28206 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2001 / Notices

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Robert A. Nelson,

Acting Chief, Decommissioning Branch,

Division of Waste Management, Office of

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 01–12834 Filed 5–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

The NRC Seeks Qualified Candidates

for the Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Request for resume ́s.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is seeking qualified

candidates for an appointment to its

Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards (ACRS) to fill a vacancy.

ADDRESSES: Submit resume ́s to: Ms.

Sherry Meador, Administrative

Assistant, Operations Support Branch,

ACRS/ACNW, Mail Stop T2E–26, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Congress

established the ACRS to provide the

NRC with independent expert advice on

matters related to the safety of existing

and proposed nuclear power plants and

on the adequacy of proposed reactor

safety standards. The Committee work

currently emphasizes safety issues

associated with the operation of 103

commercial nuclear units in the United

States; the pursuit of a risk-informed

and performance-based regulatory

approach; license renewal applications;

risk-informed revisions to 10 CFR Part

50; power uprates; transient and

accident analysis codes; use of mixed

oxide and high burnup fuels; and

advanced reactor designs.

The ACRS membership includes

individuals from national laboratories,

academia, and industry who possess

specific technical expertise along with a

broad perspective in addressing safety

concerns. Committee members are

selected from a variety of engineering

and scientific disciplines, such as

nuclear power plant operations, nuclear

engineering, mechanical engineering,

electrical engineering, chemical

engineering, metallurgical engineering,

risk assessments, structural engineering,

materials science, and instrumentation

and process control systems. At this

time, candidates are specifically being

sought who have 15–20 years of

experience, including graduate level

education, in the area of thermal

hydraulics.

Criteria used to evaluate candidates

include education and experience,

demonstrated skills in nuclear safety

matters, and the ability to solve

problems. Additionally, the

Commission considers the need for

specific expertise in relationship to

current and future tasks. Consistent

with the requirements of the Federal

Advisory Committee Act, the

Commission seeks candidates with

varying views so that the membership

on the Committee will be fairly

balanced in terms of the points of view

represented and functions to be

performed by the Committee.

Because conflict-of-interest

regulations restrict the participation of

members actively involved in the

regulated aspects of the nuclear

industry, the degree and nature of any

such involvement will be weighed. Each

qualified candidate’s financial interests

must be reconciled with applicable

Federal and NRC rules and regulations

prior to final appointment. This might

require divestiture of securities issued

by nuclear industry entities, or

discontinuance of industry-funded

research contracts or grants.

Copies of a resume describing the

educational and professional

background of the candidate, including

any special accomplishments,

professional references, current address,

and telephone number should be

provided. All qualified candidates will

receive careful consideration.

Appointment will be made without

regard to such factors as race, color,

religion, national origin, sex, age, or

disabilities. Candidates must be citizens

of the United States and be able to

devote approximately 80–100 days per

year to Committee business.

Applications will be accepted until July

16, 2001.

Dated: May 16, 2001.

Andrew L. Bates,

Advisory Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 01–12833 Filed 5–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

Upon written request, copies available

from: Securities and Exchange

Commission, Office of Filings and

Information Services, Washington, DC

20549

Extension: Rule 19b–4(e) and Form 19b–4(e);

SEC File No. 270–447; OMB Control No.

3235–0504.

Notice is hereby given that pursuant

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities

and Exchange Commission

(‘‘Commission’’) has submitted to the

Office of Management and Budget a

request for extension of the previously

approved collection of information

discussed below.

Rule 19b–4(e) permits a selfregulatory organization (‘‘SRO’’) to

immediately list and trade a new

derivative securities product so long as

such product is in compliance with the

criteria of Rule 19b–4(e) under the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(‘‘Act’’). However, in order for the

Commission to maintain an accurate

record of all new derivative securities

products traded through the facilities of

SROs and to determine whether an SRO

has properly availed itself of the

permission granted by Rule 19b–4(e), it

is necessary that the SRO maintain, onsite, a copy of Form 19b–4(e) under the

Act. Rule 19b–4(e) requires SROs to file

a summary form, Form 19b–4(e), and

thereby notify the Commission, within

five business days after the

commencement of trading a new

derivative securities product. In

addition, the Commission reviews SRO

compliance with Rule 19b–4(e) through

its routine inspections of the SROs.

The collection of information is

designed to allow the Commission to

maintain an accurate record of all new

derivative securities products traded

through the facilities of SROs and to

determine whether an SRO has properly

availed itself of the permission granted

by Rule 19b–4(e).

The respondents to the collection of

information are self-regulatory

organizations (as defined by the Act),

including national securities exchanges

and national securities associations.

Ten respondents file an average total

of 100 responses per year, which

corresponds to an estimated annual

response burden of 100 hours. At an

average cost per burden hour of $47.50,

the resultant total related cost of

compliance for these respondents in

$4,750 per year (100 burden hours

multiplied by $47.50/hour=$4,750).

Compliance with Rule 19b–4(e) is

mandatory. Information received in

response to Rule 19b–4(e) shall not be

kept confidential; the information

collected is public information.

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

control number.

Written comments regarding the

above information should be directed to

the following persons: (a) Desk Officer

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2001 / Notices 28207

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

2Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43849

(January 17, 2001), 66 FR 7522.

3Securities Exchange Act Release No. 41766

(August 19, 1999), 64 FR 46737 (August 26, 1999)

[File No. SR–GSCC–98–)4]. The rule changes

necessary for GSCC to engage in cross-margining

were made in the NYCC cross-margining rule filing.

4 It is anticipated that in the interest of conformity

NYCC and GSCC will execute a new crossmargining agreement that is substantially the same

as the draft agreement with the CME.

5NYCC uses GSCC’s margin rates to determine

margin reduction. CME, which utilizes its own

rates, and GSCC will compare margin reduction

rates and will use the lower of the two in

determining margin reduction.

6 GSCC has computed and tested disallowance

factors that will be applicable to each potential pair

of positions being offset. ‘‘Disallowance factor’’

means the specified percentage in the crossmargining agreement between GSCC and CME that

is applied to reduce the residual margin amount

used to calculate the margin offset.

7 GSCC and each Participating CO unilaterally

have the right to not reduce its participant’s margin

requirement by the cross-margin reduction or to

reduce it by less than the cross-margin reduction.

However, the clearing organizations may not reduce

a participant’s margin requirement by more than the

cross-margin reduction.

for the Securities and Exchange

Commission, Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, Room 10102,

New Executive Office Building,

Washington, DC 20503; and (b) Michael

E. Bartell, Associate Executive Director,

Office of Information Technology,

Securities and Exchange Commission,

450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC

20549. Comments must be submitted to

the Office of Management and Budget

within 30 days of this notice.

Dated: May 15, 2001.

Jonathan G. Katz,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–12790 Filed 5–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–44301; File No. SR–GSCC–

00–13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations;

Government Securities Clearing

Corporation; Order Approving a

Proposed Rule Change Relating to

Establishment of a Cross-Margining

Agreement With the Chicago

Mercantile Exchange and a

Clarification of the Government

Securities Clearing Corporation’s

Cross-Margining Rules

May 11, 2001.

On October 13, 2000, the Government

Securities Clearing Corporation

(‘‘GSCC’’) filed with the Securities and

Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’)

a proposed rule change (File No. SR–

GSCC–00–13) pursuant to section

19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act

of 1934 (‘‘Act’’).1 Notice of the proposal

was published in the Federal Register

on January 23, 2001.2 No comment

letters were received. For the reasons

discussed below, the Commission is

approving the proposed rule change.

I. Description

On August 19, 1999, the Commission

approved GSCC’s proposed rule change

to establish a cross-margining program

with other clearing organizations and to

begin its program with the New York

Clearing Corporation (‘‘NYCC’’).3 GSCC

is now establishing a cross-margining

arrangement with the Chicago

Mercantile Exchange (‘‘CME’’) similar to

the one GSCC already has in place with

NYCC. With the GSCC–CME crossmargining arrangement, GSCC will

implement its ‘‘hub-and-spoke’’ method

of cross-margining, which was

introduced in the rule filing establishing

the GSCC–NYCC cross-margining

arrangement and which applies when

more than one clearing organization is

involved in cross-margining with GSCC.

(i) GSCC’s Cross-Margining Program

GSCC believes that the most efficient

and appropriate approach for

establishing cross-margining links for

fixed-income and other interest rate

products is to do so on a multilateral

basis with GSCC as the ‘‘hub.’’ Each

clearing organization that participates in

a cross-margining arrangement with

GSCC (hereinafter a ‘‘Participating CO’’)

will enter into a separate crossmargining agreement between itself and

GSCC, as NYCC did and now CME will

do. Each of the agreements will have

similar terms,4 and no preference will

be given by GSCC to one Participating

CO over another.

Cross-margining is available to any

GSCC netting member (with the

exception of inter-dealer broker netting

members) that is, or that has an affiliate

that is, a member of a Participating CO.

Any such member (or pair of affiliated

members) may elect to have its margin

requirements at both clearing

organizations calculated based upon the

net risk of its cash and repo positions at

GSCC and its offsetting and correlated

positions in related contracts carried at

the Participating CO. Cross-margining is

intended to lower the cross-margining

participant’s (or pair of affiliated

members’) overall margin requirement.

The GSCC member (and its affiliate, if

applicable) signs an agreement under

which it (or they) agrees to be bound by

the cross-margining agreement between

GSCC and the Participating CO and

which allows GSCC or the Participating

CO to apply the member’s (or its

affiliate’s) margin collateral to satisfy

any obligation of GSCC to the

Participating CO (or vice versa) that

results from a default of the member (or

its affiliate).

Margining based on the net combined

risk of correlated positions is based on

an arrangement under which GSCC and

each Participating CO agree to accept

the correlated positions in lieu of

supporting collateral. Under this

arrangement, each clearing

organizations holds and manages its

own positions and collateral and

independently determines the amount

of margin that it will make available for

cross-margining (referred to as the

‘‘residual margin amount’’).

GSCC computes the amount by which

the cross-margining participant’s margin

requirement can be reduced at each

clearing organization (i.e., the ‘‘crossmargin reduction’’) by comparing the

participant’s positions and the related

margin requirements at GSCC against

those at each Participating CO.5 GSCC

offsets each cross-margining

participant’s residual margin amount

(based on related position) at GSCC

against the offsetting residual margin

amounts of the participant (or its

affiliate) at each Participating CO. If the

residual margin that GSCC has available

for a participant is greater than the

combined residual margin submitted by

the Participating COs, GSCC will

allocate a portion of its residual margin

equal to the combined residual margin

at the Participating COs. If the combined

residual margin submitted by the

Participating COs is greater than the

residual margin that GSCC has available

for that participant, GSCC will first

allocate its residual margin to the

Participating CO with the most highly

correlated position.6 If the positions are

equally correlated, GSCC will allocate

pro rata based upon the residual margin

amount available at each Participating

CO. GSCC and each Participating CO

may then reduce the amount of

collateral they collect to reflect the

offsets between the cross-margining

participant’s positions at GSCC and its

(or its affiliate’s) position at the

Participating CO.7 In the event of the

default and liquidation of a crossmargining participant, the loss sharing

between GSCC and each of the

Participating COs will be based upon

the foregoing allocations and the crossmargin reduction.

GSCC will guarantee the crossmargining participant’s (or its affiliate’s)

performance to each Participating CO