Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 131 / Monday, July 11, 2022 / Notices 41149 

1See Docket No. RM2018–3, Order Adopting 

Final Rules Relating to Non-Public Information, 

June 27, 2018, Attachment A at 19–22 (Order No. 

4679). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3See SR–ICC–2020–009 for additional 

information on the introduction of the COVID–19/ 

Oil Crisis price-based stress scenarios. 

II. Docketed Proceeding(s) 

I. Introduction 

The Commission gives notice that the 

Postal Service filed request(s) for the 

Commission to consider matters related 

to negotiated service agreement(s). The 

request(s) may propose the addition or 

removal of a negotiated service 

agreement from the market dominant or 

the competitive product list, or the 

modification of an existing product 

currently appearing on the market 

dominant or the competitive product 

list. 

Section II identifies the docket 

number(s) associated with each Postal 

Service request, the title of each Postal 

Service request, the request’s acceptance 

date, and the authority cited by the 

Postal Service for each request. For each 

request, the Commission appoints an 

officer of the Commission to represent 

the interests of the general public in the 

proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 

(Public Representative). Section II also 

establishes comment deadline(s) 

pertaining to each request. 

The public portions of the Postal 

Service’s request(s) can be accessed via 

the Commission’s website (http://

www.prc.gov). Non-public portions of 

the Postal Service’s request(s), if any, 

can be accessed through compliance 

with the requirements of 39 CFR 

3011.301.1

The Commission invites comments on 

whether the Postal Service’s request(s) 

in the captioned docket(s) are consistent 

with the policies of title 39. For 

request(s) that the Postal Service states 

concern market dominant product(s), 

applicable statutory and regulatory 

requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 

U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3030, and 39 

CFR part 3040, subpart B. For request(s) 

that the Postal Service states concern 

competitive product(s), applicable 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 

39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 

39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. Comment 

deadline(s) for each request appear in 

section II. 

II. Docketed Proceeding(s) 

1. Docket No(s).: MC2022–78 and 

CP2022–84; Filing Title: USPS Request 

to Add Priority Mail Contract 752 to 

Competitive Product List and Notice of 

Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing 

Acceptance Date: July 5, 2022; Filing 

Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 

3040.130 through 3040.135, and 39 CFR 

3035.105; Public Representative: Katalin 

Clendenin; Comments Due: July 13, 

2022. 

This Notice will be published in the 

Federal Register. 

Erica A. Barker, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14672 Filed 7–8–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–95200; File No. SR–ICC– 

2022–008] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE 

Clear Credit LLC; Notice of Filing of 

Proposed Rule Change Relating to the 

Stress Testing Framework and the 

Liquidity Risk Management Framework 

July 5, 2022. 

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2

notice is hereby given that on June 23, 

2022, ICE Clear Credit LLC (‘‘ICC’’) filed 

with the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the 

proposed rule change as described in 

Items I, II, and III below, which Items 

have been prepared primarily by ICC. 

The Commission is publishing this 

notice to solicit comments on the 

proposed rule change, security-based 

swap submission, or advance notice 

from interested persons. 

I. Clearing Agency’s Statement of the 

Terms of Substance of the Proposed 

Rule Change 

The principal purpose of the 

proposed rule change is to revise the 

ICC Stress Testing Framework (‘‘STF’’) 

and the ICC Liquidity Risk Management 

Framework (‘‘LRMF’’). These revisions 

do not require any changes to the ICC 

Clearing Rules (‘‘Rules’’). 

II. Clearing Agency’s Statement of the 

Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the 

Proposed Rule Change 

In its filing with the Commission, ICC 

included statements concerning the 

purpose of and basis for the proposed 

rule change, security-based swap 

submission, or advance notice and 

discussed any comments it received on 

the proposed rule change, securitybased swap submission, or advance 

notice. The text of these statements may 

be examined at the places specified in 

Item IV below. ICC has prepared 

summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), 

and (C) below, of the most significant 

aspects of these statements. 

(A) Clearing Agency’s Statement of the 

Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the 

Proposed Rule Change 

(a) Purpose 

ICC proposes revising the STF and 

LRMF to introduce new stress scenarios, 

clarify existing stress scenarios, and 

make other minor edits. ICC believes the 

proposed changes will facilitate the 

prompt and accurate clearance and 

settlement of securities transactions and 

derivative agreements, contracts, and 

transactions for which it is responsible. 

ICC proposes to move forward with 

implementation of these changes 

following Commission approval of the 

proposed rule change. The proposed 

rule change is described in detail as 

follows. 

I. STF 

The proposed amendments to the STF 

introduce new stress scenarios related to 

the Coronavirus pandemic and oil price 

war (the ‘‘COVID–19/Oil Crisis’’), clarify 

existing stress scenarios related to credit 

default index swaptions (‘‘index 

options’’), and make other minor edits. 

The proposed changes amend Section 

5.1 containing the historically observed 

extreme but plausible market scenarios. 

ICC proposes a minor edit to abbreviate 

a term. ICC proposes to introduce 

additional stress scenarios related to the 

COVID–19/Oil Crisis. ICC previously 

introduced price-based stress scenarios 

related to the COVID–19/Oil Crisis in 

the STF, which replicate observed 

instrument price changes during this 

period.3 ICC proposes to incorporate 

complementing spread-based stress 

scenarios related to the COVID–19/Oil 

Crisis, which reflect observed relative 

spread increases and decreases during 

this period (the ‘‘COVID–19/Oil Crisis 

Spread Scenarios’’). Additionally, the 

stress scenarios related to index options 

(i.e., the stress options-implied Mean 

Absolute Deviation (‘‘MAD’’) scenarios) 

would be moved into a separate section 

and corresponding references 

throughout the STF would accordingly 

refer to this new Section 9. 

ICC proposes additional clarifications 

in Section 5 and throughout the STF. To 

distinguish from the COVID–19/Oil 

Crisis Spread Scenarios, ICC would refer 

to the price-based stress scenarios as the 

COVID–19/Oil Crisis Price Scenarios in 

Section 5.2 and throughout the STF. ICC 

also proposes to incorporate the 

COVID–19/Oil Crisis Spread Scenarios 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
41150 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 131 / Monday, July 11, 2022 / Notices 

4 Id. 

5 15 U.S.C. 78q–1. 

6 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22. 

7 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F). 

in the other categories of scenarios, 

namely in Section 5.3 (hypothetically 

constructed (forward looking) extreme 

but plausible market scenarios) and 

Section 5.4 (extreme model response 

test scenarios), as well as in Section 14 

(interpretation of results). 

ICC proposes further details to 

describe how the existing stress 

scenarios for index option positions are 

integrated within the current set of 

stress scenarios for CDS index and 

single name instruments. Currently, the 

stress options-implied MAD scenarios 

are generated for index option positions. 

Such scenarios are not applied to 

portfolios independently but rather 

directly incorporated into the CDS stress 

scenarios. As such, the proposed 

changes clarify that the stress optionsimplied MAD scenarios complement the 

underlying stress scenarios (in Section 

6) and reference proposed Section 9 for 

more detail on the stress optionsimplied MAD approach (in Section 8). 

Moreover, proposed Section 9 

memorializes the stress options-implied 

MAD scenarios and approach more 

clearly. Information from Section 5.1 on 

these scenarios would reside in Section 

9 with certain amendments. The 

proposed amendments do not change 

the stress testing methodology and 

instead add detail and update 

terminology to be clearer. Proposed 

language explains that when index 

options are present in a portfolio, the 

underlying market stress test scenarios 

incorporate the stress options-implied 

MAD scenarios. Terminology changes 

specify that the scenarios consider an 

increase/decrease in the optionsimplied MAD upon spread widening/ 

tightening and clarification changes 

detail the incorporation of the optionsimplied MAD in the scenarios. The 

proposed changes more clearly set forth 

the creation of the stress optionsimplied MAD, including how the 

necessary components are derived. No 

changes are proposed with respect to 

what the final scenario prices of the 

index option instruments reflect. The 

following sections are renumbered 

accordingly throughout the STF, 

including in Table 1 in Section 14. 

Finally, proposed Section 17 adds a 

revision history to track changes. 

II. LRMF 

ICC proposes corresponding changes 

to the LRMF to introduce new stress 

scenarios related to the COVID–19/Oil 

Crisis, clarify existing stress scenarios 

related to index options, and make other 

minor edits. 

ICC proposes to revise Section 2.3 

regarding liquidity requirements for 

client-related accounts. The amended 

language specifies that Clearing 

Participants deposit 100% of their Euro 

denominated client gross margin in any 

acceptable collateral to match Schedule 

401 in the ICC Rules. This is intended 

to be a clean-up change to remove an 

outdated provision to ensure 

consistency across the LRMF and ICC 

Rules and would not change current 

requirements. 

ICC proposes updates to Section 3.3.2 

regarding the historically observed 

extreme but plausible market scenarios. 

The proposed changes define extreme 

market events to include COVID–19 and 

the simultaneous occurrence of the oil 

price war and make grammatical edits to 

change a term to its plural form. ICC 

also previously introduced the COVID– 

19/Oil Crisis price-based stress 

scenarios in the LRMF 4 and proposes to 

incorporate the complementing COVID– 

19/Oil Crisis Spread Scenarios, which 

are also referred to as the 

COVID19OCSS, in the LRMF. The pricebased stress scenarios would be referred 

to as the COVID–19/Oil Crisis Price 

Scenarios or COVID19OCPS throughout 

the document. 

Revisions to the existing stress 

options-implied MAD scenarios are 

proposed in Section 3.3.2. To ensure 

consistency with the STF, ICC proposes 

the inclusion of similar language and 

changes in subsection (b). The proposed 

changes memorialize the stress optionsimplied MAD scenarios and approach 

more clearly in the LRMF, including 

how the scenarios for index option 

positions are integrated within the 

current set of stress scenarios for CDS 

index and single name instruments. The 

proposed amendments do not change 

the methodology and instead add detail 

and update terminology to be clearer. 

Terminology changes specify that the 

scenarios consider an increase/decrease 

in the options-implied MAD and 

clarification changes detail the 

incorporation of the options-implied 

MAD in the scenarios. The proposed 

changes more clearly set forth the 

creation of the stress options-implied 

MAD, including how the necessary 

components are derived. No changes are 

proposed with respect to what the final 

scenario prices of the index option 

instruments reflect. A typographical fix 

is made in the footnotes to refer to the 

correct reference document. In addition, 

ICC proposes to amend subsection (d) to 

add a section symbol and to set out how 

the stress options-implied MAD 

scenarios that complement the extreme 

model response test scenarios are 

derived to match language currently in 

the STF. 

ICC proposes additional minor 

updates to Section 3.3. ICC would 

incorporate the COVID–19/Oil Crisis 

Spread Scenarios in Section 3.3.3 in 

Table 1 containing the liquidity stress 

testing scenarios and in Section 3.3.4 

related to the interpretation of results. 

ICC also proposes a minor edit to the 

extreme market scenarios in Table 1 to 

specify that the COVID19OCPS are 

extreme. 

(b) Statutory Basis 

ICC believes that the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the 

requirements of Section 17A of the Act 5

and the regulations thereunder 

applicable to it, including the applicable 

standards under Rule 17Ad–22.6 In 

particular, Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the 

Act 7 requires that the rule change be 

consistent with the prompt and accurate 

clearance and settlement of securities 

transactions and derivative agreements, 

contracts and transactions cleared by 

ICC, the safeguarding of securities and 

funds in the custody or control of ICC 

or for which it is responsible, and the 

protection of investors and the public 

interest. 

As discussed herein, the proposed 

amendments introduce new stress 

scenarios, clarify existing stress 

scenarios, and make other minor edits. 

Such changes strengthen the STF and 

LRMF by introducing spread-based 

COVID–19/Oil Crisis scenarios that 

complement the current scenarios and 

by memorializing the stress optionsimplied MAD scenarios more clearly to 

ensure transparency and that 

responsible parties effectively carry out 

their assigned duties. The additional 

clarification and clean-up changes 

further ensure readability and clarity, 

including by adding a revision history 

to track changes, updating terminology, 

ensuring that references are accurate, 

and ensuring consistency between the 

LRMF and the ICC Rules regarding 

client-related liquidity requirements to 

avoid potential confusion. ICC believes 

that having policies and procedures that 

clearly and accurately document its risk 

management practices, including stress 

testing and liquidity stress testing, are 

an important component to the 

effectiveness of ICC’s risk management 

system and support ICC’s ability to 

maintain adequate financial resources 

and sufficient liquid resources. 

Accordingly, in ICC’s view, the 

proposed rule change is consistent with 

the prompt and accurate clearance and 

settlement of securities transactions, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 131 / Monday, July 11, 2022 / Notices 41151 

8 Id. 

9 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22. 

10 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(4)(ii). 

11 Id. 

12 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(4)(vi). 

13 Id. 

14 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(7)(i). 15 Id. 

derivatives agreements, contracts, and 

transactions, the safeguarding of 

securities and funds in the custody or 

control of ICC or for which it is 

responsible, and the protection of 

investors and the public interest, within 

the meaning of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of 

the Act.8

The amendments would also satisfy 

relevant requirements of Rule 17Ad– 

22.9 Rule 17Ad–22(e)(4)(ii) 10 requires 

ICC to establish, implement, maintain, 

and enforce written policies and 

procedures reasonably designed to 

effectively identify, measure, monitor, 

and manage its credit exposures to 

participants and those arising from its 

payment, clearing, and settlement 

processes, including by maintaining 

additional financial resources at the 

minimum to enable it to cover a wide 

range of foreseeable stress scenarios that 

include, but are not limited to, the 

default of the two participant families 

that would potentially cause the largest 

aggregate credit exposure for ICC in 

extreme but plausible market 

conditions. The introduction of the 

COVID–19/Oil Crisis Spread Scenarios 

would complement the current 

scenarios and add additional insight 

into potential weaknesses in the ICC 

risk management methodology, thereby 

supporting ICC’s ability to manage its 

financial resources. Additional 

proposed changes ensure consistency 

across the STF and LRMF and more 

clearly describe the stress optionsimplied MAD scenarios, including how 

the scenarios for index option positions 

are integrated within the current set of 

stress scenarios for CDS index and 

single name instruments. The proposed 

amendments add detail and update 

terminology to be clearer, which would 

ensure transparency and strengthen the 

documentation, thereby supporting the 

effectiveness of ICC’s risk management 

system. The proposed clarification and 

clean-up changes further enhance the 

readability of the STF and LRMF and 

ensure that it remains up-to-date, clear, 

and transparent. As such, the proposed 

amendments would strengthen ICC’s 

ability to maintain its financial 

resources and withstand the pressures 

of defaults, consistent with the 

requirements of Rule 17Ad– 

22(e)(4)(ii).11

Rule 17Ad–22(e)(4)(vi) 12 requires ICC 

to establish, implement, maintain, and 

enforce written policies and procedures 

reasonably designed to effectively 

identify, measure, monitor, and manage 

its credit exposures to participants and 

those arising from its payment, clearing, 

and settlement processes, including by 

testing the sufficiency of its total 

financial resources available to meet the 

minimum financial resource 

requirements, including by conducting 

stress testing of its total financial 

resources once each day using standard 

predetermined parameters and 

assumptions; conducting a 

comprehensive analysis on at least a 

monthly basis of the existing stress 

testing scenarios, models, and 

underlying parameters and 

assumptions; and reporting the results 

of its analyses to appropriate decision 

makers at ICC. The proposed rule 

change continues to ensure that ICC’s 

policies and procedures provide a clear 

framework for ICC to conduct stress 

testing and analysis and report the 

results to appropriate decision makers at 

ICC, in compliance with this 

requirement. As such, ICC believes the 

proposed rule change is consistent with 

the requirements of Rule 17Ad– 

22(e)(4)(vi).13

Rule 17Ad–22(e)(7)(i) 14 requires ICC 

to establish, implement, maintain, and 

enforce written policies and procedures 

reasonably designed to effectively 

measure, monitor, and manage the 

liquidity risk that arises in or is borne 

by it, including measuring, monitoring, 

and managing its settlement and 

funding flows on an ongoing and timely 

basis, and its use of intraday liquidity 

by maintaining sufficient liquid 

resources at the minimum in all relevant 

currencies to effect same-day and, 

where appropriate, intraday and 

multiday 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 ICC in extreme 

but plausible market conditions. The 

introduction of the COVID–19/Oil Crisis 

Spread Scenarios would complement 

the current scenarios and add additional 

insight into potential weaknesses in the 

ICC liquidity risk management 

methodology, thereby supporting ICC’s 

ability to ensure that it maintains 

sufficient liquidity resources. The 

proposed clarification and clean-up 

changes provide further clarity and 

transparency regarding ICC’s liquidity 

risk management practices in the LRMF, 

including by promoting uniformity with 

the STF, ensuring consistency between 

the LRMF and the ICC Rules regarding 

the client-related liquidity 

requirements, and ensuring that 

information and references are current, 

including in Table 1 which sets out the 

liquidity stress testing scenarios. As 

such, the proposed amendments would 

promote ICC’s ability to ensure that it 

maintains sufficient liquid resources in 

accordance with the requirements of 

Rule 17Ad–22(e)(7)(i).15

(B) Clearing Agency’s Statement on 

Burden on Competition 

ICC does not believe the proposed 

rule change would have any impact, or 

impose any burden, on competition. 

The proposed changes introduce 

complementing COVID–19/Oil Crisis 

Spread Scenarios, add clarification on 

the existing stress scenarios related to 

index options, and make other minor 

edits, which ICC believes are 

appropriate in furtherance of the risk 

management of the clearing house. The 

changes to the STF and LRMF will 

apply uniformly across all market 

participants. ICC does not believe these 

amendments would affect the costs of 

clearing or the ability of market 

participants to access clearing. 

Therefore, ICC does not believe the 

proposed rule change would impose any 

burden on competition that is 

inappropriate in furtherance of the 

purposes of the Act. 

(C) Clearing Agency’s Statement on 

Comments on the Proposed Rule 

Change Received From Members, 

Participants or Others 

Written comments relating to the 

proposed rule change have not been 

solicited or received. ICC will notify the 

Commission of any written comments 

received by ICC. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

Within 45 days of the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register or within such longer period 

up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may 

designate if it finds such longer period 

to be appropriate and publishes its 

reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which 

the self-regulatory organization 

consents, the Commission will: 

(A) by order approve or disapprove 

such proposed rule change, or 

(B) institute proceedings to determine 

whether the proposed rule change 

should be disapproved. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
41152 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 131 / Monday, July 11, 2022 / Notices 

16 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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 rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– 

ICC–2022–008 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–ICC–2022–008. This file 

number should be included on the 

subject line if email is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

internet website (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 

submission, all subsequent 

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the proposed rule 

change that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule change between the 

Commission and any person, other than 

those that may be withheld from the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 

available for website viewing and 

printing in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20549, on official 

business days between the hours of 

10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such 

filings will also be available for 

inspection and copying at the principal 

office of ICE Clear Credit and on ICE 

Clear Credit’s website at https://

www.theice.com/clear-credit/regulation. 

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–ICC–2022–008 and 

should be submitted on or before 

August 1, 2022. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.16

J. Matthew DeLesDernier, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14634 Filed 7–8–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[SEC File No. 270–649; OMB Control No. 

3235–0701] 

Proposed Collection; Comment 

Request; Extension: Rule 18a–1 

Upon Written Request, Copies Available 

From: Securities and Exchange 

Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 

100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 

20549–2736 

Notice is hereby given that pursuant 

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(‘‘PRA’’) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) is soliciting comments 

on the existing collection of information 

provided for in Rule 18a–1 (17 CFR 

240.18a–1), under the Securities 

Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et 

seq.) (‘‘Exchange Act’’). The 

Commission plans to submit this 

existing collection of information to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(‘‘OMB’’) for extension and approval. 

Rule 18a–1 establishes net capital 

requirements for nonbank securitybased swap dealers that are not also 

broker-dealers registered with the 

Commission (‘‘stand-alone SBSDs’’). 

First, under paragraphs (a)(2) and (d) of 

Rule 18a–1, a stand-alone SBSD may 

apply to the Commission to be 

authorized to use internal value-at-risk 

(‘‘VaR) models to compute net capital, 

and a stand-alone SBSD authorized to 

use internal models must review and 

update the models it uses to compute 

market and credit risk, as well as backtest the models. Second, under 

paragraph (f) of Rule 18a–1, a standalone SBSD is required to comply with 

certain requirements of Exchange Act 

Rule 15c3–4 (17 CFR 240.15c3–4). Rule 

15c3–4 requires OTC derivatives dealers 

and firms subject to its provisions to 

establish, document, and maintain a 

system of internal risk management 

controls to assist the firm in managing 

the risks associated with business 

activities, including market, credit, 

leverage, liquidity, legal, and 

operational risks. Third, for purposes of 

calculating ‘‘haircuts’’ on credit default 

swaps, paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(B)(1)(iii) of 

Rule 18a–1 requires stand-alone SBSDs 

that are not using internal models to use 

an industry sector classification system 

that is documented and reasonable in 

terms of grouping types of companies 

with similar business activities and risk 

characteristics. Fourth, under paragraph 

(h) of Rule 18a–1, stand-alone SBSDs 

are required to provide the Commission 

with certain written notices with respect 

to equity withdrawals. Fifth, under 

paragraph (c)(5) of Appendix D to Rule 

18a–1 (17 CFR 240.18a–1d), stand-alone 

SBSDs are required to file with the 

Commission two copies of any proposed 

subordinated loan agreement (including 

nonconforming subordinated loan 

agreements) at least 30 days prior to the 

proposed execution date of the 

agreement. Finally, under paragraph 

(c)(1)(ix)(C) of Rule 18a–1, a nonbank 

SBSD may treat collateral held by a 

third-party custodian to meet an initial 

margin requirement of a security-based 

swap or swap customer as being held by 

the nonbank SBSD for purposes of the 

capital in lieu of margin charge 

provisions of the rule if certain 

conditions are met. In particular, the 

SBSD must execute an account control 

agreement and must maintain written 

documentation of its analysis that in the 

event of a legal challenge the account 

control agreement would be held to be 

legal, valid, binding, and enforceable 

under the applicable law. 

The aggregate annual burden for all 

respondents is estimated to be 21,024 

hours. The aggregate annual cost burden 

for all respondents is estimated to be 

$2,598,500. 

Written comments are invited on: (a) 

whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Commission, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the Commission’s 

estimates of the burden of the proposed 

collection of information; (c) ways to 

enhance the quality, utility, and clarity 

of the information collected; and (d) 

ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on 

respondents, including through the use 

of automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

Consideration will be given to 

comments and suggestions submitted by 

September 9, 2022. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

under the PRA unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

Please direct your written comments 

to: David Bottom, Director/Chief 

Information Officer, Securities and 

Exchange Commission, c/o John 

Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES