Table of Partially Exempt Chemicals                                     CAS No.                                     Product 50-70-4 D-Glucitol 50-81-7 L-Ascorbic acid 50-99-7 D-Glucose 56-87-1 L-Lysine 56-81-5 1,2,3-Propanetriol 57-50-1 .alpha.-D-Glucopyranoside, .beta.-D-fructofuranosyl 58-95-7 2H-1-Benzopyran-6-ol, 3,4-dihydro-2,5,7,8-tetramethyl-2-[(4R,8R)-4,8,12- trimethyltridecyl]-, acetate, (2R)- 59-02-9 2H-1-Benzopyran-6-ol, 3,4-dihydro-2,5,7,8-tetramethyl-2-[(4R,8R)-4,8,12- trimethyltridecyl]-, (2R)- 59-51-8 Methionine 69-65-8 D-Mannitol 87-79-6 L-Sorbose 96-10-6 Aluminum, chlorodiethyl- 97-93-8 Aluminum, triethyl- 100-99-2 Aluminum, tris(2-methylpropyl)- 123-94-4 Octadecanoic acid, 2,3-dihydroxypropyl ester 124-38-9 Carbon dioxide 137-08-6 .beta.-Alanine, N-[(2R)-2,4-dihydroxy-3,3-dimethyl-1-oxobutyl]-, calcium alt (2:1) 142-47-2 L-Glutamic acid, monosodium salt 150-30-1 Phenylalanine 563-43-9 Aluminum, dichloroethyl- 1070-00-4 Aluminum, trioctyl- 1116-70-7 Aluminum, tributyl- 1116-73-0 Aluminum, trihexyl- 1191-15-7 Aluminum, hydrobis(2-methylpropyl)- 1317-65-3 Limestone 1333-74-0 Hydrogen 1592-23-0 Octadecanoic acid, calcium salt 7440-37-1 Argon 7440-44-0 Carbon 7727-37-9 Nitrogen 7782-42-5 Graphite 7782-44-7 Oxygen 8001-21-6 Sunflower oil 8001-22-7 Soybean oil 8001-23-8 Safflower oil 8001-26-1 Linseed oil 8001-29-4 Cottonseed oil 8001-30-7 Corn oil 8001-31-8 Coconut oil 8001-78-3 Castor oil, hydrogenated 8001-79-4 Castor oil 8002-03-7 Peanut oil 8002-13-9 Rape oil 8002-43-5 Lecithins 8002-75-3 Palm oil 8006-54-0 Lanolin 8016-28-2 Lard, oil 8016-70-4 Soybean oil, hydrogenated 8021-99-6 Charcoal, bone 8029-43-4 Syrups, hydrolyzed starch 9004-53-9 Dextrin 9005-25-8 Starch 9050-36-6 Maltodextrin 11103-57-4 Vitamin A 12075-68-2 Aluminum, di-.mu.-chlorochlorotriethyldi- 12542-85-7 Aluminum, trichlorotrimethyldi- 16291-96-6 Charcoal 26836-47-5 D-Glucitol, monooctadecanoate 61789-44-4 Fatty acids, castor-oil 61789-97-7 Tallow 61789-99-9 Lard 64147-40-6 Castor oil, dehydrated 64755-01-7 Fatty acids, tallow, calcium salts 65996-63-6 Starch, acid-hydrolyzed 65996-64-7 Starch, enzyme-hydrolyzed 67701-01-3 Fatty acids, C12-18 68002-85-7 Fatty acids, C14-22 and C16-22-unsatd. 68131-37-3 Syrups, hydrolyzed starch, dehydrated 68188-81-8 Grease, poultry 68308-54-3 Glycerides, tallow mono-, di- and tri-, hydrogenated 68334-00-9 Cottonseed oil, hydrogenated 68334-28-1 Fats and glyceridic oils, vegetable, hydrogenated 68409-76-7 Bone meal, steamed 68424-45-3 Fatty acids, linseed-oil 68424-61-3 Glycerides, C16-18 and C18-unsatd. mono- and di- 68425-17-2 Syrups, hydrolyzed starch, hydrogenated 68439-86-1 Bone, ash 68442-69-3 Benzene, mono-C10-14-alkyl derivs. 68476-78-8 Molasses 68514-27-2 Grease, catch basin 68514-74-9 Palm oil, hydrogenated 68525-87-1 Corn oil, hydrogenated 68648-87-3 Benzene, C10-16-alkyl derivs. 68918-42-3 Soaps, stocks, soya 68952-94-3 Soaps, stocks, vegetable-oil 68989-98-0 Fats and glyceridic oils, vegetable, residues 73138-67-7 Lard, hydrogenated 129813-58-7 Benzene, mono-C10-13-alkyl derivs. 129813-59-8 Benzene, mono-C12-14-alkyl derivs. 129813-60-1 Benzene, mono-C14-16-alkyl derivs. Top of page

Local Navigation    * CDR/IUR Home     * Basic Information     * Frequently Asked Questions     * CDR/IUR Data     * About Submissions     * Confidentiality     * Resources     * Petitions for Partial Exemption     * Recent Announcements

   * --------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                            EPA Home     * --------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                            Privacy and Security Notice     * --------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                            Contact Us     *                       Share           o                       Facebook          o                       reddit          o                       Twitter          o                       What is this?                       file:///G:/Exemption%20Petitions/Palm%20Kernel%20Oil%20References%20and%20Petition%20Drafts/For%20the%20Docket_6-27-13/CDR%20exemptions.mht                                              Print As-Is                              Last updated on Friday, September 06, 2013       Jump to main content.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 17, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28311-28312]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12003]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0972]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Bayou Liberty, Mile 2.0, St.
Tammany Parish, Slidell, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations; request for
comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
S433 Bridge over Bayou Liberty, mile 2.0, St. Tammany Parish, Slidell,
LA. This deviation will test a change to the drawbridge operation
schedule to determine whether a permanent change to the schedule is
needed. It will allow the bridge to remain unmanned during most of the
day by requiring a one-hour notice for an opening of the draw from 7
a.m. to 7 p.m., and a two-hour notice from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. seven days
a week. The Coast Guard may publish a Supplemental Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking to make this deviation permanent.

DATES: This deviation is effective from June 1, 2011 through September
9, 2011.
    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard
on or before July 15, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2010-0972 using any one of the following methods:

    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or e-mail Jim Wetherington; Bridge Administration Branch,
Eighth Coast Guard District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2010-0972), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (http://www.regulations.gov), or by fax, mail or hand delivery,
but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online
via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the
Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax,
hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having
been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket
Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a
mailing address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2010-0972,''
click ``Search,'' and then click on the balloon shape in the
``Actions'' column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand
delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11
inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them
by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and may change the rule based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2010-0972'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one using one of the four methods specified under
ADDRESSES. Please explain why one would be beneficial. If we determine
that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time

and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.
    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the public meeting,
contact Jim Wetherington at the telephone number or e-mail address
indicated under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
notice.

Basis and Purpose

    The subject bridge is the S443 Swing Bridge across the Bayou
Liberty at mile 2.0, in St. Tammany Parish. The vertical clearance is
7.59 feet (2.31m) above the 2% flowline, elevation 2.5 feet (0.76m)
NAVD 1988.
    Presently, under 33 CFR 117.469, the draw of the S433 Bridge, mile
2.0, at Slidell, shall open on signal, except that between 7 p.m. and 7
a.m., the draw shall open on signal if at least two hours notice is
given.
    The owner requests a test to allow the public to experience and
then comment on the proposed schedule. The current regulation has been
in effect since 2008; however, the bridge for which the regulation was
in place (a pontoon bridge) no longer exists. With the completion of
the new bridge (a swing bridge) in April 2010, it was shown that there
was an average of less than one opening per month which is a marked
decrease from an average of 70 per month the previous year. Currently,
most traffic, land and marine, is local with land traffic outpacing
marine traffic, and most marine traffic is recreational. Vessels will
be able to pass under the bridge during the deviation and therefore no
alternate routes are recommended at this time.
    This deviation is effective from June 1, 2011 through September 9,
2011.
    Vessel counts were collected and analyzed by the owner and reflect
a marked reduction in the number of required openings since the
completion of the new bridge and removal of the old one. The expected
impact on navigation during the test period will be minimal based on
the increase in vertical clearance and the recorded decrease in number
of requested openings. The test deviation will allow the bridge to
remain unmanned during most of the day by requiring a one-hour notice
for an opening of the draw Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
and a two-hour notice from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. seven days a week.
    Coordination with mariners will be through Public Notice and Local
Notice to Mariners upon date of publication in the Federal Register.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period.
    This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under
33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: March 21, 2011.
David M. Frank,
Bridge Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-12003 Filed 5-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 513-517]
[FR Doc No: 2021-28575]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93880; File No. SR-ICEEU-2021-015]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to Adoption of the Counterparty
Credit Risk Policy and Counterparty Credit Risk Procedures

December 30, 2021.

I. Introduction

    On November 15, 2021, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear
Europe'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4,\2\ a proposed
rule change to adopt a new Counterparty Credit Risk Policy (the ``CC
Risk Policy'') and new Counterparty Credit Risk Procedures (the ``CC
Risk Procedures'') and retire the existing Futures and Options Capital
to Margin and Shortfall Margin Policy (the ``Capital to Margin
Policy'') and existing Unsecured Credit Limits Procedures.\3\ The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on November 30, 2021.\4\ The Commission did not receive comments
regarding the proposed rule change. For the reasons discussed below,
the Commission is approving the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Because the CC Risk Policy and CC Risk Procedures would
incorporate the information currently found in the Capital to Margin
Policy and Unsecured Credit Limits Procedures in substantially the
same form, the proposed rule change would retire those two
documents.
    \4\ Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Amendments to
the Counterparty Credit Risk Policy and Counterparty Credit Risk
Procedures, Exchange Act Release No. 93668 (Nov. 24, 2021); 86 FR
68014 (Nov. 30, 2021) (SR-ICEEU-2021-015) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

i. Background

    Both the CC Risk Policy and CC Risk Procedures would describe how
ICE Clear Europe monitors and mitigates counterparty credit risk.\5\
Both documents would define counterparty credit risk as (i) the risk
that a Clearing Member misses its next payment to ICE Clear Europe,
leaving ICE Clear Europe under-collateralized and therefore increasing
the risk of using the Guaranty Fund contributions of other Clearing
Members and ICE Clear Europe to manage a potential default of that
Clearing Member and (ii) the risk that a Financial Service Provider
(``FSP'') defaults without returning cash to ICE Clear Europe, leaving
ICE Clear Europe with a loss on its investments or expected return of
cash. Both the CC Risk Policy and CC Risk Procedures also would define
ICE Clear Europe's overall objective with respect to counterparty
credit risk as managing and minimizing this risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the
meanings assigned to them in the CC Risk Policy and CC Risk
Procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To achieve this objective, ICE Clear Europe, under both the CC Risk
Policy and CC Risk Procedures, would (i) set and monitor credit
eligibility criteria for Clearing Members and FSPs; (ii) establish
credit scores for Clearing Members and FSPs; (iii) take mitigating
actions to reduce ICE Clear Europe's exposure; (iv) perform trigger-
based and periodic risk reviews of Clearing Members and FSPs; and (v)
set and monitor exposure limits for Clearing Members and FSPs. The CC
Risk Policy would explain in general how ICE Clear Europe would carry
out these actions, and the CC Risk Procedures would supplement the CC
Risk Policy with further detail regarding these actions. Thus, the
description below is organized according to these five steps, with an
explanation of those actions under both the CC Risk Policy and CC Risk
Procedures.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As noted further below, ICE Clear Europe is taking the
processes described in section vi from the existing Capital to
Margin Policy and Unsecured Credit Limits Procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Credit Eligibility Criteria

    ICE Clear Europe would first assess prospective entities against
certain credit eligibility criteria. The criteria that ICE Clear Europe
would use for this assessment would be set forth in a new Counterparty
Credit Risk Parameters and Reviews document, which would be a
supporting document of the CC Risk Policy and CC Risk Procedures.\7\
Overall, ICE Clear Europe would use this assessment against the credit
criteria to assess the financial stability of Clearing Members and
FSPs. ICE Clear Europe would assess prospective Clearing Members and
FSPs against such criteria during onboarding and review existing
Clearing Members and FSPs against such criteria at least annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ICE Clear Europe included the Counterparty Credit Risk
Parameters and Reviews document as a confidential Exhibit 3 to the
filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After conducting the assessment, ICE Clear Europe would produce a
credit recommendation for prospective Clearing Members based on
financial

and qualitative information. For prospective FSPs, ICE Clear Europe
would confirm that they are legal entities in approved jurisdictions
and comply with the eligibility criteria and unsecured credit limits
set forth in the Counterparty Credit Risk Parameters and Reviews
document. Moreover, based on the assessment, ICE Clear Europe may
disapprove a prospective Clearing Member or FSP or subject it to
additional monitoring and potentially mitigating actions, such as
requiring Clearing Members to provide a buffer margin and reducing or
eliminating usage of a particular FSP.

iii. Credit Scores

    In addition to this assessment against initial credit eligibility
criteria, on a daily basis ICE Clear Europe would monitor Clearing
Members and FSPs using its Counterparty Rating System (``CRS''). The
CRS would calculate a credit score that represents a counterparty's
credit quality. For FSPs, this credit score could take into account
external ratings and ICE Clear Europe's exposure limits. ICE Clear
Europe would use this credit score, along with its exposure to that
counterparty, to identify Clearing Members and FSPs that have
questionable financial standing, show signs of financial weakness, or
are likely to default. ICE Clear Europe would calculate credit scores
daily for all counterparties.
    For each counterparty, the CRS would incorporate quantitative
financial information, such as capitalization and leverage, and
qualitative operational and conduct information, such as regulatory
violations and pending litigation. ICE Clear Europe would analyze any
material changes in a CRS score and would update the CRS at least
quarterly with the latest financial statements from each counterparty.

iv. Mitigating Actions

    ICE Clear Europe would rank Clearing Members by their CRS score in
order to identify those with lower relative credit quality that may
require further examination to determine whether additional actions are
necessary to mitigate credit risk. ICE Clear Europe could place those
Clearing Members and FSPs with the weakest CRS scores on a list of
counterparties for further review and mitigating action known as the
Watch List. If ICE Clear Europe placed any entity within a Clearing
Member Family (meaning all of the Clearing Members that are linked by a
common ownership that has a controlling stake in the entities) on the
Watch List, then all members of that Clearing Member Family could also
be added to the Watch List. ICE Clear Europe would be able remove
counterparties from the Watch List if (i) their CRS score improves to a
stronger classification or the reason for incorporation into the Watch
List has ceased or (ii) their credit risk has been sufficiently
mitigated. The Counterparty Credit Risk Parameters and Reviews document
would set out the ICE Clear Europe personnel responsible for monitoring
the Watch List and the reviews needed to place or not place
counterparties on the Watch List and to remove counterparties from the
Watch List.
    If ICE Clear Europe added a Clearing Member or FSP to the Watch
List, ICE Clear Europe would monitor the counterparty more closely and
could take mitigating actions to reduce its exposure to the
counterparty. These actions would depend on the size of the exposure
and the circumstances and could include, among others: (i) Additional
monitoring; (ii) requiring Clearing Members to post additional
collateral to meet a buffer margin requirement; (iii) requiring
Clearing Members to post different forms of collateral; (iv) requiring
Clearing Members to reduce positions; (v) requiring Clearing Members to
improve their capital position (such as by implementing a parental
guarantee); (vi) lowering the materiality threshold for intra-day
margin calls; and (vii) and reducing or removing ICE Clear Europe's
usage of an FSP. As would be set out in the Counterparty Credit Risk
Parameters and Reviews document, ICE Clear Europe's Head of Clearing
Risk and Chief Risk Officer would determine which risk-mitigating
actions to take for counterparties on the Watch List.

v. Trigger-Based and Periodic Risk Reviews

    ICE Clear Europe would engage in continuous monitoring of Clearing
Members and FSPs as well as additional trigger-based reviews. ICE Clear
Europe would continuously monitor all Clearing Members and FSPs daily
through the CRS credit scores, the Watch List, and exposure limits (as
described below). In turn, ICE Clear Europe personnel and committees
would review the CRS scores, the Watch List, and exposure limits as set
out in the Counterparty Credit Risk Parameters and Reviews document.
    In addition to continuous monitoring, ICE Clear Europe would review
a Clearing Member or FSP when (i) it is added to the Watch List or (ii)
there are concerns about its stability. Such a review could cover data
and recent relevant news and an assessment of the incident and its
impact. The depth of the review would depend on the circumstances and
exposures.
    While conducting these trigger-based reviews of higher risk
counterparties, ICE Clear Europe also would periodically review lower
risk counterparties that do not meet these triggers. Ultimately, the CC
Risk Policy would require that ICE Clear Europe review all
counterparties at least once every five years, and the CC Risk
Procedures would require that ICE Clear Europe review all Clearing
Members at least once every four years. ICE Clear Europe would tailor
the reviews to the relationship and obligation of the counterparty, and
reviews would cover such matters as capital metrics, credit scores,
financials, business description, ownership structure, and risks to ICE
Clear Europe.

vi. Exposure Limits

Clearing Members
    ICE Clear Europe would monitor its uncollateralized exposure to
each Clearing Member, assuming the Clearing Member were to default, at
least daily against exposure limits. ICE Clear Europe would use a
Clearing Member's Uncollateralised Stress Loss (``USL'') as a proxy for
the exposures. ICE Clear Europe would set an exposure limit in relation
to USL as a percentage of a Clearing Member's capital, subject to a
minimum amount. Where exposure to a CM exceeds the exposure limit, ICE
Clear Europe could (i) require additional buffer margin, (ii) require
the Clearing Member to reduce positions leading to a reduction in their
initial margin, or (iii) require the Clearing Member to increase its
capital or implement a parental guarantee or subordinated debt to
increase the exposure limit. The Counterparty Credit Risk Parameters
and Reviews document would set forth the percentages of capital for the
exposure limit, the minimum amount, types of eligible capital, the
frequencies of review, and the approvals needed to change those values.
    In addition to monitoring a Clearing Member's USL, ICE Clear Europe
also would monitor a Clearing Member's initial margin relative to its
capital at least daily against threshold limits. ICE Clear Europe, for
each Clearing Member and on each business day, would monitor whether
the size of a Clearing Member's positions are large relative to the
Clearing Member by monitoring the ratio of its total margin to its
capital (known as the margin to capital ratio). When a Clearing
Member's margin to capital ratio is above a certain threshold, ICE
Clear Europe would investigate the breach to understand its cause. If
the

margin to capital ratio over a set period of time is above the
threshold, then ICE Clear Europe would take mitigating actions
including (i) enhanced monitoring of the Clearing Member to assess
whether the increased ratio is temporary, (ii) requiring the Clearing
Member to reduce positions leading to a reduction in its initial
margin, and (iii) requiring the Clearing Member to increase its capital
or implement a parental guarantee or subordinated debt to increase the
exposure limit. The Counterparty Credit Risk Parameters and Reviews
document would set forth the threshold, the period of time, and the
frequency of reviews. This aspect of the CC Risk Policy and CC Risk
Procedures would replace provisions of the Capital to Margin Policy,
which would be retired.\8\ Consistent with current practice, ICE Clear
Europe would monitor the capital to margin ratio of Clearing Members in
both ICE Clear Europe's CDS clearing service and ICE Clear Europe's
Futures and Options clearing service.\9\ With respect to Futures and
Options Clearing Members, however, ICE Clear Europe would eliminate the
use of two separate ratios based on house and customer margin,
respectively, and would instead use a single combined margin ratio,
which ICE Clear Europe believes is more representative of the overall
risk.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Certain other provisions of the Capital to Margin Policy
relating to shortfall margin are already part of ICE Clear Europe's
existing Futures and Options Risk Procedures. ICE Clear Europe would
retain those provisions relating to shortfall margin in the Futures
and Options Risk Procedures but would not make any changes to the
Futures and Options Risk Procedures. Notice, 86 FR 68015. ICE Clear
Europe last filed amendments to the Futures and Options Risk
Procedures with the Commission in filing 2021-007. See Self-
Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Amendments to the ICE Clear Europe Futures and Options Risk Policy
and Futures and Options Risk Procedures and Retirement of the
Futures and Options Concentration Charge Policy, Exchange Act
Release No. 91290 (Mar. 10, 2021); 86 FR 14478 (Mar. 16, 2021) (SR-
ICEEU-2021-007).
    \9\ Notice, 86 FR 68015.
    \10\ Notice, 86 FR 68015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICE Clear Europe also would monitor certain clients of Clearing
Members. For a client that is not an affiliate of a Clearing Member,
ICE Clear Europe would monitor the client against the Tiering
Concentration Indicator, to consider whether default of the client
could cause default of the Clearing Member. The Counterparty Credit
Risk Parameters and Reviews document would set forth the Tiering
Concentration Indicator, the frequency of reviews, and approvers.
    Finally, ICE Clear Europe could also set a limit for collateral
posted by Clearing Members, which would be further described in the
Counterparty Credit Risk Parameters and Reviews document. With respect
to issuers of collateral, the ICE Clear Europe could set an overall
limit with sub-limits for CM collateral, Treasury (reverse repo and
other collateral), and Finance (investment of ICE Clear Europe's own
capital and Skin-in-the-Game). The overall limit would equal the sum of
the sub-limits and could be borrowed between departments.
FSPs
    Through its investment program, ICE Clear Europe aims to secure the
cash that Clearing Members have transferred to ICE Clear Europe to
cover margin and Guaranty Fund contributions. Given that, ICE Clear
Europe's exposure to an FSP is primarily from leaving cash with that
FSP unsecured overnight.\11\ Thus, ICE Clear Europe would measure its
exposure to an FSP in terms of time deposits and other cash deposits
provided to a FSP that ICE Clear Europe can lose in the event of the
FSP defaulting. ICE Clear Europe would set a maximum value on such
exposure which would be the overall Unsecured Credit Limit for that
FSP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ICE Clear Europe would assume deposits left with central
banks to be secured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICE Clear Europe would allocate and monitor Unsecured Credit Limits
with respect to FSPs, based on a percentage of the FSP's capital, with
a minimum and maximum total limit. ICE Clear Europe would reduce an
FSP's limit by other exposures ICE Clear Europe may have to the FSP,
such as the USL if the FSP is also a Clearing Member. The CC Risk
Procedures would set out roles and responsibilities for ICE Clear
Europe's Credit and Treasury teams in assessing FSPs and applying the
limits, which would be the same as under the current Unsecured Credit
Limits Procedures. Moreover, the Counterparty Credit Risk Parameters
and Reviews document would set forth other information pertinent to
these limits, such as the types of eligible capital, percentage of
capital for the limits, the reverse repo exposure percentage, and the
maximum and minimum values. The Counterparty Credit Risk Parameters and
Reviews document also would set forth the reviewers, frequency of
review, and the approvals needed to change those values.
    Where exposure to an FSP breaches the limit, ICE Clear Europe's
mitigating responses could include allocating unsecured cash to
different FSPs, securing the cash exposure, and escalating material
breaches.
    Finally, an FSP would have to meet certain minimum requirements set
out in the CC Risk Procedures. For example, the FSP would need to be
regulated by a competent authority with valid jurisdiction and satisfy
the credit eligibility criteria discussed above. Moreover, FSPs that
are Committed Repo providers must be Legal Entities registered in the
United States, the United Kingdom, or in countries in the European
Union that satisfy the Minimum External Rating, and ICE Clear Europe
would give preference to FSPs with direct access to central bank
lending facilities for the currency of issue.
    These provisions of the CC Risk Policy and CC Risk Procedures would
replace, but not change the substance of, provisions of the existing
Unsecured Credit Limits Procedures.

vii. Document Governance and Exception Handling

    In addition to the steps that ICE Clear Europe would take to
monitor and mitigate counterparty credit risk, both the CC Risk Policy
and the CC Risk Procedures would describe ICE Clear Europe's procedures
for governance of, and exceptions to, both documents. This document
governance and exception handling section would be similar to those of
other ICE Clear Europe policies and would be the same under both the CC
Risk Policy and the CC Risk Procedures.\12\ Specifically, the document
owner would be responsible for maintaining up-to-date documents and
reviewing documents in accordance with ICE Clear Europe's governance
processes. The document owner would be required to report material
breaches or unapproved deviations to the Head of

Department, the Chief Risk Officer, and the Head of Compliance (or
their delegates) who would together determine if further escalation
should be made to relevant senior executives, the Board, or competent
authorities. Exceptions to the CC Risk Policy and CC Risk Procedures
would be approved in accordance with ICE Clear Europe's governance
process for approval of changes to the documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, e.g., Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe
Limited; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to Amendments to the ICE Clear Europe Futures
and Options Stress Testing Policy and the Adoption of the Futures
and Options Stress Testing Methodology Document, Exchange Act
Release No. 89621 (Aug. 20, 2020); 85 FR 52650 (Aug. 26, 2020) (SR-
ICEEU-2020-008); Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe
Limited; Notice of Filing of Partial Amendment No. 1 and Order
Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified
by Partial Amendment No. 1, Relating to the ICE Clear Europe
Investment Management Procedures and Treasury and Banking Services
Policy, Exchange Act Release No. 89211 (July 1, 2020); 85 FR 41082
(July 8, 2020) (SR-ICEEU-2020-002); Self-Regulatory Organizations;
ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice of Filing of Partial Amendment No.
2 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change,
as Modified by Partial Amendment No. 1 and Partial Amendment No. 2,
To Revise the ICE Clear Europe Treasury and Banking Services Policy,
Liquidity Management Procedures, Investment Management Procedures
and Unsecured Credit Limits Procedures, Exchange Act Release No.
86891 (Sept. 6, 2019); 84 FR 48191 (Sept. 12, 2019) (SR-ICEEU-2019-
012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a
proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that
such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such
organization.\13\ For the reasons discussed below, the Commission finds
that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
of the Act,\14\ and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i), (e)(2)(v), (e)(3)(i), and
(e)(19).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(i), (e)(2)(v), (e)(3)(i), and
(e)(19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of ICE Clear Europe be designed to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to
the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and
transactions, as well as to assure the safeguarding of securities and
funds which are in the custody or control of ICE Clear Europe or for
which it is responsible.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the CC Risk Policy and the CC Risk Procedures
\17\ would describe how ICE Clear Europe monitors and mitigates
counterparty credit risk by (i) setting and monitoring credit
eligibility criteria for Clearing Members and FSPs; (ii) establishing a
credit score for each Clearing Member and FSP; (iii) taking mitigating
actions to reduce ICE Clear Europe's exposure; (iv) performing trigger-
based and periodic risk reviews of Clearing Members and FSPs; and (v)
setting and monitoring exposure limits for Clearing Members and FSPs.
The Commission believes that through these actions, ICE Clear Europe
would be in a position to monitor and mitigate the risk of default by a
Clearing Member or FSP. For example, the Commission believes that
setting and monitoring eligibility criteria would help to ensure that
all Clearing Members and FSPs have a similar baseline of financial
reliability and that establishing and monitoring CRS scores for
Clearing Members and FSPs would help to identify those counterparties
whose financial situation may be deteriorating and posing a risk to ICE
Clear Europe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ As discussed above, ICE Clear Europe is importing the
processes described in Section II.vi above from its existing Capital
to Margin Policy and Unsecured Credit Limits Procedures. The
Commission published notice of the Capital to Margin Policy in 2019.
See Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating To Adoption of a New Futures & Options Capital-to-Margin
and Shortfall Margin Policy (the ``F&O Margin Shortfall Policy''),
Exchange Act Release No. 85439 (Mar. 28, 2019); 84 FR 13087 (April
3, 2019) (SR-ICEEU-2019-005). Moreover, the Commission approved the
Unsecured Credit Limits Procedures in 2019. See Self-Regulatory
Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice of Filing of Partial
Amendment No. 2 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed
Rule Change, as Modified by Partial Amendment No. 1 and Partial
Amendment No. 2, To Revise the ICE Clear Europe Treasury and Banking
Services Policy, Liquidity Management Procedures, Investment
Management Procedures and Unsecured Credit Limits Procedures,
Exchange Act Release No. 86891 (Sept. 6, 2019); 84 FR 48191 (Sept.
12, 2019) (SR-ICEEU-2019-012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the Commission believes that trigger-based and periodic
reviews, as well as setting and monitoring exposure limits, would help
ICE Clear Europe to determine counterparties who may pose an increased
risk and limit its exposure to those counterparties. Finally, the
Commission believes that ICE Clear Europe's mitigating actions, such as
requiring a Clearing Member to post additional margin or reducing usage
of an FSP, would help to reduce or eliminate its exposure to a Clearing
Member or FSP, as needed in response to a change in that counterparty's
credit risk.
    As discussed in the CC Risk Policy and CC Risk Procedures,
counterparty credit risk poses a risk to ICE Clear Europe's financial
resources because default by a Clearing Member could leave ICE Clear
Europe under-collateralized and default by an FSP could cause ICE Clear
Europe to lose its investments or expected return of cash. The
Commission believes that such losses could, in turn, threaten ICE Clear
Europe's ability to operate and therefore clear and settle
transactions. Thus, the Commission believes that effective management
of ICE Clear Europe's counterparty credit risk could help ICE Clear
Europe control risks to the financial resources needed to continue
clearing and settling transactions. The Commission therefore believes
that, by establishing the actions ICE Clear Europe would take to manage
and mitigate counterparty credit risk, the CC Risk Policy and CC Risk
Procedures would help to manage counterparty credit risk and thereby
would promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions.
    Moreover, the Commission believes that the minimum requirements
applicable to FSPs, as well as the setting of monitoring of exposure
limits with respect to FSPs would be consistent with the assurance of
safeguarding of securities and funds in ICE Clear Europe's custody or
control or for which it is responsible. The Commission believes that
the minimum requirements would help to ensure that FSPs are financially
stable and subject to competent regulation, which should help to ensure
that ICE Clear Europe is able to access securities and funds placed
with such FSPs.
    Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Consistency With Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i), (v) Under the Act

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) requires that ICE Clear Europe establish,
implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to provide for governance arrangements that are
clear and transparent.\19\ As discussed above, both the CC Risk Policy
and the CC Risk Procedures would establish the general governance and
exceptions process for those documents, identical to the governance and
exceptions process that ICE Clear Europe has established in other
policies and procedures. The Commission believes that, in doing so, the
CC Risk Policy and CC Risk Procedures would establish clear and
transparent arrangements for ensuring that ICE Clear Europe personnel
adhere to the documents and for modifying the documents as needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)(v) requires that ICE Clear Europe establish,
implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to provide for governance arrangements that specify
clear and direct lines of responsibility.\20\ As discussed above, the
CC Risk Procedures would set out roles and responsibilities for ICE
Clear Europe's Credit and Treasury teams in assessing FSPs and applying
limits to FSPs. The Commission believes these provisions would specify
clear and

direct lines of responsibility for the Credit and Treasury teams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (e)(2)(v).\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (e)(2)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(i) Under the Act

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(i) requires that ICE Clear Europe establish,
implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to, among other things, maintain a sound risk
management framework for comprehensively managing legal, credit,
liquidity, operational, general business, investment, custody, and
other risks that arise in or are borne by ICE Clear Europe, which
includes risk management policies, procedures, and systems designed to
identify, measure, monitor, and manage the range of risks that arise in
or are borne by ICE Clear Europe, that are subject to review on a
specified periodic basis and approved by the board of directors
annually.\22\ As discussed above, the CC Risk Policy and the CC Risk
Procedures would describe how ICE Clear Europe monitors and mitigates
counterparty credit risk. The Commission believes that together these
documents would allow ICE Clear Europe to comprehensively measure the
credit risk posed by Clearing Members and FSPs through, among other
things, assessing prospective Clearing Members and FSPs against certain
credit eligibility criteria. The Commission further believes that CRS
scores, periodic reviews, trigger-based reviews, and exposure limits
would provide ICE Clear Europe a comprehensive means of monitoring the
credit risk posed by Clearing Members and FSPs. Finally, the Commission
believes that the mitigating actions discussed above would reduce or
eliminate ICE Clear Europe's exposure to a Clearing Member or FSP,
thereby helping ICE Clear Europe manage overall credit risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(3)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(i).\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(3)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iv. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(19) Under the Act

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(19) requires that ICE Clear Europe establish,
implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to identify, monitor, and manage the material risks
to ICE Clear Europe arising from arrangements in which firms that are
indirect participants in ICE Clear Europe rely on the services provided
by direct participants to access ICE Clear Europe's payment, clearing,
or settlement facilities.\24\ As discussed above, the CC Risk Policy
and the CC Risk Procedures would require that ICE Clear Europe monitor
clients of Clearing Members that are not affiliates of the Clearing
Member to consider whether default of the client could cause the
default of the Clearing Member. The Commission believes this would help
ICE Clear Europe to monitor and manage the risks that clients, as
indirect participants, could pose to Clearing Members, as direct
participants in ICE Clear Europe. The Commission further believes that
such client/Clearing Member arrangements could pose material risks to
ICE Clear Europe through its relationships with Clearing Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(19).\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act,
and in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act,\26\ and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i), (e)(2)(v), (e)(3)(i), and
(e)(19).\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \27\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(i), (e)(2)(v), (e)(3)(i), and
(e)(19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\28\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ICEEU-2021-015), be, and hereby
is, approved.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \29\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-28575 Filed 1-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P