[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 173 (Thursday, September 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55064-55068]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19413]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95669; File No. SR-OCC-2022-802]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of No Objection to Advance Notice Related to a Master Repurchase
Agreement as Part of The Options Clearing Corporation's Overall
Liquidity Plan

September 2, 2022.

I. Introduction

    On July 7, 2022, the Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') advance
notice SR-OCC-2022-802 (``Advance Notice'') pursuant to Section
806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act, entitled Payment, Clearing and Settlement
Supervision Act of 2010 (``Clearing Supervision Act'') \1\ and Rule
19b-4(n)(1)(i) \2\ under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'') \3\ in connection with a proposed master repurchase
agreement with a bank counterparty.\4\ The Advance Notice was published
for public comment in the Federal Register on July 26, 2022.\5\ The
Commission has received comments regarding the changes proposed in the
Advance Notice.\6\ The Commission is hereby providing notice of no
objection to the Advance Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(n)(1)(i).
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.
    \4\ See Notice of Filing, infra note 5, at 87 FR 44457.
    \5\ Exchange Act Release No. 95326 (Jul. 20, 2022), 87 FR 44457
(Jul. 26, 2022) (File No. SR-OCC-2022-802) (``Notice of Filing'').
    \6\ Comments on the Advance Notice are available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-occ-2022-802/srocc2022802.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background 7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the
meanings specified in OCC's Rules and By-Laws, available at https://www.theocc.com/about/publications/bylaws.jsp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the sole clearing agency for standardized U.S. securities
options listed on national securities exchanges registered with the
Commission (``listed options''), OCC is obligated to make certain
payments. In the event of a Clearing Member default, OCC would be
obligated to make payments, on time, related to that member's clearing
transactions. To meet such payment obligations, OCC maintains access to
cash from a variety of sources, including a requirement for members to
pledge cash collateral to OCC and various agreements with banks and
other counterparties (``liquidity facilities'') to provide OCC with
cash in exchange for collateral, such as U.S. Government securities.
OCC routinely considers potential market stress scenarios that could
affect such payment obligations. Based on such considerations, OCC now
believes that it should seek to expand its liquidity facilities to
increase OCC's access to cash to manage a member default.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Notice of Filing, 87 FR at 44458.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC is proposing to expand its liquidity facilities to include a
new arrangement with a bank to provide access to cash for OCC. As
described in more detail below, OCC is proposing to execute a master
repurchase agreement (``MRA'') with a bank counterparty as part of
OCC's overall liquidity plan. OCC is not requiring its members or other
market participants to provide additional or different collateral to
OCC. Rather, the proposed MRA would provide OCC with another vehicle
for accessing cash to meet its payment obligations, including in the
event that one of its members fails to meet its payment obligations to
OCC.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See OCC Rule 1006(f)(1)(A). OCC may also use the Clearing
Fund to address liquidity shortfalls arising from the failure of any
bank, securities or commodities clearing organization, or investment
counterparty to perform any obligation to OCC when due. See OCC Rule
1006(f)(1)(C); Exchange Act Release No. 94304 (Feb. 24, 2022), 87 FR
11776 (Mar. 2, 2022) (File No. SR-OCC-2021-014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC's liquidity plan already provides access to a diverse set of
funding sources, including banks (i.e., OCC's syndicated credit
facility),\10\ the Non-Bank Liquidity Facility program,\11\ and
Clearing Members' Clearing Fund Cash Requirement.\12\ OCC currently
maintains $8 billion in qualifying liquid resources,\13\ consisting of
$5 billion of required Clearing Fund cash contributions, $2 billion in
the syndicated bank credit facility, and $1 billion in the Non-Bank
Liquidity Facility. OCC intends to increase such resources by $2.5
billion to a new total of $10.5 billion. OCC's proposed expansion of
its liquidity plan includes several components: (1) creating a new
committed repurchase facility with a commercial bank counterparty
(``Bank Repo Facility''); \14\ (2) expanding OCC's existing Non-Bank
Liquidity Facility program; \15\ (3) expanding OCC's existing
syndicated credit facility; \16\ and (4) establishing a target for the
aggregate amount of all external liquidity resources (i.e., the
syndicated credit facility, Bank Repo Facility and Non-Bank Liquidity
Facility).\17\ The Advance Notice concerns the first component
described above, namely, a change to OCC's operations to execute an MRA
with a commercial bank counterparty.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Exchange Act Release No. 88971 (May 28, 2020), 85 FR
34257 (June 3, 2020) (File No. SR-OCC-2020-804).
    \11\ See Exchange Act Release No. 89039 (Jun. 10, 2020), 85 FR
36444 (Jun. 16, 2020) (File No. SR-OCC-2020-803); Exchange Act
Release No. 76821 (Jan. 4, 2016), 81 FR 3208 (Jan. 20, 2016) (File
No. SR-OCC-2015-805); Exchange Act Release No. 73979 (Jan. 2, 2015),
80 FR 1062 (Jan. 8, 2015) (File No. SR-OCC-2014-809).
    \12\ See OCC Rule 1002.
    \13\ See 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(a)(14) (defining qualifying liquid
resources).
    \14\ The Bank Repo Facility would retain a funding limit and a
limit on adding new counterparties because OCC is proposing this
facility as a discrete MRA with a single counterparty. To the extent
OCC determines to add additional commitments or counterparties to
the Bank Repo Facility in the future, OCC would first file an
advance notice.
    \15\ In a separate advance notice, OCC is proposing changes to
the Non-Bank Liquidity Facility program, including the elimination
of the current funding limit to that program in favor of an
established target for external liquidity across all sources. See
Exchange Act Release No. 95327 (Jul. 20, 2022), 87 FR 44477 (Jul.
26, 2022) (File No. SR-OCC-2022-803).
    \16\ Id. at 44479.
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ The proposed Bank Repo Facility would have terms that
largely resemble those of an earlier Bank Repo Facility that OCC
executed with a bank counterparty in 2020 after obtaining a notice
of no objection from the Commission (``2020 Bank Repo Facility'').
See Exchange Act Release No. 88317 (Mar. 4, 2020), 85 FR 13681 (Mar.
9, 2020) (File No. SR-OCC-2020-801). However, in this case, the
committed amount would be up to $1 billion (as opposed to $500
million), and the bank counterparty would be one to which OCC has
minimal other credit exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the MRA would be based on the Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association (``SIFMA'') standard form of master
repurchase agreement,\19\ OCC would require the MRA to contain certain
additional provisions tailored to help ensure certainty of funding and
operational effectiveness, as described in more detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The standard form master repurchase agreement is published
by SIFMA and is commonly used in the repurchase market by
institutional investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. MRA Standard Repurchase Agreement Terms

    The MRA repurchase agreement terms would state that the buyer
(i.e., the bank counterparty) would purchase U.S. Government securities
(``Eligible Securities'') from OCC from time to time.\20\ OCC, the
seller, would transfer Eligible Securities to the buyer in

exchange for a buyer payment to OCC in immediately available funds
(``Purchase Price''). The buyer would simultaneously agree to transfer
the purchased securities back to OCC at a specified later date
(``Repurchase Date''), or on OCC's demand against the transfer of funds
from OCC to the buyer, where the funds would be equal to the
outstanding Purchase Price plus the accrued and unpaid price
differential (together, ``Repurchase Price'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ For the repurchase arrangements, OCC would use Eligible
Securities that are included in Clearing Fund contributions by
Clearing Members and margin deposits of any suspended Clearing
Member. OCC Rule 1006(f) and OCC Rule 1104(b) authorize OCC to use
these sources to obtain funds from third parties through securities
repurchases. The officers who may exercise this authority include
the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Operating Officer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At all times while a transaction is outstanding, OCC would be
required to maintain a specified amount of securities or cash margin
with the buyer.\21\ The market value of the securities supporting each
transaction would be determined daily, based on a price obtained from a
generally recognized pricing source. If the market value of the
purchased securities falls below OCC's required margin, OCC would be
required to satisfy its margin requirement by transferring sufficient
cash or additional securities reasonably acceptable to the buyer.\22\
If the market value of the purchased securities rises above OCC's
required margin, OCC would be permitted to require the buyer to return
excess purchased securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ OCC expects that it would be required to maintain margin
equal to 102% of the Repurchase Price, which is a standard rate for
arrangements involving Government securities.
    \22\ OCC expects that it would use Clearing Fund securities and
securities posted as margin by defaulting Clearing Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A buyer would default if it fails to purchase securities on a
Purchase Date, fails to transfer purchased securities on any applicable
Repurchase Date, or fails to transfer any interest, dividends, or
distributions on purchased securities to OCC within a specified period
after receiving notice of such failure. OCC would default if it fails
to transfer purchased securities on a Purchase Date, or fails to
repurchase purchased securities on an applicable Repurchase Date. The
MRA would also provide for standard events of default for either party,
including a party's failure to maintain required margin or an
insolvency event with respect to either party. If one party defaults,
the non-defaulting party has the option to accelerate the Repurchase
Date of all outstanding transactions between the defaulting party and
the non-defaulting party, among other rights. If OCC or the buyer did
not timely perform, the non-defaulting party would be permitted to buy
or sell, or deem itself to have bought or sold, securities as needed to
be made whole, and the defaulting party would be required to pay the
costs related to any covering transactions. Additionally, if OCC were
required to obtain replacement securities to be made whole because of a
buyer default, the buyer would be required to pay the excess of the
price paid by OCC to obtain replacement securities over the Repurchase
Price.

B. Additional Provisions To Promote Funding Certainty

Commitment To Fund
    The buyer would provide a funding commitment of up to $1 billion,
with the commitment extending for one year (plus or minus one day). The
buyer would be obligated to enter into transactions under the MRA up to
its committed amount, so long as no default had occurred and OCC
transferred sufficient Eligible Securities. The buyer would be
obligated to enter into transactions even if OCC had experienced a
material adverse change, such as the failure of a Clearing Member.
Funding Mechanics
    OCC would receive the Purchase Price in immediately available funds
within 60 minutes of its request for funds and delivery of Eligible
Securities and, if needed, prior to OCC's regular daily settlement
time.\23\ These targeted funding mechanics would allow OCC to receive
needed liquidity in time to satisfy settlement obligations, even in the
event of a default by a Clearing Member or a market disruption. For
example, the funding mechanism may be delivery versus payment/receive
versus payment \24\ or another method acceptable to OCC that both
satisfies the objectives of the Bank Repo Facility and presents limited
operational risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ This would include OCC's regular daily settlement time and
any extended settlement time implemented by OCC in an emergency
situation under Rule 505.
    \24\ Delivery versus payment/receive versus payment is a method
of settlement under which payment for securities must be made prior
to or simultaneously with delivery of the securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rehypothecation Not Permitted
    The buyer would not be permitted to grant any third party an
interest in purchased securities, in order to reduce the risk that the
third party could interfere with the buyer's transfer of the purchased
securities on the Repurchase Date. The buyer would agree to provide OCC
with daily information about the account the buyer uses to hold the
purchased securities, which would allow OCC to act quickly in the event
the buyer violates any requirements.
Early Termination Rights
    OCC would be able to terminate any transaction early upon providing
written notice to the buyer, but the buyer would only be able to
terminate a transaction upon an OCC default, as further described
below. A notice of termination by OCC would specify a new Repurchase
Date prior to the originally agreed-upon Repurchase Date. Upon the
early termination of a transaction, the buyer would be required to
return all purchased securities to OCC and OCC would be required to pay
the Repurchase Price.
Substitution
    OCC would have the discretion to substitute any Eligible Securities
for purchased securities by a specified time, so long as the Eligible
Securities satisfy any applicable criteria contained in the MRA and the
transfer of the Eligible Securities would not create a margin deficit,
as described above.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ In addition to its substitution rights, OCC could cause the
return of purchased securities by exercising its optional early
termination rights under the MRA. If OCC were to terminate the
transaction, the buyer would be required to return purchased
securities to OCC against payment of the corresponding Repurchase
Price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Default Events
    Beyond standard default events (e.g., failure to purchase or
transfer securities on the applicable Purchase Date or Repurchase
Date), OCC would require the MRA to not contain any additional default
events that would restrict OCC's access to funding. Most importantly,
OCC would require that if OCC suffers a ``material adverse change,'' it
would not be a default event.\26\ This provision provides OCC with
funding certainty, even in difficult market conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ A ``material adverse change'' is typically defined
contractually as a change that would have a materially adverse
effect on the business or financial condition of a company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a default event were to occur, the non-defaulting party may
elect to take the actions specified in a ``mini close-out'' provision
of the MRA instead of declaring an event of default. For example, if
the buyer were to fail to transfer purchased securities on the
applicable Repurchase Date, OCC may choose to take one of the following
actions, instead of declaring an event of default: (1) If OCC has
already paid the Repurchase Price, OCC could require the buyer to repay
it; (2) If there is a margin excess, OCC could require the buyer to pay
cash or deliver purchased securities in an amount equal to the margin
excess; or (3) OCC could declare that the applicable transaction, and
only that transaction, will be immediately terminated, and apply
default remedies under the MRA to only that transaction. OCC would
therefore have remedies to mitigate risk with respect to a particular

transaction, without having to declare an event of default with respect
to all transactions under the MRA.

C. The Proposed Program: Annual Renewal

    As discussed above, the MRA would be for an annual term. OCC
anticipates that it would renew the MRA with the same bank
counterparty, based on the same or substantially similar terms.
    At each renewal, OCC would evaluate the commitment amount so that
OCC's available liquidity resources remain properly calibrated to its
activities and settlement obligations. OCC would submit another advance
notice with respect to such renewal for the same term only under one of
the following conditions: (1) OCC determines its liquidity needs merit
funding levels above the $1 billion; (2) OCC should seek to change the
terms and conditions of the MRA in a manner that materially affects the
nature or level of risk presented by OCC; \27\ (3) OCC should seek to
add counterparties or substitute the bank counterparty to the Bank Repo
Facility program; or (4) the bank counterparty has experienced a
negative change to its credit profile or a material adverse change
since the latest renewal of the MRA. Annual renewals for the Bank Repo
Facility would proceed in a similar manner to renewals of term
commitments under the existing Non-Bank Liquidity Facility.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ For the purposes of clarity, OCC would not consider changes
to pricing or changes in representations, covenants, and terms of
events of default to be changes to a term or condition that would
require the filing of a subsequent advance notice. This would be
OCC's position so long as pricing is at the then-prevailing market
rate, and changes to such other provisions are immaterial to OCC as
the seller and do not materially impair OCC's ability to draw
against the facility.
    \28\ See Exchange Act Release No. 76821, 81 FR at 3209
(describing OCC's proposal to submit an advance notice in connection
with a renewal of commitments under the Non-Bank Liquidity Facility
if: (i) OCC determined that its liquidity needs merited commitments
above or below certain levels; (ii) OCC should seek to change the
terms and conditions of the Non-Bank Liquidity Facility; and (iii)
the commitment counterparty experienced a negative change to its
credit profile or a material adverse change since entering the
commitment or the latest renewal of the commitment). OCC
subsequently submitted an advance notice pursuant to that commitment
to support its ability to onboard multiple liquidity providers below
the identified thresholds and with different term lengths to replace
expiring commitments, see Exchange Act Release No. 89039, 85 FR at
36445-46, and has, concurrent with the filing of File No. SR-OCC-
2022-802, submitted another advance notice to eliminate the current
funding limit to that program in favor of an established target for
external liquidity across all sources. See supra note 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Absent one or more of the changes described above, OCC states that
it does not believe that renewal of the MRA would constitute a change
to OCC's operations that could materially affect the nature or level of
risks presented by OCC so as to require an advance notice under Section
806(e)(1) of the Clearing Supervision Act.\29\ OCC would consider such
a renewal to be on substantially the same terms and conditions.
Conversely, a new commitment or renewal under different conditions
would necessitate OCC providing advance notice to the Commission for
consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Commission Findings and Notice of No Objection

    Although the Clearing Supervision Act does not specify a standard
of review for an advance notice, the stated purpose of the Clearing
Supervision Act is instructive: to mitigate systemic risk in the
financial system and promote financial stability by, among other
things, promoting uniform risk management standards for systemically
important financial market utilities (``SIFMUs'') and strengthening the
liquidity of SIFMUs.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See 12 U.S.C. 5461(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act authorizes the
Commission to prescribe regulations containing risk management
standards for the payment, clearing, and settlement activities of
designated clearing entities engaged in designated activities for which
the Commission is the supervisory agency.\31\ Section 805(b) of the
Clearing Supervision Act provides the following objectives and
principles for the Commission's risk management standards prescribed
under Section 805(a): \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(a)(2).
    \32\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     to promote robust risk management;
     to promote safety and soundness;
     to reduce systemic risks; and
     to support the stability of the broader financial system.
    Section 805(c) provides, in addition, that the Commission's risk
management standards may address such areas as risk management and
default policies and procedures, among other areas.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has adopted risk management standards under Section
805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act and Section 17A of the
Exchange Act (the ``Clearing Agency Rules'').\34\ The Clearing Agency
Rules require, among other things, each covered clearing agency to
establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and
procedures that are reasonably designed to meet certain minimum
requirements for its operations and risk management practices on an
ongoing basis.\35\ As such, it is appropriate for the Commission to
review advance notices against the Clearing Agency Rules and the
objectives and principles of these risk management standards as
described in Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act. As
discussed below, the Commission believes the changes proposed in the
Advance Notice are consistent with the objectives and principles
described in Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act,\36\ and in
the Clearing Agency Rules, in particular Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7).\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22. See Exchange Act Release No. 68080
(Oct. 22, 2012), 77 FR 66220 (Nov. 2, 2012) (S7-08-11). See also
Covered Clearing Agency Standards, 81 FR 70786. The Commission
established an effective date of December 12, 2016 and a compliance
date of April 11, 2017 for the Covered Clearing Agency Standards.
OCC is a ``covered clearing agency'' as defined in Rule 17Ad-
22(a)(5).
    \35\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \36\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
    \37\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency With Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act

    The Commission believes that the proposal contained in OCC's
Advance Notice is consistent with the stated objectives and principles
of Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act. Specifically, as
discussed below, the Commission believes that the changes proposed in
the Advance Notice are consistent with promoting robust risk
management, promoting safety and soundness, reducing systemic risks,
and supporting the stability of the broader financial system.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the addition of a Bank Repo Facility
to OCC's overall liquidity plan is consistent with the promotion of
robust risk management, in particular management of liquidity risk
presented to OCC. As a central counterparty and SIFMU,\39\ it is
imperative that OCC have adequate resources to be able to satisfy its
counterparty settlement obligations, including in the event of a
Clearing Member default.\40\ As described above, the Bank Repo Facility
program would provide an additional source of liquidity to OCC's
overall liquidity plan and increase the amount of OCC's qualifying
liquid resources. This would promote the reduction of risks to OCC, its
Clearing Members, and the options market in general, because it would

allow OCC to increase the amount and availability of short-term funds
to address liquidity demands arising out of the default or suspension
of a Clearing Member, or in anticipation of a potential default or
suspension of a Clearing Member. Moreover, adding another committed
source of liquidity resources would help OCC to manage the allocation
between its sources of liquidity by giving OCC more flexibility to
adjust the mix of liquidity resources based on market conditions,
availability, and shifting liquidity needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Financial Stability Oversight Council (``FSOC'') 2012
Annual Report, Appendix A, available at https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fsoc/Documents/2012%20Annual%20Report.pdf.
    \40\ See Exchange Act Release No. 73979 (Jan. 2, 2015), 80 FR
1062, 1065 (Jan. 8, 2015) (File No. SR-OCC-2014-809).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also believes that the proposed changes to add the
Bank Repo Facility are consistent with the promotion of safety and
soundness. By adding a liquidity resource of up to $1 billion, OCC is
reducing the likelihood that it would have insufficient financial
resources to address liquidity demands arising out of a Clearing Member
default. Further, the Commission believes that, to the extent the
proposed changes are consistent with promoting OCC's safety and
soundness, they are also consistent with supporting the stability of
the broader financial system. OCC has been designated as a SIFMU, in
part, because its failure or disruption could increase the risk of
significant liquidity or credit problems spreading among financial
institutions or markets.\41\ The Commission believes that the proposed
changes would support OCC's ability to continue providing services to
the options markets by addressing losses and shortfalls arising out of
the default of a Clearing Member or a market disruption. OCC's
continued operations would, in turn, help support the stability of the
financial system by reducing the risk of significant liquidity or
credit problems spreading among market participants that rely on OCC's
central role in the options market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See FSOC 2012 Annual Report, Appendix A, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/261/here.pdf (last visited Mar. 17,
2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission received comments asserting that the proposal would
be harmful to U.S. markets, investors, and pension holders, and that
``changing the rules regarding advance notice'' (likely referring to
OCC not having to file an advance notice at renewal) has ``no value to
the public.'' \42\ As described above, an additional liquidity source
of $1 billion would reduce the likelihood that OCC would have
insufficient financial resources resulting from a Clearing Member
default, and would in fact promote the safety and soundness of the U.S.
markets. Moreover, the Commission has carefully considered the risk of
allowing renewals of the Bank Repo Facility without additional advance
notice filings. Given that such a renewal would only be permitted
without an advance notice if executed on substantially similar terms as
those of the Bank Repo Facility,\43\ to which the Commission does not
object, the Commission does not believe that future renewals would pose
any more risk than the proposal considered here. Any change to the
terms of the proposed Bank Repo Facility or a renewal thereof that
could materially affect the nature or level of risk posed by OCC would
necessitate an advance notice filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Comments on the Advance Notice are available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-occ-2022-802/srocc2022802.htm.
    \43\ OCC would submit another advance notice if: (1) OCC seeks
funding above $1 billion; (2) OCC seeks to change the terms and
conditions of the MRA in a manner that materially affects the nature
or level of risk presented by OCC; (3) OCC seeks to add or
substitute counterparties; or (4) the bank counterparty has
experienced a negative change to its credit profile or a material
adverse change since the latest renewal of the MRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, and for the reasons stated above, the Commission
believes the changes proposed in the Advance Notice are consistent with
Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7) Under the Exchange Act

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(ii) under the Exchange Act requires that a
covered clearing agency 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 the covered clearing agency, including measuring, monitoring,
and managing its settlement and funding flows on an ongoing and timely
basis, and its use of intraday liquidity by, at a minimum, holding
qualifying liquid resources sufficient to meet the minimum liquidity
resource requirement under Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(i) \45\ in each relevant
currency for which the covered clearing agency has payment obligations
owed to clearing members.\46\ For any covered clearing agency,
``qualifying liquid resources'' means assets that are readily available
and convertible into cash through prearranged funding arrangements,
such as, committed arrangements without material adverse change
provisions, including, among others, repurchase agreements.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(i) requires OCC to establish, implement,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to effectively measure, monitor, and manage liquidity risk
that arises in or is borne by OCC, including measuring, monitoring,
and managing its settlement and funding flows on an ongoing and
timely basis, and its use of intraday liquidity by, at a minimum,
maintaining sufficient liquid resources at the minimum in all
relevant currencies to effect same-day settlement of payment
obligations with a high degree of confidence under a wide range of
foreseeable stress scenarios that includes, but is not limited to,
the default of the participant family that would generate the
largest aggregate payment of obligation for the covered clearing
agency in extreme but plausible conditions. 17 CFR 240.17Ad-
22(e)(7)(i).
    \46\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7)(ii).
    \47\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(a)(14)(ii)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, implementation of the Bank Repo Facility would
provide OCC with a committed funding arrangement that would give OCC
access to $1 billion of committed liquid resources through an MRA with
a bank counterparty. Under the terms of the MRA, OCC's bank
counterparty would be required to provide OCC with funding subject to a
number of conditions, including an obligation to fund regardless of any
material adverse change at OCC, such as the failure of a Clearing
Member. Taken together, the Commission believes that the Bank Repo
Facility provides OCC with $1 billion of ``qualifying liquid
resources'' as that term is defined in Rule 17Ad-22(e)(14) of the
Exchange Act,\48\ and therefore is consistent with the requirements of
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(ii) under the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission received comments asserting that the proposal would
leave the investing public, rather than Clearing Members, accountable
for a Clearing Member default or a market disruption.\49\ As permitted
by the Clearing Agency Rules, OCC maintains a number of different
liquidity resources to manage liquidity risk, including a requirement
that Clearing Members provide a specified amount of their Clearing Fund
contributions in cash.\50\ As noted above, Rule 17Ad-22(a)(14) under
the Exchange Act defines qualifying liquid resources to include assets
that are readily available and convertible into cash through
prearranged funding arrangements, such as committed repurchase
agreements.\51\ OCC is proposing to arrange a facility for converting
assets pledged by its members into cash to ensure that OCC is able to
meet its payment obligations. Any cash provided to OCC under the

Bank Repo Facility would be in exchange for U.S. Government
Securities.\52\ Retail investors would not be directly exposed to any
potential risks arising out of the facility because the arrangement
would be between OCC and a bank counterparty.\53\ The Commission
believes, therefore, that the facility would not relieve Clearing
Members from collateralizing the risks they pose to OCC or
inappropriately shift such risks to the investing public.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Comments on the Advance Notice are available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-occ-2022-802/srocc2022802.htm.
    \50\ See OCC Rule OCC 1002(a)(i). OCC increased the amount of
cash that Clearing Members are required to provide to address
liquidity exposures twice in 2021. See OCC Info Memo 48995 (Jul. 16,
2021), available at https://infomemo.theocc.com/infomemos?number=48995 and OCC Info Memo 49316 (Sep. 28, 2021)
available at https://infomemo.theocc.com/infomemos?number=49316.
    \51\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(a)(14)(ii).
    \52\ See Bank Repo Facility Notice of Filing, 87 FR at 44458.
    \53\ Id. at 44457.
    \54\ The Commission also received comments asserting that the
proposal would leave the investing public accountable for a Clearing
Member default, specifically because the OCC proposes to obtain
liquidity from pension funds. See comments on the Advance Notice at
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-occ-2022-802/srocc2022802.htm. These
comments were likely intended for OCC's concurrent proposal to
expand its Non-Bank Liquidity Facility program, but were erroneously
submitted as comments for the Bank Repo Facility proposal. These
comments have been considered and addressed as part of the Non-Bank
Liquidity Facility proposal. See Exchange Act Release No. 95327
(Jul. 20, 2022), 87 FR 44477 (Jul. 26, 2022) (File No. SR-OCC-2022-
803).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission believes that the changes proposed in
the Advance Notice are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7) under the
Exchange Act.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore noticed, pursuant to Section 806(e)(1)(I) of the
Clearing Supervision Act, that the Commission does not object to
Advance Notice (SR-OCC-2022-802) and that OCC is authorized to
implement the proposed change as of the date of this notice.

    By the Commission.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-19413 Filed 9-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


14164 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations Generating Station are available electronically at: http:// www. epa. gov/ region07/ programs/ artd/ air/ title5/ petitiondb/ petitiondb2001. htm. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Riva, Chief, Permitting Section, Air Programs Branch, Division of Environmental Planning and Protection, EPA, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007   1866, telephone ( 212) 637   4074.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Act affords EPA a 45 day period to review, and object to as appropriate, operating permits proposed by State permitting authorities. Section 505( b)( 2) of the Act authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator within 60 days after the expiration of this review period to object to State operating permits if EPA has not done so. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the State, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period or the grounds for the issues arose after this period.

I. Con Edison's 74th Street Station On May 14, 2001, the EPA received a petition from NYPIRG, requesting that EPA object to the issuance of the title V operating permit for the Consolidated Edison 74th Street Station. The petition raises issues regarding the permit application, the permit issuance process, and the permit itself. NYPIRG asserts that: ( 1) The permit does not assure compliance with all applicable requirements as mandated by 40 CFR 70.1( b) and 70.6( a)( 1) because many individual permit conditions lack adequate monitoring and are not practically enforceable; ( 2) DEC violated the public participation requirements of 40 CFR 70.7( h) by inappropriately denying NYPIRG's request for a public hearing; ( 3) the permit is based on an incomplete permit application in violation of 40 CFR 70.5( c); ( 4) the permit is accompanied by an insufficient statement of basis as required by 40 CFR 70.7( a)( 5); ( 5) the permit distorts the annual compliance certification requirement of Clean Air Act section 114( a)( 3) and 40 CFR 70.6( c)( 5); ( 6) the permit does not assure compliance with all applicable requirements as mandated by 40 CFR 70.1( b) and 70.6( a)( 1) because it illegally sanctions the systematic violation of applicable requirements during startup/ shutdown, malfunction, maintenance, and upset conditions; and ( 7) the permit does not require prompt reporting of all deviations from permit requirements as mandated by 40 CFR 70.6( a)( 3)( iii)( B). On February 19, 2003, the Administrator issued an order partially granting and partially denying the petition on the Con Edison 74th Street Station. The order explains the reasons behind EPA's conclusion that the NYSDEC must reopen the permit to: ( 1) Include annual tune ups and necessary parametric monitoring to ensure the turbines' compliance with their NOX RACT emission limits; ( 2) revise recordkeeping provisions to require that records relating to sulfur monitoring be kept for five years; ( 3) include appropriate conditions for particulate matter monitoring that meets the requirements of § 70.6( a)( 3)( i)( B); ( 4) include record keeping and reporting requirements with regard to the use of architectural coatings and sealers; ( 5) note the existence and applicability of the Episodic Action Plan; and ( 6) incorporate `` Appendix A'' of the opacity consent order. The order also explains the reasons for denying NYPIRG's remaining claims. NYPIRG raises each of the above seven issues, except for the public hearing issue, in the petitions for the Danskammer Generating Station and the Lovett Generating Station, as well. In the Danskammer Generating Station petition, NYPIRG raises five additional issues: ( 1) The permit lacks federally enforceable conditions that govern the procedures for permit renewal; ( 2) the permit fails to include federally enforceable emission limits established under pre existing permits; ( 3) the permit does not properly include CAA section 112( r) requirements; ( 4) the permit improperly describes the annual compliance certification due date; and ( 5) the permit does not assure Danskammer's compliance with applicable sulfur dioxide ( SO2) emission limitations. In the petition on the Lovett Generating Station, NYPIRG raises three additional issues: ( 1) The proposed permit lacks a compliance schedule designed to bring the Lovett Generating Station into compliance with PSD requirements; ( 2) the proposed permit fails to include federally enforceable emission limits established under preexisting permits; and ( 3) the proposed permit does not correctly include the CAA section 112( r) requirements. In each of these petitions, the issue on monitoring is subdivided into several detailed points, some of which are permit specific and some of which are shared among the other permits.

II. Danskammer Generating Station On December 10, 2001, the EPA received a petition from NYPIRG, requesting that EPA object to the issuance of the title V operating permit for the Danskammer Generating Station, on the grounds listed above. On February 14, 2003, the Administrator issued an order partially granting and partially denying the petition. The order explains the reasons behind EPA's conclusion that the NYSDEC must reopen the permit to: ( 1) Specify normal operating ranges for ESP parameters and ( 2) delete language allowing digital recording of COM data to be replaced by manual recording. The order also explains the reasons for denying NYPIRG's remaining claims.

III. Lovett Generating Station On November 26, 2001, the EPA received a petition from NYPIRG, requesting that EPA object to the issuance of the title V operating permit for the Lovett Generating Station, on the grounds listed above. On February 19, 2003, the Administrator issued an order partially granting and partially denying the petition. The order explains the reasons behind EPA's conclusion that the NYSDEC must reopen the permit to: ( 1) Incorporate opacity monitoring to assure compliance with New York State regulations at 6 NYCRR section 211.3; and ( 2) incorporate all necessary requirements from the opacity consent order. The order also explains the reasons for denying NYPIRG's remaining claims.

Dated: March 6, 2003. Jane M. Kenny, Regional Administrator, Region 2. [ FR Doc. 03   7049 Filed 3   21   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 125 [ FRL   7472   2]

RIN   2040   AD85 Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System   Amendment of Final Regulations Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

SUMMARY: Because EPA received adverse comment, we are withdrawing the direct final rule for `` National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System   Amendment of Final Regulations Addressing Cooling Water VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 15: 11 Mar 21, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24MRR1. SGM 24MRR1 14165 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 2003 / Rules and Regulations Intake Structures for New Facilities; Direct Final Rule.'' We published the direct final rule on December 26, 2002 ( 67 FR 78948), to make three minor technical corrections to the final regulations implementing section 316( b) of the Clean Water Act for new facilities. We stated in the direct final rule that if we received adverse comment by January 27, 2003, we would publish a timely notice of withdrawal in the Federal Register. We subsequently received adverse comment on the direct final rule. We will address those comments in a subsequent final action based on the parallel proposal also published on December 26, 2002 ( 67 FR 78956). As stated in the parallel proposal, we will not institute a second comment period on this action. DATES: As of March 24, 2003, EPA withdraws the direct final rule published at 67 FR 78948, on December 26, 2002. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Segall, Engineering and Analysis Division ( 4303T), USEPA Office of Science and Technology, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460 ( phone: 202   566   1041; email: segall. martha@ epa. gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA published a direct final rule on December 26, 2002, to make minor changes to a final rule published December 18, 2001, implementing section 316( b) of the Clean Water Act ( CWA). The December 2001 final rule established national technology based performance requirements applicable to the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures at new facilities using water withdrawn from rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs, estuaries, oceans or other waters of the United States for cooling. The national requirements established the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact associated with the use of these structures. The direct final rule clarified three technical issues on velocity monitoring, authority to require additional design and construction technologies, and procedures governing requests for less stringent alternative requirements. EPA published a companion proposed rule on the same day as the direct final rule. The proposed rule invited comment on the substance of the direct final rule. The proposed rule stated that if EPA received adverse comment by January 27, 2003, the direct final rule would not take effect and EPA would publish a notice in the Federal Register withdrawing the direct final rule before the March 26, 2003, effective date. The EPA subsequently received adverse comment on the direct final rule. EPA plans to address those comments in a subsequent action. Today's action withdraws the direct final rule; the amendments to the final regulations addressing cooling water intake structures for new facilities will not take effect on March 26, 2003.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 125 Environmental protection, Cooling water intake structures, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control.

Dated: March 19, 2003. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator. [ FR Doc. 03   7047 Filed 3   21   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [ OPP   2002   0278; FRL   7299   4]

Pesticides; Tolerance Exemptions for Active and Inert Ingredients for Use in Antimicrobial Formulations ( Food Contact Surface Sanitizing Solutions); Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule; withdrawal.

SUMMARY: EPA received adverse comment on the direct final rule `` Pesticides; Tolerance Exemptions for Active and Inert Ingredients for Use in Antimicrobial Formulations ( Food Contact Surface Sanitizing Solutions),'' published in the Federal Register of December 3, 2002, because of the adverse comment EPA is withdrawing the direct final rule. The direct final rule was intended to add a new section to part 180 listing the pesticide chemicals that are exempt from the requirement of a tolerance when used in food contact surface sanitizing solutions. DATES: The withdrawal is effective March 24, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathryn Boyle, Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 305   6304; fax number: ( 703) 305   0599; e mail address: boyle. kathryn@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are a food manufacturer, or antimicrobial pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:   Industry ( NAICS 311), e. g., Food manufacturing.   Producers ( NAICS 32561), e. g., Antimicrobial pesticides. This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

II. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

A. Docket EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2003   0278. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805.

B. Electronic Access You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 15: 11 Mar 21, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24MRR1. SGM 24MRR1


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27499-27500]
[FR Doc No: 2023-09245]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2489-049]

Green Mountain Power Corporation; Notice of Application Accepted
for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Subsequent Minor License.
    b. Project No.: 2489-049.
    c. Date filed: October 31, 2022.
    d. Applicant: Green Mountain Power Corporation.
    e. Name of Project: Cavendish Hydroelectric Project (Cavendish
Project or project).
    f. Location: On the Black River, in the town of Cavendish, in
Windsor County, Vermont. The project does not occupy any federal land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: John Tedesco, Green Mountain Power
Corporation, 2152 Post Road, Rutland, VT 05701; Phone at (802) 655-
8753, or email at [email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Adam Peer at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
[email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests: 60 days
from the issuance date of this notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
using the Commission's eFiling system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY).
    In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy.
Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via
any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
Maryland 20852. All filings must clearly identify the project name and
docket number on the first page: Cavendish Hydroelectric Project (P-
2489-049).
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors 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
intervenor 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.
    k. This application has been accepted but is not ready for
environmental analysis at this time.
    l. The existing Cavendish Project consists of: (1) a 3,000 foot-
long, 10-acre impoundment with a gross storage capacity of 18.4-acre-
feet at a normal water surface elevation of 884.13 feet National
Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29); (2) a 111-foot-long concrete
gravity dam that consists of: (a) a 90-foot-long by 25-foot-high north
spillway section topped with a 6-foot-high inflatable flashboard
system; and (b) a 21-foot-long by 6-foot-high south spillway section
topped with 2.5-foot-high steel flashboards; (3) an 18-inch wide
downstream fish passage chute located on the north side of the
spillway; (4) a concrete intake structure equipped with a mechanically
operated headgate, and a trash rack with 2-inch clear bar spacing; (5)
a 178-foot-long concrete and rock tunnel that carries flows from the
intake to a penstock; (6) a 6-foot-diameter, 1,090-foot-long steel
penstock; (7) a 64-foot-long by 34-foot-wide powerhouse containing
three turbine-generator units with a combined capacity of 1.44
megawatts; (8) a 100-foot-long transmission line that runs from the
powerhouse to a substation within the project boundary; and (9)
appurtenant facilities. The project creates a 1,570-foot-long bypassed
reach of the Black River.
    The current license requires Green Mountain Power Corporation to:
(1) operate the project in run-of-river mode; (2) maintain the
impoundment water level no lower than 6 inches below the crest of the
flashboards; (3) release a continuous minimum flow of 10 cubic feet per
second (cfs) to the bypassed reach; and (4) release downstream flows of
at least 42 cfs from June 1 to September 30, at least 83 cfs from
October 1 to March 31, and at least 332 cfs from April 1 to May 31 when
refilling the impoundment after project maintenance or flashboard
installation. If inflows are insufficient to meet the downstream flows
during impoundment refill, Green Mountain Power Corporation is required
to release 90 percent of instantaneous inflow through the turbines. The
project generates about 4,864 megawatt-hours annually.
    Green Mountain Power Corporation proposes to: (1) continue
operating the project in run-of-river mode; (2) maintain a stable
impoundment water level at the top of the flashboard crest; (3)
continue releasing a continuous minimum flow of 10 cfs to the bypassed
reach; and (4) release 90 percent of instantaneous inflow through the
turbines at all times when refilling the impoundment.
    m. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (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. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in
accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18
CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate
action to take, the Commission will consider all protests 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 protests
or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
deadline date for the particular application.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST'' or

``MOTION TO INTERVENE;'' (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. Agencies may obtain
copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any
protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative
of the applicant specified in the particular application.
    o. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following schedule. Revisions to the schedule will be made as
appropriate.

Issue Scoping--Document 1 for comments June 2023
Scoping Document 1 comments due--July 2023
Request Additional Information (if necessary)--August 2023
Issue Scoping Document 2 (if necessary)--September 2023
Issue Notice of Ready for Environmental Analysis--December 2023

    Dated: April 26, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-09245 Filed 5-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P