[Federal Register: January 26, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 17)]
[Notices]
[Page 4361-4362]
[DOCID:fr26ja06-43]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER05-1410-000; and EL05-148-000]

PJM Interconnection, LLC; Supplemental Notice of Commission
Technical Conference

January 19, 2006.
    As announced in the Notice of Commission Technical Conference
issued on December 8, 2005, the Commission will hold a technical
conference on February 3, 2006 at the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC, on the matters
raised by the Reliability Pricing Model (RPM) filed in the above-
captioned dockets by PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM). This supplemental
notice provides additional information and an agenda for the
conference. Members and staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission are expected to participate. The conference will be open for
the public to attend. The conference will be held in the Commission
Meeting Room, with overflow to Hearing Room One.
    The conference will be transcribed. A transcript of the conference
will be immediately available from Ace Reporting Company<PHONE_NUMBER>
or<PHONE_NUMBER> for a fee. It will be available for the public on the
Commission's eLibrary system seven calendar days after FERC receives
the transcript.
    A free webcast of this event is available through http://www.ferc.gov.
 Anyone with Internet access who wishes to view this event

may do so by navigating to http://www.ferc.gov's Calendar of Events and

locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain a link to
its webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical support for the
webcasts. It also offers access to this event via television in the
Washington, DC area and via phone bridge for a fee. Visit http://www.CapitolConnection.org
, or contact Danelle Perkowski or David

Reininger at the Capitol Connection<PHONE_NUMBER> for information
about this service.
    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free<PHONE_NUMBER>
(voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a FAX to<PHONE_NUMBER> with the
required accommodations.
    For further information regarding this conference, contact John
McPherson at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Katherine Waldbauer at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.

Reliability Pricing Model in PJM Commission Technical Conference Agenda
\1\

February 3, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Both this schedule and the list of panelists may change. The
Commission will issue a further notice of such changes if time
permits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Welcome from Chairman Joseph T. Kelliher:
    10 a.m.-10:15 a.m.
Introduction:
    10:15 a.m.-10:45 a.m.

    The Commission requests that PJM present a brief factual overview
of PJM's current infrastructure. This presentation will include
information regarding location, age and efficiency of

generation, transmission constraints, proposed new transmission
construction, demand response and new generation projects as they
relate to PJM's current and forecasted reliability needs. The
Commission further requests that PJM summarize the main components of
RPM. (A representative of PJM will be present during each subsequent
panel to answer questions, but PJM will not make any further
independent presentation.)

PJM Interconnection, LLC: Audrey A. Zibelman, Executive Vice President
& Chief Operating Officer, and Andrew L. Ott, Vice President--Markets.
Panel 1:
    10:45 a.m.-1 p.m.

    Whether the current capacity obligation construct within PJM's
market design provides for just and reasonable wholesale power prices
in the PJM footprint, at levels that provide adequate assurance that
necessary resources will be provided to assure reliability, or whether
changes must be made to that capacity obligation construct.

Dayton Power and Light Company: Gary Stephenson, Vice President,
Commercial Operations.
Edison Mission Companies: Reem Fahey, Vice President, Market Policy.
Exelon Corporation: John F. Young, Executive Vice President, Finance
and Markets and Chief Financial Officer.
FirstEnergy Service Company: Michael R. Beiting, Associate General
Counsel.
Public Utilities Commission of Ohio: Hon. Alan R. Schriber, Chair.
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission: Andrew S. Tubbs, Counsel.
Maryland Office of People's Counsel: William Fields, Senior Assistant
People's Counsel.
Lunch
    1 p.m.-2 p.m.
Panel 2:
    2 p.m.-3:30 p.m.

    Whether PJM's RPM proposal would provide for just and reasonable
wholesale power prices in the PJM footprint, at levels that provide
adequate reliability, or whether changes must be made to the proposal
to meet those goals.

PSEG Companies: Gary R. Sorenson, Managing Director, Energy Operations,
PSEG Power LLC.
Reliant Energy, Inc.: Neal A. Fitch, Senior Regulatory Specialist.
Mirant Parties/NRG Companies/Williams: Robert B. Stoddard, Vice
President, Charles River Associates, International.
Constellation Energy Group: Marjorie R. Philips, Vice President,
Regulatory Affairs.
National Grid USA: Mary Ellen Paravalos, Director of Regulatory Policy.
PJM Industrial Customer Coalition: Robert A. Weishaar, McNees, Wallace
and Nurick, LLC.
New Jersey Board of Public Utilities: Hon. Frederick T. Butler,
Commissioner.
Virginia Office of the Attorney General: Seth W. Brown, Manager of
Transmission Services, GDS Associates, Inc.
Panel 3:
    3:30 p.m.-4:45 p.m.

    Whether an alternative approach to RPM is necessary to ensure just
and reasonable wholesale power prices in the PJM footprint.

American Electric Power Service Co.: J. Craig Baker, Senior Vice
President, Regulatory Services.
Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc.: James Sheffield, Vice President.
Coalition of Consumers for Reliability: Edward D. Tatum, Jr., Assistant
Vice President, Rates and Regulation, Old Dominion Electric Cooperative
(ODEC).
PPL Parties: Thomas Hyzinski, Manager, ISO Markets Development and
Regulatory Policy.
Delaware Public Service Commission: Hon. Arnetta McRae, Chair.
Closing remarks by Chairman Joseph T. Kelliher:
    4:45 p.m.-5 p.m.

    Each panelist should provide a presentation of no more than five
minutes, and the Commissioners may ask questions at the conclusion of
each presentation. If time permits, the audience may also ask questions
of the panelists at the conclusion of the Commissioners' questions.
Panelists wishing to distribute copies of their presentation should
bring 100 or more hard copies to the conference for distribution. Any
such presentation will be placed into the record for these dockets. Any
panelist requiring particular software or other technical facilities
for a presentation should contact FERC staff no later than January 27,
2006. All parties to this proceeding may file comments on the technical
conference by close of business on February 23, 2006.

[FR Doc. E6-953 Filed 1-25-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 65)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 18243-18246]
[DOCID:fr03ap08-27]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket No. FEMA-B-7769]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on the proposed Base (1 percent annual-
chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed BFE modifications for the
communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to
seek general information and comment regarding the proposed regulatory
flood elevations for the reach described by the downstream and upstream
locations in the table below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are a part of
the floodplain management measures that the community is required
either to adopt or show evidence of having in effect in order to
qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, these elevations, once
finalized, will be used by insurance agents, and others to calculate
appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the
contents in those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before July 2, 2008.

ADDRESSES: The corresponding preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each community are available for
inspection at the community's map repository. The respective addresses
are listed in the table below.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-7769, to
William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch,
Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (e-mail)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief,
Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202) 646-3151 or (e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for
each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR
67.4(a).
    These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must
change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established
by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed
elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of
the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance
premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made
final, and for the contents in these buildings.
    Comments on any aspect of the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM, other
than the proposed BFEs, will be considered. A letter acknowledging
receipt of any comments will not be sent.
    Administrative Procedure Act Statement. This matter is not a
rulemaking governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.
553. FEMA publishes flood

elevation determinations for notice and comment; however, they are
governed by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105,
and the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,
and do not fall under the APA.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This proposed rule is
categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10,
Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not
been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. This
proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria
of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This proposed rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule
meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

    Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 67--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.

Sec.  67.4  [Amended]

    2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  67.4 are
proposed to be amended as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  * Elevation in feet
                                                                 (NGVD) + Elevation in
                                       Location of referenced    feet (NAVD)  Depth in
         Flooding source(s)                 elevation**            feet above ground       Communities affected
                                                              --------------------------
                                                                Effective     Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Jersey County, Illinois, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elsah Creek.........................  At the mouth of the             +439         +438  Village of Elsah.
                                       Mississippi River.
                                      Approximately 500 feet          +439         +438
                                       upstream of Maple
                                       Street.
Illinois River......................  At the mouth of the             +440         +439  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       Mississippi River in                               Jersey County, City of
                                       Jersey County.                                     Grafton.
                                      Approximately 1500 feet         +440         +439
                                       upstream of the
                                       Illinois River Road
                                       Ferry Crossing.
Mississippi River...................  Approximately 0.5 miles         +438         +437  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       downstream of the                                  Jersey County, City of
                                       confluence of Piasa                                Grafton, Village of
                                       Creek.                                             Elsah.
                                      At river mile 223.1 at          +441         +440
                                       the downstream tip of
                                       Iowa Island.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.
Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal
 Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.
                                                    ADDRESSES
City of Grafton
Maps are available for inspection at Grafton City Hall, 118 East Main Street, Grafton, IL 62037.
                                      Unincorporated Areas of Jersey County
Maps are available for inspection at Jersey County Government Building, 200 North Lafayette St., Jerseyville, IL
 62052.
Village of Elsah
Maps are available for inspection at 51 North Street, P.O. Box 28, Elsah, IL 62028.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Yancey County, North Carolina, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bailey Branch.......................  At the confluence with          None        +2575  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       Pine Swamp Branch.                                 Yancey County.
                                      Approximately 1,740             None        +2637
                                       feet upstream of the
                                       confluence with Pine
                                       Swamp Branch.
Bald Mountain Creek.................  At the confluence with         +2293        +2294  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       Cane River.                                        Yancey County.
                                      Approximately 1,810             None        +2467
                                       feet upstream of Bee
                                       Log Road (State Road
                                       1408).
Big Crabtree Creek..................  The confluence with             None        +2411  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       South Toe River.                                   Yancey County.
                                      Approximately 1.4 miles         None        +3147
                                       upstream of Seven Mile
                                       Ridge Road (State Road
                                       1167).
Brown Creek.........................  Approximately 300 feet         +2633        +2634  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       upstream of the                                    Yancey County.
                                       confluence with South
                                       Toe River.

                                      Approximately 1.2 miles         None        +4690
                                       upstream of Upper
                                       Browns Creek Road
                                       (State Road 1154).
Cane River..........................  At the confluence with          None        +2044  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       Nolichucky River and                               Yancey County.
                                       North Toe River.
                                      Approximately 60 feet           None        +3157
                                       downstream of the
                                       confluence of Mitchell
                                       Creek.
Cattail Creek.......................  At Mountain Farm Road..         None        +3012  Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                Yancey County.
                                      At the confluence of            None        +3157
                                       North Fork Cattail
                                       Creek and South Fork
                                       Cattail Creek.
Jacks Creek.........................  At the confluence with          None        +2136  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       North Toe River.                                   Yancey County.
                                      Approximately 60 feet           None        +2532
                                       upstream of Sheriff
                                       Anglin Road (State
                                       Road 1364).
Little Crabtree Creek...............  Approximately 450 feet         +2622        +2623  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       downstream of Depot                                Yancey County, Town of
                                       Street (State Road                                 Burnsville.
                                       1140).
                                      Approximately 650 feet          None        +2740
                                       upstream of East
                                       Boulevard.
McIntosh Branch.....................  The confluence with             None        +2699  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       Pine Swamp Branch.                                 Yancey County, Town of
                                                                                Burnsville.
                                      Approximately 50 feet           None        +2751
                                       upstream of Van Kirk
                                       Lane.
Mitchell Branch.....................  At the confluence with          None        +2705  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       Little Crabtree Creek.                             Yancey County, Town of
                                                                                Burnsville.
                                      Approximately 260 feet          None        +2751
                                       upstream of Mitchell
                                       Branch (State Road
                                       1373).
Nolichucky River....................  Approximately 550 feet          None        +1981  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       upstream of the                                    Yancey County.
                                       railroad.
                                      At the confluence of            None        +2044
                                       Cane River and North
                                       Toe River.
North Cox Creek.....................  Approximately 220 feet         +2148        +2149  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       upstream of the                                    Yancey County.
                                       confluence with Cane
                                       River.
                                      Approximately 1.5 miles         None        +3061
                                       upstream of the
                                       confluence with Cane
                                       River.
North Fork Cattail Creek............  At the confluence with          None        +3157  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       Cattail Creek and                                  Yancey County.
                                       South Fork Cattail
                                       Creek.
                                      Approximately 1.1 miles         None        +4869
                                       upstream of North Fork
                                       Road.
North Toe River.....................  At the confluence with          None        +2044  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       Nolichucky River and                               Yancey County.
                                       Cane River.
                                      At the Yancey/Mitchell          None        +2411
                                       County boundary.
Pine Swamp Branch...................  At the confluence with          None        +2553  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       Cane River.                                        Yancey County, Town of
                                                                                Burnsville.
                                      Approximately 1,770             None        +2720
                                       feet upstream of
                                       Cherry Lane (State
                                       Road 1139).
Pine Swamp Branch...................  Approximately 1,770             None   1  Town of Burnsville.
                                       feet upstream of
                                       Cherry Lane (State
                                       Road 1139).
                                      Approximately 200 feet          None   1
                                       upstream of East Main
                                       Street.
South Cox Creek.....................  At the confluence with          None        +2420  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       Jacks Creek.                                       Yancey County.
                                      Approximately 700 feet          None        +2791
                                       upstream of Coxes
                                       Creek Road (State Road
                                       1354).
South Fork Cattail Creek............  At the confluence with          None        +3157  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       Cattail Creek and                                  Yancey County.
                                       North Fork Cattail
                                       Creek.
                                      Approximately 0.5 mile          None        +3739
                                       upstream of Tennis
                                       Court Road.
South Toe River.....................  At the confluence with          None        +2356  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       North Toe River.                                   Yancey County.
                                      Approximately 1,100             None        +2629
                                       feet downstream of the
                                       confluence of Brown
                                       Creek.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.
Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal
 Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES
Town of Burnsville
Maps are available for inspection at Town of Burnsville Courthouse, Mapping Department, 110 Town Square,
 Burnsville, NC.
                                      Unincorporated Areas of Yancey County
Maps are available for inspection at Yancey County Courthouse, Room 11, Burnsville, NC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Beadle County, South Dakota, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James River.........................  Just upstream of the            None        +1237  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       Sanborn County and                                 Beadle County, City of
                                       Beadle County line.                                Huron.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Just downstream of the          None        +1253
                                       Spink County and
                                       Beadle County line.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.

** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.
Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal
 Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.
                                                    ADDRESSES
City of Huron
Maps are available for inspection at 329 Wisconsin, P.O. Box 1369, Huron, SD 57350.
                                      Unincorporated Areas of Beadle County
Maps are available for inspection at 400 3rd S.W., P.O. Box 25, Huron, SD 57350.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: March 18, 2008.
David I. Maurstad,
Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance
Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management
Agency.
 [FR Doc. E8-6910 Filed 4-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


failures (e.g., a member default occurring simultaneously, or nearly
so, with a failure of a service provider) that, in the judgment of
the covered clearing agency, are particularly relevant to its
business.
    \152\ That is, the Commission could require in new Rule 17ad-26
that the RWP include an analysis that includes: (A) a description of
the scenario; (B) the events that are likely to trigger the
scenario; (C) the covered clearing agency's process for monitoring
for such events; (D) the market conditions, operational and
financial difficulties and other relevant circumstances that are
likely to result from the scenario; (E) the potential financial and
operational impact of the scenario on the covered clearing agency
and on its clearing members, internal and external service providers
and relevant affiliated companies, both in an orderly market and in
a disorderly market; and (F) the specific steps the covered clearing
agency would expect to take when the scenario occurs, or appears
likely to occur, including, without limitation, any governance or
other procedures that may be necessary to implement the relevant
recovery tools and to ensure that such implementation occurs in
sufficient time for the recovery tools to achieve their intended
effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This alternative approach may reduce compliance costs by
establishing the precise scope of the rule which could allow covered
clearing agencies to tailor their RWPs to the enumerated requirements
for identifying scenarios and analyses. In addition, including elements
similar to those proscribed by other agencies that also regulate
several covered clearing agencies could result in certain efficiencies
and reduced costs for those covered clearing agencies. However, the
Commission preliminarily believes that the proposed approach retains
flexibility compared to this alternative by permitting the scenarios to
vary across covered clearing agencies because the underlying risks vary
across markets and participants. Because participants vary in size and
economic significance across covered clearing agencies, scenarios
invoking a pre-determined number of failures or fixed dollar amounts
may have significantly different effects in one covered clearing agency
than in another.
3. Establish Specific Rules, Policies, Procedures, Tools, and Resources
    Instead of requiring covered clearing agencies to describes the
rules, policies, procedures, and any other tools or resources the
covered clearing agency would rely upon in a recovery or orderly wind-
down to address the scenarios identified in their RWPs, the Commission
could adopt a more prescriptive approach and identify in new Rule 17ad-
26 the rules, policies, procedures, and any other tools or resources
for all covered clearing agencies. The Commission could also require in
Rule 17ad-26 more detail regarding how a covered clearing agency
analyzes its rules, policies, procedures, tools, and resources.\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ For example, the Commission could require in new Rule
17ad-26 that the RWP include an analysis that includes: (i) a
description of the tools that the covered clearing agency would
expect to use in each scenario; (ii) the order in which each tool
would be expected to be used; (iii) the time frame within which the
tool would be used; (iv) the governance and approval processes and
arrangements within the covered clearing agency for the use of each
of the tools available, including the exercise of any available
discretion; (v) the processes to obtain any approvals external to
the covered clearing agency (including any regulatory approvals)
that would be necessary to use each of the tools available, and the
steps that might be taken if such approval is not obtained; (vi) the
steps necessary to implement the tools; (vii) the roles and
responsibilities of all parties, including non-defaulting
participants; (viii) whether the tool is mandatory or voluntary;
(ix) an assessment of the associated risks from the use of each tool
to non-defaulting clearing members and their customers, linked
financial market infrastructures, and the financial system more
broadly; and (x), for wind-down, an assessment of the likelihood
that the tool would result in orderly wind-down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This alternative approach may reduce compliance costs by
establishing the precise scope of the rule, which could allow covered
clearing agencies to tailor their RWPs to the enumerated requirements
for describing rules, policies, procedures, and other tools or
resources. In addition, including elements similar to those proscribed
by other agencies that also regulate several covered clearing agencies
could result in certain efficiencies and reduced costs for those
covered clearing agencies.\154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \154\ See supra section IV.B.2, supra footnotes 68 and 69, and
Request for Comments 15, 20-22, and 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the Commission preliminarily believes that it is better to
permit the rules, policies, procedures, and any other tools or
resources to vary across covered clearing agencies because the
underlying risks and resources vary. For example, a covered clearing
agency that clears products of longer duration may have a greater need
for a tear-up tool that extinguishes a participant's positions in
certain circumstances than a covered clearing agency that clears
contracts with a relatively short settlement cycle. In addition, the
overall volume of transactions settled by a covered clearing agency may
affect the choice of its liquidity tools or resources, as the covered
clearing agency would have to ensure that it had sufficient liquidity
resources to complete settlement.
4. Require the Identification of Interconnections and Interdependencies
    In addition to the requirements with respect to service providers
set forth in proposed Rule 17ad-26(a)(2), the Commission could require
that the covered clearing agency's RWP identify any financial or
operational interconnections and interdependencies that the covered
clearing agency has with other market participants. This would allow
for consideration of the impact of the multiple roles and relationships
that a single financial entity may have with respect to the covered
clearing agency including affiliated entities and third parties (e.g.,
a single entity that acts as both a clearing member and a settlement
bank and a liquidity provider).\155\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ More specifically, a bank holding company structure may
operate through a set of legal entities (e.g., a broker-dealer/
futures commission merchant separate from a bank separate from an
information technology service provider), each of which has
different relationships with the covered clearing agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission preliminarily believes that it is better not to
include this particular requirement. A covered clearing agency is
already required to establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify, monitor, and
manage risks related to

any link the covered clearing agency establishes with one or more other
clearing agencies, financial market utilities, or trading markets.\156\
This requirement, in conjunction with the proposed requirement to
identify and describe service providers for critical services and to
specify to which critical service they relate, should accomplish the
same general objective, making this reasonable alternative inferior to
the proposed policy choice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \156\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Establish a Specific Monitoring Frequency for Intraday Margin Calls
    The proposed amendment to Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(ii) expressly
incorporates the requirement of intraday monitoring to ensure that such
monitoring is done on an ongoing basis. One reasonable alternative is
to prescribe the necessary frequency of monitoring as opposed to ``on
an ongoing basis''. For example, covered clearing agencies could be
required to monitor exposure every 5 or 15 minutes.
    The Commission preliminarily believes, however, that monitoring on
an ongoing basis is preferable because a fixed, pre-specified
monitoring frequency may not be responsive enough to risk differences
that exist across the markets served by the covered clearing agencies
or to volatility changes that may happen through time.
6. Adopt Only Certain Elements of Proposed Rule 17ad-26
    Instead of adopting all nine elements of proposed Rule 17ad-26, the
Commission could adopt a subset of the proposed elements. For example,
the Commission could drop the proposed element to identify service
providers or the proposed element to address how the covered clearing
agency would ensure that the service providers would continue to
perform in the event of a recovery and during and orderly wind-down.
Alternatively, the Commission could drop the proposed element for plan
review or the proposed element for plan testing.
    The Commission preliminarily believes that it is better to adopt
all nine elements of proposed Rule 17ad-26 because each element helps
ensure that the plan is fit for purpose and provides sufficient
identification of how a covered clearing agency would operate in a
recovery and how it would handle an orderly wind-down.
7. Focus Intraday Margin Requirements on a Subset of Covered Clearing
Agencies
    As an alternative to implementing the proposed intraday margin
amendments on a blanket basis, the Commission could adopt a more
tailored approach that imposes the requirements only on a subset of
covered clearing agencies that operate in certain markets such as those
markets with the highest levels of activity \157\ or those markets that
have only one covered clearing agency.\158\ A more tailored market-
level risk-based approach would adjust to the size and systemic
importance of each market, which would reduce the counter-factual
compliance costs for the covered clearing agencies in the markets with
less activity or with more than one available clearing agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ Activity could be measured in different ways, including
the number or value of cleared transactions. Average daily
settlement value is much higher in the equity market (NSCC) than it
is in the fixed income market (FICC). See DTCC, Annual Report
(2021), available at https://www.dtcc.com/~/media/files/downloads/
about/annual-reports/DTCC-2021-Annual-Report.
    \158\ The following securities markets have only one central
counterparty: exchange-traded equity options (OCC), government
securities (FICC), mortgage-backed securities (FICC), and equity
securities (NSCC). The market for central securities depository
services has only one provider (DTC). The credit default swaps
market is served by LCH SA, ICC, and ICEEU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the Commission preliminarily believes that the proposed
amendments already include an appropriate adjustment for market-level
risk insofar as they would require the covered clearing agencies to
consider their own particular facts and circumstances when aligning
with the proposed rules. For example, the proposed amendment to Rule
17Ad-22(e)(6)(ii) would require covered clearing agencies to have the
operational capacity to make intraday margin calls ``as frequently as
circumstances warrant,'' and that frequency is expected to vary across
markets and through time.

E. Request for Comment

    The Commission requests comment on all aspects of this initial
economic analysis, including the potential benefits and costs, all
effects on efficiency, competition (including any effects on barriers
to entry), and capital formation, and reasonable alternatives to the
proposed rule and amendments. We request and encourage any interested
person to submit comments regarding the proposed rule and amendments,
our analysis of the potential effects of the proposed rule and
amendments, and other matters that may have an effect on the proposed
rule and amendments. We request that commenters identify sources of
data and information as well as provide data and information to assist
us in analyzing the economic consequences of the proposed rule and
amendments and each reasonable alternative. We are also interested in
comments on the qualitative benefits and costs we have identified and
any qualitative benefits and costs we may have overlooked, including
those associated with each reasonable alternative. In addition, we are
interested in comments on any other reasonable alternative, including
any alternative that would distinguish covered clearing agencies based
on certain factors, such as organizational structure or products
cleared.
    34. For covered clearing agencies that are currently able to
calculate and collect intraday margin, how costly is it to start
monitoring exposure on an ongoing basis, and how costly is it to make
intraday margin calls as frequently as circumstances warrant?
    35. How quickly are participants able to satisfy margin calls
during periods of market calm? How quickly are participants able to
satisfy margin calls during periods of market stress?
    36. How much more costly is it for participants to satisfy margin
calls in periods of market stress than in periods of markets calm? How
does an increase of margin call frequency affect costs for participants
in periods of market stress?
    37. How much more costly is it for participants to satisfy margin
calls that are unanticipated than those that are anticipated? To what
extend do participants model when the covered clearing agency is likely
to make margin calls? How will the proposed amendments affect
participants' ability or incentive to model the timing of margin calls?
    38. Should the length of time participants takes to satisfy a
margin call influence the decision of the covered clearing agency to
make a margin call? For example, should covered clearing agencies
refrain from issuing a new margin call before the participants have
responded to a prior margin call? Why or why not?
    39. Do commenters believe that certain participants of covered
clearing agencies, including, for example, participants with less
capital or using smaller settlement banks, could face operational
challenges or pricing disadvantages, if proposed Rule 17Ad-22(e)(ii)
were to result in more frequent margin calls? If so, please explain
those challenges and disadvantages.
    40. How costly is it for covered clearing agencies to secure the
use of

price data or substantive inputs from an alternate source? Must the
data or substantive inputs subscription be purchased outright, or can
the covered clearing agency, for a lower fee, purchase an option to use
the data and substantive inputs only when its primary sources prove
inadequate?
    41. How costly is it for covered clearing agencies to secure the
use of alternate risk-based margin systems? Would covered clearing
agencies create their own alternate risk-based margin systems, or would
they secure access to one from a third party, and, if so, at what cost?
    42. Are our estimates of the costs to secure alternate data inputs
reasonable? Why or why not?
    43. Proposed Rule 17ad-26(a)(2) requires RWPs to address how the
covered clearing agency would ensure that service providers would
continue to perform in the event of a recovery and during an orderly
wind-down. Would it be better for RWPs to address instead how the
covered clearing agency would continue to provide its critical services
in the event of the non-performance of one or more service providers?
Why or why not?
    44. How costly will it be for covered clearing agencies to test
their plans as required in proposed Rule 17ad-26(a)(8)? What costs will
be incurred by the participants and, when practicable, other
stakeholders? Will any of these costs substantively vary based on
whether or not the current RWP includes testing?

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposed amendments to Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6) and Proposed Rule
17ad-26 contain ``collection of information'' requirements within the
PRA.\159\ The Commission is submitting the proposed collections of
information to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for review
in accordance with the PRA. The title of these information collections
is ``Clearing Agency Standards for Operation and Governance'' (OMB
Control No. 3235-0695). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ See 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Proposed Amendment to Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)

    Respondents under this Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6) are covered clearing
agencies that provide central counterparty services, of which there are
currently six. The Commission anticipates that one additional entity
may seek to register as a clearing agency to provide CCP services in
the next three years, and so for purposes of this proposal the
Commission has assumed seven respondents.
    The purpose of this collection of information is to enable a
covered clearing agency to have the authority and operational capacity
to monitor intraday exposures on an ongoing basis and to collect
intraday margin in certain specified circumstances. The collection is
mandatory. To the extent that the Commission receives confidential
information pursuant to this collection of information, such
information would be kept confidential subject to the provisions of
applicable law.\160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ See, e.g., 5 U.S.C. 552. Exemption 4 of the Freedom of
Information Act provides an exemption for trade secrets and
commercial or financial information obtained from a person and
privileged or confidential. See 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). Exemption 8 of
the Freedom of Information Act provides an exemption for matters
that are contained in or related to examination, operating, or
condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an
agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial
institutions. See 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendments to Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6) would require a
covered clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain, and enforce
written policies and procedures. The proposed rule amendment contains
similar provisions to existing covered clearing agency rules (i.e.,
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(ii) and (iv)), but would also impose additional
requirements that do not appear in the existing Rule 17Ad-22. As a
result, the Commission preliminarily believes that a respondent covered
clearing agency would incur burdens of reviewing and updating existing
policies and procedures to consider whether they comply with the
proposed amendment to Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6) and, in some cases, may need
to create new policies and procedures to comply with the proposed
amendments to Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6). For example, a covered clearing
agency likely would need to review its existing margin methodology and
consider whether any additional changes are necessary to ensure that it
can meet the strengthened requirements of the proposed rule.
    The Commission preliminarily believes that the estimated PRA
burdens for the proposed amendment to Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6) may require a
respondent covered clearing agency to make fairly substantial changes
to its policies and procedures. Based on the similar policies and
procedures requirements and the corresponding burden estimates
previously made by the Commission for several rules in the Covered
Clearing Agency Standards where the Commission anticipated similar
burdens,\161\ the Commission preliminarily estimates that respondent
covered clearing agencies would incur an aggregate one-time burden of
approximately 903 hours to review existing policies and procedures and
create new policies and procedures.\162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ See CCA Standards Adopting Release, supra note 7, 81 FR at
70892 and 70895-97 (discussing Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2) and (13)).
Although the proposed rule amendment is with respect to Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(6), the Commission believes that these Rules present the best
overall comparison to the current proposed rule amendment, in light
of the nature of the changes needed to implement the proposal here
and what was proposed in the Covered Clearing Agency Standards.
    \162\ This figure was calculated as follows: (Assistant General
Counsel for 20 hours) + (Compliance Attorney for 40 hours) +
(Computer Operations Manager for 12 hours) + (Senior Programmer for
20 hours) + (Senior Risk Management Specialist for 25 hours) +
(Senior Business Analyst for 12 hours) = 129 hours x 7 respondent
clearing agencies = 903 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendments to Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6) would impose ongoing
burdens on a respondent covered clearing agencies. The proposed rule
would require ongoing monitoring and compliance activities with respect
to the written policies and procedures created in response to the
proposed rule. Based on the similar reporting requirements and the
corresponding burden estimates previously made by the Commission for
several rules in the Covered Clearing Agency Standards where the
Commission anticipated similar burdens,\163\ the Commission
preliminarily estimates that the ongoing activities required by the
proposed amendments to Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6) would impose an aggregate
annual burden on respondent covered clearing agencies of 560
hours.\164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ See CCA Standards Adopting Release, supra note 7, 81 FR at
70893 and 70895-96 (discussing Rules 17Ad-22(e)(6) and (13)).
    \164\ This figure was calculated as follows: (Compliance
Attorney for 25 hours + Business Risk Analyst for 40 hours + Senior
Risk Management Specialist for 20 hours) = 85 hours x 7 respondent
clearing agencies = 560 hours.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Number of      Initial burden     Aggregate      Ongoing burden     Aggregate
     Name of information collection            Type of burden          respondents       per entity     initial burden     per entity     ongoing burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17Ad-22(e)(6)..........................  Recordkeeping.............               7              129              903               85              595
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposed Rule 17Ad-26

    Respondents under proposed Rule 17ad-26 are covered clearing
agencies, of which there is currently seven. The Commission anticipates
that one additional entity may seek to register as a covered clearing
agency in the next three years, and so for purposes of this proposal
the Commission has assumed eight respondents.
    The purpose of the collections under proposed Rule 17ad-26 is to
ensure that covered clearing agencies include a set of particular items
in the recovery and wind-down plans currently required under Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(3)(ii). The collections are mandatory. To the extent that the
Commission receives confidential information pursuant to this
collection of information, such information would be kept confidential
subject to the provisions of applicable law.\165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ See, e.g., 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq. Exemption 4 of the Freedom
of Information Act provides an exemption for trade secrets and
commercial or financial information obtained from a person and
privileged or confidential. See 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). Exemption 8 of
the Freedom of Information Act provides an exemption for matters
that are contained in or related to examination, operating, or
condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an
agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial
institutions. See 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because of the existence of current Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii), which
means that covered clearing agencies are already required to maintain
RWPs, Proposed Rule 17ad-26 would impose on a covered clearing agency
similar burdens as when, for example, Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2) was proposed
and covered clearing agencies generally had governance arrangements in
place at that time.\166\ Based on the Commission's review and
understanding of the covered clearing agencies' existing RWPs,\167\
respondent covered clearing agencies generally have written rules,
policies, and procedures similar to the requirements that would be
imposed under the Proposed Rule 17ad-26. The PRA burden imposed by the
proposed rule would therefore be minimal and would likely be limited to
the review of current policies and procedures and updating existing
policies and procedures where appropriate to ensure compliance with the
proposed rule. Accordingly, the Commission preliminarily believes that
respondent clearing agencies would incur an aggregate one-time burden
of approximately 960 hours to review and update existing policies and
procedures.\168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \166\ See CCA Standards Adopting Release, supra note 7, 81 FR at
70892 (discussing Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)).
    \167\ See supra, note 41.
    \168\ This figure was calculated as follows: ((Assistant General
Counsel for 20 hours) + (Compliance Attorney for 50 hours) +
(Business Risk Analyst for 35 hours) + (Senior Risk Management
Specialist for 15) = 120 hours x 8 respondent clearing agencies =
960 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 17ad-26 would also impose ongoing burdens on a
respondent covered clearing agency. The proposed rule would require
ongoing monitoring and compliance activities with respect to the
written policies and procedures created in response to the proposed
rule. Based on the Commission's previous estimates for ongoing
monitoring and compliance burdens with respect to existing Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(2),\169\ the Commission preliminarily estimates that the ongoing
activities required by proposed Rule 17ad-26 would impose an aggregate
annual burden on respondent covered clearing agencies of 40 hours.\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \169\ See CCA Standards Adopting Release, supra note 7, 81 FR at
70892 (discussing Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)).
    \170\ This figure was calculated as follows: ((Assistant General
Counsel for 10 hours) + Compliance Attorney for 30 hours)) x 8
respondent clearing agencies = 320 hours.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Number of      Initial burden     Aggregate      Ongoing burden     Aggregate
     Name of information collection            Type of burden          respondents       per entity     initial burden     per entity     ongoing burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17ad-26................................  Recordkeeping.............               8              120              960               40              320
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Request for Comment

    Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), the Commission solicits
comments to:
    45. Evaluate whether the proposed collections of information are
necessary for the proper performance of the Commission's functions,
including whether the information shall have practical utility;
    46. Evaluate the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the
burdens of the proposed collections of information;
    47. Determine whether there are ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
    48. Evaluate whether there are ways to minimize the burden of
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology; and
    49. Evaluate whether the proposed rules and rule amendments would
have any effects on any other collection of information not previously
identified in this section.
    Persons submitting comments on the collection of information
requirements should direct them to the Office of Management and Budget,
Attention: Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission,
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, and
should also send a copy of their comments to Secretary, Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090, with
reference to File Number S7-10-23. Requests for materials submitted to
OMB by the Commission with regard to this collection of information
should be in writing, with reference to File Number S7-10-23 and be
submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA/PA
Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-2736. As OMB is
required to make a decision concerning the collection of information
between 30 and 60 days after publication, a comment to OMB is best
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of
publication.

VI. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996,\171\ a rule is ``major'' if it has resulted, or is likely to
result in: an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a
major increase in costs or prices for consumers or individual
industries; or significant adverse effects on competition, investment,
or innovation. The Commission requests comment on whether the proposed
rules and rule amendments would be a ``major'' rule for purposes of the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. In addition, the
Commission solicits comment and empirical data on: the potential effect
on the U.S. economy on annual basis; any potential increase in costs or
prices for consumer or individual industries; and any potential effect
on competition, investment, or innovation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \171\ Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'') requires the Commission,
in promulgating rules, to consider the impact of those rules on small
entities.\172\ Section 603(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act,\173\
as amended by the RFA, generally requires the Commission to undertake a
regulatory flexibility analysis of all proposed rules to determine the
impact of such rulemaking on ``small entities.'' \174\ Section 605(b)
of the RFA states that this requirement shall not apply to any proposed
rule which, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.\175\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \172\ See 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    \173\ 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
    \174\ Section 601(b) of the RFA permits agencies to formulate
their own definitions of ``small entities.'' See 5 U.S.C. 601(b).
The Commission has adopted definitions for the term ``small entity''
for the purposes of rulemaking in accordance with the RFA. These
definitions, as relevant to this proposed rulemaking, are set forth
in Rule 0-10, 17 CFR 240.0-10.
    \175\ See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendments to Rule 17Ad-22 and new Rule 17ad-26 would
apply to covered clearing agencies, which would include registered
clearing agencies that provide the services of a central counterparty
or central securities depository.\176\ For the purposes of Commission
rulemaking and as applicable to the proposed amendments to Rule 17Ad-22
and the addition of proposed Rule 17ad-26, a small entity includes,
when used with reference to a clearing agency, a clearing agency that
(i) compared, cleared, and settled less than $500 million in securities
transactions during the preceding fiscal year, (ii) had less than $200
million of funds and securities in its custody or control at all times
during the preceding fiscal year (or at any time that it has been in
business, if shorter), and (iii) is not affiliated with any person
(other than a natural person) that is not a small business or small
organization.\177\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \176\ 17 CFR 240.17AD-22(a)(5).
    \177\ See 17 CFR 240.0-10(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the Commission's existing information about the clearing
agencies currently registered with the Commission, the Commission
preliminarily believes that such entities exceed the thresholds
defining ``small entities'' set out above. While other clearing
agencies may emerge and seek to register as clearing agencies, the
Commission preliminarily does not believe that any such entities would
be ``small entities'' as defined in Exchange Act Rule 0-10.\178\ In any
case, clearing agencies can only become subject to the new requirements
under proposed Rule 17Ad-22(e) should they meet the definition of a
covered clearing agency, as described above. Accordingly, the
Commission preliminarily believes that any such registered clearing
agencies will exceed the thresholds for ``small entities'' set forth in
Exchange Act Rule 0-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \178\ See 17 CFR 240.0-10(d). The Commission based this
determination on its review of public sources of financial
information about registered clearing agencies and lifecycle event
service providers for OTC derivatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons described above, the Commission certifies that the
proposed amendments to Rules 17Ad-22 and proposed new Rule 17ad-26
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities for purposes of the RFA. The Commission requests comment
regarding this certification. The Commission requests that commenters
describe the nature of any impact on small entities, including clearing
agencies, and provide empirical data to support the extent of the
impact.

VIII. Statutory Authority

    The Commission is proposing amendments to 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22 and
proposing 17 CFR 240.17ad-26 under the Commission's rulemaking
authority set forth in section 17A of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78q-1
and Section 23(a), 15 U.S.C. 78w(a), and in Section 805 of the Clearing
Supervision Act, 15 U.S.C. 5464.

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 240

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

Text of Amendments

    In accordance with the foregoing, title 17, chapter II of the Code
of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 240--GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934

0
1. The authority citation for part 240 continues to read, and the
sectional authority for Sec.  240.17Ad-22 is revised to read, as
follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3,
77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn, 77sss, 77ttt, 78c, 78c-3, 78c-5, 78d, 78e, 78f,
78g, 78i, 78j, 78j-1, 78k, 78k-1, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78n-1, 78o, 78o-4,
78o-10, 78p, 78q, 78q-1, 78s, 78u-5, 78w, 78x, 78dd, 78ll, 78mm,
80a-20, 80a-23, 80a-29, 80a-37, 80b-3, 80b-4, 80b-11, and 7201 et
seq., 8302; 7 U.S.C. 2(c)(2)(E); 12 U.S.C. 5221(e)(3); 18 U.S.C.
1350; Pub. L. 111-203, 939A, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010); and Pub. L. 112-
106, sec. 503 and 602, 126 Stat. 326 (2012), unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
    Section 240.17ad-22 is also issued under 12 U.S.C. 5461 et seq.
* * * * *
0
2. Amend Sec.  240.17Ad-22 by:
0
a. Redesignating Sec.  240.17Ad-22 as Sec.  240.17ad-22; and
0
b. Revising paragraphs (e)(6)(ii) and (iv) in newly redesignated Sec.
240.17ad-22.
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  240.17ad-22  Standards for clearing agencies.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (6) * * *
    (ii) Marks participant positions to market and collects margin,
including variation margin or equivalent charges if relevant, at least
daily, monitors intraday exposures on an ongoing basis, and includes
the authority and operational capacity to make intraday margin calls as
frequently as circumstances warrant, including when risk thresholds
specified by the covered clearing agency are breached or when the
products cleared or markets served display elevated volatility;
* * * * *
    (iv) Uses reliable sources of timely price data and other
substantive inputs, and uses procedures and, with respect to price
data, sound valuation models, for addressing circumstances in which
price data or other substantive inputs are not readily available or
reliable to ensure that the covered clearing agency

can continue to meet its obligations under this section. Such
procedures shall include the use of price data or substantive inputs
from an alternate source or, if it does not use an alternate source,
the use of an alternate risk-based margin system that does not
similarly rely on the unavailable or unreliable substantive input;
* * * * *
0
3. Section 240.17ad-26 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  240.17ad-26  Covered Clearing Agency Recovery and Orderly Wind-
Down Plans.

    (a) The plans for the recovery and orderly wind-down of the covered
clearing agency referenced in 17 CFR 240.17ad-22(e)(3)(ii) shall:
    (1) Identify and describe the covered clearing agency's critical
payment, clearing, and settlement services and address how the covered
clearing agency would continue to provide such critical services in the
event of a recovery and during an orderly wind-down, including the
identification of the staffing necessary to support such critical
services and analysis of how such staffing would continue in the event
of a recovery and during an orderly wind-down;
    (2) Identify and describe any service providers upon which the
covered clearing agency relies to provide the services identified in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section, specify to what services such service
providers are relevant, and address how the covered clearing agency
would ensure that such service providers would continue to perform in
the event of a recovery and during an orderly wind-down, including
consideration of contractual obligations with such service providers
and whether those obligations are subject to alteration or termination
as a result of initiation of the recovery and orderly wind-down plan;
    (3) Identify and describe scenarios that may potentially prevent
the covered clearing agency from being able to provide its critical
payment, clearing, and settlement services identified in paragraph
(a)(1) of this section as a going concern, including uncovered credit
losses (as described in paragraph (e)(4)(viii) of 17 CFR 240.17ad-22),
uncovered liquidity shortfalls (as described in paragraph (e)(7)(viii)
of 17 CFR 240.17ad-22), and general business losses (as described in
paragraph (e)(15) of 17 CFR 240.17ad-22);
    (4) Identify and describe criteria that would trigger the
implementation of the recovery and orderly wind-down plans and the
process that the covered clearing agency uses to monitor and determine
whether the criteria have been met, including the governance
arrangements applicable to such process;
    (5) Identify and describe the rules, policies, procedures, and any
other tools or resources the covered clearing agency would rely upon in
a recovery or orderly wind-down;
    (6) Address how the rules, policies, procedures, and any other
tools or resources identified in paragraph (a)(5) of this section would
ensure timely implementation of the recovery and orderly wind-down
plan;
    (7) Include procedures for informing the Commission as soon as
practicable when the covered clearing agency is considering initiating
a recovery or orderly wind-down;
    (8) Include procedures for testing the covered clearing agency's
ability to implement the recovery and wind-down plans at least every
twelve months, including by requiring the covered clearing agency's
participants and, when practicable, other stakeholders to participate
in the testing of its plans, providing for reporting the results of the
testing to the covered clearing agency's board of directors and senior
management, and specifying the procedures for, as appropriate, amending
the plans to address the results of the testing; and
    (9) Include procedures requiring review and approval by the board
of directors of the plans at least every twelve months or following
material changes to the covered clearing agency's operations that would
significantly affect the viability or execution of the plans, with such
review informed, as appropriate by the covered clearing agency's
testing of the plans.
    (b) Definitions. For the purposes of this section:
    Affiliate means a person that directly or indirectly controls, is
controlled by, or is under common control with the covered clearing
agency.
    Orderly wind-down means the actions of a covered clearing agency to
effect the permanent cessation, sale, or transfer of one or more of its
critical services in a manner that would not increase the risk of
significant liquidity, credit, or operational problems spreading among
financial institutions or markets and thereby threaten the stability of
the U.S. financial system.
    Recovery means the actions of a covered clearing agency, consistent
with its rules, procedures, and other ex ante contractual arrangements,
to address any uncovered loss, liquidity shortfall, or capital
inadequacy, whether arising from participant default or other causes
(such as business, operational, or other structural weaknesses),
including actions to replenish any depleted prefunded financial
resources and liquidity arrangements, as necessary to maintain the
covered clearing agency's viability as a going concern and to continue
its provision of critical services.
    Service provider means any person, including an affiliate or a
third party, that is contractually obligated to the covered clearing
agency in any way related to the provision of critical services, as
identified by the covered clearing agency in 17 CFR 240.17ad-26(a)(1).

    By the Commission.

    Dated: May 17, 2023.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-10889 Filed 5-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 108)]
[Notices]
[Page 31855-31856]
[DOCID:fr04jn08-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings  1

May 23, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC08-87-000.
    Applicants: Entegra Power Group LLC, Gila River Power, L.P., Union
Power Partners, L.P., Harbinger Capital Partners Master Fund I,
Harbinger Capital Partners Special Situations.
    Description: Entegra Power Group LLC et al. submits a joint
application for approval under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act.
    Filed Date: 05/09/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080516-0116.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 30, 2008.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER91-195-053; EL07-69-003.
    Applicants: Western Systems Power Pool, Empire District Electric
Company.
    Description: The Empire District Electric Co submits its compliance
filing to support the continued use of the up to demand charge in the
Western Systems Power Pool Agreement.
    Filed Date: 04/18/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080421-0057.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 13, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-1410-007; EL05-148-007.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits filing to comply with
the FERC (Commission) March 21, 2008 Order on Compliance Filing ( March
21 Order).
    Filed Date: 05/20/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080522-0174.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 10, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-917-001.
    Applicants: Green Light Energy, LLC.
    Description: Green Light Energy, LLC submits the Amendment for
Petition for Acceptance of Initial Tariff, Waivers and Blanket
Authority, FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1, effective 6/9/08.
    Filed Date: 05/20/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080522-0175.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 10, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-990-000.
    Applicants: South Carolina Electric & Gas Transmissi.
    Description: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company Transmission
Function submits a revised cover sheet for the Network Integration
Transmission Service Agreement and the Network Operating Agreement etc.
    Filed Date: 05/20/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080522-0173.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 10, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-991-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Westar Energy, Inc et al. submits Second Revised Sheet
12 and 1 to the Wholesale Electric Service Agreement commencing 2/1/88
designated First Revised Rate Schedule FERC 174 etc.
    Filed Date: 05/19/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080522-0172.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 09, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-992-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Westar Energy Inc submits Petition for Approval of
Settlement Agreement.
    Filed Date: 05/19/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080522-0171.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 09, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-993-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Westar Energy, Inc et al. submits Substitute Second
Revised Sheet 8 and 1 to the Wholesale Electric Service Agreement
designated as First Revised Rate Schedule FERC 173 with the City of
Mulberry, Kansas.
    Filed Date: 05/20/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080522-0170.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 10, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-994-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Westar Energy, Inc submits Petition for Approval of
Settlement Agreement with the City of Mulberry, Kansas.
    Filed Date: 05/20/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080522-0169.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 10, 2008.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following open access
transmission tariff filings:
    Docket Numbers: OA07-90-003.
    Applicants: MidAmerican Energy Company.
    Description: MidAmerican Energy Company submits revised and
original tariff sheets to conform its OATT Attachment C, Methodology to
Assess Available Transfer Capability, to the Order No. 890
requirements.
    Filed Date: 04/21/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080422-5082.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 12, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: OA08-65-000.
    Applicants: Portland General Electric Company.
    Description: Order No. 890-A OATT Filing of Portland General
Electric Company.
    Filed Date: 03/14/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080317-5028.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 02, 2008.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-12431 Filed 6-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P