[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71772-71774]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25085]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79086; File No. SR-CBOE-2016-072]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule

October 12, 2016.
    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

September 30, 2016, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') 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 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 proposes to amend the Fees Schedule. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's
Office of the Secretary, 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.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule, effective October
3, 2016. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to increase the
transaction fee for Professional Customers and Voluntary Professionals
(``W'' origin code) (``Professionals'') for all manual transactions in
all penny and non-penny equity, index (excluding Underlying Symbol List
A \3\), ETF and ETN option classes from $0.00 per contract to $0.12 per
contract. The Exchange recently reduced this fee from $0.25 per
contract to $0.00 per contract, which amount was comparable to the
amount assessed to similar transactions for Professionals at another
exchange.\4\ Upon further review of manual transaction fees, the
Exchange proposes to increase the fee to restore a more competitive
balance among Professionals and broker-dealers (which pay manual
transaction fees in varying amounts \5\) with respect to manual
transactions on the Exchange's trading floor. The Exchange notes the
proposed $0.12 fee is lower than the $0.25 fee assessed to
Professionals for manual transactions prior to September 1, 2016.
Additionally, the proposed change is consistent with the approximate
average transaction fee amount assessed to market-makers for manual
transactions.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See CBOE Fees Schedule, Footnote 34.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-78786 (September
8, 2016), 81 FR 63242 (September 14, 2016) (SR-CBOE-2016-066).
    \5\ See CBOE Fees Schedule, Equity, ETF and ETN, and Index
Options Rate Tables.
    \6\ See CBOE Fees Schedule, Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale for
the transaction fees for market-makers based on volume thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\7\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \8\ requirements that the rules of
an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\9\ which requires that
Exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other
persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to increase the transaction
fee for Professionals for manual transactions in all penny and non-
penny equity, index (excluding Underlying Symbol List A), ETF and ETN
options classes to $0.12 per contract because it is lower than the
$0.25 fee assessed to Professionals for manual transactions prior to
September 1, 2016. Additionally, the proposed fee is consistent with
the approximate average transaction fee amount assessed to market-
makers for manual transactions. The Exchange believes it is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory to propose to increase the manual
transaction fee only for Professionals because it is designed to create
a more competitive balance between Professionals (who have trading
characteristics akin to broker-dealers) and broker-dealers for open
outcry trades. With respect to manual transactions, Professionals often
participate on trades in a similar manner as broker-dealers, and
therefore the Exchange believes it is reasonable for Professionals to
pay a transaction fee for those trades so they can compete on more
equal footing for participation on those trades.\10\ Additionally,
because the proposed fee is lower than the $0.25 fee Professionals were
assessed for manual transactions prior to September 1, 2016, the
Exchange believes the proposed fee change will continue to attract a
greater number of Professional orders for those classes, which may
create greater trading opportunities that benefit all market
participants. The Exchange lastly notes assessing a different fee
amount for manual executions than for electronic executions is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange has
expended considerable resources to develop its electronic trading
platforms and recoups the costs of such expenditures through electronic
transaction fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See CBOE Rule 1.1(fff) and (ggg) (including Interpretation
and Policy .01 to paragraph (ggg)) for the definition of
Professionals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose
any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe the proposed
rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act
because, while increasing the transaction rate to $0.12 for manual
executions in penny and non-penny equity, index (excluding Underlying
Symbol List A), ETF and ETN option classes only applies to
Professionals, broker-dealers currently pay transaction fees when
trading as parties to those executions. The proposed change is designed
to create a more competitive balance between Professionals and broker-
dealers for open outcry trading. The Exchange does not believe the
proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition
that is not necessary or

appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the
proposed changes only affect trading on CBOE. To the extent that the
proposed changes make CBOE a more attractive marketplace for market
participants at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome
to become CBOE market participants.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \12\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2016-072 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-CBOE-2016-072. 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 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 Web site 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; 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-CBOE-2016-072 and should be
submitted on or before November 8, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-25085 Filed 10-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14962-14963]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6433]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

March 11, 2011.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC11-48-000.
    Applicants: Tiverton Power Inc., Rumford Power Inc., Brick Power
Holdings LLC, Rumford Power Holdings Inc., Tiverton Power Holdings
Inc., Capital Power Investments LLC.
    Description: Application for Order Under Section 203 of the Federal
Power Act, Request for Confidential Treatment, Waivers and 21 Day
Comment Period of Brick Power Holdings LLC, et. al.
    Filed Date: 03/10/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110310-5120.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 31, 2011.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3055-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Alabama Power Company submits tariff filing per 35:
Attachment S (Gulf)--Compliance Filing under Docket No. ER11-2477 to be
effective 9/22/2010.
    Filed Date: 03/10/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110310-5000.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 31, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3056-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): Amendments to the PJM Operating Agreement Schedule 12
Membership List to be effective 2/21/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/10/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110310-5047.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 31, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3057-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., PPL Electric Utilities
Corporation.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): Revisions to PPL's Attachment H-8G to conform PJM's
baseline filing to be effective 9/17/2010.
    Filed Date: 03/10/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110310-5072.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 17, 2011.

    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.
    As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of
self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not
institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice
of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides
notification that the entity making the filing has determined the
facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a
qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets
that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-
recertifications. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying
facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant

to 18 CFR 292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and protests may be filed in
response to notices of qualifying facility dockets other than self-
certifications and self-recertifications.
    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 docket(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. 2011-6433 Filed 3-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


MEMO To: Phase III Record From: Ron Rimelman and Kelly Meadows, Tetra Tech Date: June 2, 2004 RE: Potential Additional Pre approved Technologies for Phase III Facilities In the final Phase II regulations, EPA identified submerged cylindrical wedge wire screens as an Approved Design and Construction Technology. On May 12th, Tetra Tech 316( b) staff participated in a conference call with Martha Segall to discuss additional intake technologies that could potentially be incorporated into the Phase III regulations as pre approved technologies. This memo serves as a summary of those discussions.

In summary, two additional technologies were identified that could be able to regularly meet the performance standards under the appropriate conditions.

Submerged offshore intake structures It was noted that a properly sited offshore submerged intake structure can eliminate virtually all entrainment, as the intake can be located outside of sensitive portions of the waterbody. An example is San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station ( SONGS), where the intake is located approximately 1/ 4 mile offshore.

This technology does pose two significant problems for implementation: 1) converting a facility to an offshore intake is likely to be extremely expensive and time consuming and 2) how would a facility select an appropriate location for the offshore intake without performing additional studies at those offshore locations?

Another issue to consider for selecting a submerged offshore intake is whether the intake technology is required to address impingement and/ or entrainment concerns. For example, a properly located intake that has no other intake technologies ( i. e., a simple pipe) could meet the entrainment requirements. However, by adding a velocity cap to the intake, the technology may also be able to address impingement requirements.

In the industry survey, 204 Phase III facilities ( weighted data) responded as having a submerged offshore intake ( out of a weighted universe of 651 facilities). It is interesting to note that only 19 of these facilities ( weighted data) were located on tidal rivers or an ocean, but similar logic can be applied to both marine and freshwater intakes. Regardless of waterbody type, a properly located submerged offshore intake could meet the entrainment requirements, and, when combined with a velocity cap, may also meet the impingement requirements. Barrier nets/ aquatic filter barriers Barrier nets can be very effective at reducing impingement. Aquatic filter barrier systems, such as Gunderboom, are also reasonably effective at meeting impingement and entrainment standards.

These technologies also pose implementation problems at some facilities: 1) these technologies are not feasible for some facilities, especially those in waterbodies with high debris loading or vessel traffic and 2) these technologies often require a substantial amount of modification and follow up by the facility to operate. However, given that these technologies would be integral to the functioning of the intake and the facility, optimizing their performance would be in the facility's best interests, thereby possibly reducing the need for additional monitoring or permitting requirements.

In the industry survey, only six Phase III facilities ( weighted data) responded as having a fish net barrier ( out of a weighted universe of 651 facilities). Despite the seemingly low number of facilities employing this type of technology, two factors may make this technology more attractive: 1) the survey data is from 1998 and more facilities may have implemented this technology since that time and 2) these technologies ( especially barrier nets) can be inexpensive to install and the installation often does not affect facility operations.

Other considerations Two other technologies were also discussed and it was decided that these were likely not appropriate technologies to consider for pre approved technologies. Modified traveling screens and variable speed pumps have shown measurable results in reducing impingement and entrainment, but are unlikely to meet the performance standards on a consistent basis. Generally, these technologies require a certain level of adaptive management and modification to optimize the performance, which inherently defeats the purpose of selecting technologies with a reduced burden to the facility.

It was also noted that there may be policy/ legal conflicts in approving any additional technologies, as this could be seen as contradictory to the pre approved technology option in the Phase II regulations. However, it was suggested that any additional technologies could be conditionally approved for facilities with design intake flows ( DIF) of less than 50 million gallons per day ( MGD).


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20789-20790]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08180]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2020-0027-N-42]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of information collection; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its
implementing regulations, this notice announces that FRA is forwarding
the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR
describes the information collection and its expected burden. On
December 30, 2020, FRA published a notice providing a 60-day period for
public comment on the ICR.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
May 21, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed ICR
should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find the particular ICR by selecting
``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using
the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Hodan Wells, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory
Analysis Division, Federal Railroad Administration, telephone: (202)
493-0440, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to
issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection
activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. See 44 U.S.C.
3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.8 through 1320.12. On December 30, 2020, FRA
published a 60-day notice in the Federal Register soliciting comment on
the ICR for which it is now seeking OMB approval. See 85 FR 86644. FRA
received no comments related to the proposed collection of information.
    Before OMB decides whether to approve the proposed collection of
information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. Federal law
requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and
60 days after the 30-day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)-(c); 5
CFR 1320.12(d); see also 60 FR 44978, 44983 (Aug. 29, 1995). OMB
believes the 30-day notice informs the regulated community to file
relevant comments and affords the agency adequate time to digest public
comments before it renders a decision. 60 FR 44983 (Aug. 29, 1995).
Therefore, respondents should submit their respective comments to OMB
within 30 days of publication to best ensure having their full effect.
    Comments are invited on the following ICR regarding: (1) Whether
the information collection activities are

necessary for FRA to properly execute its functions, including whether
the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's
estimates of the burden of the information collection activities,
including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to
determine the estimates; (3) ways for FRA to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of information collection activities on the
public, including the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology.
    The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB
clearance as the PRA requires:
    Title: Conductor Certification.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0596.
    Abstract: FRA's conductor certification regulation (49 CFR part
242) requires railroads to have a formal program for certifying
conductors. As part of that program, railroads are required to have a
formal process for training prospective conductors and determining that
all persons are competent before permitting them to serve as a
conductor. FRA intended the regulation to ensure that only those
persons who meet minimum Federal safety standards serve as conductors.
FRA collects information to ensure that railroads and their employees
fully comply with all the requirements of part 242, including a
conductor certification/recertification program, fitness requirements,
initial and periodic testing, and territorial qualifications.
    Type of Request: Extension without change (with changes in
estimates) of a currently approved collection.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In this 30-day notice, FRA corrects its previous
characterization of this type of request as an ``extension with
change (estimates) of a currently approved collection.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Form(s): N/A.
    Respondent Universe: 765 railroads.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 222,386.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 49,761 hours.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent:
$4,303,437.
    Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi),
FRA informs all interested parties that a respondent is not required to
respond to, conduct, or sponsor a collection of information that does
not display a currently valid OMB control number.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

Brett A. Jortland,
Acting Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2021-08180 Filed 4-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7812-7816]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02622]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88120; File No. SR-OCC-2020-801]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of Advance Notice Concerning a Master Repurchase
Agreement as Part of OCC's Overall Liquidity Plan

February 5, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, entitled Payment, Clearing
and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (``Clearing Supervision Act'')
\1\ and Rule 19b-4(n)(1)(i) \2\ under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Exchange Act'' or ``Act''),\3\ notice is hereby given that on
January 10, 2020, the Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') an advance
notice as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been
prepared by OCC. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the advance notice from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    This advance notice is filed by OCC this advance notice is filed by
OCC [sic] in connection with a proposed change to its operations in the
form of enter into a committed master repurchase agreement with a bank
counterparty as part of OCC's overall liquidity plan. All terms with
initial capitalization that are not otherwise defined herein have the
same meaning as set forth in the OCC By-Laws and Rules.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ OCC's By-Laws and Rules can be found on OCC's public
website: http://optionsclearing.com/about/publications/bylaws.jsp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with
respect to the proposed change and none have been received.

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

Description of Change
    This advance notice is being filed in connection with a proposed
change to OCC's operations through which OCC would enter into a
committed master repurchase agreement with a bank counterparty (the
``Repo Liquidity Facility'') to access an additional committed source
of liquidity to meet its settlement obligations.
Background
    OCC's current liquidity plan provides it with access to a diverse
set of funding sources, including OCC's syndicated credit facility,\5\
a committed master repurchase program with institutional investors such
as pension funds (the ``Non-Bank Liquidity Facility'') \6\ and Clearing
Member minimum Cash Clearing Fund Requirement.\7\ The Repo Liquidity
Facility would provide OCC with an additional source of liquidity
resources. The facility would take the form of OCC executing a
committed master repurchase agreement (``MRA'') with a commercial bank
counterparty. OCC would perform a review and ongoing monitoring of the
counterparty to obtain reasonable assurance that the counterparty has
the financial and operational ability to satisfy its obligations under
the agreement. This review would include the counterparty's standing on
OCC's watch list including key metrics and ratios from the financial
statements, the proposed level of activity including a comparison to
the counterparty's regulatory capital levels, proposed operational
processes associated with the agreement, past relevant operational
incidents, and research of adverse counterparty news.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85924 (May 23,
2019), 84 FR 25089 (May 30, 2019) (SR-OCC-2019-803).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76821 (Jan. 4,
2016), 81 FR 3208 (Jan. 20, 2016) (SR-OCC-2015-805).
    \7\ See OCC Rule 1002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the MRA would be based on the standard form of master
repurchase agreement,\8\ OCC would require the MRA, or an annex
thereto, to contain certain additional provisions tailored to help
ensure certainty of funding and operational effectiveness, as described
in more detail below. OCC believes that these provisions are necessary
and appropriate to integrate the program into its operations and in
order to promote safety and soundness consistent with OCC's systemic
responsibilities. A summary of the additional terms and conditions
applicable to the MRA are set forth in the Summary of Terms attached
[sic] to this filing as confidential Exhibit 3a.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The standard form master repurchase agreement is published
by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association
(``SIFMA'') and is commonly used in the repurchase market by
institutional investors.
    \9\ In addition, OCC is attaching to this filing as Exhibit 3b
responses to certain information requests from staff of the Division
of Trading and Markets (``Staff'') concerning the additional
provisions summarized in confidential Exhibit 3a as reflected in a
draft of this advance notice provided to Staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Program: Standard Repurchase Agreement Terms
    The MRA would be structured like a typical repurchase arrangement
in which the buyer (i.e., the bank counterparty) would purchase from
OCC, from time to time, United States government securities (``Eligible
Securities'').\10\ OCC, as the seller, would transfer Eligible
Securities to the buyer in exchange for a payment by the buyer to OCC
in immediately available funds (``Purchase Price''). The buyer would
simultaneously agree to transfer the purchased securities back to OCC
at a specified later date (``Repurchase Date'') or on OCC's demand
against the transfer

of funds by OCC to the buyer in an amount equal to the outstanding
Purchase Price plus the accrued and unpaid price differential
(together, ``Repurchase Price''), which is the interest component of
the Repurchase Price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ OCC would use U.S. government securities that are included
in Clearing Fund contributions by Clearing Members and margin
deposits of any Clearing Member that has been suspended by OCC for
the repurchase arrangements. OCC Rule 1006(f) and OCC Rule 1104(b)
authorize OCC to obtain funds from third parties through securities
repurchases using these sources. The officers who may exercise this
authority include the Executive Chairman, Chief Executive Officer,
and Chief Operating Officer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At all times while a transaction is outstanding, OCC would be
required to maintain a specified amount of securities or cash margin
with the buyer.\11\ The market value of the securities supporting each
transaction would be determined daily, typically based on a price
obtained from a generally recognized pricing source. If the market
value of the purchased securities is determined to have fallen below
OCC's required margin, OCC would be required to transfer to the buyer
sufficient cash or additional securities reasonably acceptable to the
buyer so that OCC's margin requirement is satisfied.\12\ If the market
value of the purchased securities is determined to have risen to above
OCC's required margin, OCC would be permitted to require the return of
excess purchased securities from the buyer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ OCC expects that it would be required to maintain margin
equal to 102% of the Repurchase Price, which is a standard rate for
arrangements involving U.S. government securities.
    \12\ OCC expects that it would use Clearing Fund securities and
securities posted as margin by defaulting Clearing Members, as more
fully discussed in footnote 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As in a typical master repurchase agreement, an event of default
would occur with respect to the buyer if the buyer failed to purchase
securities on a Purchase Date, failed to transfer purchased securities
on any applicable Repurchase Date, or failed to transfer any interest,
dividends or distributions on purchased securities to OCC within a
specified period after receiving notice of such failure. An event of
default would occur with respect to OCC if OCC failed to transfer
purchased securities on a Purchase Date or failed to repurchase
purchased securities on an applicable Repurchase Date. The MRA would
also provide for standard events of default for either party, including
a party's failure to maintain required margin or an insolvency event
with respect to the party. Upon the occurrence of an event of default,
the non-defaulting party, at its option, would have the right to
accelerate the Repurchase Date of all outstanding transactions between
the defaulting party and the non-defaulting party, among other rights.
For example, if OCC were the defaulting party with respect to a
transaction and the buyer chose to terminate the transaction, OCC would
be required to immediately transfer the Repurchase Price to the buyer.
If the buyer were the defaulting party with respect to a transaction
and OCC chose to terminate the transaction, the buyer would be required
to deliver all purchased securities to OCC. If OCC or the buyer did not
timely perform, the non-defaulting party would be permitted to buy or
sell, or deem itself to have bought or sold, securities as needed to be
made whole and the defaulting party would be required to pay the costs
related to any covering transactions. Additionally, if OCC was required
to obtain replacement securities as a result of an event of default,
the buyer would be required to pay the excess of the price paid by OCC
to obtain replacement securities over the Repurchase Price.
The Proposed Program: Customized Features To Promote Certainty of
Funding and Operational Effectiveness
    In addition to the typical repurchase arrangements, OCC would
require the MRA, or an annex thereto, to contain certain additional
provisions tailored to help ensure certainty of funding and operational
effectiveness.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ OCC expects that the MRA will also include other, more
routine, provisions such as the method for giving notices and basic
due authorization representations by the parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commitment to Fund
    The buyer would provide a funding commitment of $500 million, with
the commitment extending for one year and one day. The buyer would be
obligated to enter into transactions under the MRA up to its committed
amount so long as no default had occurred and OCC transferred
sufficient Eligible Securities. The buyer would be obligated to enter
into transactions even if OCC had experienced a material adverse
change, such as the failure of a Clearing Member. This commitment to
provide funding would be a key departure from ordinary repurchase
arrangements and a key requirement for OCC.
Funding Mechanics
    Funding mechanics would be targeted so that OCC would receive the
Purchase Price in immediately available funds within 60 minutes of its
request for funds and delivery of Eligible Securities and, if needed,
prior to OCC's regular daily settlement time.\14\ These targeted
funding mechanics would allow OCC to receive needed liquidity in time
to satisfy settlement obligations, even in the event of a default by a
Clearing Member or a market disruption. The funding mechanism may be,
for example, delivery versus payment/receive versus payment \15\ or
another method acceptable to OCC that both satisfies the objectives of
the Repo Liquidity Facility and presents limited operational risks.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ This would include OCC's regular daily settlement time and
any extended settlement time implemented by OCC in an emergency
situation under Rule 505.
    \15\ Delivery versus payment/receive versus payment is a method
of settlement under which payment for securities must be made prior
to or simultaneously with delivery of the securities.
    \16\ Unlike for the Non-Bank Liquidity Facility, OCC would not
require the Repo Liquidity Facility counterparty to maintain cash
and investments in a designated account in which OCC has visibility.
OCC required a designated account for Non-Bank Liquidity Facility
counterparties in order to facilitate prompt funding by
counterparties that, unlike the Repo Liquidity Facility
counterparty, are not commercial banks and therefore are not in the
business of daily funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

No Rehypothecation
    The buyer would not be permitted to grant any third party an
interest in purchased securities. This requirement is important to
reduce the risk that a third party could interfere with the buyer's
transfer of the purchased securities on the Repurchase Date. Further,
the buyer would agree to provide OCC with daily information about the
account the buyer uses to hold the purchased securities. This
visibility would allow OCC to act quickly in the event the buyer
violates any requirements.
Early Termination Rights
    OCC would have the ability to terminate any transaction upon
written notice to the buyer, but the buyer would only be able to
terminate a transaction upon the occurrence of an event of default with
respect to OCC, as further described below. A notice of termination by
OCC would specify a new Repurchase Date prior to the originally agreed
upon Repurchase Date. Upon the early termination of a transaction, the
buyer would be required to return all purchased securities to OCC and
OCC would be required to pay the Repurchase Price. This optional early
termination right is important to OCC because OCC's liquidity needs may
change unexpectedly over time and as a result OCC may not want to keep
a transaction outstanding as long as originally planned.
Substitution
    OCC would have the ability to substitute any Eligible Securities
for purchased securities in its discretion by a specified time, so long
as the Eligible Securities satisfy any applicable criteria contained in
the MRA and the transfer

of the Eligible Securities would not create a margin deficit, as
described above.\17\ This substitution right is important to OCC
because it must be able to manage requests of Clearing Members to
return excess or substitute Eligible Securities in accordance with
established operational procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ In addition to its substitution rights, OCC could cause the
return of purchased securities by exercising its optional early
termination rights under the Master Repurchase Agreement. If OCC
were to terminate the transaction, the buyer would be required to
return purchased securities to OCC against payment of the
corresponding Repurchase Price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Events of Default
    Beyond the standard events of default for a failure to purchase or
transfer securities on the applicable Purchase Date or Repurchase Date,
as described above, OCC would require that the MRA not contain any
additional events of default that would restrict OCC's access to
funding. Most importantly, OCC would require that it would not be an
event of default if OCC suffers a ``material adverse change.'' \18\
This provision is important because it provides OCC with certainty of
funding, even in difficult market conditions. Upon the occurrence of an
event of default, in addition to the non-defaulting party's right to
accelerate the Repurchase Date of all outstanding transactions or to
buy or sell securities as needed to be made whole, the non-defaulting
party may elect to take the actions specified in the ``mini close-out''
provision of the MRA, rather than declaring an event of default. For
example, if the buyer fails to transfer purchased securities on the
applicable Repurchase Date, rather than declaring an event of default,
OCC may (1) if OCC has already paid the Repurchase Price, require the
buyer to repay the Repurchase Price, (2) if there is a margin excess,
require the buyer to pay cash or delivered purchased securities in an
amount equal to the margin excess, or (3) declare that the applicable
transaction, and only that transaction, will be immediately terminated,
and apply default remedies under the MRA to only that transaction.
Therefore, if the buyer fails to deliver purchased securities on any
Repurchase Date, OCC would have remedies that allow it to mitigate risk
with respect to a particular transaction, without declaring an event of
default with respect to all transactions under the MRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ When included in a contract, a ``material adverse change''
is typically defined as a change that would have a materially
adverse effect on the business or financial condition of a company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anticipated Effect on and Management of Risk
    Completing timely settlement is a key aspect of OCC's role as a
clearing agency performing central counterparty services. OCC believes
that the overall impact of the Repo Liquidity Facility on the risks
presented by OCC would be to reduce settlement risk associated with
OCC's operations as a clearing agency. The Repo Liquidity Facility
would reduce settlement risk by providing an additional source of
liquidity that would promote the reduction of risks to OCC, its
Clearing Members and the options market in general because it would
allow OCC to obtain short-term funds to address liquidity demands
arising out of the default or suspension of a Clearing Member, in
anticipation of a potential default or suspension of Clearing Members,
the insolvency of a bank or another securities or commodities clearing
organization, or the failure of a bank or another securities or
commodities clearing organization to achieve daily settlement. The
resulting reduction in OCC settlement risk would lead to a
corresponding reduction in systemic risk and would have a positive
impact on the safety and soundness of the clearing system by enabling
OCC to have continuous access to funds to settle its obligations to its
Clearing Members. In order to sufficiently perform this key role in
promoting market stability, it is critical that OCC continuously has
access to funds to settle its obligations.
    Providing for another committed source of liquidity resources would
also help OCC manage the allocation between its sources of liquidity by
giving OCC more flexibility to adjust the mix of liquidity resources
based on market conditions, availability and shifting liquidity needs.
If circumstances arise that affect OCC's current liquidity resources
from another of its facilities,\19\ an additional source of liquidity
resources would allow OCC to reallocate liquidity resources as
necessary to avoid a shortfall in its overall liquidity resources.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ For example, the existing confirmations under OCC's Non-
Bank Liquidity Facility, totaling $1 billion, expired on January 2,
2020 and January 6, 2020. In anticipation of their expiration, OCC
exercised an accordion feature under its syndicated credit facility
to increase the amount from $2 billion to $2.5 billion. Since
learning of the Non-Bank Liquidity Facility counterparty's decision
not to renew its confirmations, OCC has also been working with a
lending agent to identify interested institutional investors to
secure replacement commitments to cover the difference between the
Non-Bank Liquidity Facility's $1 billion in commitments and the $500
million increase in OCC's syndicated credit facility. The proposed
$500 million Repo Liquidity Facility would also cover that
difference.
    \20\ For example, OCC has authority under OCC Rule 1002(a)(i) to
temporarily increase the cash funding requirement in its Clearing
Fund for the protection of OCC, Clearing Members or the general
public. On December 12, 2019, OCC informed Clearing Members that OCC
would exercise this authority on January 3, 2020 to increase the
Cash Clearing Fund Requirement temporarily from $3 billion to $3.5
billion during the monthly sizing of the Clearing Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Repo Liquidity Facility, like any liquidity source, would
involve certain risks, but OCC would structure the program to mitigate
those risks. Most of these risks are standard in any master repurchase
agreement. For example, the buyer could fail to deliver, or delay in
delivering, purchased securities to OCC by the applicable Repurchase
Date. OCC will address this risk by seeking a security interest from
the buyer in that portion of the purchased securities representing the
excess of the market value over the Repurchase Price, or by obtaining
other comfort from the buyer that the purchased securities will be
timely returned. Further, the purchased securities generally will not
be ``on-the-run'' securities, i.e., the most recently issued Treasury
securities. The demand in the marketplace for Treasury securities, for
uses other than collateral, is much greater for on-the-run Treasury
securities, and therefore, OCC believes the buyer will have little
incentive to retain the securities transferred by OCC.
    The mechanics under the Repo Liquidity Facility would be structured
so that OCC could avoid losses by paying the Repurchase Price. For
example, OCC will have optional early termination rights, under which
OCC would be able to accelerate the Repurchase Date of any transaction
by providing written notice to the buyer and paying the Repurchase
Price. Through this mechanism, OCC can maintain the benefit of the Repo
Liquidity Facility, while mitigating any risk associated with a
particular transaction.
    The Repo Liquidity Facility would be structured to avoid potential
third-party risks, which are typical of repurchase arrangements. The
prohibition on buyer rehypothecation and use of purchased securities
would reduce the risk to OCC of a buyer default.
    As with any repurchase arrangement, OCC is subject to the risk that
it may have to terminate existing transactions and accelerate the
applicable Repurchase Date with respect to the buyer due to changes in
the financial health or performance of the buyer. Terminating
transactions could negatively affect OCC's liquidity position. However,
any negative effect is

reduced by the fact that OCC maintains a number of different financing
arrangements, and thus will have access to liquidity sources in the
event the Liquidity Repo Facility is no longer a viable source.
    Under the MRA, OCC would be obligated to transfer additional cash
or securities as margin in the event the market value of any purchased
securities decreases. OCC seeks to ensure it can meet any such
obligation by monitoring the value of the purchased securities and
maintaining adequate cash resources to make any required payments. Such
payments are expected to be small in comparison to the total amount of
cash received for each transfer of purchased securities.
Consistency With the Payment, Clearing and Settlement Supervision Act
    The stated purpose of the Clearing Supervision Act is to mitigate
systemic risk in the financial system and promote financial stability
by, among other things, promoting uniform risk management standards for
systemically important financial market utilities and strengthening the
liquidity of systemically important financial market utilities.\21\
Section 805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act \22\ also authorizes
the Commission to prescribe risk management standards for the payment,
clearing and settlement activities of designated clearing entities,
like OCC, for which the Commission is the supervisory agency. Section
805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act \23\ states that the objectives
and principles for risk management standards prescribed under Section
805(a) shall be to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 12 U.S.C. 5461(b).
    \22\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(a)(2).
    \23\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Promote robust risk management;
     promote safety and soundness;
     reduce systemic risks; and
     support the stability of the broader financial system.
    The Commission has adopted risk management standards under Section
805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act and the Exchange Act in
furtherance of these objectives and principles.\24\ Rule 17Ad-22
requires registered clearing agencies, like OCC, to establish,
implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that
are reasonably designed to meet certain minimum requirements for their
operations and risk management practices on an ongoing basis.\25\
Therefore, the Commission has stated \26\ that it believes it is
appropriate to review changes proposed in advance notices against Rule
17Ad-22 and the objectives and principles of these risk management
standards as described in Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision
Act.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22. See Securities Exchange Act Release
Nos. 68080 (October 22, 2012), 77 FR 66220 (November 2, 2012) (S7-
08-11) (``Clearing Agency Standards''); 78961 (September 28, 2016),
81 FR 70786 (October 13, 2016) (S7-03-14) (``Standards for Covered
Clearing Agencies'').
    \25\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \26\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86182 (June
24, 2019), 84 FR 31128, 31129 (June 28, 2019) (SR-OCC-2019-803).
    \27\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC believes that the proposed changes are consistent with Section
805(b)(1) of the Clearing Supervision Act \28\ because the proposed
Repo Liquidity Facility would provide OCC with an additional source of
committed liquidity to meet its settlement obligations while at the
same time being structured to mitigate certain operational risks, as
described above, that arise in connection with this committed liquidity
source. In this way, the proposed changes are designed to promote
robust risk management; promote safety and soundness; reduce systemic
risks; and support the stability of the broader financial system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC believes that the Repo Liquidity Facility is also consistent
with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7) under the Act.\29\ Rule
17Ad-22(e)(7) requires OCC to establish, implement, maintain and
enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to
effectively measure, monitor, and manage liquidity risk that arises in
or is borne by OCC, including measuring, monitoring, and managing its
settlement and funding flows on an ongoing and timely basis, and its
use of intraday liquidity, as specified in the rule.\30\ In particular,
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(i) under the Act \31\ directs that OCC meet this
obligation by, among other things, ``[m]aintaining sufficient liquid
resources at the minimum in all relevant currencies to effect same-day
. . . settlement of payment obligations with a high degree of
confidence under a wide range of foreseeable stress scenarios that
includes, but is not limited to, the default of the participant family
that would generate the largest aggregate payment obligation for [OCC]
in extreme but plausible market conditions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7).
    \30\ Id.
    \31\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the Repo Liquidity Facility would provide OCC
with a readily available liquidity resource that would enable it to,
among other things, continue to meet its obligations in a timely
fashion and as an alternative to selling Clearing Member collateral
under what may be stressed and volatile market conditions. For these
reasons, OCC believes that the proposal is consistent with Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(7)(i).\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(ii) under the Act requires OCC to establish,
implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to hold qualifying liquid resources sufficient to
satisfy payment obligations owed to Clearing Members.\33\ Rule 17Ad-
22(a)(14) of the Act defines ``qualifying liquid resources'' to
include, among other things, lines of credit without material adverse
change provisions, that are readily available and convertible into
cash.\34\ The MRA under the Repo Liquidity Facility would not be
subject to any material adverse change provision and would be designed
to permit OCC to, among other things, help ensure that OCC has
sufficient, readily-available qualifying liquid resources to meet the
cash settlement obligations of its largest Clearing Member Group.
Therefore, OCC believes that the proposal is consistent with Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(7)(ii).\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7)(ii).
    \34\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(a)(14).
    \35\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the foregoing reasons, OCC believes that the proposed changes
are consistent with Section 805(b)(1) of the Clearing Supervision Act
\36\ and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7) \37\ under the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b)(1).
    \37\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed change may be implemented if the Commission does not
object to the proposed change within 60 days of the later of (i) the
date the proposed change was filed with the Commission or (ii) the date
any additional information requested by the Commission is received. OCC
shall not implement the proposed change if the Commission has any
objection to the proposed change.
    The Commission may extend the period for review by an additional 60
days if the proposed change raises novel or complex issues, subject to
the Commission providing the clearing agency with prompt written notice
of the extension. A proposed change may be implemented in less than 60
days from the date the advance notice is filed, or the date further
information

requested by the Commission is received, if the Commission notifies the
clearing agency in writing that it does not object to the proposed
change and authorizes the clearing agency to implement the proposed
change on an earlier date, subject to any conditions imposed by the
Commission.
    OCC shall post notice on its website of proposed changes that are
implemented.
    The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions
required with respect to the proposal are completed.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the advance
notice is consistent with the Clearing Supervision 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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-OCC-2020-801 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2020-801. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the advance notice that are filed with the
Commission, and all written communications relating to the advance
notice between the Commission and any person, other than those that may
be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5
U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the self-regulatory
organization.
    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-2020-801 and
should be submitted on or before February 26, 2020.

    By the Commission.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-02622 Filed 2-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


MEMORANDUM
To: 		Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0072
From: 		U.S. EPA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: 	Carbon Dioxide Transport and Storage References
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE FOLLOWING ARE references the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cited in the preamble and technical support documents related to the transport and storage of captured carbon dioxide.