[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8253-8254]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3427]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9631-3]

Notice of Proposed Settlement Agreement and Opportunity for
Public Comment: Hidden Lane Landfill Superfund Site

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 122(i) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as
amended (``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9622(h)(i), notice is hereby given of a
proposed settlement that is intended to resolve the potential liability
under CERCLA of two parties for response costs incurred by the
Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') or by the United States
Department of Justice (``DOJ'') on behalf of EPA, in connection with
the Hidden Lane Landfill Superfund Site, Sterling, Loudoun County,
Virginia (``Site'').

DATES: Written comments on the proposed settlement agreement must be
received by March 14, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. CERC-03-2012-
0073-CR, by mail to: Docket Clerk (3RC00), United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103-2029.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ben Joseph (3HS22), U.S. EPA, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-
2029, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Patricia C. Miller, U.S. EPA, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-
2010, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax Number<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Settlement Agreement

    Notice is hereby given of a proposed Administrative Settlement
Agreement for the Recovery of Response Costs among the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, the Estate of Philip W. Smith and the
Philip W. Smith Revocable Trust that has been approved, subject to
public comment, pursuant to Section 122(h)(1) of CERCLA. The
Administrative Settlement Agreement was signed by the Director,
Hazardous Site Cleanup Division, U.S. EPA Region III, on January 20,
2012. The proposed settlement provides for recovery of $33,057.67 from
the Estate of Philip W. Smith and the Philip W. Smith Revocable Trust,
which effectively represents the remaining assets in accounts, to
resolve the liability for costs incurred by EPA and DOJ on behalf of
EPA in connection the Site. The proposed settlement was approved by the
Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural
Resources Division of DOJ.
    The United States Environmental Protection Agency will receive
written comments on the proposed settlement for a period of thirty (30)
days from the date of publication of this Notice. EPA or the DOJ may
withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed settlement agreement if
the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such
consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with
the requirements of CERCLA. Unless EPA or DOJ determines, based on any
comments which may be submitted, that consent to the settlement
agreement should be withdrawn, the terms of the agreement will be
affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Settlement
Agreement

A. How can I get a copy of the settlement agreement?

    A copy of the proposed Settlement Agreement for Recovery of
Response Costs may be obtained from the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, Office of Regional Counsel (3RC00), 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029 by contacting
Patricia C. Miller, Senior Assistant Regional Counsel, at (215) 814-
2662, or via email at

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>It is important to note that it is EPA's
policy to make public comments, whether submitted electronically or in
paper, available to the public, unless the comment contains copyrighted
material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute.

B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and email address or other contact
information in the body of your comment. This ensures that you can be
identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact
you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any
identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment
will be included as part of the comment. If EPA cannot read your
comments due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

    Dated: January 20, 2012.
Kathryn Hodgkiss,
Acting Director, Hazardous Site Cleanup Division, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2012-3427 Filed 2-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 220)]
[Notices]
[Page 59234-59235]
[DOCID:fr17no09-87]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2009-0001]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request, 1660-NEW; FEMA Preparedness Grants: Port Security
Grant Program (PSGP)

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice; 60-day notice and request for comments; new information
collection; OMB No. 1660-NEW; FEMA Form 089-5, PSGP Investment
Justification; FEMA Form 089-21, Ferry Investment Justification.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity
to comment on a proposed new information collection. In accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this Notice seeks comments
concerning the information collection activities required to administer
the Port Security Grant Program.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 19, 2010.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to submit comments:
    (1) Online. Submit comments at http://www.regulations.gov under
docket ID FEMA-2009-0001. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Office of Chief Counsel,
Regulation and Policy Team, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street, SW., Room 835,
Washington, DC 20472-3100.
    (3) Facsimile. Submit comments to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) E-mail. Submit comments to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include docket
ID FEMA-2009-0001 in the subject line.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice that is available on the Privacy and Use Notice link on the
Administration Navigation Bar of http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Alex Mrazik, Program Analyst,
Grants Program Directorate,<PHONE_NUMBER> for additional information.
You may contact the Records Management Branch for copies of the
proposed collection of information at facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>
or e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Port Security Grants Program (PSGP)
provides grant funding to port areas for the protection of critical
port infrastructure from terrorism. PSGP funds are primarily intended
to assist ports in enhancing maritime domain awareness, enhancing risk
management capabilities to prevent, detect, respond to and recover from
attacks involving improvised explosive devices (IEDs), weapons of mass
destruction (WMDs), and other non-conventional weapons, as well as
training and exercises and Transportation Worker Identification
Credential (TWIC) implementation. Section 102 of the Maritime
Transportation Security Act of 2002, as amended (46 U.S.C. 70107),
established the PSGP to provide for the establishment of a grant
program for making a fair and equitable allocation of funds to
implement Area Maritime Transportation Security Plans and facility
security plans among port authorities, facility operators, and State
and local government agencies required to provide port security
services.

Collection of Information

    Title: FEMA Preparedness Grants: Port Security Grant Program
(PSGP).
    Type of Information Collection: New information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-NEW.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 089-5, PSGP Investment
Justification;
    FEMA Form 089-21, Ferry Investment Justification.
    Abstract: The PSGP is an important tool among a comprehensive set
of measures to help strengthen the Nation against risks associated with
potential terrorist attacks. DHS/FEMA uses the information to evaluate
applicants' familiarity with the national preparedness architecture and
identify how elements of this architecture have been incorporated into
regional/state/local planning, operations, and investments.
    Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Government.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 8,520 hours.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              No. of        Avg. burden    Total annual                    Total annual
        Type of respondent             Form name/form         No. of       responses per   per response     burden (in      Avg. hourly     respondent
                                           number           respondents     respondent      (in hours)        hours)         wage rate         cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State, Local or Tribal Government.  PSGP Investment                  235               1              16           3,760          $33.60        $126,336
                                     Justification/FEMA
                                     Form 089-5.

State, Local or Tribal Government.  Ferry Investment                   5               1              16              80           33.60           2,688
                                     Justification/FEMA
                                     Form 089-21.
State, Local or Tribal Government.  Concept of                        55               1               4             220           33.60           7,392
                                     Operations (CONOPS).
State, Local or Tribal Government.  Port-Wide Risk                    55               1              80           4,400           37.80         166,320
                                     Management/
                                     Mitigation Plan
                                     (PWRMP).
State, Local or Tribal Government.  PSGP--Memorandum of               30               1               2              60           37.80           2,268
                                     Understanding (MOU)
                                     or Memorandum of
                                     Agreement (MOA).
    Total.........................  ....................             380  ..............  ..............           8,520  ..............      305,004.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Cost: There is no annual reporting or recordkeeping costs
associated with this collection.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Larry Gray,
Director, Records Management Division, Office of Management, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. E9-27558 Filed 11-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-78-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 56 (Thursday, March 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12645-12646]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05863]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0253]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt four individuals from
the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have
``no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or
any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or
any loss of ability to control a CMV.'' The exemptions enable these
individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-
seizure medication to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions were applicable on February 19, 2018. The
exemptions expire on February 19, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected], FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On January 16, 2018, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of
applications from four individuals requesting an exemption from the
epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) and
requested comments from the public (83 FR 2298). The public comment
period ended on February 15, 2018, and zero comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that granting exemptions to these individuals would achieve
a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be
achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which
is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to
control a CMV.
    In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory
criteria \1\ to assist medical examiners in determining whether drivers
with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce. [49 CFR part 391, APPENDIX A TO PART 391--MEDICAL
ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: Sec.  391.41(b)(8), paragraphs
3, 4, and 5.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=e47b48a9ea42dd67d999246e23d97970&mc=true&node=pt49.5.391&rgn=div5#ap49.5.391_171.a and https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title49-vol5/pdf/CFR-2015-title49-vol5-part391-appA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received zero comments in this proceeding.

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the epilepsy and seizure disorder prohibition in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(8) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or
greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption.
The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate
commerce.
    In reaching the decision to grant these exemption requests, FMCSA
considered the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert
Panel (MEP). The January 15, 2013, Federal Register notice (78 FR 3069)
provides the current MEP recommendations which is the criteria the
Agency uses to grant seizure exemptions.
    The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on an individualized assessment of each applicant's medical
information, including the root cause of the respective seizure(s) and
medical information about the applicant's seizure history, the length
of time that has elapsed since the individual's last seizure, the
stability of each individual's treatment regimen and the duration of
time on or off of anti-seizure medication. In addition, the Agency
reviewed the treating clinician's medical opinion related to the
ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV with a history of seizure
and each applicant's driving record found in the Commercial Driver's
License Information System (CDLIS) for commercial driver's license
(CDL) holders, and interstate and intrastate inspections recorded in
the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS). For non-CDL
holders, the Agency reviewed the driving records from the State
Driver's Licensing Agency (SDLA). A summary of each applicant's seizure
history was

discussed in the January 16, 2018 Federal Register notice (83 FR 2298)
and will not be repeated in this notice.
    These four applicants have been seizure-free over a range of 17
years while taking anti-seizure medication and maintained a stable
medication treatment regimen for the last two years. In each case, the
applicant's treating physician verified his or her seizure history and
supports the ability to drive commercially.
    The Agency acknowledges the potential consequences of a driver
experiencing a seizure while operating a CMV. However, the Agency
believes the drivers granted this exemption have demonstrated that they
are unlikely to have a seizure and their medical condition does not
pose a risk to public safety.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the epilepsy and seizure disorder prohibition in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(8) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that
existing without the exemption.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1)
Each driver must remain seizure-free and maintain a stable treatment
during the two-year exemption period; (2) each driver must submit
annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the
stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free;
(3) each driver must undergo an annual medical examination by a
certified Medical Examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5; and (4) each
driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the
employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a
copy of his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed.
The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for
presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement
official.

VI. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VII. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the four exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the epilepsy and seizure disorder
prohibition, 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), subject to the requirements cited
above:

Anthony Anello, III (NJ)
Anthony J. Kornuszko, Jr. (PA)
Jeffrey W. Mills (NC)
Jaime D. Paggen (MN)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), each exemption will be
valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by
FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The
person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption;
(2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was
maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136 and 31315.

    Issued on: March 16, 2018.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-05863 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 174 (Friday, September 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 55212]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22048]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14379-000]

North Star Hydro Services CA, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On March 30, 2012, North Star Hydro Services CA, LLC, Oklahoma,
filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f)
of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of
the Prosser Creek Dam Hydropower Project (project) to be located on
Prosser Creek, a tributary of the Truckee River, near the town of
Truckee, Nevada County, California. The project would affect federal
lands and facilities administered by the Bureau of Reclamation
(Bureau). The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to
grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during
the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit
holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter
upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express
permission.
    The proposed project would utilize the existing facilities that
include: the Bureau's 163-foot-high, earthfill, Prosser Creek dam; and
a double 95-foot-high by 530-foot-long concrete primary outlet
structure. No modifications would be made to the existing intake
structure.
    The proposed project would include: (1) Two Kaplan turbines
generating 3.5 megawatts; (2) a 46-foot-wide by 120-foot-long by 30-
foot-high powerhouse with an attached 75-foot-long by 24-foot-wide
control room/cable gallery; (3) a 50- to 75-foot-long tailrace; and (4)
a 69-kilovolt transmission line interconnecting to an existing
transmission line 0.5 mile from the project site. The annual energy
output would be approximately 3.8 gigawatthours.
    Applicant Contact: David Holland, North Star Hydro Services CA,
LLC, 1110 West 131st Street South, Jenks, Oklahoma 74037; phone (918)
398-0233.
    FERC Contact: Carolyn Templeton; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14379) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: August 31, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-22048 Filed 9-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 194 (Friday, October 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61109-61112]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21823]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95964; File No. SR-ICEEU-2022-015]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice
of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICE Clear Europe
Operational Risk and Resilience Policy

October 3, 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 September 22, 2022, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear Europe''
or the ``Clearing House'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule changes described in
Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared primarily by
ICE Clear Europe. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear Europe'' or the ``Clearing
House'') proposes to rename and modify its Operational Risk Management
Policy, which will now be known as the Operational Risk and Resilience
Policy (the ``Operational Risk and Resilience Policy'' or ``Policy'').
The amendments would make certain other clarifications and updates. A
copy of the proposed amendments is set forth in Exhibit 5 [sic].\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the
meanings specified in the ICE Clear Europe Clearing Rules and the
Operational Risk and Resilience Policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, ICE Clear Europe included
statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule
change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule
change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places
specified in Item IV below. ICE Clear Europe has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

(a) Purpose
    ICE Clear Europe is proposing to rename its existing Operational
Risk Management Policy to be the Operational Risk and Resilience
Policy, and to make certain amendments thereto to address operational
resilience in addition to operational risk. The amendments would, as
set forth herein, expand the description of the framework under which
the Clearing House manages operational risk and operational resilience,
describe the existing lines of defense maintained by the Clearing House
against such risks and the roles and responsibilities of Clearing House
committees, personnel and the Board in respect of the framework. The
proposed amendments are designed to update the documentation of ICE
Clear Europe's practices in this regard to be consistent with
requirements of the Bank of England (``BoE'') for central
counterparties to establish an operational resilience framework by
March 31, 2022 that identifies and prioritises ``important business
services,'' sets out impact tolerances in respect of such services,
identifies and maps dependencies for such important business services
and establishes a scenario testing program with respect to such
recovery of such services following disruption.\4\ Other non-
substantive drafting and similar improvements would also be made to the
Policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The BoE requires central counterparties to establish an
operational resilience framework which shall, among other
requirements, identify important business services and set impact
tolerances for such services. See Bank of England, Supervisory
Statement: Operational Resilience--Central Counterparties'' (March
2021), available at: Operational Resilience: Central Counterparties
Supervisory Statement March 2021 (bankofengland.co.uk) (the
``Supervisory Statement''). See also Bank of England Prudential
Regulation Authority, Statement of Policy: Operational Resilience
(March 2021), available at SoP 'Operational resilience'
(bankofengland.co.uk).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendments would provide that the purpose of the document is to
set out the Operational Risk and Resilience management framework,
including identify and managing relevant risks. (The amendments remove
certain unnecessary references to ``operational'' risk throughout the
Policy as the entire Policy addresses operational risk.) The Policy
would apply to all of the Clearing House's departments and functions.
    The amendments would add a new subsection which would describe the
Clearing House's existing three lines of defense model for managing
risks; the first line of defense (or risk owner) (First Line) is
responsible for managing risks to within the defined Board risk
appetite and for ensuring adherence to the requirements of the Policy.
The First Line would include business departments except for the Risk
Oversight Department and Internal Audit. The Risk Oversight Department
(ROD) and Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) is the second line of
defense (Second Line) and is responsible for challenging the first line
and monitoring adherence to the requirement of the Policy. The third
line of defense (Third Line) would be the Internal Audit function and
would provide independent and objective assurance to the Board. The
three lines of defense model is currently used within the Clearing
House's risk management framework, and the proposed amendments are
intended to more formally document that model, with its existing roles
and responsibilities, in the Policy.
    The amendments would specifically include Operational Resilience
policies

as part of the architecture of the documentation which supports the
Policy. The amendments would define ``operational resilience'' as the
ability to prevent, respond to, recover and learn from operational
service disruption events.
    In a new subsection describing in more detail the Clearing House's
operational risk and resilience framework, the Clearing House would
describe the purpose of the framework as to reduce the likelihood of an
operational disruption event within acceptable tolerance and mitigate
and quickly recover from operational disruption events. The framework
would be comprised of the following set of existing complementary
policies (certain of which are ICE Clear Europe policies and others are
ICE group-wide policies): (i) the Policy, which is intended to ensure
that the risk of operational failure of important processes is
minimized, (ii) Incident Management Policy, which is intended to
provide a cohesive framework for the communication, resolution and
recording of incidents and to ensure that incidents are resolved in a
planned and controlled manner in order to resolve any interruptions
quickly and restore service, (iii) Business Continuity & Disaster
Recovery Policy, which is intended to ensure that appropriate plans are
in place to recover from a business continuity or disaster recover
incident, (iv) Information Security and Cyber Security Strategy, which
outlines the responsibilities of users and the steps they must take to
protect ICE information and information systems, (v) Outsourcing
Policy, which governs outsourcing arrangements to ensure that the
Clearing House's minimum operational resilience are met by outsourced
service providers, and (vi) Vendor Management Policy, which ensures
that requisite due diligence is performed and ensures that vendors have
the capacity, resiliency and capability to fully support the Clearing
House. (Other than the Policy, the listed policies are not being
amended hereby.)
    The amendments would also add a new subsection describing the
Clearing House's important business services. A business service would
be considered important if a prolonged disruption of such service would
significantly disrupt the orderly functioning of a market which the
Clearing House serves, thereby impacting financial stability. Important
business services would be required to be identified and documented,
and such identification would help prioritization of these services
from an operational resilience viewpoint. For each important business
service, dependencies relating to people, processes, technology,
facilities, and underlying information would be identified. Identified
business services would be required to be reviewed at least annually by
the First Line, overseen by the Second Line and approved by an
appropriate Board-level Committee. These amendments do not reflect a
substantive change in the Clearing House's existing risk management
approach but rather formally address relevant services already
identified by the Clearing House as being critical in light of the
requirement described above under the Supervisory Statement that a
central counterparty document its framework for identifying and
documenting ``important business services''.
    The amendments would include a new subsection which would describe
the Clearing House's impact tolerances, which would be defined as the
maximum tolerable level of disruption for an important business
service, whereby further disruption would pose a significant impact to
the market(s) serve by the Clearing House. For each important business
service an appropriate impact tolerance would be established,
considering the duration of any outage and additional relevant metrics,
such as the magnitude of the impact. Additionally, the Clearing House
would be required to ensure that appropriate controls and recovery
procedures are in place for important business services in order to aid
with recovery in the case of service disruption. Monitoring of impact
tolerances would need to be in place, with any breach escalated to the
Clearing House's Executive Risk Committee and Board. Breaches to impact
tolerances would be reviewed by the First Line and a remediation plan
established for any identified weakness. Such review outcome and
remediation plan would need to be agreed with the Second Line before
presentation to the Board. Impact tolerances must be reviewed at least
annually by the First Line, overseen by the Second Line and approved by
appropriate Board-level Committee. Such amendments are intended to
implement the requirement under the Supervisory Statement that the
Clearing House identify impact tolerances in consideration of business
services identified as ``important business services. Although this
requirement is new, the Clearing House's implementation builds on its
existing risk management framework which already covers incident
management based on levels of severity linked to financial,
reputational, operational and regulatory impacts.
    Also further to the requirement under the Supervisory Statement,
the amendments would add a new subsection addressing scenario analysis
and testing to identify any operational resilience weakness. Such
analysis or testing must be conducted on important business services to
determine if the Clearing House can remain within the impact tolerances
under a range of extreme but plausible disruption scenarios and must
include scenarios which disrupt more than one important business
service simultaneously and take into account dependencies. The First
Line and Second Line would have to agree on any remediation line for
weaknesses identified related to extreme but plausible scenarios.
Scenario analysis and testing results would be reported to the ERC and
the Board. Such amendments do not represent a substantive change from
the Clearing House's existing risk management practices and are
intended to document those practices in light of the Supervisory
Statement, reflecting existing roles and responsibilities.
    The section formerly titled ``The Policy for Operational Risk
Management'' would be renamed ``Risk and Control Assessments'' in order
to more clearly reflect the information contained in the subsection.
Other stylistic changes would be made in the Policy to improve clarity
and readability. Certain non-substantive fixes would also be made,
including providing that risk assessments (and not ``risks'') are
documented in the Enterprise Risk Register, reflecting that the correct
name of Appendix A to the Policy is ``Enterprise Risk Register'', and
correcting internal section references.
    In respect of risk monitoring, the amendments would provide that
the ERM would coordinate with the First and Third Lines to develop
control monitoring plans for Key Controls. This change is to reflect
the Clearing House's current practice.
    In line with other Clearing House policies, the amendments would
provide that the Policy is subject to at least annual review (rather
than biennial review) or earlier in the event of a material change.
(b) Statutory Basis
    ICE Clear Europe believes that the proposed amendments to the
Operational Risk and Resilience Policy are consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Act \5\ and the regulations
thereunder applicable to it.

In particular, Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \6\ requires, among
other things, that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to
promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivative agreements,
contracts, and transactions, the safeguarding of securities and funds
in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is
responsible, and the protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes to the Policy are designed to strengthen ICE
Clear Europe's tools to manage the risk of losses resulting from
operational errors or failures. The amendments would formally extend
the Policy to cover operational resilience as well as operational risk.
The amendments would more clearly tie together existing policies and
procedures relevant to operational risk and resilience, as required by
the Supervisory Statement as described herein. The amendments would
also address important business services, and the procedures to be used
by the Clearing House to identify such services and address related
risks and dependencies and implement adequate controls. The Policy
would also address impact tolerances and scenario analyses and testing.
Taken together, the Policy is designed to augment the Clearing House's
ability to manage operational risk and enhance its operational
resilience. The proposed amendments would thus promote the stability of
the Clearing House and the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement
of cleared contracts and the safeguarding of securities and funds in
ICE Clear Europe's custody or control or for which it is responsible.
The enhanced risk management is therefore also generally consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest in the safe
operation of the Clearing House. Accordingly, the amendments satisfy
the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendments to the Policy are also consistent with relevant
provisions of Rule 17Ad-22.\8\ Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3) provides that
``[e]ach covered clearing agency shall establish, implement, maintain
and enforce written policies and procedures reasonable designed to, as
applicable [. . .] maintain a sound risk management framework for
comprehensively managing . . . operational . . . and other risks that
arise in or are borne by the covered clearing agency.'' \9\ As set
forth above, the amendments are intended to clarify and enhance the
Clearing House's risk management framework as it relates to operational
risks, including through the extension of the Policy to formally
address resilience. The amendments would thus strengthen the management
of operational risks and risk management more generally. In ICE Clear
Europe's view, the amendments are therefore consistent with the
requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 240.17 Ad-22.
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.17 Ad-22(e)(3).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17 Ad-22(e)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2) provides that ``[e]ach covered clearing agency
shall establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonable designed to, as applicable [. . .] provide for
governance arrangements that are clear and transparent'' \11\ and
``[s]pecify clear and direct lines of responsibility'' \12\. The
amendments to the Policy would clarify and describe the
responsibilities of the Clearing House's lines of defense and
committees, management and the Board in relation the Clearing House's
resilience framework and the Policy. In ICE Clear Europe's view, the
amendments are therefore consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(2).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.17 Ad-22(e)(2)(i).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17 Ad-22(e)(2)(v).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.17 Ad-22(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendments are also consistent with Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(17)(i), which provides that ``[e]ach covered clearing agency
shall establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonable designed to, as applicable [. . .] manage the
clearing agency's operational risks by identifying the plausible
sources of operational risk, both internal and external, and mitigating
their impact through the use of appropriate systems, policies,
procedures, and controls.'' \14\ The amendments to the Policy
facilitate ongoing identification of operational risks, enhancement of
resilience in the face of such risks and mitigation of the impact of
such risks through improved procedures and controls. As noted above,
these enhancements include the expansion of the Policy to address
resilience, the identification of important business services, the
establishment of impact tolerances and scenario analysis, together with
related controls. In ICE Clear Europe's view, the amendments are
therefore consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(17)(i).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.17 Ad-22(e)(17)(i).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.17 Ad-22(e)(17)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed amendments would
have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The amendments
are being adopted to update and enhance the Clearing House's
Operational Risk and Resilience Policy which relates to the Clearing
House's internal processes for operational risk management. The
amendments would not change the Rules or Procedures, or the rights or
obligations of Clearing Members or the Clearing House. ICE Clear Europe
does not believe the amendments and adoption would affect the costs of
clearing, the ability of market participants to access clearing, or the
market for clearing services generally. Therefore, ICE Clear Europe
does not believe the proposed rule change imposes 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 amendments have not been
solicited or received by ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear Europe will notify
the Commission of any written comments received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act.

Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-ICEEU-2022-015 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2022-015. 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 Europe and on ICE
Clear Europe's website at https://www.theice.com/clear-europe/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-ICEEU-2022-015 and should be
submitted on or before October 28, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-21823 Filed 10-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P