including stocks,
exchange-traded funds and exchange-traded notes, that are eligible (1)
to settle through NSCC and (2) to be delivered in settlement of (i)
exercises and assignments of stock options cleared and settled by OCC
or (ii) delivery obligations from maturing stock futures cleared and
settled by OCC. OCC, in turn, delivers to NSCC a file identifying
securities to be delivered, or received, for physical settlement in
connection with OCC transactions.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Each day that both OCC and NSCC are open for accepting
trades for clearing is referred to as an ``Activity Date'' in the
Existing Accord. Securities eligible for settlement at NSCC are
referred to collectively as ``Eligible Securities'' in the Existing
Accord. Eligible securities are settled at NSCC through NSCC's CNS
Accounting Operation or NSCC's Balance Order Accounting Operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After NSCC receives the list of eligible transactions from OCC and
NSCC has received all required deposits to the NSCC Clearing Fund from
all Common Members taking into consideration amounts required to
physically settle the OCC transactions, the OCC Guaranty would end and
the NSCC Guaranty would begin with respect to physical settlement of
the eligible OCC-related transactions.\19\ At this point, NSCC is
solely responsible for settling the transactions.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The term ``NSCC Clearing Fund'' as used herein has the same
meaning as the term ``Clearing Fund'' as provided in the NSCC Rules.
Procedure XV of the NSCC Rules provides that all NSCC Clearing Fund
requirements and other deposits must be made within one hour of
demand, unless NSCC determines otherwise, supra note 4.
    \20\ This is referred to in the Existing Accord as the
``Guaranty Substitution Time,'' and the process of the substitution
of the NSCC Guaranty for the OCC Guaranty with respect to E&A/
Delivery Transactions is referred to as ``Guaranty Substitution.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each day, NSCC is required to promptly notify OCC at the time the
NSCC Guaranty takes effect. If NSCC rejects OCC's transactions due to
an improper submission \21\ or if NSCC ``ceases to act'' for a Common
Member,\22\ NSCC's Guaranty would not take effect for the affected
transactions pursuant to the NSCC Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Guaranty Substitution by NSCC (discussed further below)
does not occur with respect to an E&A/Delivery Transaction that is
not submitted to NSCC in the proper format or that involves a
security that is not identified as an Eligible Security on the then-
current NSCC Eligibility Master File.
    \22\ Under NSCC's Rules, a default would generally be referred
to as a ``cease to act'' and could encompass a number of
circumstances, such as an NSCC Member's failure to make a Required
Fund Deposit in a timely fashion. See NSCC Rule 46 (Restrictions on
Access to Services), supra note 4. An NSCC Member for which it has
ceased to act is referred to in the Existing Accord as a
``Defaulting NSCC Member.'' Transactions associated with a
Defaulting NSCC Member are referred to as ``Defaulted NSCC Member
Transactions'' in the Existing Accord.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC is required to promptly notify OCC if it ceases to act for a
Common Member. Upon receiving such a notice, OCC would not continue to
submit to NSCC any further unsettled transactions that involve such
Common Member, unless authorized representatives of both OCC and NSCC
otherwise consent. OCC would, however, deliver to NSCC a list of all
transactions that have already been submitted to NSCC and that involve
such Common Member. The NSCC Guaranty ordinarily would not take effect
with respect to transactions for a Common Member for which NSCC has
ceased to act, unless both Clearing Agencies agree otherwise. As such,
NSCC does not have any existing contractual obligation to guarantee
such Common Member's transactions. To the extent the NSCC Guaranty does
not take effect, OCC's Guaranty would continue to apply, and, as
described above, OCC would remain responsible for effecting the
settlement

of such Common Member's transactions pursuant to OCC's By-Laws and
Rules.
    As noted above, the Existing Accord does provide that the Clearing
Agencies may agree to permit additional transactions for a Common
Member default (``Defaulted NSCC Member Transactions'') to be processed
by NSCC while subject to the NSCC Guaranty. This optional feature,
however, creates uncertainty for the Clearing Agencies and market
participants about how Defaulted NSCC Member Transactions may be
processed following a Common Member default and also does not provide
NSCC with the ability to collect collateral from OCC that it may need
to close out these additional transactions. While the optional feature
would remain in the agreement as part of this proposal, the proposed
changes to the Existing Accord, as described below, could significantly
reduce the likelihood that it would be utilized.
Proposed Changes to the Existing Accord
    The proposed changes to the Existing Accord would permit OCC to
make a cash payment, referred to as the ``Guaranty Substitution
Payment'' or ``GSP,'' to NSCC. This cash payment could occur on either
or both of the day that the Common Clearing Member becomes a Mutually
Suspended Member and on the next business day. Upon NSCC's receipt of
the Guaranty Substitution Payment from OCC, the NSCC Guaranty would
take effect for the Common Member's transactions, and they would be
accepted by NSCC for clearance and settlement.\23\ OCC could use all
Clearing Member contributions to the OCC Clearing Fund \24\ and certain
Margin Assets \25\ of a defaulted Clearing Member to pay the GSP, as
described in more detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Acceptance of such transactions by NSCC would be subject to
NSCC's standard validation criteria for incoming trades. See NSCC
Rule 7, supra note 4.
    \24\ The term ``OCC Clearing Fund'' as used herein has the same
meaning as the term ``Clearing Fund'' in OCC's By-Laws, supra note
9.
    \25\ The term ``Margin Assets'' as used herein has the same
meaning as provided in OCC's By-Laws, supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC would calculate the Guaranty Substitution Payment as the sum
of the Mutually Suspended Member's unpaid required deposit to the NSCC
Clearing Fund (``Required Fund Deposit'') \26\ and the unpaid
Supplemental Liquidity Deposit \27\ obligation that is attributable to
E&A/Delivery Transactions. The proposed changes to the Existing Accord
define how NSCC would calculate the Guaranty Substitution Payment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The Required Fund Deposit is calculated pursuant to Rule 4
(Clearing Fund) and Procedure XV (Clearing Fund Formula and Other
Matters) of the NSCC Rules. See supra note 4.
    \27\ Under the NSCC Rules, NSCC collects additional cash
deposits from those Members who would generate the largest
settlement debits in stressed market conditions, referred to as
``Supplemental Liquidity Deposits'' or ``SLD.'' See Rule 4A of the
NSCC Rules, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More specifically, NSCC would first determine how much of the
member's unpaid Clearing Fund requirement would be included in the GSP.
NSCC would look at the day-over-day change in gross market value of the
Mutually Suspended Member's positions as well as day-over-day change in
the member's NSCC Clearing Fund requirements. Based on such changes,
NSCC would identify how much of the change in the Clearing Fund
requirement was attributable to E&A/Delivery Transactions coming from
OCC. If 100 percent of the day-over-day change in the NSCC Clearing
Fund requirement is attributable to activity coming from OCC, then the
GSP would include 100 percent of the member's NSCC Clearing Fund
requirement. If less than 100 percent of the change is attributable to
activity coming from OCC, then the GSP would include that percent of
the member's unpaid NSCC Clearing Fund requirement attributable to
activity coming from OCC. NSCC would then determine the portion of the
member's unpaid SLD obligation that is attributable to E&A/Delivery
Transactions. As noted above, the GSP would be the sum of these two
amounts. A member's NSCC Clearing Fund requirement and SLD obligation
at NSCC are designed to address the credit and liquidity risks that a
member poses to NSCC. The GSP calculation is intended to assess how
much of a member's obligations arise out of activity coming from OCC so
that the amount paid by OCC is commensurate with the risk to NSCC of
guarantying such activity.
    To permit OCC to anticipate the potential resources it would need
to pay the GSP for a Mutually Suspended Member, each business day NSCC
would provide OCC with (1) Required Fund Deposit and Supplemental
Liquidity Deposit obligations, as calculated pursuant to the NSCC
Rules, and (2) the gross market value of the E&A/Delivery Transactions
and the gross market value of total Net Unsettled Positions (as such
term is defined in the NSCC Rules). On options expiry days that fall on
a Friday, NSCC would also provide OCC with information regarding
liquidity needs and resources, and any intraday SLD requirements of
Common Members. Such information would be delivered pursuant to the
ongoing information sharing obligations under the Existing Accord (as
proposed to be amended) and the Service Level Agreement (``SLA'') to
which both NSCC and OCC are a party pursuant to Section 2 of the
Existing Accord.\28\ The SLA addresses specifics regarding the time,
form and manner of various required notifications and actions described
in the Accord and also includes information applicable under the
Accord.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The revised SLA has been filed as an exhibit to this
filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC and OCC believe the proposed calculation of the Required Fund
Deposit portion of the GSP is appropriate because it is designed to
provide a reasonable proxy for the impact of the Mutually Suspended
Member's E&A/Delivery Transactions on its Required Fund Deposit. While
impact study data did show that the proposed calculation could result
in a GSP that overestimates or underestimates the Required Fund Deposit
attributable to the Mutually Suspended Member's E&A/Delivery
Transactions,\29\ current technology constraints prohibit NSCC from
performing a precise calculation of the GSP on a daily basis for every
Common Member.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The impact study was conducted at the Commission's request
to cover a three-day period and reviewed the ten Common Members with
the largest Required Fund Deposits attributable to the Mutually
Suspended Member's E&A/Delivery Transactions. Over the 30 instances
in the study, approximately 15 instances resulted in an
underestimate of the Required Fund Deposit by an average of
approximately $112,900,926; four instances where the proxy
calculation was the same as the Required Fund Deposit; and eleven
instances of an overestimate of the Required Fund Deposit by an
average of approximately $59,654,583. NSCC filed additional detail
related to the referenced study as an exhibit to this filing.
    \30\ OCC and NSCC have agreed that performing the necessary
technology build at this time would delay the implementation of this
proposal. Therefore, NSCC would consider incorporating those
technology updates into future revisions to the Accord, for example
in connection with a move to a shorter settlement cycle in the U.S.
equities markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Implementing the ability for OCC to make the GSP and cause the E&A/
Delivery Transactions to be cleared and settled through NSCC would
promote the ability of OCC and NSCC to be efficient and effective in
meeting the requirements of the markets they serve. This is because
data demonstrates that the expected size of the GSP would be smaller
than the amount of cash that would otherwise be needed by OCC and its
Clearing Members to facilitate settlement outside of NSCC. More
specifically, based on a historical study

of alternate means of settlement available to OCC from September 2021
through September 2022, in the event that NSCC did not accept E&A/
Delivery Transactions, the worst-case scenario peak liquidity need OCC
identified was $384,635,833,942 for settlement to occur on a gross
broker-to-broker basis. OCC estimates that the corresponding GSP in
this scenario would have been $863,619,056. OCC also analyzed several
other large liquidity demand amounts that were identified during the
study if OCC effected settlement on a gross broker-to-broker basis.\31\
These liquidity demand amounts and the largest liquidity demand amount
OCC observed of $384,635,833,942 substantially exceed the amount of
liquid resources currently available to OCC.\32\ By contrast, projected
GSPs identified during the study ranged from $419,297,734 to
$6,281,228,428. For each of these projected GSP amounts, OCC observed
that the Margin Assets and OCC Clearing Fund contributions that would
have been required of Clearing Members in these scenarios would have
been sufficient to satisfy the amount of the projected GSPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ OCC filed additional detail related to the referenced study
as an exhibit to the OCC Filing.
    \32\ As of Mar. 31, 2023, OCC held approximately $10.37 billion
in qualifying liquid resources. See OCC Quantitative Disclosure,
Jan.-Mar. 2023, available at www.theocc.com/risk-management/pfmi-disclosures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To help address the current technology constraint that prohibits
NSCC from performing a precise calculation of the GSP on a daily basis
for every Common Member, proposed Section 6(b)(i) of the Existing
Accord and related Section 7(d) of the SLA would provide that, with
respect to a Mutually Suspended Member, either NSCC or OCC may require
that the Required Fund Deposit portion of the GSP be re-calculated by
calculating the Required Fund Deposit for the Mutually Suspended Member
both before and after the delivery of the E&A/Delivery Transactions and
utilize the precise amount that is attributable to that activity in the
final GSP. If such a recalculation is required, the result would
replace the Required Fund Deposit component of the GSP that was
initially calculated. The SLD component of the GSP would be unchanged
by such recalculation.
    As the above demonstrates, the GSP is intended to address the
significant collateral and liquidity requirements that could be
required of OCC Clearing Members in the event of a Common Member
default.
    Allowing OCC to make a GSP payment also is intended to allow for
settlement processing to take place through the facilities of NSCC to
retain operational efficiencies associated with the settlement process.
Alternative settlement means such as broker-to broker settlement add
operational burdens because transactions would need to be settled
individually on one-off bases. In contrast, NSCC's netting reduces the
volume and value of settlement obligations that would need to be closed
out in the market.\33\ Because the clearance and settlement of
obligations through NSCC's facilities following a Common Member
default, including netting of E&A/Delivery Transactions with a Common
Member's positions at NSCC would avoid these potentially significant
operational burdens for OCC and its Clearing Members, OCC and NSCC
believe that the proposed changes would limit market disruption
relating to a Common Member default. NSCC netting significantly reduces
the total number of obligations that require the exchange of money for
settlement. Allowing more activity to be processed through NSCC's
netting systems would minimize risk associated with the close out of
those transactions following the default of a Common Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ CNS reduces the value of obligations that require financial
settlement by approximately 98 percent, where, for example,
approximately $519 trillion in trades could be netted down to
approximately $9 trillion in net settlements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Amending the Existing Accord to define the terms and conditions
under which Guaranty Substitution may occur, at OCC's election, with
respect to Defaulted NSCC Member Transactions after a Common Member
becomes a Mutually Suspended Member would also provide more certainty
to both the Clearing Agencies and market participants generally about
how a Mutually Suspended Member's Defaulted NSCC Member Transactions
may be processed.
    NSCC and OCC have agreed it is appropriate to limit the
availability of the proposed provision to the day of the Common Member
default and the next business day because, based on historical cease to
act events and simulations of cease to act events involving Common
Members, most activity of a Mutually Suspended Member is closed out on
those days.\34\ Furthermore, the benefits of netting through NSCC's
systems would be reduced for any activity submitted to NSCC after that
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ OCC filed data regarding simulated events as an exhibit to
the OCC Filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To implement these proposed changes to the Existing Accord, OCC and
NSCC propose to make the following changes.
Section 1--Definitions
    First, new definitions would be added, and existing definitions
would be amended in Section 1, which is the Definitions section.
    The new defined terms would be as follows.
     The term ``Close Out Transaction'' would be defined to
mean ``the liquidation, termination or acceleration of one or more
exercised or matured Stock Options \35\ or Stock Futures \36\
contracts, securities contracts, commodity contracts, forward
contracts, repurchase agreements, swap agreements, master netting
agreements or similar agreements of a Mutually Suspended Member
pursuant to OCC Rules 1101 through 1111 and/or NSCC Rule 18.'' This
proposed definition would make it clear that the payment of the
Guaranty Substitution Payment and NSCC's subsequent acceptance of
Defaulted NSCC Member Transactions for clearance and settlement are
intended to fall within the ``safe harbors'' provided in the Bankruptcy
Code,\37\ the Securities Investor Protection Act,\38\ and other similar
laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ The term ``Stock Options'' is defined in the Existing
Accord within the definition of ``Eligible Securities'' and refers
to options issued by OCC.
    \36\ The term ``Stock Futures'' is defined in the Existing
Accord within the definition of ``Eligible Securities,'' described
below, and refers to stock futures contracts cleared by OCC.
    \37\ 11 U.S.C. 101 et seq., including Sec. Sec.  362(b)(6), (7),
(17), (25) and (27) (exceptions to the automatic stay), Sec. Sec.
546(e)-(g) and (j) (limitations on avoiding powers), and Sec. Sec.
555-556 and 559-562 (contractual right to liquidate, terminate or
accelerate certain contracts).
    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 78aaa-lll, including Sec.  78eee(b)(2)(C)
(exceptions to the stay).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The term ``Guaranty Substitution Payment'' would be
defined to mean ``an amount calculated by NSCC in accordance with the
calculations set forth in Appendix A [to the Existing Accord (as
proposed to be amended)], to include two components: (i) a portion of
the Mutually Suspended Member's Required Fund Deposit deficit to NSCC
at the time of the cease to act and (ii) a portion of the Mutually
Suspended Member's unpaid Supplemental Liquidity Deposit obligation at
the time of the cease to act.''
     The term ``Mutually Suspended Member'' would mean ``any
OCC Participating Member \39\ that has been

suspended by OCC that is also an NSCC Participating Member \40\ for
which NSCC has ceased to act.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ The term ``OCC Participating Member'' is defined in the
Existing Accord to mean ``(i) a Common Member; (ii) an OCC Clearing
Member that is an `Appointing Clearing Member' (as defined in
Article I of OCC's By-Laws) and has appointed an Appointed Clearing
Member that is an NSCC Member to effect settlement of E&A/Delivery
Transactions through NSCC on the Appointing Clearing Member's
behalf; (iii) an OCC Clearing Member that is an Appointed Clearing
Member; or (iv) a Canadian Clearing Member.'' No changes are
proposed to this definition.
    \40\ The term ``NSCC Participating Member'' is defined in the
Existing Accord to mean ``(i) a Common Member; (ii) an NSCC Member
that is an `Appointed Clearing Member' (as defined in Article I of
OCC's By-Laws); or (iii) [The Canadian Depository for Securities
Limited, or ``CDS'']. For the avoidance of doubt, the Clearing
Agencies agree that CDS is an NSCC Member for purposes of this
Agreement.'' No changes are proposed to this definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The term ``Required Fund Deposit'' would have the meaning
``provided in Rule 4 of NSCC's Rules and Procedures (or any replacement
or substitute rule), the version of which, with respect to any
transaction or obligation incurred that is the subject of this
Agreement, is in effect at the time of such transaction or incurrence
of obligation.''
     The term ``Supplemental Liquidity Deposit'' would have the
meaning ``provided in Rule 4A of NSCC's Rules and Procedures (or any
replacement or substitute rule), the version of which, with respect to
any transaction or obligation incurred that is the subject of this
Agreement, is in effect at the time of such transaction or incurrence
of obligation.''
    The defined terms that would be amended in Section 1 of the
Existing Accord are as follows.
     The definition for the term ``E&A/Delivery Transaction''
generally contemplates a transaction that involves a delivery and
receipt of stock in the settlement of physically settled options and
futures that are cleared and settled by OCC and for which the
underlying securities are eligible for clearing through the facilities
of NSCC. The definition would be amended to make clear that it would
apply in respect of a ``Close Out Transaction'' of a ``Mutually
Suspended Member'' as those terms are proposed to be defined (described
above).
     The definition for the term ``Eligible Securities''
generally contemplates the securities that are eligible to be used for
physical settlement under the Existing Accord. The term would be
modified to clarify that this may include, for example, equities,
exchange-traded funds and exchange-traded notes that are underlying
securities for options issued by OCC.
Section 6--Default by an NSCC Participating Member or OCC Participating
Member
    Section 6 of the Existing Accord provides that NSCC is required to
provide certain notice to OCC in circumstances in which NSCC has ceased
to act for a Common Member. Currently, Section 6(A)(ii) of the Existing
Accord also requires NSCC to notify OCC if a Common Member has failed
to satisfy its Clearing Fund obligations to NSCC, but for which NSCC
has not yet ceased to act. In practice, this provision would trigger a
number of obligations (described below) when a Common Member fails to
satisfy its NSCC Clearing Fund obligations for any reason, including
those due to an operational delay. Therefore, OCC and NSCC are
proposing to remove the notification requirement under Section 6(A)(ii)
from the Existing Accord. Under Section 7(d) of the Existing Accord,
NSCC and OCC are required to provide each other with general
surveillance information regarding Common Members, which includes
information regarding any Common Member that is considered by the other
party to be in distress. Therefore, if a Common Member has failed to
satisfy its NSCC Clearing Fund obligations and NSCC believes this
failure is due to, for example, financial distress and not, for
example, due to a known operational delay, and NSCC has not yet ceased
to act for that Common Member, such notification to OCC would still
occur but would be done pursuant to Section 7(d) of the Existing Accord
(as proposed to be amended), and not Section 6(A)(ii). Notifications
under Section 6 of the Existing Accord (as proposed to be amended)
would be limited to instances when NSCC has actually ceased to act for
a Common Member pursuant to the NSCC Rules.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Rule 46 (Restrictions on Access to Services) of the
NSCC Rules, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following notice by NSCC that it has ceased to act for a Common
Member, OCC is obligated in turn to deliver to NSCC a list of all E&A/
Delivery Transactions (excluding certain transactions for which
Guaranty Substitution does not occur) involving the Common Member.\42\
This provision would be amended to clarify that it applies in respect
of such E&A/Delivery Transactions for the Common Member for which the
NSCC Guaranty has not yet attached--meaning that Guaranty Substitution
has not yet occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ The section of the Existing Accord that addresses
circumstances in which NSCC ceases to act and/or an NSCC Member
defaults is currently part of Section 6(a). It would be re-
designated as Section 6(b) for organizational purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above in the summary of the Existing Accord, where
NSCC has ceased to act for a Common Member, the Existing Accord refers
to the Common Member as the Defaulting NSCC Member and also refers to
the relevant E&A/Delivery Transactions in connection with that
Defaulting NSCC Member for which a Guaranty Substitution has not yet
occurred as Defaulted NSCC Member Transactions.
    If the Defaulting NSCC Member is also suspended by OCC, it would be
covered by the proposed definition that is described above for a
Mutually Suspended Member. For such a Mutually Suspended Member, the
proposed changes in Section 6(b) would provide that NSCC, by a time
agreed upon by the parties, would provide OCC with the amount of the
Guaranty Substitution Payment as calculated by NSCC and related
documentation regarding the calculation. The Guaranty Substitution
Payment would be calculated pursuant to NSCC's Rules as that portion of
the unmet Required Fund Deposit \43\ and Supplemental Liquidity Deposit
\44\ obligations of the Mutually Suspended Member attributable to the
Defaulted NSCC Member Transactions. By a time agreed upon by the
parties,\45\ OCC would then be required to either notify NSCC of its
intent to make the full amount of the Guaranty Substitution Payment to
NSCC or notify NSCC that it would not make the Guaranty Substitution
Payment. If OCC makes the full amount of the Guaranty Substitution
Payment, NSCC's guaranty would take effect at the time of NSCC's
receipt of that payment and the OCC Guaranty would end.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ The Required Fund Deposit is calculated pursuant to Rule 4
(Clearing Fund) and Procedure XV (Clearing Fund Formula and Other
Matters) of the NSCC Rules, see supra note 4.
    \44\ The Supplemental Liquidity Deposit is calculated pursuant
to Rule 4A (Supplemental Liquidity Deposits) of the NSCC Rules, see
supra note 4.
    \45\ The time by which OCC would be required to notify NSCC of
its intent would be defined in the Service Level Agreement. As of
the time of this filing, the parties intend to set that time as one
hour after OCC's receipt of the calculated Guaranty Substitution
Payment from NSCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes would further provide that if OCC does not
suspend the Common Member (such that the Common Member would therefore
not meet the proposed definition of a Mutually Suspended Member) or if
OCC elects to not make the full amount of the Guaranty Substitution
Payment to NSCC, then all of the Defaulted NSCC Member Transactions
would be exited from NSCC's CNS Accounting Operation and/or NSCC's
Balance Order Accounting Operation, as applicable, and Guaranty
Substitution would not occur in respect thereof. Therefore, NSCC would
continue to have no obligation to guarantee or settle the Defaulted
NSCC Member Transactions, and the OCC Guaranty would continue

to apply to them pursuant to OCC's By-Laws and Rules.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Under the current and proposed terms of the Existing
Accord, NSCC would be permitted to voluntarily guaranty and settle
the Defaulted NSCC Member Transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed changes to the Existing Accord would also address the
application of any Guaranty Substitution Payment by NSCC. Specifically,
new Section 6(d) would provide that any Guaranty Substitution Payment
made by OCC may be used by NSCC to satisfy any liability or obligation
of the Mutually Suspended Clearing Member to NSCC on account of
transactions involving the Mutually Suspended Clearing Member for which
the NSCC Guaranty applies and to the extent that any amount of assets
otherwise held by NSCC for the account of the Mutually Suspended Member
(including any Required Fund Deposit or Supplemental Liquidity Deposit)
are insufficient to satisfy its obligations related to transactions for
which the NSCC Guaranty applies. Proposed changes to Section 6(d) would
further provide for the return to OCC of any unused portion of the GSP.
With regard to the portion of the Guaranty Substitution Payment that
corresponds to a member's Supplemental Liquidity Deposit obligation,
NSCC must return any unused amount to OCC within fourteen (14) days
following the conclusion of NSCC's settlement, close-out and/or
liquidation. With regard to the portion of the Guaranty Substitution
Payment that corresponds to a Required Fund Deposit, NSCC must return
any unused amount to OCC under terms agreed to by the parties.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Such amounts would be returned to OCC as appropriate and in
accordance with a Netting Contract and Limited Cross-Guaranty, by
and among The Depository Trust Company, Fixed Income Clearing
Corporation, NSCC and OCC, dated as of Jan. 1, 2003, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Proposed Changes
    Certain other technical changes are also proposed to the Existing
Accord to conform it to the proposed changes described above. For
example, the preamble and the ``whereas'' clauses in the Preliminary
Statement would be amended to clarify that the agreement is an amended
and restated agreement and to summarize that the agreement would be
modified to contemplate the Guaranty Substitution Payment structure.
Section 1(c), which addresses the terms in the Existing Accord that are
defined by reference to NSCC's Rules and Procedures and OCC's By-Laws
and Rules would be modified to state that such terms would have the
meaning then in effect at the time of any transaction or obligation
that is covered by the agreement rather than stating that such terms
have the meaning given to them as of the effective date of the
agreement. This change is proposed to help ensure that the meaning of
such terms in the agreement would not become inconsistent with the
meaning in the NSCC Rules and/or OCC By-Laws and Rules, as they may be
modified through proposed rule changes with the Commission.
    Technical changes would be made to Sections 3(d) and (e) of the
Existing Accord to provide that those provisions would not apply in the
event new Section 6(b) described above, is triggered. Section 3(d)
generally provides that OCC would no longer submit E&A/Delivery
Transactions to NSCC involving a suspended OCC Participating Member.
Similarly, Section 3(e) generally provides that OCC would no longer
submit E&A/Delivery Transactions to NSCC involving an NSCC
Participating Member for which NSCC has ceased to act. A proposed
change would also be made to Section 5 of the Existing Accord to modify
a reference to Section 5 of Article VI of OCC's By-Laws to instead
provide that the updated cross-reference should be to Chapter IV of
OCC's Rules.
    Section 5 would also be amended to clarify that Guaranty
Substitution occurs when NSCC has received both the Required Fund
Deposit and Supplemental Liquidity Deposit, as calculated by NSCC in
its sole discretion, from Common Members. The addition of the
collection of the Supplemental Liquidity Deposit to the definition of
the Guaranty Substitution Time in this Section 5 would reflect OCC and
NSCC's agreement that both amounts are components of the Guaranty
Substitution Payment (as described above) and would make this
definition consistent with that agreement.
    In Section 7 of the Existing Accord, proposed changes would be made
to provide that NSCC would provide to OCC information regarding a
Common Member's Required Fund Deposit and Supplemental Liquidity
Deposit obligations, to include the Supplemental Liquidity Deposit
obligation in this notice requirement, and additionally that NSCC would
provide OCC with information regarding the potential Guaranty
Substitution Payment for the Common Member. On an options expiration
date that is a Friday, NSCC would, by close of business on that day,
also provide to OCC information regarding the intra-day liquidity
requirement, intra-day liquidity resources and intra-day calls for a
Common Member that is subject to a Supplemental Liquidity Deposit at
NSCC.
    Finally, Section 14 of the Existing Accord would be modernized to
provide that notices between the parties would be provided by email
rather than by hand, overnight delivery service or first-class mail.
Proposed Changes to NSCC Rules
    In connection with the proposed changes to the Existing Accord,
NSCC is also proposing changes to its Rules, described below.
    First, NSCC would amend Rule 18 (Procedures for When the
Corporation Ceases to Act), which describes the actions NSCC would take
with respect to the transactions of a Member after NSCC has ceased to
act for that Member.\48\ The proposed changes would include a new
Section 9(a) to specify that following a Member default, NSCC may
continue to act and provide the NSCC Guaranty pursuant to a ``Close-Out
Agreement'' such as the Existing Accord (as it is proposed to be
amended); \49\ a new Section 9(b) to specify that any transactions
undertaken pursuant to a Close-Out Agreement would be treated as having
been received, provided or undertaken for the account of the Member for
which NSCC has ceased to act, but that any deposit, payment, financial
assurance or other accommodation provided to NSCC pursuant to a Close-
Out Agreement shall be returned or released as provided for in the
agreement; and a new Section 9(c), to provide that NSCC shall have a
lien upon, and may apply, any property of the defaulting Member in
satisfaction of any obligation, liability or loss that relates to a
transaction undertaken or service provided pursuant to a Close-Out
Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See supra note 4.
    \49\ The Existing Accord is currently the only agreement that
would be considered a ``Close-Out Agreement'' under this new Section
9(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC would also propose clarifications to Sections 4, 6(b)(iii)(B)
and 8 to use more precise references to the legal entity described in
those sections of this Rule.
    Second, NSCC would amend Section B of Procedure III and Addendum K
of the NSCC Rules \50\ to provide that the NSCC Guaranty would not
attach to Defaulted NSCC Member Transactions except as provided for in
the Existing Accord (as it is proposed to be amended), and that the
NSCC Guaranty attaches, with respect to obligations arising from the
exercise or assignment of OCC options settled at NSCC or stock futures
contracts cleared by OCC, as

provided for in the Existing Accord (as it is proposed to be amended)
or other arrangement with OCC. Finally, the proposed changes to
Procedure III would clarify that Guaranty Substitution occurs when NSCC
has received both the Required Fund Deposit and Supplemental Liquidity
Deposit, consistent with the proposed revisions to Section 5 of the
Current Accord, described above. As noted above, the proposal to
include the collection of the Supplemental Liquidity Deposit in
connection with the Guaranty Substitution reflect OCC and NSCC's
agreement that both amounts are components of the Guaranty Substitution
Payment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Collectively, these proposed changes would establish and clarify
the rights of both NSCC and a Member for which NSCC has ceased to act
with respect to property held by NSCC and the operation and
applicability of any Close-Out Agreement, and would make it clear that
any payments received pursuant to a Close-Out Agreement and NSCC's
acceptance of a Mutually Suspended Member's transactions for clearance
and settlement pursuant to a Close-Out Agreement are intended to fall
within the Bankruptcy Code and Securities Investor Protection Act
``safe harbors.''
2. Statutory Basis
    NSCC believes the proposed changes to the Existing Accord and its
Rules are consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a registered clearing
agency. In particular, NSCC believes the proposed change is consistent
with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \51\ and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(7) and
(20), each promulgated under the Act,\52\ for the reasons described
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \52\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7), (20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act requires, among other
things, that the rules of a clearing agency be designed, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.\53\ As described above, NSCC
believes that providing OCC with the ability to make a Guaranty
Substitution Payment to it with respect to any unmet obligations of a
Mutually Suspended Member would promote prompt and accurate clearance
and settlement because it would allow relevant securities settlement
obligations to be accepted by NSCC for clearance and settlement, which
would reduce the size of the related settlement obligations for both
the Mutually Suspended Member and its assigned delivery counterparties
through netting through NSCC's CNS Accounting Operation and/or NSCC's
Balance Order Accounting Operation. Further, this proposal would reduce
the circumstances in which OCC's Guaranty would continue to apply to
these settlement obligations, to be settled on a broker-to-broker basis
between OCC Clearing Members, which could result in substantial
collateral and liquidity requirements for OCC Clearing Members and
that, in turn, could also increase a risk of default by the affected
OCC Clearing Members at a time when a Common Member has already been
suspended. For these reasons, NSCC believes that the proposed changes
would be beneficial to and protective of OCC, NSCC, their participants,
and the markets that they serve and that the proposed changes are
therefore designed, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7) requires NSCC, in relevant part, to establish,
implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to effectively measure, monitor and manage the
liquidity risk that arises in or is borne by NSCC and to, among other
things, address foreseeable liquidity shortfalls that would not be
covered by NSCC's liquid resources.\54\ NSCC believes the proposal is
consistent the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7) because, any increase
to NSCC's liquidity needs that may be created by applying the NSCC
Guaranty to Defaulted Member Transactions would occur with a
simultaneous increase to its liquidity resources in the form of the
Guaranty Substitution Payment. Therefore, NSCC believes it will
continue to adhere to the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7) under the
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Rule 17Ad-22(e)(20) requires NSCC to establish, implement,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to identify, monitor and manage risks related to any link that
NSCC establishes with one or more other clearing agencies, financial
market utilities, or trading markets.\55\ The Existing Accord between
OCC and NSCC is one such link. As described above, NSCC believes that
implementation of the proposal would help manage the risks presented by
the settlement link because, when the proposed provision is triggered
by OCC, NSCC would receive the Guaranty Substitution Payment with
respect to the relevant securities settlement obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act \56\ requires that the rules of a
clearing agency not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. NSCC does not
believe that the proposal would impose any burden on competition. This
is because it would implement changes that would permit OCC in certain
circumstances to make a Guaranty Substitution Payment to NSCC so that
the NSCC Guaranty would take effect for the Defaulted NSCC Member
Transactions, and the OCC Guaranty would end. The proposed changes
would not inhibit access to NSCC's services in any way, applies to all
Members and does not disadvantage or favor any particular user in
relationship to another user. Accordingly, NSCC does not believe that
the proposed rule change would have any impact or impose a burden on
competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NSCC-2023-007 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2023-007. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of NSCC and on DTCC's website
(http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx).
    Do not include personal identifiable information in submissions;
you should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication
submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2023-007 and should
be submitted on or before September 20, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-18670 Filed 8-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 112 (Monday, June 12, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38059-38060]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12487]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2022-N-3011]

Luis Anarbol Moran: Final Debarment Order

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is issuing an
order under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act)
debarring Luis Anarbol Moran for a period of 5 years from importing or
offering for import any drug into the United States. FDA bases this
order on a finding that Mr. Moran was convicted of one felony count
under Federal law for smuggling goods into the United States. The
factual basis supporting Mr. Moran's conviction, as described below, is
conduct relating to the importation into the United States of a drug or
controlled substance. Mr. Moran was given notice of the proposed
debarment and was given an opportunity to request a hearing to show why
he should not be debarred. As of March 30, 2023 (30 days after receipt
of the notice), Mr. Moran had not responded. Mr. Moran's failure to
respond and request a hearing constitutes a waiver of his right to a
hearing concerning this matter.

DATES: This order is applicable June 12, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Any application by Mr. Moran for termination of debarment
under section 306(d)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(d)(1)) may be
submitted as follows:

Electronic Submissions

     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. An application
submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because
your application will be made public, you are solely responsible for
ensuring that your application does not include any confidential
information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such
as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number,
or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process.
Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or
other information that identifies you in the body of your application,
that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit an application with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the application as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For a written/paper application submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your application, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked, and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All applications must include the Docket No. FDA-
2022-N-3011. Received applications will be placed in the docket and,
except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly
viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management
Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit an application with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your application only as a written/paper submission.
You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the
information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note
that states ``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The
Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential
information, in its consideration of your application. The second copy,
which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked
out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management
Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made
publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet
and not in the body of your application and you must identify this
information as ``confidential.'' Any information marked as
``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR
10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about
FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September
18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov
and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this
document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts and/or go to
the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville,
MD 20852 between 9 a.m.

and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Publicly available submissions may
be seen in the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaime Espinosa, Division of Compliance
and Enforcement, Office of Policy, Compliance, and Enforcement, Office
of Regulatory Affairs, Food and Drug Administration,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 306(b)(1)(D) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(b)(1)(D))
permits debarment of an individual from importing or offering for
import any drug into the United States if FDA finds, as required by
section 306(b)(3)(C) of the FD&C Act, that the individual has been
convicted of a felony for conduct relating to the importation into the
United States of any drug or controlled substance.
    On July 22, 2022, Mr. Moran was convicted, as defined in section
306(l)(1) of FD&C Act, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida-West Palm Beach Division, when the court accepted
his plea of guilty and entered judgment against him for the offense of
smuggling goods into the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 545.
FDA's finding that debarment is appropriate is based on the felony
conviction referenced herein.
    The factual basis for this conviction is as follows: as contained
in the indictment, filed on October 6, 2021, and the plea agreement,
filed on April 14, 2022, in Mr. Moran's case, Jhanna Novikov agreed to
treat the facial wrinkles of an individual who was an undercover
investigator with the Florida Department of Health with ``fillers'' for
$600 and ``Botox'' for $300. BOTOX, or botulinum neurotoxin Type A, is
the most well-known neurotoxin approved by FDA to treat facial
wrinkles. On August 10, 2018, the investigator returned to Ms.
Novikov's residence for her ``Botox'' treatment, and as Ms. Novikov
made preparations and drew a liquid into a syringe, agents from FDA's
Office of Criminal Investigations (OCI) entered and took control of her
residence. After obtaining a warrant, OCI agents searched Ms. Novikov's
home. Agents seized various vials of white powder from Ms. Novikov's
residence, including two labeled ``NEUROXIN Botulinum Toxin Type A,''
14 labeled ``CASPIS,'' and 1 with no label. Analysis by the FDA
Forensic Chemistry Center determined that the two NEUROXIN vials, a
sample of four of the CASPIS vials, and the unlabeled vial all
contained botulinum toxin, the active ingredient in BOTOX; however, a
search of FDA records revealed that these drugs had not been approved
by FDA and were unapproved new drugs as well as misbranded drugs.
Agents did not find any BOTOX or other FDA-approved drugs containing
botulinum toxin in Ms. Novikov's home.
    During the search of Ms. Novikov's residence, agents seized her
cell phone and subsequently conducted a computer forensic examination
of the phone. The examination revealed that, from August 10, 2016
through June 26, 2018, Mr. Moran exchanged messages with Ms. Novikov
about the products he sold her, referring to them as ``botox,'' ``bx,''
and ``tox.'' In some cases, Mr. Moran's messages discussed sending
packages to Ms. Novikov from outside the United States. For example, in
response to Ms. Novikov's October 3, 2016, inquiry about a package, Mr.
Moran replied that ``[i]t was in customs.'' In another instance on
April 18, 2017, Ms. Novikov wrote to Mr. Moran that a package had been
``opened at customs'' but ``all fine[.]'' In response, Mr. Moran stated
he had ``put it as anti dandruff.'' In another exchange, on June 22,
2018, Ms. Novikov messaged Mr. Moran, ``I need bx'' and agreed to pay
$1,200, plus $100 shipping. Ms. Novikov sent Mr. Moran a photograph of
a deposit slip on June 25, 2018, indicating that $1,300 had been
deposited into a bank account. That same day, Mr. Moran sent Ms.
Novikov a photograph of a shipping confirmation for a package he
shipped to her from Mexico. On June 26, 2018, Ms. Novikov sent Mr.
Moran a message asking, ``Why Caspis? They like Neuroxin better.'' Mr.
Moran replied, ``is for customs . . . issues'' and offered to send Ms.
Novikov ``Neuroxin labels'' and ``boxes and stickers[,]'' but she
declined.
    As a result of this conviction, FDA sent Mr. Moran, by certified
mail, on February 9, 2023, a notice proposing to debar him for a 5-year
period from importing or offering for import any drug into the United
States. The proposal was based on a finding under section 306(b)(3)(C)
of the FD&C Act that Mr. Moran's felony conviction under Federal law
for smuggling goods into the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
545, was for conduct relating to the importation into the United States
of any drug or controlled substance because he illegally imported
unapproved new drugs containing botulinum toxin for use in treatments
conducted by others for money. In proposing a debarment period, FDA
weighed the considerations set forth in section 306(c)(3) of the FD&C
Act that it considered applicable to Mr. Moran's offense and concluded
that the offense warranted the imposition of a 5-year period of
debarment.
    The proposal informed Mr. Moran of the proposed debarment and
offered him an opportunity to request a hearing, providing him 30 days
from the date of receipt of the letter in which to file the request,
and advised him that failure to request a hearing constituted a waiver
of the opportunity for a hearing and of any contentions concerning this
action. Mr. Moran received the proposal and notice of opportunity for a
hearing at his residence on February 28, 2023. Mr. Moran failed to
request a hearing within the timeframe prescribed by regulation and
has, therefore, waived his opportunity for a hearing and waived any
contentions concerning his debarment. (21 CFR part 12).

II. Findings and Order

    Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner, Office of Human and Animal
Food Operations, under section 306(b)(3)(C) of the FD&C Act, under
authority delegated to the Assistant Commissioner, finds that Mr. Luis
Anarbol Moran has been convicted of a felony under Federal law for
conduct relating to the importation into the United States of any drug
or controlled substance. FDA finds that the offense should be accorded
a debarment period of 5 years as provided by section 306(c)(2)(A)(iii)
of the FD&C Act.
    As a result of the foregoing finding, Mr. Moran is debarred for a
period of 5 years from importing or offering for import any drug into
the United States, effective (see DATES). Pursuant to section 301(cc)
of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 331(cc)), the importing or offering for
import into the United States of any drug by, with the assistance of,
or at the direction of Mr. Moran is a prohibited act.

    Dated: June 7, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-12487 Filed 6-9-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


The background papers on the candidate national program priorities are intended to initiate further discussion. When priorities are selected more detailed strategies with in depth background information, numerical targets, schedules, milestones and performance measures will be developed. ______________________________________________________________________________

December, 2003 Page 1 of 2 Proposed Priority: Underground Storage Tanks/ Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Universe and Types of Facilities An underground storage tank system ( UST) is a tank and any underground piping connected to the tank that has at least 10 percent of its combined volume underground. Federal UST regulations apply only to underground tanks and piping storing either petroleum or certain hazardous substances. When the UST program began, there were approximately 2.1 million regulated tanks in the U. S. Today there are far fewer since many substandard UST systems have been closed. From the mid 1980' s to 1999, EPA and the states permanently closed approximately 1.3 million federally regulated substandard UST's.

Geographic Range National.

Environmental Risks Prior to the mid 1980s, most USTs were made of bare steel, which is likely to corrode over time and allow UST contents to leak into the environment. Faulty installation or inadequate operating and maintenance procedures also can cause USTs to release their contents into the environment.

The greatest potential hazard from a leaking UST is that the petroleum or other hazardous substance can seep into the soil and contaminate groundwater, the source of drinking water for nearly half of all Americans. A leaking UST can present other health and environmental risks, including the potential for fire and explosion. EPA estimates about 25,000 tanks hold hazardous substances covered by UST regulations.

Noncompliance Information A common problem associated with underground storage tanks is soil and groundwater contamination by MTBE ( methyl teritary butyl ether) and other fuel oxygenates. Owners at many small privately owned gas stations may be unaware of UST regulations or may find it prohibitively expensive to resolve any problems that might be present. Some tanks are owned by marketers who sell gasoline to the public ( such as service stations and convenience stores) and others are owned by nonmarketers who use tanks solely for their own needs ( such as fleet service operators and local governments. ) There is a high rate of noncompliance among underground storage tank operators, particularly among independent owners. In addition to fuel oxygenates, UST's can also contain a variety of other hazardous wastes; there are over 800 substances listed as CERCLA hazardous substances.

EPA and the states have made significant progress over the past 15 years in developing and The background papers on the candidate national program priorities are intended to initiate further discussion. When priorities are selected more detailed strategies with in depth background information, numerical targets, schedules, milestones and performance measures will be developed. ______________________________________________________________________________

December, 2003 Page 2 of 2 implementing a comprehensive regulatory UST program, which has included the closure of substandard UST's. In addition, new releases have decreased from approximately 26,000 in 1998 to 9000 through mid year 2003. Even though substantial progress has been made, considerable work  such as improving the compliance rates of UST's  remains to be accomplished. Regular and frequent inspections are necessary to achieve and maintain higher compliance rates. Work needs to continue to permanently close orphaned UST's and to remediate releases from those sites.


[Federal Register: September 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 171)]
[Notices]
[Page 51458-51459]
[DOCID:fr03se08-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2413-102]

Georgia Power Company; Notice of Application for Amendment of
License Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

August 26, 2008.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Application Type: Non-Project Use of Project Lands and Waters.
    b. Project No: 2413-102.
    c. Date Filed: May 12, 2008, and supplemented on July 28, 2008.
    d. Applicant: Georgia Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: Wallace Dam Project.
    f. Location: The proposal would be located less than two miles
south of the Georgia Highway 44 crossing of Richland Creek, on Lake
Oconee, in Greene County, Georgia.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Lee Glenn, Lake Resources Manager, 125
Wallace Dam Road NE, Eatonton, GA 31024,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Isis Johnson, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, and e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: September 26, 2008.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all interveners filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be
served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the
particular application.
    k. Description of Request: Georgia Power Company filed an
application seeking Commission approval to grant permission to the
Linger Longer Development Company to install a new 10-slip dock, as
well as add additional slips to an existing six-slip dock on Lake
Oconee. An impervious walkway would also be constructed in association
with the new dock. The new dock and additional slips would serve the
residents of the Montgomery Place III subdivision. The proposed
structures would be built in-place and rip-rap would be used for
shoreline stabilization, if necessary. No dredging is proposed as part
of this application.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3372 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable,
and the Project Number of the particular application to which the
filing refers.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-20263 Filed 9-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


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 USEPA/ Region 5 2. OMB control number b. None a. 2005 NEW 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. X New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. G 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? G Yes X 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: National Survey of Successful Waste Disposal Programs in Rural Areas in the United States.

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) : ICR# 2142.01 9. Keywords: Waste treatment and disposal, environmental protection, public health 10. Abstract: Under a USEPA grant, the Research Foundation for Health and Environmental Effects ( RFHEE) will conduct a survey of household waste disposal options. In conjunction with the Rural Community Assistance Program and the National Volunteer Fire Council, RFHEE will develop a targeted survey of approximately 40 questions to find successful methods of household trash disposal in rural areas besides burning, which releases toxics chemicals into the environment. The survey will not take longer than 20 minutes to complete. The Partners will conduct telephone interviews with 50 state, local, or tribal officials who have trash burning bans or programs. In addition, a sample of 50 local volunteer firefighters will be surveyed. Another 400 citizens living in areas with trash burning programs will be surveyed. A total of 500 respondents will be surveyed.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. X Individuals or households d. Farms b. Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. P State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. P Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. G Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 500 b. Total annual responses 500 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 167 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 167 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 167 2. Adjustment 0 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs $ 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) $ 0 c. Total annualized cost requested $ 0 d. Current OMB inventory $ 0 e. Difference $ 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change $ 0 2. Adjustment $ 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X")

a. __ Application for benefits e.

Program planning or management b. _ P_ Program evaluation f.

Research c.

General purpose statistics g. __ Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. Q Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. Q 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) One Time Response 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: Erin Newman  USEPA Region 5 Phone: 312 886 4587 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


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 223 (Wednesday, November 18, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 73476]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25443]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD21-5-000]

Impact of Electric Vehicles on the Transmission System and
Wholesale Electricity Markets

Notice Cancelling Roundtable Discussion

    As announced in a notice issued in this proceeding on October 30,
2020, Notice of Roundtable Discussion, a roundtable discussion on
electric vehicles was originally scheduled for December 3, 2020. Take
notice that this event is cancelled. This notice is issued and
published in accordance with 18 CFR 2.1 (2020).

    Dated: November 12, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-25443 Filed 11-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P