[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 113 (Monday, June 13, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35686-35689]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12623]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0677; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-01378-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-2A12 airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by the investigation of erroneous radio
altimeter data that was displayed on an in-service airplane. It was
revealed that certain radio altimeter coaxial cables used by the radio
altimeter systems, in the aft fuselage equipment bay, were damaged.
This proposed AD would require replacing affected radio altimeter
coaxial cables. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 28,
2022.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Bombardier
Business Aircraft Customer Response Center, 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road
West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 1-514-855-2999;
email [email protected]; internet https://www.bombardier.com.
You may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0677; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for Docket
Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Niczky, Aerospace Engineer,
Avionics and Electrical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-0677; Project Identifier
MCAI-2021-01378-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
the proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Thomas Niczky, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Electrical Systems
Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for
this rulemaking.

Background

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued TCCA AD CF-2021-45, dated December 7,
2021 (TCCA AD CF-2021-45) (also referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an
unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-2A12
airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-
0677.
    This proposed AD was prompted by the investigation of erroneous
radio altimeter data that was displayed on an in-service airplane. It
was revealed that certain radio altimeter coaxial cables, from Radio
Altimeters A28 and A29 to antennas, have been reported damaged, due
their light weight construction, and their proximity to the access door
on the eBay. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the damage to or
kinks in the radio altimeter coaxial cables which could lead to signal
loss or degradation, and possibly un-annunciated loss of terrain
awareness warning system aural cues during approach. See the MCAI for
additional background information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 700-91-7502, Revision 01,
dated August 31, 2020. This service information describes procedures
for replacing affected radio altimeter coaxial cables. The replacement
includes removing the existing radio altimeter coaxial cables,
replacing with new coaxial cables, installing new clamps to accommodate
the coaxial bend radius along the coaxial routing, and re-routing new
radio altimeter coaxial cables from the wing to fuselage fairing, in
the left and right aft fuselage, and in the aft fuselage belly fairing.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
and service information referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD
because the FAA evaluated all the relevant information and determined
the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop
on other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information already described.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 27 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
70 work-hours x $85 per hour = $5,950........................         $13,808          $19,758         $533,466
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of
this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the
cost impact on affected operators.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2022-0677; Project Identifier MCAI-
2021-01378-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by July 28, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

 (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-2A12
airplanes, serial numbers 70006 through 70053 inclusive,
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 34, Navigation.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by the investigation of erroneous radio
altimeter data that was displayed on an in-service airplane. It was
revealed that certain radio altimeter coaxial cables in the aft
fuselage equipment bay were damaged. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address damage to or kinks in the radio altimeter coaxial cables,
which could lead to signal loss or degradation, and possibly un-
annunciated loss of terrain awareness warning system aural cues
during approach.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Replacement of Radio Altimeter Coaxial Cables

    Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, replace
affected radio altimeter coaxial cables, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-91-
7502, Revision 01, dated August 31, 2020, except as specified in
paragraph (h) of this AD.

(h) No Reporting Requirement

    Although Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-91-7502, Revision 01,
dated August 31, 2020, specifies to submit certain information to
the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using the service information identified in
Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-91-7502, dated February 6, 2020.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If
sending information directly to the manager of the certification
office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight
Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or
Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If
approved by

the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) TCCA AD CF-2021-45, dated December 7, 2021, for related
information for related information. This MCAI may be found in the
AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0677.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Thomas Niczky,
Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Electrical Systems Section, FAA,
New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier Business Aircraft Customer Response Center, 400
C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada;
telephone 1-514-855-2999; email [email protected]; internet
https://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at
the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on June 6, 2022.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-12623 Filed 6-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 158 (Tuesday, August 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50739-50740]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20780]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0183]

Hung Ta Fan: Debarment Order

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing an order
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) debarring
Hung Ta Fan for a period of 5 years from importing articles of food or
offering such articles for importation into the United States. FDA
bases this order on a finding that Mr. Fan was convicted of a felony
under Federal law for conduct relating to the importation into the
United States of an article of food. Mr. Fan was given notice of the
proposed debarment and an opportunity to request a hearing within the
timeframe prescribed by regulation. As of July 13, 2011 (30 days after
receipt of the notice), Mr. Fan had not responded. Mr. Fan's failure to
respond constitutes a waiver of his right to a hearing concerning this
action.

DATES: This order is effective August 16, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit applications for termination of debarment to the
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenny Shade, Office of Regulatory
Affairs (HFC-230), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane,
Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 306(b)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(b)(1)(C))
permits FDA to debar an individual from importing an article of food or
offering such an article for import into the United States if FDA
finds, as required by section 306(b)(3)(A) 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 food.
    On August 4, 2010, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois accepted Mr. Fan's guilty plea and
entered judgment against him for the offense of conspiracy, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 and 2, for conspiring to defraud the United
States and to violate 18 U.S.C. 542 (entry of Goods into the United
States by means of false statements) and 18 U.S.C. 545 (importation
contrary to law).
    FDA's finding that debarment is appropriate is based on the felony
conviction referenced herein for conduct relating to the importation
into the United States of any food. The factual basis for this
conviction is as follows: In or around March 2005 and continuing until
in or around November 2006, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 and 2, Mr.
Fan agreed and conspired with others to defraud the United States and

to commit offenses against the United States, to wit: Entry of Goods
into the United States by means of False statements in violation of 18
U.S.C. 542 and Smuggled Goods into the United States in violation of 18
U.S.C. 545. Specifically, Mr. Fan owned and operated Blue Action
Enterprise, Inc., 7 Tiger Enterprise, Inc., Honey World Enterprise,
Inc., Kazak Food Corp., and Kashaka USA, Inc., through which he
imported honey into the United States. Mr. Fan conspired to cause these
companies to import, enter, and sell Chinese-origin honey into the
United States and avoid payment of antidumping duties by falsely
declaring to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of
Customs and Border Protection that the imported honey originated from
countries other than China, including India, South Korea, Taiwan, and
Thailand, when in fact he knew that the honey originated in China. Mr.
Fan's actions allowed him to avoid paying approximately $5,378,370 in
antidumping duties to the United States.
    Further, in or around January 2009, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371
and 2, Mr. Fan agreed and conspired with others to enter into the
commerce of the United States honey diluted and blended with
approximately 20 to 30 percent artificial sugar, by means of false and
fraudulent declarations and practices in violation of 18 U.S.C. 542,
for the purpose of increasing his profits.
    As a result of his conviction, on June 8, 2011, FDA sent Mr. Fan a
notice by certified mail proposing to debar him for a period of 5 years
from importing articles of food or offering such articles for import
into the United States. The proposal was based on a finding under
section 306(b)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act that Mr. Fan was convicted of a
felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the importation into
the United States of an article of food because he conspired to commit
offenses related to the importation of Chinese honey into the United
States, and a determination, after consideration of the factors set
forth in section 306(c)(3) of the FD&C Act that Mr. Fan should be
subject to the maximum possible period of debarment. The proposal also
offered Mr. Fan 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. Fan failed to respond 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 Director, Office of Enforcement, Office of
Regulatory Affairs, under section 306(b)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act, and
under authority delegated to the Director (Staff Manual Guide 1410.35),
finds that Mr. Hung Ta Fan has been convicted of a felony under Federal
law for conduct relating to the importation of an article of food into
the United States and that he is subject to the full period of
debarment.
    As a result of the foregoing finding, Mr. Fan is debarred for a
period of 5 years from importing articles of food or offering such
articles for import into the United States, effective (see DATES).
Under 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 an article
of food by, with the assistance of, or at the direction of Mr. Fan is a
prohibited act.
    Any application by Mr. Fan for termination of debarment under
section 306(d)(1) of the FD&C Act should be identified with Docket No.
FDA-2011-N-0183 and sent to the Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES). All such submissions are to be filed in four copies. The
public availability of information in these submissions is governed by
21 CFR 10.20(j).
    Publicly available submissions may be seen in the Division of
Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: August 8, 2011.
Armando Zamora,
Acting Director, Office of Enforcement, Office of Regulatory Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2011-20780 Filed 8-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: July 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 137)]
[Notices]
[Page 40895-40898]
[DOCID:fr16jy08-110]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58129; File No. SR-ISE-2008-21]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule
Change by International Securities Exchange, LLC Relating to an
Exchange Member's Conduct of Doing Business With the Public

July 9, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on March 27, 2008, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the
``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which items have been substantially
prepared by the Exchange. 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. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is proposing to amend certain Exchange rules that
govern an Exchange member's conduct of doing business with the public.
Specifically, the proposed rule change would require members to
integrate the responsibility for supervision of their public customer
options business into their overall supervisory and compliance
programs. In addition, the proposal would require members to strengthen
their supervisory procedures and internal controls as related to their
public customer options business. The text of the proposed rule change
is available at ISE's Web site at http://www.ise.com, the Office of the
Secretary, ISE, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange 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 Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

Purpose
I. Integration of Options Supervision
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to create a supervisory
structure for options that is similar to that required by New York
Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE'') Rule 342 and National Association of
Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD'') Rule 3010. The proposed rule change
would also conform ISE rules to those of the Chicago Board Options
Exchange (``CBOE'') which has recently eliminated the requirement that
members qualified to do a public customer business in options must
designate a single person to act as a Senior Registered Options
Principal (``SROP'') for the member and that each such member designate
a specific individual as a Compliance Registered Options Principal
(``CROP'').\3\ Instead, the rule requires members to integrate the SROP
and CROP functions into their overall supervisory and compliance
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 56492 (September
21, 2007), 72 FR 54952 (September 27, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2007-106).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SROP concept was first introduced during the early years of
development of the listed options market. Previously, members were
required to designate one or more persons qualified as Registered
Options Principals (``ROPs'') to have supervisory responsibilities with
respect to the firms' options business. As the number of ROPs at larger
firms began to increase, an additional requirement was imposed that
firms designate one of their ROPs as the SROP. This was intended to
eliminate confusion as to where the compliance and supervisory
responsibilities lay by centralizing in a single supervisory officer
overall responsibility for the supervision of a firm's options
activities.\4\ Subsequently, following the recommendation of the
Commission, the options exchanges required firms to designate a CROP to
be responsible for each firm's overall compliance program with respect
to its options activities.\5\ The CROP could be the same person
designated as a SROP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Securities and Exchange Commission, 96th Cong., 1st Sess.,
Report of the Special Study of the Options Markets (Comm. Print
1978) 316 fn. 11.
    \5\ Id. at p. 335.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the SROP and CROP requirements were first imposed, the
supervisory function with respect to options activities of most
securities firms has been integrated into the matrix of supervisory and
compliance functions in respect of the firms' other securities
activities. This not only reflects the maturity of the options market,
but also recognizes the ways in which the uses of options themselves
have become more integrated with other securities in the implementation
of particular strategies. By permitting supervision of a firm's options
activities to be handled in the same manner as the supervision of its
securities and futures activities, the proposed rule change would
ensure that supervisory responsibility over each segment of a firm's
business is assigned to the best qualified persons in the firm, thereby
enhancing the overall quality of supervision and compliance.
    The proposed rule change would allow firms the flexibility to
assign such supervisory and compliance responsibilities, which formerly
resided with the SROP and/or CROP, to more than one individual. For
example, the proposed rule change would permit a

member firm to designate certain ROPs to be responsible for a variety
of supervisory compliance functions such as approving acceptance of
discretionary accounts \6\ approval of communications to customers,\7\
and exceptions to a member firm's suitability standards for trading
uncovered short options.\8\ A firm would be likely to do this in
instances where the firm believes it advantageous to do so to enhance
its supervisory or compliance structure. Typically, a firm may also
wish to divide these functions on the basis of geographic region or
functional considerations. Rule 601 would be amended to clarify the
qualification requirements of individuals designated as ROPs.\9\ Rule
602 would be amended to specify the registration requirements of
individuals who accept orders from non-broker-dealer customers.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Proposed Rule 611.
    \7\ See Proposed Rule 601(e).
    \8\ See Proposed Rule 608(f)(3).
    \9\ See Proposed Rules 601(d) and 601(e).
    \10\ See Proposed Rule 602(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would call for options discretionary
accounts, the acceptance of which must be approved by a ROP qualified
individual (other than the ROP who accepted the account), to be
supervised in the same manner as the supervision of other securities
accounts that are handled on a discretionary basis. The proposed rule
change would eliminate the requirement that discretionary options
orders be approved on the day of entry by a ROP (with one exception as
discussed below). This requirement predates the Special Study and is
not consistent with the use of supervisory tools in computerized format
or exception reports generated after the close of a trading day. No
similar requirement exists for supervision of other securities accounts
that are handled on a discretionary basis.\11\ Discretionary orders
would be reviewed in accordance with a firm's written supervisory
procedures. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change would ensure
that supervisory responsibilities are assigned to specific ROP-
qualified individuals, thereby enhancing the quality of supervision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., NYSE Rule 408.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exchange Rule 611 would be revised by adding the requirement that
any member that does not utilize computerized surveillance tools for
the frequent and appropriate review of discretionary account activity
must establish and implement procedures to require ROP-qualified
individuals who have been designated to review discretionary accounts
to approve and initial each discretionary order on the day entered. The
Exchange believes that any firm that does not utilize computerized
surveillance tools to monitor discretionary account activity should
continue to be required to perform the daily manual review of
discretionary orders.
    Under the proposed rule change, firms would continue to be required
to designate ROP-qualified individuals to provide frequent appropriate
supervisory review of options discretionary accounts. This review
includes the requirement that these ROP-qualified individuals review
the accounts in order to determine whether the ROP accepting the
account had a reasonable basis for believing that the customer was able
to understand and bear the risks of the proposed strategies or
transactions. This requirement provides an additional level of
supervisory audit over options discretionary accounts that does not
exist for other securities discretionary accounts.
    In addition, Proposed Rule 609(g) would require that each member
submit to the Exchange a written report by April 1 of each year that
details the member's supervision and compliance effort, including its
options compliance program, during the preceding year and reports on
the adequacy of the member's ongoing compliance processes and
procedures.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Proposed Rule 609(g), which is modeled after NYSE Rule
342.20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 609(h) would require that each member submit, by
April 1 of each year, a copy of the Rule 609(g) annual report to one or
more of its control persons or, if the member has no control person, to
the audit committee of its board of directors or its equivalent
committee or group.\13\ Further, the proposed rule would provide that a
member that specifically includes its options compliance program in a
report that complies with substantially similar NYSE and NASD rules
would be deemed to have satisfied the requirements of Rules 609(g) and
609(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Proposed Rule 609(h), which is modeled after NYSE Rule
354.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Members would be required to designate a single general partner or
executive officer to assume overall authority and responsibility for
internal supervision, control of the organization and compliance with
securities laws and regulations.\14\ Members would also be required to
designate specific qualified individuals as having supervisory or
compliance responsibilities over each aspect of the firm's options
activities and to set forth the names and titles of these individuals
in their written supervisory procedures.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Proposed Rule 609(a).
    \15\ See Proposed Rule 609(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Supervisory Procedures and Internal Controls
    The Exchange is also proposing to amend certain rules to strengthen
members' supervisory procedures and internal controls relating to a
member's public customer options business. The proposed rule changes
discussed below are modeled after NYSE and NASD rules approved by the
Commission in 2004.\16\ The Exchange believes its proposal to
strengthen member supervisory procedures and internal controls is
appropriate and consistent with the proposal discussed above to
integrate the responsibility for supervision of a member firm's public
customer options business into its overall supervisory and compliance
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 49882 (June 17,
2004), 69 FR 35108 (June 23, 2004) (SR-NYSE-2002-36) (approval
order), 49883 (June 17, 2004), 69 FR 35092 (June 23, 2004) (SR-NASD-
2002-162).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to revise Rule 609(a) to require members
to develop and implement written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to supervise sales managers and other supervisory personnel
who service customer options accounts.\17\ This requirement would apply
to branch office managers, sales managers, regional/district sales
managers, or any person performing a similar supervisory function. Such
policies and procedures are expected to encompass all options sales-
related activities. Proposed Rule 609(a)(3)(i) would require that
supervisory reviews of producing sales managers be conducted by a
qualified ROP who is either senior to, or otherwise ``independent of,''
the producing manager under review. This provision is intended to
ensure that all options sales activity of a producing manager is
monitored for compliance with applicable regulatory requirements by
persons who do not have a personal interest in such activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Proposed Rule 609(a) is modeled after NYSE Rule 342.19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 609(a)(3)(ii) would provide an exception for firms so
limited in size and resources that there is no qualified person senior
to, or otherwise independent of, the producing manager to conduct the
review. In this case, the review would be conducted by a qualified ROP
to the extent practicable. Under proposed Rule

609(a)(3)(iii), a member relying on the limited size and resources
exception must document the factors used to determine that compliance
with each of the ``senior'' or ``otherwise independent'' standards of
proposed Rule 609(a)(3)(i) is not possible, and that the required
supervisory systems and procedures in place with respect to any
producing manager comply with the provisions of proposed Rule
609(a)(3)(i) to the extent practicable.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Proposed Rule 609(a)(3)(iv) would provide that a member
organization that complies with the NYSE or NASD rules that are
substantially similar to the requirements in Rules 609(a)(3)(i),
(a)(3)(ii) and (a)(3)(iii) will be deemed to have met such
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 609(c)(1) would require members to develop and
maintain adequate controls over each of their business activities. The
proposed rule would further require that such controls include the
establishment of procedures to independently verify and test the
supervisory systems and procedures for those business activities. A
member would be required to include in the annual report, prepared
pursuant to proposed Rule 609(g), a review of the member's efforts in
this regard, including a summary of the tests conducted and significant
exceptions identified. The Exchange believes proposed Rule 609(c)(1)
would enhance the overall quality of each member organization's
supervision and compliance function.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Proposed Rule 609(c)(i) is modeled after NYSE Rule 342.23.
Paragraph (c)(ii) of proposed Rule 609 would provide that a member
organization that complies with NYSE or NASD rules that are
substantially similar to the requirements in paragraph (c)(i) of
proposed Rule 609 will be deemed to have met such requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 609(d) would establish requirements for branch office
inspections similar to the requirements of NYSE Rule 342.24.
Specifically Rule 609(d) would require a member to inspect, at least
annually, each supervisory branch office and inspect each non-
supervisory branch office at least once every three years.\20\ The
proposed rule would further require persons who conduct a firm's annual
branch office inspection to be independent of the direct supervision or
control of the branch office (i.e., not the branch office manager, or
any person who directly or indirectly reports to such manager, or any
person to whom such manager directly reports). The Exchange believes
that requiring branch office inspections to be conducted by someone who
has no significant financial interest in the success of a branch office
should lead to more objective and vigorous inspections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Proposed Rules 609(d)(1)(i) and (ii) would provide members
with two exceptions from the annual supervisory branch office
inspection requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under proposed Rule 609(e), any firm seeking an exemption, pursuant
to Rule 609(d)(1)(ii), from the annual branch office inspection
requirement would be required to submit to the Exchange written
policies and procedures for systematic risk-based surveillance of its
branch offices, as defined in Rule 609(e). Proposed Rule 609(f) would
require the annual branch office inspection programs to include, at a
minimum, testing and verification of specified internal controls.\21\
Proposed Rule 609(d)(3) would provide that a member that complies with
the requirements of NASD or the NYSE that are substantially similar to
the requirements of Rules 609(d), (e) and (f) would be deemed to have
met such requirements. The Exchange is also proposing to amend Rule 609
to define ``branch office'' in a way that is substantially similar to
the definition of branch office in NYSE Rule 342.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Proposed Rules 609(e) and (f) are modeled after NYSE Rules
342.25 and 342.26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 609(g)(4) would require a firm to designate a Chief
Compliance Officer (CCO). Proposed Rule 609(g)(5) would require each
firm's Chief Executive Officer (CEO), or equivalent, to certify
annually that the member organization has in place processes to: (1)
Establish and maintain policies and procedures reasonably designed to
achieve compliance with applicable Exchange rules and federal
securities laws and regulations, (2) modify such policies and
procedures as business, regulatory, and legislative changes and events
dictate, and (3) test the effectiveness of such policies and procedures
on a regular basis, the timing of which is reasonably designed to
ensure continuing compliance with Exchange rules and federal securities
laws and regulations.
    Proposed Rule 609(g)(5) would also require the CEO to attest (1)
That the CEO has conducted one or more meetings with the CCO in the
preceding 12 months to discuss the compliance processes in proposed
Rule 609(g)(5)(i), (2) that the CEO has consulted with the CCO and
other officers to the extent necessary to attest to the statements in
the certification, and (3) that the compliance processes are evidenced
in a report, reviewed by the CEO, CCO and such other officers as the
member firm deems necessary to make the certification, that is provided
to the member firm's board of directors and audit committee (if such
committee exists).\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Proposed Rule 609(g)(5) is modeled after NASD Rule 3013 and
NYSE Rule 342.30(e).>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under proposed Rule 609(b)(2), a member, upon a customer's written
instructions, may hold mail for a customer who will not be at his or
her usual address for no longer than two months if the customer is on
vacation or traveling, or three months if the customer is going abroad.
This provision would help ensure that members that hold mail for
customers who are away from their usual addresses do so only pursuant
to the customer's written instructions and for a specified, relatively
short period of time.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Proposed Rule 609(b)(2) is modeled after NASD Rule 3110(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 609(b)(3) would require that, before a customer
options order is executed, the account name or designation must be
placed upon the memorandum for each transaction. In addition, only a
qualified ROP would be permitted to approve any changes in account
names or designations. The ROP would be required to document the
essential facts relied upon in approving the changes and maintain the
record in an easily accessible place. A member would be required to
preserve any documentation that provides for an account designation
change for a period of not less than three years, with the
documentation preserved for the first two years in an easily accessible
place, as the term ``easily accessible place'' is used in Rule 17a-4 of
the Act. The Exchange believes the proposed rule would help to protect
account name and designation information from possible fraudulent
activity.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Proposed Rule 609(b)(3) is modeled after NASD Rule 3110(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 611(d) would allow a member to exercise time and
price discretion on orders for the purchase or sale of a definite
number of options contracts in a specified security. The Exchange
proposes to limit the duration of this discretionary authority to the
day it is granted, absent written authorization to the contrary. In
addition, the proposed rule would require any exercise of time and
price discretion to be reflected on the customer order ticket. The
proposed one-day limitation would not apply to time and price
discretion exercised for orders affected with or for an institutional
account (as defined in the Rule) pursuant to valid Good-Till-Cancelled
instructions issued on a ``not held'' basis. The Exchange believes that
investors would receive greater

protection by clarifying the time such discretionary orders remain
pending.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Proposed Rule 611(d) is modeled after NASD Rule 2510(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule changes recognize that
options have become more integrated with other securities in the
implementation of particular strategies, and thus should not continue
to be regulated as though they are a new and experimental product. The
Exchange further asserts that the supervisory and compliance structure
in place for non-options products at most firms is not materially
different from the structure in place for options. The proposed rule
change would also conform ISE rules to those of the CBOE. Accordingly,
the Exchange submits that the proposed rule changes are appropriate and
would not materially alter the supervisory operations of member firms.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis for this proposed rule change is found in Section 6(b)(5)
of the Exchange Act, in that the proposed rule change is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national
market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.
    Specifically, the Exchange believes this proposed rule change would
achieve these ends by integrating the supervision and compliance
functions relating to member organizations' public customer options
activities over where supervisory responsibility lies, and by fostering
the strengthening of member organizations' internal controls and
supervisory systems.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    (a) By order approve 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-ISE-2008-21 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2008-21. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the ISE. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2008-21 and should be
submitted by August 6, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-16231 Filed 7-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


NOTE

SUBJECT: 	Analysis of Costs of Replacements and Repairs at a
Hypothetical 100 MM GPY Ethanol Facility

FROM: 	Barry Garelick, Environmental Protection Specialist; Assessment
and Standards Division

TO: 		Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161

DATE:  	October 16, 2008

Based on discussions with companies that construct ethanol plants, we
learned that facility owners will make decisions about equipment
replacements and technology upgrades that will continue to improve the
overall operating costs and energy efficiency of the plant.  In
particular, energy-intensive processes in the plant are likely to be
replaced or upgraded to increase fuel and operating efficiency, thus
reducing operating costs of the plant, and increasing output.  In
addition, Nilles (2006) reports that the first line of next-generation
dry-grind ethanol plants was built with mild steel components and that
in 10 or 15 years, those components will need to be replaced
entirely—most likely with stainless steel.   Of particular importance
is that durable materials as well as weaker materials both require
maintenance and replacement.   As such, the components and equipment in
ethanol facilities are designed to be easily replaced and to allow
simple maintenance.

Using cost data contained in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s cost
estimation model for construction of new ethanol plants described by
Kwiatkowski, J. et al (2006), we calculated the cost of replacement of
specific components under two scenarios in a hypothetical 40 million
gallon ethanol facility.  In the first scenario, we assumed that all
steel tanks are replaced with stainless steel tanks with the exception
of the fermenters, and that only combustion unit replaced is the ring
dryer.  Under the second scenario, the fermenters are replaced along
with most combustion equipment.

Table 1 shows the equipment and associated costs for both scenarios.
Replacement costs were combined with ongoing maintenance labor and
supply costs at 2 percent of the capital cost of the facility.  The
facility was assumed to be a 100 million gallon per year ethanol plant,
and the installed capital cost of such plant in 2006 dollars is given by
the USDA model as $59.3 million.  Over 15 years, under the first
scenario, the accumulated costs of equipment replacement and ongoing
maintenance is 52% of the cost of the $59.3 million cost of a comparable
new facility.  For the second scenario, the accumulated costs are 74%.

Table 1: Costs of Equipment Replaced in Each of the Two Scenarios

EQUIPMENT	Scenario 1	Scenario 2

	Cost ($000)	Cost ($000)

Meal Surge Tank	X	$92.2

Batch Weigh Tank	$144.3	$144.3

Continuous Weigh Tank	X	$123.1

Alpha Amylase Tank	$141.9	$141.9

Ammonia Tank	$81.4	$81.4

Slurry Mix Tank	$346.4	$346.4

Liquefaction Tank 	$414.7	$414.7

Cook Retention Tanks	$492.0	$492.0

Gluco Amylase Tank	$239.3	$239.3

Sulfuric Acid Tank	$53.6	$53.6

Saccharification Tank	$1,127.2	$1,127.2

Yeast Tank With Agitator	$336.5	$336.5

Fermentors	X	$7,084.8

Clean In Place Tank	$71.5	$71.5

50% Caustic Tank	$209.6	$209.6

Beer/Stillage Recovery Exch.	X	$1,298.2

Beer Column Tower	X	$795.7

Beer Column Reboiler	X	$1,738.4

Stripper Col Reboiler	X	$804.6

Yeast Tank With Agitator	X	$336.5

Fermentors	X	$7,084.8

Clean In Place Tank	X	$71.5

50% Caustic Tank	X	$209.6

Beer/Stillage Recovery Exch.	X	$1,298.2

Beer Column Tower	X	$795.7

Beer Column Reboiler	X	$1,738.4

Stripper Col Reboiler	X	$804.6

Whole Stillage Tank with Agitator	$559.0	$559.0

Thin Stillage Tank with Agitator	$650.6	$650.6

Process Condensate Tank	$260.8	$260.8

Ring Dryer	$6,678.8	$6,678.8

Denaturant Tank	$96.9	$96.9

Ethanol Day Tank	$263.3	$263.3

Ethanol Product Storage Tank	$872.5	$872.5

Steam Boiler System, Deaerator & Pumps

X	$2,038.5

TOTAL	$13,040	$26,196

  Nilles, D. 2006. “Time Testing”;  Ethanol Producer Magazine, May,
Vol. 12, No. 5

  Kwitakowski, J.R., McAloon, A., Taylor, F. Johnson, D. 2006.
“Modeling the process and costs of fuel ethanol production by the corn
dry-gring process.”  Industrial Crops and Products 23 (2006) 288-296.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register: November 18, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 221)]
[Notices]
[Page 59570-59571]
[DOCID:fr18no09-80]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0664]

Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee; Amendment of Notice

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
amendment to the notice of meeting of the Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory
Committee. This meeting was announced in the Federal Register of
October 26, 2009 (74 FR 55057). The amendment is being made to reflect
a change in the Location portion of the document. There are no other
changes.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Minh Doan, Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research (HFD-21), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane,
(for express delivery, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1093), Rockville, MD
20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-
0572 in the Washington DC area), code<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please call the
Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of October 26, 2009,
FDA announced that a meeting of the Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory
Committee would be held on December 9, 2009. On page 55057, in the
second column, the Location portion of the document is changed to read
as follows:
    Location: Hilton Washington DC North/Gaithersburg, The Ballrooms,
620 Perry Pkwy., Gaithersburg, MD. The hotel telephone number is 301-
977-8900.

    This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to the advisory committees.

    Dated: November 12, 2009.
David Horowitz,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-27693 Filed 11-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31916-31920]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11205]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94950; File No. SR-OCC-2022-004]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of Partial Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting
Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Partial
Amendment No. 1, by The Options Clearing Corporation Concerning
Settlement Timing

May 19, 2022.

I. Introduction

    On March 22, 2022, the Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change SR-OCC-2022-004 pursuant to Section 19(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 3 \2\
thereunder. The proposed rule change would amend various provisions of
OCC's rules to revise the required settlement time from 9:00 a.m.
Central Time (``CT'') to 8:00 a.m. CT.\3\ The proposed rule change was
published for public comment in the Federal Register on April 7,
2022.\4\ On May 5, 2022, OCC filed Partial Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change.\5\ The Commission has received two comments
regarding the proposed rule change.\6\ The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on Partial Amendment No. 1 from
interested persons, and is approving the proposed rule change, as
modified by Partial Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Notice of Filing infra note 4, 87 FR 20485.
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94587 (Apr. 1, 2022), 87
FR 20485 (Apr. 7, 2022) (File No. SR-OCC-2022-004) (``Notice of
Filing'').
    \5\ In Partial Amendment No. 1, OCC proposed conforming changes
to its Liquidity Risk Management Framework, and appended new
Exhibits 4 and 5D to File No. SR-OCC-2022-004 to reflect the
proposed changes to the Liquidity Risk Management Framework.
    \6\ The Commission received two comment letters that addressed
market conduct generally; however, additional discussion is
unnecessary because the comment letters do not bear on the purpose
or legal basis of the proposed rule change, as modified by Partial
Amendment No. 1. The comments on the proposed rule change are
available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-occ-2022-004/srocc2022004.htm.
    \7\ References to the proposed rule change from this point
forward refer to the proposed rule change as modified by Partial
Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background 8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC collects margin deposits and Clearing Fund deposits from
Clearing Members in order to collateralize Clearing Members'
obligations, and thus supports OCC's abilities to act as a guarantor in
the event a Clearing Member is unable to fulfill its obligations with
OCC. OCC's Rules currently describe various times, many of which are
set to 9:00 a.m. CT, for Clearing Members to make various daily
payments for satisfying their margin and Clearing Fund obligations,
following a specified amount of notice that OCC provides to Clearing
Members. Such daily payments are required for Clearing Members to cover
margin and Clearing Fund deficits, as well as increases in the Clearing
Fund cash requirement (``Settlement Funds'').
    As described in more detail below, OCC is proposing to revise its
By-Laws and Rules \9\ to make the following three changes to its
settlement processes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ OCC is also proposing to make conforming changes to its
Clearing Fund Methodology Policy and Liquidity Risk Management
Framework to reflect the proposed changes to its By-Laws and Rules.

    (1) Aligning daily payment processes under a uniform start-of-
day settlement time to reduce operational complexity;
    (2) reducing the period of time a Clearing Member has to fund
obligations arising out of OCC's routine processes for setting the
size of its Clearing Fund to simplify OCC's financial resources
monitoring processes; and
    (3) increasing the period of time a Clearing Member has to fund
obligations arising out of a change to OCC's rules that affects the
member's Clearing Fund requirement, to provide members with more
time to consider terminating membership in response to such a rule
change.

A. Setting a Uniform Start-of-Day Settlement Time

    OCC proposes to harmonize various daily payment processes by
setting a uniform start-of-day settlement time (``Settlement Time''),
as OCC believes that a uniform start-of-day settlement time would
reduce operational complexities.\10\ In addition to setting a single
Settlement Time, OCC proposes to consolidate various settlement
obligations that are due at the same time into a single obligation to
further streamline OCC's processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Notice of Filing, supra note 4, at 20485.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, OCC intends to set the Settlement Time one hour earlier
than the current start-of-day settlement time that applies to many of
OCC's daily payment processes, as OCC believes that the earlier hour
would provide OCC with additional time to address a default event and
implement protective actions.\11\ The proposed changes would change the
Settlement Time for various daily payment processes (described below)
from 9 a.m. Central Time (``CT'') to 8:00 a.m. CT. The proposed rule
change would also grant OCC discretion to extend funding deadlines when
warranted by the circumstances, such as operational or system
difficulties that may arise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) ``Settlement Time'' Definitions
    Currently, two different definitions in OCC's By-Laws (Article I,
Definitions; Article XV, Foreign Currency Options, Definitions) define
the term ``settlement time'' as 9:00 a.m. CT (10:00 a.m. Eastern Time
(``ET'')). OCC proposes to move the Article I definition to Chapter I,
Rule 101 of OCC's Rules because the defined term does not appear
elsewhere in the By-Laws, but appears routinely in OCC's Rules. OCC
proposes to update both definitions to make the Settlement Time 8:00
a.m. CT (9:00 a.m. ET). OCC further proposes to clarify in the
relocated Rule 101 definition that the Settlement Time does not include
settlements related to any cross-margin program with a Participating
Carrying Clearing Organization (``CCO'').\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Current OCC Rule 706(b) allows OCC to specify the time for
settling obligations related to cross-margin accounts with
Participating CCOs. As of March 22, 2022, OCC maintained cross-
margin accounts with only one Participating CCO, the Chicago
Mercantile Exchange (``CME''). See Notice of Filing, 87 FR 20485, n.
4. OCC's Operations Manual specifies that the settlement time for
OCC/CME cross-margin debits is 7:30 a.m. CT. See id. OCC did not
propose changing the start-of-day settlement time for OCC/CME cross-
margin debits, which is currently 8:00 a.m. CT under Article VI,
Section 25 of OCC's By-Laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Daily Margin Report
    OCC's margin-related rules define a specific time by which margin
payments must be specified. OCC proposes to replace the time specified
in the margin-related rules with a reference to the defined term
``Settlement Time,'' rather than specify settlement times at multiple
locations within OCC's rules. Rule 605 currently requires Clearing
Members to satisfy margin deficits by 9:00 a.m. CT (10:00 a.m. ET). OCC

proposes to update Rule 605 to reference the defined term ``Settlement
Time,'' so that Clearing Members must now satisfy margin deficits by
8:00 a.m. CT (9:00 a.m. ET). Additionally, OCC Rule 605 currently
states that prior to 9:00 a.m. CT (10:00 a.m. ET), OCC shall make
available to each Clearing Member a Daily Margin Report for each
account maintained by the Clearing Member. OCC proposes to update the
Rule to require that the Daily Margin Report be made available prior to
8:00 a.m. CT (9:00 a.m. ET).
    Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 605 currently provides that
the Daily Margin Report will not include the amount of margin required
for variance futures, and requires OCC to advise Clearing Members of
margin requirements for variance futures by 9:00 a.m. CT (10:00 a.m.
ET). OCC proposes to delete Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 605
on the basis that margin requirements for variance futures, as for
other products, will be included in the Daily Margin Report.
(3) General Clearing Fund Deficits
    OCC proposes to set the time for settlement of Clearing Fund-
related obligations related to general deficits \13\ by referring to
the defined term ``Settlement Time,'' and to consolidate Clearing
Member payment obligations due at the Settlement Time into a single
obligation. OCC Rule 1005(a) currently requires that Clearing Members
must satisfy general Clearing Fund deficits within one hour of being
notified of the deficit. As a practical matter, OCC generally collects
these deficits during the morning of each business day, but outside of
the start-of-day settlement cycle, resulting in two separate
collections, at similar times, from Clearing Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ General deficits include deficits resulting from a decrease
in the value of a Clearing Member's contribution or by an adjusted
contribution pursuant to Rule 1004. OCC Rule 1004 describes how the
required Clearing Fund contribution of a Clearing Member may be
adjusted by the Corporation due to mergers, consolidations, position
transfers, business expansions, membership approval, or other
similar events in connection with the calculations made in respect
of a particular calendar month or at any other time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC proposes to revise its Rules to align the general Clearing Fund
deficit collection time with the proposed Settlement Time. The proposed
rule change would revise Rule 1005(a) to state that OCC would collect a
general deficit arising under Rule 1005(a) at the Settlement Time,
provided that OCC notifies the Clearing Member of such deficit at least
one hour prior to the Settlement Time on the day the notice was
provided. OCC typically provides notice to Clearing Members of general
deficits under Rule 1005(a) through OCC's overnight reporting process,
but may also issue notices in response to market conditions or
adjustments arising from mergers, consolidations, position transfers,
business expansions, membership approval, or other similar events. OCC
believes that it would achieve operational efficiency by revising Rule
1005(a) to align the general Clearing Fund deficit collection time to
the Settlement Time.\14\ OCC intends to continue to provide Clearing
Members with one hour to satisfy a deficit if OCC does not provide
notice at least one hour before the Settlement Time on a particular
day.\15\ Additionally, OCC proposes to change Rule 1005(a) to provide
OCC with discretion to extend funding deadlines when warranted by the
circumstances (e.g., operational or system difficulties).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Notice of Filing, supra note 4, at 20486.
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(4) Clearing Fund Replenishments and Assessments
    OCC also proposes to set the time for settlement of Clearing Fund-
related obligations related to replenishments and assessments by
referring to the defined term ``Settlement Time.'' Rule 1006(h)
currently requires that Clearing Members cover any charges to the
Clearing Fund, whether in the form of replenishments or assessments, by
9:00 a.m. CT (10:00 a.m. ET) on the following business day. OCC
proposes to amend Rule 1006(h) to align the replenishments and
assessments collection time with the proposed Settlement Time. OCC
believes that using the revised ``Settlement Time'' definition, rather
than stating a specific time in Rule 1006(h), would help to achieve
consistency and reduce operational complexity.\16\ OCC also believes
that a move to the earlier time of 8:00 a.m. CT would provide OCC with
more time to address a default event and implement necessary protective
actions, including securing funds from its liquidity providers.\17\ OCC
also proposes to make corresponding changes to Rule 1006(h)(B), which
reiterates that each Clearing Member shall have, and shall at all times
maintain, the ability to make good any deficiency described in Rule
1006(h) during a cooling-off period. OCC also proposes to amend Rule
1006(h)(A) and Rule 1006(h)(B) to allow OCC to specify a later time for
which Clearing Members must make good on any charges to the Clearing
Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id.
    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(5) Clearing Fund Deficits Due to Rule Amendments
    Additionally, OCC proposes to set the time for settlement of
Clearing Fund-related obligations related to changes to OCC's rules by
referring to the defined term ``Settlement Time.'' Under current Rule
1002(e), if a Clearing Member's Clearing Fund contribution increases
due to an amendment of OCC's Rules, the increase shall not become
effective until the Clearing Member is given at least two business days
prior written notice of the amendment. Clearing Members that do not
notify OCC that they intend to terminate their clearing membership must
satisfy the increased contribution by 9:00 a.m. CT (10:00 a.m. ET) on
the second business day following notification of the amendment.
    OCC proposes to revise Rule 1002(e) to align with the proposed
Settlement Time, so that Clearing Members must satisfy the increased
contribution by the earlier time of 8:00 a.m. CT (9:00 a.m. ET). As
with the other proposed Settlement Time alignments, this change is
intended to reduce operational complexity by creating a more uniform
settlement time for Clearing Fund deficits, including those described
in Rule 1002(e).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Notice of Filing, supra note 4, at 20487.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(6) Temporary Increase in Clearing Fund Cash Requirement
    Finally, OCC proposes to set the time for settlement of Clearing
Fund-related obligations related to increases in the Clearing Fund Cash
Requirement by reference to the defined term ``Settlement Time.'' Under
current Interpretation and Policy .03 to Rule 1002, Clearing Members
must satisfy any Clearing Fund Cash Requirement-related increase in
their required cash contributions no later than the second business day
following notification of the increase. OCC proposes to revise Rule
1002 Interpretation and Policy .03 to require that Clearing Members
satisfy a required cash contribution increase by the first Settlement
Time following notification of the increase. OCC believes that this
proposed change would reduce operational complexity by creating a more
uniform settlement time that aligns with the current collection period
for other obligations to OCC.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id.

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

B. Shortening Collection Period Following Clearing Fund Resizing

    In addition to harmonizing the time by which settlement occurs on a
given day, OCC proposes to shorten the number of days a Clearing Member
has to meet certain routine funding obligations related to the Clearing
Fund. Currently, OCC allows members two business days to meet routine
funding obligations. As described below, OCC is proposing changes
designed to require funding by the next Settlement Time, effectively
requiring funding by the business day following notice of an
obligation. OCC stated that shortening the collection period would
reduce operational complexity related to the monitoring of OCC's
prefunded credit and liquidity resources by providing transparency and
certainty to OCC around OCC's available liquidity resources during the
resizing process.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Notice of Filing, supra note 4, at 20486.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Deficits From Monthly and Intra-Month Clearing Fund Resizing
    OCC Rule 1005(b) currently requires that for any deficits resulting
from a monthly or intra-month Clearing Fund resizing, Clearing Members
must satisfy them by 9:00 a.m. CT (10:00 a.m. ET) on the second
business day following notification of the resizing. According to OCC,
the two-day collection period was intended to provide Clearing Members
with sufficient notice of any changes to their Clearing Fund
contribution requirements. However, OCC notes that this two-day
collection period complicates the monitoring of OCC's prefunded credit
and liquidity resources.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would amend Rule 1005(b) to require that
deficits resulting from the standard monthly Clearing Fund resizing
must be satisfied by the Settlement Time on the first business day of
each month. OCC believes that the proposed change would reduce the time
to collect Clearing Fund deficits required to meet the new Clearing
Fund size, and would reduce operational complexity of the monitoring of
OCC's prefunded credit and liquidity resources by providing certainty
to OCC on the available liquidity resources during the resizing
process.\22\ The proposed rule change would also shorten the collection
period for intra-month resizing to the next Settlement Time following
notification of the re-sizing, which would align it with the monthly
resizing period and other Clearing Fund deficit collection times. OCC
also proposes to modify Rule 1005(b) so that OCC has the discretion to
extend funding deadlines when warranted by the circumstances (e.g.,
operational or system difficulties).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Adjustment to Clearing Fund Contributions
    Rule 1004 provides that any deficiency arising from an adjustment
due to a Clearing Member merger, consolidation, position transfer,
business expansion, membership approval or other similar event shall be
satisfied in accordance with Rule 1005(a). Rule 1004 currently provides
an exception that allows a Clearing Member to satisfy an obligation,
typically due on the first business day of a calendar month, on the
second business day if the deficit coincides with a regular monthly
sizing collection. The proposed rule change would remove this exception
because under the proposed revision of Rule 1005, regular monthly
sizing deficits would no longer be collected two business days after
notification.

C. Increasing Notification Period For Clearing Fund Deficits Due to
Rule Amendments

    In contrast to the reduction of time for funding routine
obligations, OCC proposes increasing the number of days a Clearing
Member has to meet Clearing Fund obligations related to changes in
OCC's rules. Currently, OCC allows members two business days to meet
funding obligations arising out of rule changes. As described below,
OCC is proposing to give Clearing Members five business days notice of
such obligations to allow Clearing Members additional time to determine
whether to terminate clearing membership as a result of any such rule
change.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Notice of Filing, supra note 4, at 20487.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously noted, under current Rule 1002(e), if a Clearing
Member's Clearing Fund contribution increases due to an amendment of
OCC's Rules, the increase shall not become effective until the Clearing
Member is given at least two business days prior written notice of the
amendment. This notification period provides Clearing Members with the
time to notify OCC in writing that it wishes to terminate its clearing
membership if desired, and close out or transfer its open positions
before the effective date of the amendment. Clearing Members that do
not notify OCC of such termination must satisfy the increased
contribution by 9:00 a.m. CT (10:00 a.m. ET) on the second business day
following notification of the amendment.
    The proposed rule change would increase the notification period
from two business days to five business days, to provide Clearing
Members with additional time to determine whether or not to terminate
their clearing memberships and close out or transfer all open positions
before the effective date of the amendment.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ According to OCC, the purpose of this update to Rule
1002(e) would be to better reflect OCC's current practice, where
Clearing Members are generally afforded more than five business
days' notice of any change in Clearing Fund requirements that result
from an amendment of OCC's Rules. Id. As this change codifies an
existing practice, OCC does not believe it will modify Clearing
Member behavior or otherwise have an adverse impact on OCC. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Conforming Changes to Policies

    The proposed rule change would also make conforming changes to the
Clearing Fund Methodology Policy and Liquidity Risk Management
Framework. These changes would amend the Clearing Fund Methodology
Policy to reflect the revised timing for satisfying Clearing Fund Cash
Requirement-related increases, and eliminating the policy language
describing the exception set forth in Rule 1004 as described above.
These changes are intended to conform the Clearing Fund Methodology
Policy with the proposed changes to OCC's Rules and support the reduced
operational complexity that OCC expects to achieve by creating a more
uniform settlement time.\25\ The proposed changes to the Liquidity Risk
Management Framework would note that Clearing Members will have until
no later than the first start-of-day settlement time following the day
on which notice is provided by OCC, or an alternative time established
by an OCC officer to meet their minimum Clearing Fund cash
contribution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to such organization.\26\ After carefully
considering the proposed rule change, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to OCC. More
specifically, the Commission finds that the proposal, is consistent
with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the

Exchange Act \27\ and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(8) under the Exchange Act \28\ as
described in detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \28\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency With Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act requires, among other
things, that a clearing agency's rules are designed to promote the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions
and, to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and
transactions; and the rules are designed, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.\29\ Based on its review of the
record, and for the reasons described below, the Commission believes
that the proposed changes are consistent with facilitating the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and
derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions for which OCC is
responsible, and protecting investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Commission believes that OCC, in amending its By-Laws and Rules
to set a uniform time for satisfying start-of-day settlement at 8:00
a.m. CT (9:00 a.m. ET) and applying the updated Settlement Time to the
Daily Margin Report (Rule 605), general Clearing fund deficits (Rule
1005(a)), Clearing Fund replenishments and assessments (Rule 1006(h)),
Rule amendment-related Clearing Fund deficits (Rule 1002(e)), and
temporary increases in the Clearing Fund Cash Requirement (Rule
1002.03) will remove any potential confusion or ambiguity for Clearing
Members that could result from having different start-of-day settlement
times depending on the nature of the Settlement Fund collection type.
The alignment to a single Settlement Time would therefore facilitate
the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of transactions for
which OCC is responsible.
    Further, the Commission believes that OCC, in amending Rule 1005(b)
to shorten the collection period for deficits due to Clearing Fund
monthly and intra-month resizings, will ensure that such Clearing Fund
deficits are covered earlier than before. This would in turn reduce any
existing liquidity risk and provide greater certainty regarding OCC's
liquidity resources, thereby supporting OCC's ability to meet its
obligations. Strengthening OCC's ability to meet its payment
obligations would, in turn, promote its ability to ensure prompt
settlement of securities transactions for which OCC is responsible.
    OCC also proposed changes to Rule 1002(e) to increase the
notification period for Clearing Member deficits due to Rule amendments
from two business days to five business days. The Commission believes
that this proposed change would benefit Clearing Members by giving them
additional time to consider canceling their clearing membership with
OCC in the event of a Clearing Fund contribution increase created by
amendments to OCC's Rules. Clearing Members could use the additional
time to consider their ability to cover such increases with greater
deliberation, which could allow members to unwind positions in an
orderly fashion rather than defaulting on obligations to OCC. The
promotion of an orderly unwinding of positions, as opposed to a
potentially more disruptive Clearing Member default scenario, would in
turn promote the protection of investors and the public interest.
    OCC also proposed conforming changes to its Clearing Fund
Methodology Policy and its Liquidity Resource Management Framework to
ensure consistency of the policy and framework with the changes
described above. The Commission believes, therefore, that the
conforming changes are consistent with the requirements of Section
17A(b)(3)(F) for the reasons described above.
    The Commission believes, therefore, that the proposal is consistent
with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(8) Under the Exchange Act

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(8) under the Exchange Act requires that a covered
clearing agency establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to define the point at
which settlement is final no later than the end of the day on which the
payment or obligation is due and, where necessary or appropriate,
intraday or in real time.\31\ Based on its review of the record, the
Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC's proposal to modify its rules to change the definitions of
``settlement time'' from 9:00 a.m. CT to 8:00 a.m. CT would move the
start-of-day settlement time up by one hour, but would provide no less
clear a time by which settlement is due than OCC's current rules. As
proposed, settlement finality for cleared transactions would continue
to occur when a settlement bank either accepts or confirms the
settlement instruction. Similarly, OCC's proposed changes to reduce or
increase the number of days a Clearing Member has to meet certain
Clearing Fund obligations would provide no less certainty regarding the
time by which settlement must occur than is provided by OCC's current
rules.
    The Commission believes, therefore, that the proposal is consistent
with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(8) under the Exchange Act.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments on Partial Amendment No. 1 to the Proposed
Rule Change

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as modified by Partial Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the
Exchange Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following
methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-OCC-2022-004 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2022-004. 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 the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting
comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2022-004 and should be
submitted on or before June 15, 2022.

V. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Partial
Amendment No. 1

    The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Exchange Act,\33\ to approve the proposed rule change prior to the
30th day after the date of publication of notice of the filing of
Partial Amendment No. 1 in the Federal Register. As discussed above,
Partial Amendment No. 1 modified the original proposed rule change by
making conforming changes to OCC's Liquidity Risk Management Framework
consistent with the initial filing. Partial Amendment No. 1 does not
change the purpose of or basis for the proposed changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For similar reasons as discussed above, the Commission finds that
Partial Amendment No. 1 is consistent with the requirement that OCC's
rules be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions under Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Exchange Act.\34\ Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause,
pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, to approve the
proposed rule change, as modified by Partial Amendment No. 1, on an
accelerated basis, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange
Act.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change, as modified by Partial Amendment No. 1, is
consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act, and in
particular, the requirements of Section 17A of the Exchange Act \36\
and the rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rules' impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act,\37\ that the proposed rule change (SR-OCC-2022-004), as
modified by Partial Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-11205 Filed 5-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 216 (Monday, November 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 69218]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28395]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of
the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any
oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or
contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may
request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and
responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant
such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any
person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with
Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e)(1)(v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed
are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are
available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may 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. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Docket No.                    File date                    Presenter or requester
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibited:
    1. CP14-554-000, CP15-16-000, CP15-         10-26-15  Susan VanBrunt.
     17-000.
Exempt:
    1. CP14-96-000......................        10-21-15  Members of Congress.\1\
    2. CP15-115-000.....................        10-22-15  U.S. Senators.\2\
    3. CP15-558-000.....................        10-26-15  Delaware Township, NJ.
    4. CP15-17-000......................        10-26-15  Members of Congress.\3\
    5. CP15-17-000......................        10-27-15  WWALS Watershed Coalition, Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Nita M. Lowey and Eliot L. Engel.
\2\ Charles E. Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand.
\3\ Sanford D. Bishop, Jr., John Lewis, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., David Scott.

    Dated: November 2, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-28395 Filed 11-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P