2. Petroleum Storage and Transportation a. Permitting Strategy ( 1) Facility Type: The permitting recommendations described below are for wet weather flows from facilities that store petroleum products ( bulk oil facilities) and pipeline companies. Effluents from petroleum storage facilities and pipelines have similar characteristics and can be permitted with similar limitations and monitoring requirements. If the facility has dry weather flows, the permit writer should consider different effluent parameters, limits and/ or monitoring frequencies. Dry weather flows should have been identified on the permit application or site inspection report. Hydrostatic test discharges are addressed by this guidance. ( 2) Colonial Pipeline Colonial Pipeline Co. has numerous facilities scattered throughout the state serving as booster pump stations. They are similarly constructed, have similar sources of waste and similar treatment. Most discharge into a dry ditch or small stream that provides little or no dilution at the discharge point. However, if the facility does not have a discharge, no permit is required. The sources of wastewater are: ( a) Wash pad water  needs to meet BPJ technology limits for TPH; ( b) Contaminated water from manifold yard  needs to meet BPJ technology limits for TPH; ( c) Uncontaminated site runoff  no limits at this time; or ( d) Hydrostatic test water. Sources ( a) and ( b) are treated by an oil water separator which discharges into a retention basin. Source ( c) enters the retention basin untreated. Source ( d) receives unspecified treatment and then enters the retention basin. The final discharge of all waters is from the retention basin. Write these permits according to the following guidelines: Define the oil/ water separator effluent as internal outfall 101 and apply to it BPJ technology limits for TPH of 15 mg/ l maximum. Define the effluent from the retention basin as outfall 001 and apply any needed water quality standard limits to it. If the permit is written according to the above guidance, no TMP is needed at this time. If the discharge is such that significant dilution is available then WQS limits may be calculated for BTEX based on that dilution. ( 3) Individual vs General Permit: Bulk oil facilities ( SIC Code 5171 with vehicle maintenance) may be covered under a General Storm Water Permit instead of an individual VPDES permit unless antibacksliding prevents converting those with an existing individual permit. If the facility does not qualify for the general permit and vehicle maintenance or equipment cleaning activities take place on site, include the section on Storm Water Management with the individual permit. Vehicle maintenance includes vehicle rehabilitation, mechanical repairs, painting, fueling and lubrication ( 4) Tank bottom waters: Tank bottom water discharges should be classified as process wastewater, due to their high level of pollutants. No direct discharge of tank bottom waters is allowed. The permittee who questions this restriction has 3 options, which should be discussed with them: ( a) Pump and haul with offsite treatment and disposal; ( b) Discharge through a permitted outfall after appropriate treatment in addition to an oil/ water separator. The type of treatment is left to the permittee, bearing in mind that the higher degree of treatment would lessen the probability of toxic effects; or ( c) Discharge to a " holding area" for evaporation. The " holding area" may be a pond or diked area which has a 10 6 cm/ sec coefficient of permeability. This alternative would also require ground water monitoring, which could be part of the VPDES permit or the AST regulation requirements. For tank bottom waters, an internal outfall with limits for BTEX ( and naphthalene and lead, if applicable) should be established. Virginia Water Quality Standards do not address acute and chronic toxicity for BTEX and naphthalene, thus DEQ has established chronic aquatic toxicity, instream values for these chemicals. The final effluent limits in the General VPDES Permit for Discharges from Petroleum Contaminated Sites, VAG83 are established as instream values and should be used as permit maximums. The general permit limits assume zero dilution in the receiving stream. Where dilution exists, the limits can be adjusted as long as the resulting mix will not exceed the instream values listed. ( 5) Ground Water Monitoring: The purpose of a ground water monitoring program is to determine if activities at the site are resulting in violations of the Board's Ground Water Standards. The ground water monitoring program should concentrate on at least the two following parameters: Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons ( TPH) and Total Organic Carbon ( TOC). These parameters should provide an indication of the presence and amount of pollution, plus numeric values with which a comparison can be made, in order to evaluate the need for remediation. Ground water monitoring at jobber type oil facilities is optional and should be evaluated on a case bycase basis. Note: Omit this requirement for facilities subject to a ground water monitoring plan requirement as part of the AST, ODCP regulations ( having > 1 million gallon aggregate storage capacity). ( 6) Toxics Management Program ( TMP): A TMP is required for facilities that are large bulk oil storage or distribution centers and for pipeline terminals. Smaller, petroleum jobber type storage facilities that provide petroleum products to end consumers may need a TMP, depending on various factors, including the site characteristics ( presence of oil/ water separators, etc), age and condition of facilities, and past performance. ( 7) Hydrostatic Tank Testing: If it is anticipated that hydrostatic testing will be performed and a discharge produced, include a limit for TPH. If hydrostatic test discharges will occur more than once every three years, the permit writer should consider including limits for BTEX parameters similar to those in the Petroleum Discharges General Permit, VAG83. Depending on site characteristics and the potential for public concern, the permit can include a requirement for notification of and approval from the DEQ Regional Office prior to the discharge actually taking place. Address hydrostatic tank testing discharges either as a special condition or label the discharge as an internal outfall and limit it on a separate Part I A page. In order to avoid problems with CEDS and PCS, these infrequent discharges may be better handled in special conditions rather than as internal outfalls. Internal outfalls require monthly DMRs whereas special condition reporting can be on a per discharge basis. In either case, the limits are only applicable when there is a discharge of hydrostatic test water.

b. Form 2C Minimum Testing Requirements ( For process water discharge [ tank bottom waters, hydrostatic test waters, loading rack washdown waters]) The applicant must test for and report all parameters unless a written waiver request has been submitted and granted. The applicant may request and be granted a waiver for all except the following parameters: ( 1) Part A  BOD TOC TSS pH Flow ( 2) Part B  must provide results for Oil & Grease and any other parameters " believed present". ( 3) Part C  must provide results for any parameters " believed present". OWPP recommends testing for BTEX.

c. Form 2F Minimum Testing Requirements ( For point source discharge of storm water associated with industrial activity) ( 1) Part A  must test for and report all parameters listed. ( 2) Part B & C  must provide results for any parameters " believed present". ( 3) Part D  must provide storm event data corresponding to the maximum values given in Parts A, B, & C.

d. Suggested Effluent Limitations & Basis These limits assume the discharge is treated with a minimum treatment technology comparable to an oil/ water separator.

( ) Final Limits ( ) Interim Limits Outfall No. Design Flow Effective Dates: EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS PARAMETER BASIS FOR LIMITS MONTHLY AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM FREQUENCY SAMPLE TYPE Flow NA NL NA NL 1/ M Estimate TPH ( mg/ l) BPJ NL NA 15 1/ M Grab pH ( s. u.) 3 NA * * 1/ M Grab Technology based Limits: BPJ Water Quality based Limits: 1. 208 Plan 2. 303( e) Plan 3. Water Quality Standards 4. Other ( e. g. wasteload allocation model)

NL = No Limitation, monitoring required NA = Not Applicable a. The effluent shall be free of sheens. There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts. b. There shall be no discharge of tank bottom waters c. All samples shall be collected from the discharge resulting from a storm event. The grab samples shall be taken during the first 3 hours 30 minutes of discharge * Establish pH limits that will maintain water quality standards in the receiving stream Hydrostatic Test Waters are subject to the following effluent limitations and monitoring requirements:

( ) Final Limits ( ) Interim Limits Outfall No. Design Flow Effective Dates: to EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS PARAMETER BASIS FOR LIMITS MONTHLY AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM FREQUENCY SAMPLE TYPE Flow NA NL NA NL 1/ Discharge Estimate TPH ( mg/ l) BPJ NL NA 15 1/ Discharge Grab Technology based Limits: BPJ NL = No Limitation, monitoring required NA = Not Applicable Add limits for BTEX, naphthalene, lead, etc if discharge will occur more than once in three years.

a. The effluent shall be free of sheens. There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts. b. See Part I B for Quantification Levels and reporting instructions.

e. Special Conditions The following special conditions should be included in permits for petroleum storage or transportation facilities. See the earlier parts of Section IN for rationale and special condition language unless specified below.   Notification Levels   Materials Handling/ Storage   Operation and Maintenance Manual Requirement   Toxic Management Program ( TMP)   Water Quality Criteria Monitoring ( Include for all facilities which require a TMP)   Quantification Levels ( Include for water quality based parameters, if applicable. Adapt for BTEX, lead and naphthalene)   Ground water Monitoring Program Oil Storage Ground Water Monitoring Reopener ( for facilities covered under UST or AST program) As this facility currently manages ground water in accordance with 9 VAC 25 90 10 et seq., Oil Discharge Contingency Plans and Administration Fees for Approval the Facility and Aboveground Storage Tank Regulation, this permit does not presently impose ground water monitoring requirements. However, this permit may be modified or alternately revoked and reissued to include ground water monitoring not required by the ODCP this regulation.   Hydrostatic Testing Hydrostatic Testing ( this special condition is required for hydrostatic testing if it is not set up as an internal outfall on a Part I A. page). [ Include this part if necessary: The permittee shall obtain approval from the DEQ Regional Office forty eight hours in advance of any discharge resulting from hydrostatic testing. The conditions of approval will be contingent on the volume and duration of the proposed discharge, and the nature of the residual product.] Every discharge of hydrostatic testing waters shall be monitored and limited as specified below. Sampling will be required for characterization of the " first flush", as a minimum. Report results with the DMR for the month in which hydrostatic testing and sampling occurred. Such discharges shall be limited as follows: Parameter Maximum Limitation Flow Report flow volume as MGD TPH 15 mg/ l Add limits for BTEX, naphthalene, lead, etc if discharge will occur more than once in three years.

All samples shall be grab samples. The effluent shall be free of sheens.

Rationale: ( TPH limit is BPJ. See the fact sheet for the VPDES general permit for Discharges from Petroleum Contaminated Sites, VAG83 for the basis for effluent limits for BTEX, lead and naphthalene if discharge is more than once per three years.)


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44828-44829]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20582]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3387-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

Georgia; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of Georgia (FEMA-3387-EM), dated September 8, 2017, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued September 10, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of Georgia is hereby amended to include the following areas
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the
event declared an emergency by the President in his declaration of
September 8, 2017.

    Baker, Baldwin, Ben Hill, Berrien, Bibb, Bleckley, Brooks,
Calhoun, Chattahoochee, Clay, Colquitt, Cook, Crawford, Crisp,

Decatur, Dodge, Dooly, Dougherty, Early, Grady Harris, Houston,
Irwin, Jefferson, Johnson, Jones, Lamar, Lanier, Laurens, Lee,
Lowndes, Macon, Marion, Meriwether, Miller, Mitchell, Monroe,
Montgomery, Muscogee, Peach, Pike, Pulaski, Quitman, Randolph,
Schley, Seminole, Stewart, Sumter, Talbot, Taylor, Telfair, Terrell,
Thomas, Tift, Troup, Turner, Twiggs, Upson, Washington, Webster,
Wheeler, Wilcox, Wilkinson, and Worth Counties for debris removal
and emergency protective measures (Categories A and B), including
direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-20582 Filed 9-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 130 (Monday, July 8, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32483-32491]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14403]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86259; File No. SR-ICEEU-2019-003]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice
of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Revise the ICE
Clear Europe Clearing Rules Regarding Default Management, Recovery and
Wind-Down for CDS Contracts, and Default Auction Procedures

July 1, 2019.

I. Introduction

    On April 29, 2019, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear Europe''
or the ``Clearing House'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposal to modify certain provisions of the ICE Clear
Europe Clearing Rules (``Rules'') and clearing procedures relating to
default management, Clearing House recovery and wind-down for CDS
Contracts, and to adopt certain related default auction procedures for
CDS Contracts (``CDS Default Auction Procedures'').\3\ The proposed
rule change was published in the Federal Register on May 17, 2019.\4\
The Commission did not receive comments on the proposed rule change. On
June 5, 2019, ICE Clear Europe filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed
rule change.\5\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comment on Amendment No. 1 from interested persons and, for the reasons
discussed below, is approving the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the
meanings specified in the Rules, clearing procedures, or CDS Default
Auction Procedures.
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-85848 (May 13, 2019),
84 FR 22530 (May 17, 2019) (SR-ICEEU-2019-003) (``Notice'').
    \5\ ICE Clear Europe filed Amendment No. 1 to add a confidential
Exhibit 3 to the filing associated with the proposed rule change.
Amendment No. 1 did not make any changes to the substance of the
filing or the text of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change would amend the Rules relating to Clearing
House default management tools and steps, including by adopting the CDS
Default Auction Procedures and clarifying the governance regarding the
use of default management tools and steps. Related to ICE Clear
Europe's default management tools, the proposed rule change would
clarify the requirements and uses of ICE Clear Europe's Guaranty Fund.
Moreover, the proposed rule change would, for CDS Contracts, establish
a cooling-off period, modify the requirements regarding withdrawal by
CDS clearing members, and modify the requirements regarding clearing
service termination. Finally, the proposed rule change would make
certain other clarifications and improvements to the Rules described
below.

A. Revisions To Default Management Tools and Steps

i. Introduction
    In general, the amendments would apply to the CDS Contract Category
certain existing default management, recovery, and wind-down rules that
currently apply only to the F&O Contract Category.\6\ Thus, under the
proposed rule change, instead of responding to a CDS Clearing Member
default through the use of forced allocation, as required under ICE
Clear Europe's current rules applicable to the CDS Contract Categories,
ICE Clear Europe would be permitted to use default auctions, reduced
gains distribution, and partial tear-up. The proposed rule change would
also harmonize the default management tools across the F&O and CDS
Contract Categories to ensure that such tools are utilized consistently
across the different categories and, for the purpose of consistency
with the proposed changes described herein, make clarifying and
conforming changes, add new defined terms, and update current
definitions and cross-references throughout the Rules. The proposed
rule change would effect these changes by revising Rule 905, which
establishes the overall default management tools and procedures
available to the Clearing House to terminate and close out contracts of
a Defaulter. In addition, because it is being replaced by the new
default management tools described below, the proposed rule change
would also remove existing Rule 905(c), which currently allows ICE
Clear Europe to make a forced allocation of positions in the
Defaulter's portfolio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ICE Clear Europe adopted its rules relating to Clearing
House recovery and wind-down for the F&O and FX Contract Categories
in 2014. See Exchange Act Release No. 71450 (Jan. 31, 2014), 79 FR
7250 (Feb. 6, 2014) (SR-ICEEU-2014-03) (``F&O Recovery Rule
Amendments''). After adoption of the F&O Recovery Rule Amendments,
certain provisions of ICE Clear Europe's rules continued to apply to
CDS Contracts as they were in effect prior to the adoption of the
F&O Recovery Rule Amendments. The proposed rule change would
eliminate these provisions currently applicable only to CDS
Contracts and CDS Clearing Members, and instead, the Rules would
generally apply to CDS Clearing Members in the same way as they
apply to F&O Clearing Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Initial CDS Auctions
    In the event of a clearing member default, proposed revised Rule
905(b)(i) would permit ICE Clear Europe to run one or more Initial CDS
Auctions for the CDS Contract Category with respect to the remaining
portfolio of the Defaulter.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Notice, 84 FR at 22531.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICE Clear Europe would conduct Initial CDS Auctions in accordance
with Part 1 of the new CDS Default Auction Procedures. The CDS Default
Auction Procedures would allow ICE Clear Europe to break the portfolio
of the Defaulter into one or more lots, each of which would be
auctioned separately. CDS Clearing Members would be required to bid for
each lot in a minimum amount to be determined by ICE Clear Europe
pursuant to the requirements set forth in the CDS Default Auction
Procedures. The CDS Default Auction Procedures would permit a CDS
Clearing Member to transfer or outsource its minimum bid requirement to
an affiliated CDS Clearing Member, and similarly would permit a CDS
Clearing Member to aggregate its own minimum bid requirement with that
of its affiliated CDS Clearing Members. The CDS Default Auction
Procedures would not apply a minimum bid requirement where the bid
would be in breach of applicable law or the Rules, such as if a self-
referencing CDS Contract would arise from an accepted bid, or where ICE
Clear Europe, after written notification that a minimum bid requirement
is inappropriate in the current circumstances, reasonably determines
that the requirement should not apply.
    The CDS Default Auction Procedures would permit Customers of CDS
Clearing Members (including a Sponsored Principal invited by ICE Clear
Europe to participate in an Initial CDS Auction) to bid, either
directly or indirectly through a CDS Clearing Member. If bidding
directly in an auction, the CDS Default Auction Procedures would
require that the Customer (in this instance, a ``Direct Participating
Customer''): (i) Confirm a Clearing Member will clear any of its
resulting transactions; (ii) deposit a minimum of [euro]7.5 million
(which would generally be applied by ICE Clear Europe in the same
manner as CDS

Clearing Members' Guaranty Fund Contributions, including being subject
to ``juniorization,'' as described below); and (iii) enter into an
agreement with ICE Clear Europe pursuant to which the Direct
Participating Customer would agree to the auction terms and
confidentiality requirements as they apply to Direct Participating
Customers.
    The CDS Default Auction Procedures would require that the auction
for each lot would be conducted as a modified Dutch auction. This would
mean that, where there were multiple winning bidders, all would pay or
receive the auction clearing price. If an auction for any lot or lots
failed, as determined in accordance with the default auction
procedures, the CDS Default Auction Procedures would allow ICE Clear
Europe to conduct subsequent auctions, provided certain criteria set
forth in the CDS Default Auction Procedures were met.
    Under Rule 908, all available default resources (including pre-
funded CDS Guaranty Fund Contributions of CDS Clearing Members,
assessment contributions of CDS Clearing Members, and ICE Clear Europe
contributions to the CDS Guaranty Fund) could be used to pay the cost
of an Initial CDS Auction.
    A portion of each CDS Clearing Member's Guaranty Fund Contributions
would be allocated to the auction cost of each lot. Proposed Rule
908(i) would subject the Guaranty Fund and Assessment Contributions of
non-defaulting CDS Clearing Members to ``juniorization'' using a
defined default auction priority set out in the CDS Default Auction
Procedures based on the competitiveness of their bids. Specifically,
the proposed approach would divide the CDS Guaranty Fund into three
tranches, with the lowest tranche used first to pay for any remaining
default costs after an auction. This lowest tranche would consist of
contributions of CDS Clearing Members that failed to participate or
failed to bid in the required amount in the relevant auction. The
second, or subordinate, tranche would include contributions of CDS
Clearing Members whose bids were less competitive than a defined
threshold, as set forth in proposed Rule 908(i), based on the auction
clearing price. The final, or senior, tranche would include
contributions of CDS Clearing Members whose bids would be competitive
as compared to a second defined threshold, also as set forth in
proposed Rule 908(i). For CDS Clearing Members who bid in the band
between the two thresholds, the CDS Default Auction Procedures would
allocate contributions between the senior and subordinate tranches
based on a specified formula. Thus, ICE Clear Europe would pay
remaining default costs after an auction first by using contributions
of CDS Clearing Members who fail to bid, then by using contributions of
those who bid uncompetitively, and finally, if necessary, by using
contributions by those who bid competitively. Under the CDS Default
Auction Procedures, the same juniorization approach would apply to
assessment contributions from CDS Clearing Members and the required
minimum deposit made by a Clearing Member when Direct Participating
Customers bid in an auction.
iii. Secondary CDS Auction
    If one or more Initial CDS Auctions were not fully successful in
closing out the defaulting CDS Clearing Member's CDS portfolio,
proposed Rule 905(d)(i)(B) and the CDS Default Auction Procedures would
permit ICE Clear Europe to conduct a Secondary CDS Auction with respect
to the Defaulter's remaining portfolio.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Notice, 84 FR at 22532.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In that event, the Secondary CDS Auction would be conducted
pursuant to Part 2 of the CDS Default Auction Procedures. The Secondary
CDS Auction would use the same modified Dutch auction format used for
Initial CDS Auctions, with all winning bidders paying or receiving the
auction clearing price. Under the CDS Default Auction Procedures, a
Secondary CDS Auction for a specific lot would be deemed successful if
it resulted in a price for the lot that was within ICE Clear Europe's
remaining CDS default resources available for the lot. Direct
Participating Customers would be permitted to participate in Secondary
CDS Auctions under the same conditions as Initial CDS Auctions, with
one exception. Unlike in an Initial CDS Auction, A Direct Participating
Customer in a Secondary CDS Auction could bid directly without need for
a minimum deposit.
    Under proposed revised Rule 908(i), in the case of a Secondary CDS
Auction, ICE Clear Europe would apply all remaining CDS default
resources. ICE Clear Europe would subject Guaranty Fund and Assessment
Contributions of non-defaulting CDS Clearing Members, to the extent
remaining, to ``juniorization'' in a Secondary CDS Auction, similar to
that described above for initial default auctions, in accordance with
the secondary auction priority set forth in the CDS Default Auction
Procedures.
    If a Secondary CDS Auction is unsuccessful for any lot, the CDS
Default Auction Procedures would permit ICE Clear Europe to run another
Secondary CDS Auction for that lot, and to repeat this process as
necessary. Pursuant to proposed Rule 914(o), however, if ICE Clear
Europe invokes reduced gains distributions, the last attempt at a
Secondary CDS Auction (if needed) would occur on the last day of the
five-business-day reduced gains distribution period. On that last day,
the Secondary CDS Auction for each lot would be successful if it
results in a price that is within the default resources for such lot.
ICE Clear Europe would also be able to determine, for a Secondary CDS
Auction on that last day, that an auction for a lot would be partially
filled. With respect to any lot that is not successfully auctioned, in
whole or in part, ICE Clear Europe would be permitted to proceed to
partial tear-up under Rule 915, as described below.
iv. F&O Default Auction
    The proposed rule change would also clarify in Rule 908(b)-(d)
that, where a Default Auction is held in respect of the F&O Contract
Category, any applicable juniorization approach (made by modifying Rule
908) would be set out by the Clearing House by Circular.\9\ The
proposed rule change would make certain other drafting clarifications,
corrections, and conforming changes to Rule 908 as well. The proposed
rule change would also amend Rule 908(f) to eliminate the requirement
that ICE Clear Europe provide notice of relevant default amount
calculations to all affected Clearing Members via publication of a
Circular, and instead allow ICE Clear Europe to notify affected
Clearing Members through means that ICE Clear Europe deems appropriate
under the facts and circumstances at the time. This change is intended
to allow ICE Clear Europe greater flexibility with respect to the
manner of notice to affected Clearing Members in what could be quickly
changing circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Notice, 84 FR at 22532.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

v. Partial Tear-Up
    The proposed rule change would add partial tear-up as an additional
default remedy for all Contract Categories, with one difference between
CDS and F&O Contracts.\10\ ICE Clear Europe would be permitted to use
partial tear-up for F&O Contracts immediately after a failed Default
Auction, but would be able to use partial tear-up for CDS Contracts

only after a failed Secondary CDS Auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Notice, 84 FR at 22532.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to proposed Rule 915(b), in a partial tear-up, ICE Clear
Europe would terminate positions of non-defaulting Clearing Members and
Sponsored Principals that exactly offset those in the Defaulter's
remaining portfolio, that is, positions in the identical contracts and
in the same aggregate notional amount (``Tear-Up Positions''). ICE
Clear Europe would terminate Tear-Up Positions of all non-defaulting
Clearing Members and Sponsored Principals that have such positions, on
a pro rata basis, across both house and customer origin accounts.
Within the customer origin account of a non-defaulting Clearing Member,
Tear-Up Positions of customers would be terminated on a pro rata basis.
Where ICE Clear Europe has entered into hedging transactions relating
to the defaulter's positions that would not be subject to tear-up, ICE
Clear Europe could, at its discretion, offer to assign or transfer
those transactions to Clearing Members with related Tear-Up Positions.
    ICE Clear Europe would determine a termination price for all Tear-
Up Positions in accordance with proposed Rule 915(f). For CDS
Contracts, the termination price would be the last established end-of-
day mark-to-market settlement price. For F&O Contracts, the termination
price would be the last established exchange end-of-day settlement
price, subject to a specified fallback price procedure. Under proposed
Rule 915(c), ICE Clear Europe would set out in a published Circular the
date and time as of which partial tear-up would occur. For the CDS
Contract Category, tear-up would occur contemporaneously with the
determination of the termination price at end of day. Accordingly, the
termination price would equal the current mark-to-market or other
applicable settlement value as determined pursuant to the applicable
exchange or ICE Clear Europe end-of-day settlement price process, and
would be satisfied by application of mark-to-market margin posted, or
that would have been posted but for reduced gains distribution, under
Rule 915(e). Thus, ICE Clear Europe would owe no additional amount in
connection with the tear-up.
vi. Reduced Gains Distributions
    To provide an additional secondary default management action for
the CDS Contract Category, the proposed rule change would modify ICE
Clear Europe's existing variation margin haircutting rules for the F&O
Contract Category, as set forth in existing Rule 914, and extend the
proposed modified rules so that they apply to both the F&O Contract
Category and the CDS Contract Category.\11\ Currently, these provisions
only apply to the F&O Contract Categories. The proposed rule change
would rename these provisions as ``reduced gains distribution'' and
make them applicable to all contract categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Notice, 84 FR at 22532-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For CDS Contracts specifically, the proposed rule change would only
allow ICE Clear Europe to use reduced gains distribution for CDS
Contracts after (i) there has been an unsuccessful Initial CDS Auction,
(ii) ICE Clear Europe has exhausted its remaining available default
resources (including assessment contributions paid up to that point),
and (iii) ICE Clear Europe has called for Assessment Contributions and
such contributions have become due and payable. Moreover, proposed Rule
914(o) would only allow ICE Clear Europe to invoke reduced gains
distribution for CDS Contracts for up to five consecutive business
days. Under revised Rule 914(b), ICE Clear Europe would determine at
the close of business on each business day in this five-day period
whether the conditions for reduced gains distributions persist.
    Reduced gains distribution would allow ICE Clear Europe to reduce
payment of variation, or mark-to-market, gains that would otherwise be
owed to Clearing Members. While using reduced gains distribution, ICE
Clear Europe would attempt a Secondary CDS Auction. If ICE Clear Europe
were able to conduct a successful Secondary CDS Auction, the day of
that successful auction or the preceding business day (if ICE Clear
Europe so determines) would be the last day for reduced gains
distribution. If ICE Clear Europe is unable to conduct a successful
Secondary CDS Auction by the end of the five business day reduced gains
distribution period, ICE Clear Europe would proceed to conduct a
partial tear-up under Rule 915 as of the close of business on such
fifth business day.
    Pursuant to proposed Rule 914(p), if reduced gains distribution
would apply to CDS Contracts on any day, the net amount owed on such
day to each Margin Account of each Contributor (meaning a Clearing
Member or Sponsored Principal that is not in default) that would
otherwise be entitled to receive mark-to-market margin or other
payments in respect of such account would be subject to a percentage
haircut, based on the incoming mark-to-market margin from other
Clearing Members. ICE Clear Europe would determine haircuts
independently on each day of reduced gains distribution for CDS
Contracts and would apply them separately for each margin account for
each Contributor.
    The proposed rule change would also make changes to Rule 914(i) to
clarify the obligations of the Clearing House upon termination of
reduced gains distribution, as well as certain clarifications to the
provisions in Rule 914(i) as they apply to F&O Contracts. Moreover, a
related proposed amendment to Rule 906(a) would clarify that the
calculation of a net sum on default would treat the payment or return
of variation margin or mark-to-market margin as having been
successfully and fully made even if reduced gains distributions have
been applied, and therefore the defaulter would not pay or receive such
variation margin or mark-to-market margin in the net sum on default.
vii. Recoveries From Defaulting Clearing Members
    The proposed rule change would add to Rule 907 a new subsection
(c), which would address the Clearing House's authority to seek
recoveries from a defaulting Clearing Member on its own behalf and on
behalf of Clearing Members, including through setoff or legal
process.\12\ The proposed rule change would also revise Rule 907 to
state ICE Clear Europe's obligations with respect to seeking recoveries
from a defaulting Clearing Member where the Guaranty Fund Contributions
of non-defaulting Clearing Member have been applied, and provide that
in such case ICE Clear Europe will exercise the same degree of care in
enforcement and collection of any claims against the defaulter as it
exercises with respect to its own assets that are not subject to
allocation to Clearing Members and others. The proposed rule change
would also remove certain contrary provisions of the Rules to the
effect that ICE Clear Europe has no obligation to pursue recoveries
from defaulters, such as existing Rule 914(m).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Notice, 84 FR at 22533.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

viii. Delay of Outbound Variation Margin
    The proposed rule change would extend the provisions of existing
Rule 110(f) to the CDS Contract Category.\13\ Rule 110(f) would permit
ICE Clear Europe to delay making a variation margin or mark-to-market
margin payment, solely on an intra-day basis, where a Clearing Member
or Sponsored

Principal has failed to make a corresponding payment to ICE Clear
Europe, and the amount of the failure exceeds the initial or original
margin posted by that Clearing Member or Sponsored Principal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Notice, 84 FR at 22533.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ix. Governance
    The proposed rule change includes a number of revisions that would
specify the required governance provisions that would apply to these
new default management tools.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Notice, 84 FR at 22535.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the CDS Default Auction Procedures, ICE Clear Europe would be
required to consult with its CDS Default Committee as to certain
matters of auction design, including the division of the relevant
portfolio into lots, whether to hold additional auctions, and whether
to accept a partial fill of any lot in any such auction. The CDS
Default Committee would be made up of personnel seconded from Clearing
Members, who would be required to act in the best interests of ICE
Clear Europe when acting in their capacity as members of the CDS
Default Committee. The CDS Default Committee would be expected to work
together with, and under the supervision of, the ICE Clear Europe risk
department, and would be supported by ICE Clear Europe legal,
compliance, and other personnel.
    Moreover, based on its existing Board charter and practice, ICE
Clear Europe would expect that key decisions regarding use of the
recovery tools would be made in consultation with the ICE Clear Europe
Board of Directors, which is independent of ICE Clear Europe
management. Specifically, the Board has delegated to the President of
ICE Clear Europe authority to take the relevant steps set out under the
Rules, or to ensure that such steps are taken, upon an Event of Default
with respect to a Clearing Member. Under the terms of delegation, the
President would be required to ensure that the Board is informed of the
relevant circumstances, steps or actions taken, and determinations made
or approvals given, as soon as practicable subsequent to such Event of
Default. The Board would be able to, in its discretion and where
possible and practical, rescind any steps or actions taken or
determinations made or approvals given by the President, or amend such
actions, steps, determinations, or approvals, as the Board determined
appropriate.

B. Clarifications of Guaranty Fund Requirements and Uses

    The proposed rule change would make various clarifications and
conforming changes to the provisions of Rule 908 to address
contributions to and uses of the Guaranty Fund.\15\ The proposed rule
change would also move and reorganize provisions in Rules 909, 910, and
911 as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Notice, 84 FR at 22533-22534.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The proposed rule change would update ICE Clear Europe's
ability to modify the order of application of Guaranty Fund
Contributions under the Auction Procedures to provide for juniorization
based on bidding (Rule 908(i), and conforming cross-references
throughout).
     Proposed revisions to Rule 909 would specify a single
Powers of Assessment for all Contract Categories, eliminating
inconsistencies across the default rules for different products. The
proposed rule change would make various deletions and insertions to
remove duplication among the three Contract Categories. In addition,
the proposed rule change would remove as unnecessary a certification
requirement in connection with the application of claims under any
default insurance policies for F&O Contracts (Rules 909-911).
     Proposed Rule 909(a) would permit assessments for CDS
Contracts to be called in anticipation of any charge against the CDS
Guaranty Fund following a default, rather than only after such a
charge. This proposed change would be consistent with the current
treatment of assessments for F&O Contracts.
     The proposed rule change would make certain changes
throughout Part 11 of the Rules to align the process for return of
Guaranty Fund Contributions following termination of Clearing
Membership across all Contract Categories, align the Guaranty Fund
Contribution calculation methodology across all Contract Categories,
and to clarify that separate Guaranty Fund Contribution amounts
calculated in respect of Proprietary and Customer positions could be
applied across any type of account. The proposed rule change would
modify Rule 1101(e) to better reflect current practice for the
calculation of Guaranty Fund Contributions. Finally, the proposed rule
change would delete Rule 1102(n) and merge its content into Rule
1102(m).

C. Cooling-Off Period, Withdrawal, and Termination for CDS Contracts

i. Cooling-Off Period
    The proposed rule change would modify the Cooling-off Period
concept in Rule 917 to apply it to CDS Contracts, adjust the
calculation of the relevant cap on contributions for all Contract
Categories, and reduce the length of the Cooling-off Period.\16\ Under
the proposed rule change, certain calls for assessments for the
relevant Contract Category, or a sequential Guaranty Fund depletion in
the relevant Contract Category within a specified period, would trigger
a Cooling-off Period. The proposed rule change would reduce the base
length of the Cooling-off Period from 30 Business Days to 30 calendar
days in order to balance the goals of limited liability and certainty
for Clearing Members with the need for the Clearing House to restore
normal operations following recovery as quickly as possible. As under
the current Rules, a Cooling-off Period could be extended as a result
of subsequent defaults during the period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Notice, 84 FR at 22534.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 917(b) would also be revised to provide that the ``3x'' cap on
relevant contributions during a Cooling-off Period would apply to both
Assessment Contribution and replenishments of the Relevant Guaranty
Fund, in the aggregate, regardless of the number of defaults during the
period. The cap would be based on a Clearing Member's individual
Guaranty Fund Contribution immediately prior to the default that
triggered the Cooling-off Period. Moreover, under the proposed rule
change, the existing single-default cap on Assessment Contributions
under Rule 909 would continue to apply in a Cooling-off Period, as set
out in Rule 917(b)(iii). The proposed rule change would also allow ICE
Clear Europe to rebalance, reset, and recalculate the Relevant Guaranty
Fund during the Cooling-off Period, but such changes would not affect
the aggregate 3x contribution limit. Finally, under proposed Rule
917(e), the proposed cap would not affect ICE Clear Europe's right to
call for margin from a Clearing Member.
ii. Clearing Member Withdrawal
    The proposed rule change would make certain changes to existing
Rules 209, 917, and 918, which currently apply only to F&O and FX
Clearing Members, and apply them to the CDS Contract Category as well,
such that these rules would apply to all ICE Clear Europe Clearing
Members and Sponsored Principals.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Notice, 84 FR at 22534.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, under revised Rule 917(c), CDS Clearing Members (like
other Clearing Members) and Sponsored Principals would be able to
withdraw from ICE Clear Europe during a Cooling-

off Period by providing an irrevocable notice of withdrawal \18\ in the
first 10 business days of the period (subject to extension in certain
cases if the Cooling-off Period is extended). CDS Clearing Members
could withdraw from ICE Clear Europe at other times by notice to ICE
Clear Europe under Rule 209(c). Under Rule 209(d), however, a CDS
Clearing Member that seeks to withdraw other than during the first 10
business days of a Cooling-off Period could, at the direction of ICE
Clear Europe, be required to make a deposit of up to three times the
CDS Clearing Member's required Guaranty Fund Contribution (this
provision already applies to F&O Clearing Members). This increased
deposit requirement is intended to provide assurance that the
withdrawing Clearing Member would continue to meet its obligations in
respect of defaults and potential defaults before its withdrawal would
be effective, and thus reduce the potentially destabilizing effect that
a Clearing Member withdrawal (or a series of withdrawals) could have on
the Clearing House during a stressed situation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Pursuant to Rule 918(c), membership could only be
reinstated pursuant to a new application for membership following
the close-out of all of the relevant Clearing Member's open
Contracts of the Relevant Contract Category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with existing Rule 918's application to F&O and FX
Clearing Members, a CDS Clearing Member's withdrawal under proposed
revised Rule 918 would not be effective until the CDS Clearing Member
closed out all outstanding positions and satisfied any related
obligations. Further, a withdrawing CDS Clearing Member would remain
liable under Rule 918 with respect to charges and assessments resulting
from defaults that occurred before such time.
iii. Clearing Service Termination
    The proposed rule change would extend the existing provisions of
Rules 105(c), 912, and 916, which currently apply only to the F&O and
FX Contract Categories and provide for full clearing service
termination for one or more of those specific Contract Categories, such
that they would apply to the CDS Contract Category as well.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Notice, 84 FR at 22534-22535.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, Rule 105(c) would apply where ICE Clear Europe
determines to cease acting as a Clearing House, whether generally or in
relation to a particular class of Contracts. It would provide for the
application of the procedures and terms in specified sections of Rule
918 to effect termination of the relevant contracts, including the
timing of termination and the determination of the termination price.
    Rule 912 would permit ICE Clear Europe to terminate upon events
such as a clearing house insolvency and failure to pay.
    Rule 916 would apply where ICE Clear Europe determines to terminate
an entire Contract Category in certain circumstances following an Event
of Default, including where there has been an Under-priced Auction or
the Clearing House otherwise does not believe it will have sufficient
assets to perform its obligations in respect of that Contract Category.

D. Additional Changes

    The proposed rule change would also make certain drafting
improvements and updates, clarifications, and conforming changes to the
Rules.\20\ In particular, the proposed rule change would revise Rule
101 to add new defined terms that are used in the changes and
amendments discussed above. The proposed rule change would also revise
Rule 101 to include, for clarity, additional cross-references to
various terms that are defined in other parts of the Rules. The
proposed rule change would also make other updates to definitions and
cross-references throughout the Rules, including in Parts 4 and 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Notice, 84 FR at 22535.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would make certain other conforming
changes throughout the Rules to reflect the new default management
tools and provisions discussed above, as well as related defined terms.
Specifically, the proposed rule change would amend Rule 903(d) to align
treatment of automatic default termination provisions for all Contract
Categories; revise Rule 906 to clarify that certain amounts payable to
Clearing Members in respect of Guaranty Fund Contributions,
assessments, reduced gains distribution, partial tear-up, and
collateral offset obligations would be taken into account in that
component of the net sum calculation; and add to Rule 918(a)(viii) a
cross-reference to the relevant Settlement Finality Regulations. The
proposed rule change also would make certain minor clarifications and
conforming updates in Part 12, designed to ensure consistency with the
changes described above. The proposed rule change would also amend Rule
1901(k) to provide that Sponsored Principals could be required to
participate in Default Auctions. Finally, the proposed rule change
would make certain other typographical and cross-reference corrections
throughout the Rules, and would amend ICE Clear Europe's Clearing
Procedures to reflect the renaming of ICE Clear Europe's risk model.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange 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 Exchange Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to such organization.\21\ After carefully
considering the proposed rule change, the Commission believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to ICE
Clear Europe. More specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act
\22\ and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(1), (e)(2)(i), (iii), and (v), (e)(4)(viii)
and (ix), (e)(13), and (e)(23)(i) and (ii) thereunder.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(1), (e)(2)(i), (iii), and (v),
(e)(4)(viii) and (ix), (e)(13), and (e)(23)(i) and (ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act requires that the rules of
a clearing agency be designed to, among other things, promote the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions, assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are
in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is
responsible, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, ICE Clear Europe maintains equal and opposite
obligations on cleared positions (commonly referred to as a matched
book). In an extreme loss event caused by a Clearing Member default,
re-establishing a matched book as quickly as possible is essential
because it would allow ICE Clear Europe to continue clearing and
settling securities transactions as a central counterparty. In
addition, allocating uncovered losses is important in such an event
because it would allow ICE Clear Europe to provide further certainty to
Clearing Members, their customers, and other stakeholders about how it
addresses such losses and how it avoids a disorderly resolution to such
an event. Thus, taken together, the Commission believes that the new
and amended

authority granted to ICE Clear Europe specific to the context of
extreme loss events described above, such as the conduct of default
auctions and the use of partial tear-up, should enhance ICE Clear
Europe's ability to re-establish a matched book, allocate uncovered
losses if necessary, and limit ICE Clear Europe's potential exposure to
losses from such an event, all of which would be essential to ICE Clear
Europe's ability to continue to promptly and accurately clear and
settle securities transactions in the event that an extreme market
event places ICE Clear Europe in a recovery scenario.
    Further, the Commission believes that the proposed changes would
provide a reasonable amount of clarity and specificity to Clearing
Members, their customers, and other stakeholders about the potential
tools that would be expected to be available to ICE Clear Europe if
such an event occurred, and the consequences that might arise from ICE
Clear Europe's application of such tools. Specifically, the Commission
believes the removal of forced allocation as a default management tool
would provide certainty that non-defaulting Clearing Members would not
be required to take on positions in a defaulting Clearing Member's
portfolio that could result in unpredictable and unquantifiable
liability. Similarly, the Commission believes the CDS Default Auction
Procedures would provide certainty regarding the conduct of initial and
secondary auctions and the use, and possible juniorization, of Guaranty
Fund and Assessment Contributions based on participation in such
auctions. Moreover, the Commission believes the proposed clarification
of ICE Clear Europe's obligations with respect to seeking recoveries
from a defaulting Clearing Member where the Guaranty Fund Contributions
of non-defaulting Clearing Member have been applied would provide
Clearing Members with certainty that ICE Clear Europe would exercise
the same degree of care in enforcement and collection of any claims
against the defaulter as it would exercise with respect to its own
assets. The Commission also believes the proposed clarification
regarding the return of Guaranty Fund Contributions following
termination of Clearing Membership and the calculation of Guaranty Fund
Contributions across all contract categories would provide Clearing
Members with important information about the use and calculation of the
Guaranty Fund. In addition, the Commission believes the proposed
application of existing ICE Clear Europe Rules regarding withdrawal by
Clearing Members and termination of clearing services to CDS Contracts
would provide CDS Clearing Members with clarity regarding the process
and requirements for withdrawal from ICE Clear Europe and ICE Clear
Europe's ability to terminate the CDS clearing service in certain
circumstances. Finally, the Commission believes that the proposed rule
change's clarification that certain amounts payable to a defaulting
Clearing Member in respect of that Clearing Member's Guaranty Fund
Contributions, assessments, reduced gains distribution, partial tear-
up, and collateral offset obligations would offset the amount owed by
that Clearing Member upon default would provide greater certainty
regarding amounts owed upon default.
    Because of this increased clarity and specificity, ICE Clear
Europe's Clearing Members, their customers, and other stakeholders
should have more information regarding their potential exposure and
liability to ICE Clear Europe in an extreme loss event. Accordingly,
the Commission believes that the proposed changes should allow Clearing
Members, their customers, and other stakeholders to better evaluate the
risks and benefits of clearing transactions at ICE Clear Europe,
because the proposed changes result in those parties having more
information and specificity regarding the actions that ICE Clear Europe
could take in response to an extreme loss event. To the extent that
Clearing Members, their customers, and other stakeholders are able to
use this increased clarity and specificity to better manage their
potential exposure and liability in clearing transactions at ICE Clear
Europe, such parties should be able to mitigate the likelihood that
such tools could surprise or otherwise destabilize them. For these
reasons, the Commission believes that the proposed rules providing for
such clarity and specificity are designed, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
    It is important for ICE Clear Europe to implement measures that
enhance ICE Clear Europe's ability to address losses and to avoid
threatening its ability to safeguard securities and funds within ICE
Clear Europe's custody or control, including measures designed to
facilitate ICE Clear Europe's ability to address risks and obligations
arising in the specific context of extreme loss events. ICE Clear
Europe's proposed modified assessment powers would impose a cap on a
Clearing Member's potential liability to replenish the Clearing Fund
following a particular default event and extend the timeframe during
which a Clearing Member must determine whether to terminate its
membership and avoid further losses. Similarly, the proposed rule
change would establish a Cooling-off Period, which would cap Clearing
Members' obligations to make Assessment Contributions and replenish the
Relevant Guaranty Fund and would provide Clearing Members the
opportunity to withdraw from the Clearing House. Moreover, ICE Clear
Europe's proposed reduced gains distributions would allow ICE Clear
Europe, in certain circumstances, to reduce payment of variation, or
mark-to-market, gains that would otherwise be owed to Clearing Members.
Similarly, the proposed rule change would, in certain circumstances,
permit ICE Clear Europe to delay payment of variation margin or mark-
to-market margin with respect to CDS Contracts. Taken together, the
Commission believes that these tools are reasonably designed to provide
ICE Clear Europe with sufficient financial resources to cover default
losses and help ensure that ICE Clear Europe can take timely actions to
contain losses in the event of a Clearing Member default. Similarly,
the Commission believes that these changes would provide Clearing
Members and their customers with greater certainty and predictability
regarding the amount of losses they could be required to bear as a
result of a Clearing Member default, which in turn should allow them to
better manage and potentially mitigate or otherwise limit their
potential exposure to such losses. For these reasons, the Commission
believes that the proposed rule change is designed to assure the
safeguarding of securities and funds in ICE Clear Europe's custody or
control.
    Additionally, ICE Clear Europe's proposed authority to conduct
partial tear-ups would provide ICE Clear Europe with a mechanism for
restoring a matched book. The Commission recognizes that a tear-up
would result in termination of positions of non-defaulting Clearing
Members. However, because under the proposed rules ICE Clear Europe
would only be able to use its tear-up authority for CDS Contracts after
it has conducted an Initial Auction and Secondary Auction, both of
which must have failed to eliminate or replace the risk of a
defaulter's open positions before tear-up could be used, the Commission
believes that a partial tear-up would only arise in an extreme stress
scenario. The Commission further believes that that use of tear-up in
such circumstances could potentially return ICE Clear Europe to a
matched book quickly, thereby containing its losses

and avoiding exposing ICE Clear Europe and its Clearing Members to
additional losses. ICE Clear Europe's proposal would also address the
determination of the Partial Tear-Up Price. Specifically, for CDS
Contracts, the Partial Tear-Up Price would equal the market price, as
determined by ICE Clear Europe in accordance with its procedures. The
Commission believes that ICE Clear Europe's proposed authority to
conduct tear-ups could facilitate its ability to return to a matched
book quickly and, in an extreme event, allocate losses. This, in turn,
could help ensure that ICE Clear Europe is able to continue providing
its critical clearing functions by facilitating the timely containment
of default losses and liquidity pressures, thereby helping to prevent
ICE Clear Europe from failing in such an event, and is therefore
consistent with promoting the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions.
    Therefore, the Commission believes that the proposed rule changes
would promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions, assure the safeguarding of securities and
funds in ICE Clear Europe's custody and control, and, in general,
protect investors and the public interest, consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Well-Founded Legal Basis

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1) requires, in relevant part, that ICE Clear
Europe establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to provide for a well-founded, clear,
transparent, and enforceable legal basis for each aspect of its
activities in all relevant jurisdictions.\26\ The Commission believes
that the proposed changes discussed above to: Revise Rule 101 to add
new defined terms, update existing defined terms, and revise cross-
references; revise Rules 903 and 906; update definitions and cross-
references and make other conforming changes throughout the Rules; and
correct typographical errors, are necessary to ensure that the proposed
recovery rules are clear and transparent and operate as intended. The
Commission therefore believes that this aspect of the proposed rule
change would help to ensure that ICE Clear Europe's Rules are well-
founded, clear, and enforceable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the Commission believes that the renaming of ICE Clear
Europe's risk model in the Clearing Procedures would help to ensure
that ICE Clear Europe's procedures are clear and transparent in
referring to the current version of the risk model.
    Accordingly, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change
is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1).\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Governance

    Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i), (iii), and (v) require, in relevant part,
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; support the
public interest requirements of Section 17A of the Exchange Act
applicable to clearing agencies, and the objectives of owners and
participants; and specify clear and direct lines of responsibility.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(i), (iii), and (v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal, taken together with existing ICE Clear Europe
policies, procedures, and practices, specifies the governance
provisions that would apply to ICE Clear Europe's use of each of the
recovery tools set forth in the proposed rule change. Specifically, as
discussed above, ICE Clear Europe's Board has delegated to the
President of ICE Clear Europe authority to take the relevant steps set
out under the Rules, or to ensure that such steps are taken, upon an
Event of Default with respect to a Clearing Member. Under the terms of
delegation, the President would be required to ensure that the Board is
informed of the relevant circumstances, steps, or actions taken and
determinations made or approvals given, as soon as practicable
subsequent to such Event of Default. The Board would be able to, in its
discretion, where possible and practical, rescind any steps or actions
taken or determinations made or approvals given, or amend such actions,
steps, determinations or approvals, as it determined appropriate.
    Because key decisions by ICE Clear Europe in connection with the
use of its proposed recovery tools upon an Event of Default are subject
to specific governance processes, the Commission believes that the
governance process for using the recovery tools is clear and
transparent and provides clear and direct lines of responsibility by
addressing decision making in the use of recovery tools, thereby
supporting the public interest requirements of Section 17A of the
Exchange Act applicable to clearing agencies, and the objectives of
owners and participants, and therefore the Commission believes that the
proposed rule change is consistent with Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i), (iii),
and (v).\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(i), (iii), and (v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Allocation of Credit Losses Exceeding Available Resources and
Replenishment of Financial Resources Following a Default

i. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(viii)
    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(viii) requires, in relevant part, that ICE Clear
Europe establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to address allocation of credit losses
ICE Clear Europe may face if its collateral and other resources are
insufficient to fully cover its credit exposures.\30\ The proposed rule
change includes two new recovery tools that would address the
allocation of credit losses in the event that ICE Clear Europe
determined that, notwithstanding the availability of any remaining
resources under ICE Clear Europe's other resource rules, ICE Clear
Europe may not have sufficient resources to satisfy its obligations and
liabilities following a default. First, proposed revised Rule 909 would
provide a framework for ICE Clear Europe to assess Clearing Members for
additional contributions to the Clearing Fund. Second, proposed new
Rule 915 would provide ICE Clear Europe the ability to conduct a
mandatory partial tear-up of CDS Contracts. This tool could be used if
necessary in the event that one or more Secondary CDS Auctions has
failed to eliminate or replace all remaining risk of the open positions
of a defaulting Clearing Member and any positions ICE Clear Europe
entered into to hedge the risks of the open positions of a defaulting
Clearing Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(viii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After due consideration of the record before it, the Commission
believes that these additional recovery tools are reasonably designed
to provide ICE Clear Europe with means to address allocation of credit
losses that it may face if its collateral and other resources are
insufficient to fully cover its credit exposures. Further, the
Commission believes that these tools should enhance ICE Clear Europe's
ability to address fully any credit losses that ICE Clear Europe may
face as a result of any individual or combined default among its
Clearing Members. Therefore, the Commission believes that these aspects
of the proposed changes are consistent with Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(4)(viii).\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(viii).

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

ii. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(ix)
    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(ix) requires, in relevant part, that ICE Clear
Europe establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to describe ICE Clear Europe's process
to replenish any financial resources it may use following a default or
other event in which use of resources is contemplated.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(ix).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes to ICE Clear Europe's assessment powers would
produce in Rule 909 a single assessment rule for all categories of
contracts cleared by ICE Clear Europe, thus eliminating inconsistencies
across the default rules for different products. The proposed rule
change would also permit assessments for CDS Contracts to be called in
anticipation of any charge against the CDS Guaranty Fund following a
default, rather than only after such a charge, consistent with the
current treatment of assessments for F&O Contracts.
    The proposed rule change would also include a Cooling-off Period
for all categories of contracts cleared by ICE Clear Europe.
Specifically, the proposed rule change would modify the Cooling-off
Period concept in Rule 917 and apply it to CDS Contracts, reduce the
base length of the Cooling-off Period from 30 Business Days to 30
calendar days, and provide that the 3x cap on contributions during a
Cooling-off Period would apply to both Assessment Contributions and
replenishments of the Relevant Guaranty Fund, in the aggregate,
regardless of the number of defaults during the period. Moreover, under
the proposed rule change, the existing single-default cap on Assessment
Contributions under Rule 909 would continue to apply in a Cooling-off
Period, as set out in Rule 917(b)(iii). Finally, under the proposed
rule change, a Cooling-off Period would be triggered by certain calls
for assessments for the relevant Contract Category or by sequential
Guaranty Fund depletion in the relevant Contract Category within a
specified period.
    The Commission recognizes that by placing a cap on its assessment
power during the Cooling-off Period, these revisions would effectively
limit the amount of financial resources available to ICE Clear Europe
from its Clearing Fund during that period. However, the Commission
believes that it is appropriate for ICE Clear Europe to attempt to
balance its need to maximize available financial resources with
Clearing Members' need for certainty and predictability regarding their
potential liability to the Guaranty Fund. Based on the record before
it, the Commission believes that the proposals described above strike
an appropriate balance and would provide greater certainty and
predictability regarding Clearing Members' maximum liability to the
Guaranty Fund. Moreover, Clearing Members that have made the maximum
contribution during a Cooling-off Period would still be required, under
proposed Rule 917(e), to provide additional proprietary initial margin
during the period, which would facilitate ICE Clear Europe's ability to
continue to satisfy its regulatory minimum financial resources
requirements.
    In light of the foregoing discussion, the Commission believes that
the provisions related to ICE Clear Europe's assessment powers, taken
together with the other components of ICE Clear Europe's default
management procedures and recovery rules, are reasonably designed to
allow ICE Clear Europe to replenish its financial resources following a
default or other event in which use of such resources is contemplated,
and therefore are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(ix).\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(ix).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Authority To Take Timely Action To Contain Losses and Liquidity
Demands and Continue To Meet Obligations

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(13) requires, in relevant part, that ICE Clear
Europe establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to ensure that it has the authority and
operational capacity to take timely action to contain losses and
liquidity demands and continue to meet its obligations.\34\ As
described above, the proposed rule change would provide ICE Clear
Europe with a variety of tools designed to help ensure that ICE Clear
Europe is able to meet this requirement, including new CDS Default
Auction Procedures, modified assessment powers, partial tear-ups,
reduced gains distributions, and delay of outbound margin. The
Commission believes that the new CDS Default Auction Procedures would
provide ICE Clear Europe a means of containing the potential losses
associated with a defaulting Clearing Member's open positions by
providing ICE Clear Europe the ability to auction off a defaulting
Clearing Member's portfolio. Similarly, the Commission believes that
the modified assessment powers and partial tear-ups would provide ICE
Clear Europe a mechanism for eliminating potential losses by allowing
ICE Clear Europe to seek additional resources to cover losses and
eliminate any positions of a defaulter remaining after an auction.
Finally, the Commission believes that reduced gains distributions and
delay of outbound margin would allow ICE Clear Europe to eliminate
losses and respond to liquidity demands arising from a Clearing
Member's default by eliminating or delaying payment of variation or
mark-to-market margin. Thus, the Commission believes that these tools,
taken together, would provide ICE Clear Europe the authority and
operational capacity to take timely action to contain losses and
liquidity demands and continue to meet its obligations, consistent with
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission recognizes that a partial tear-up would result in
termination of positions of non-defaulting Clearing Members. However,
because ICE Clear Europe would only be able to use its partial tear-up
authority after one or more unsuccessful Initial and Secondary CDS
Auctions have failed to eliminate or replace all remaining risk of the
open positions of a defaulting Clearing Member and any positions ICE
Clear Europe entered into to hedge the risks of the open positions of a
defaulting Clearing Member, the Commission believes that a tear-up
would only arise in an extreme stress scenario. Further, use of tear-up
in such circumstances could potentially return ICE Clear Europe to a
matched book quickly, thereby containing its losses.
    Similarly, the Commission recognizes that reduced gains
distributions would result in some Clearing Members not receiving
market gains on their positions. However, ICE Clear Europe could only
invoke reduced gains distributions in certain limited circumstances
that the Commission believes would most likely only occur in an extreme
stress scenario. For example, for CDS Contracts, the proposed rule
change would only allow ICE Clear Europe to use reduced gains
distribution for CDS Contracts after (i) there has been an unsuccessful
Initial CDS Auction, (ii) ICE Clear Europe has exhausted its remaining
available default resources (including assessment contributions paid so
far), and (iii) ICE Clear Europe has called for assessment
contributions and such contributions have become due and payable.
Similarly, although the proposed rule change would allow ICE Clear
Europe to delay paying variation margin or mark-to-market margin with
respect to CDS Contracts, the Commission believes this tool as well
would only be invoked in an extreme stress scenario because ICE

Clear Europe would only be permitted to delay paying variation margin
or mark-to-market margin on an intra-day basis and only where (i) a
Clearing Member has failed to make a corresponding payment to ICE Clear
Europe and (ii) the amount of the failure exceeds the initial or
original margin posted by that Clearing Member.
    Taken together, the Commission believes that these tools are
designed to provide greater certainty to Clearing Members seeking to
estimate the potential risks and losses arising from their use of ICE
Clear Europe, while enabling ICE Clear Europe to promptly return to a
matched book in an extreme loss event caused by a Clearing Member
default. The Commission believes that returning to a matched book
pursuant to these provisions in the context of ICE Clear Europe's
default management and recovery facilitates ICE Clear Europe's
operational capacity to timely contain losses and liquidity demands
while continuing to meet its obligations. Thus, the Commission believes
that the proposed changes are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(13).\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Public Disclosure of Key Aspects of Default Rules

    Rules 17Ad-22(e)(23)(i) and (ii) require, in relevant part, that
ICE Clear Europe establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide for the public
disclosure of all relevant rules and material procedures, including key
aspects of default rules and procedures, as well as sufficient
information to enable participants to identify and evaluate the risks,
fees, and other material costs they incur by participating in ICE Clear
Europe.\36\ The Commission believes that the proposed changes enhance
key aspects of ICE Clear Europe's default rules and procedures, thereby
providing Clearing Members with a better understanding of the potential
risks and costs they might face in an extreme event where ICE Clear
Europe may use its proposed recovery tools, including the potential use
of partial tear-up and reduced gains distributions, and the
circumstances in which Clearing Members may withdraw from ICE Clear
Europe or ICE Clear Europe may terminate a clearing service.
Accordingly, the Commission believes that ICE Clear Europe has
disclosed these key aspects of its default rules and procedures,
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(i) and (ii).\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(23)(i) and (ii).
    \37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Act.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ICEEU-2019-003 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-2019-003. 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, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, 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-2019-003 and should be
submitted on or before July 29, 2019.

V. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1

    The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act,\38\ to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, prior to the 30th day after the publication of notice
of Amendment No. 1 in the Federal Register. As discussed above, ICE
Clear Europe filed Amendment No. 1 to add a confidential Exhibit 3 to
the filing associated with the proposed rule change. Amendment No. 1
did not make any changes to the substance of the filing or the text of
the proposed rule change, nor did it raise any novel regulatory issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause for approving the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated
basis, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and in
particular, with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
\40\ and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(1), (e)(2)(i), (iii), and (v), (e)(4)(viii)
and (ix), (e)(13), and (e)(23)(i) and (ii) thereunder.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \41\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(1), (e)(2)(i), (iii), and (v),
(e)(4)(viii) and (ix), (e)(13), and (e)(23)(i) and (ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\42\ that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1 (SR-
ICEEU-2019-003), be, and hereby is, approved on an accelerated
basis.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \43\ 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.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-14403 Filed 7-5-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


MARITIME INDUSTRY – Ventilation for Welding, Cutting and  Torch
Heating in Shipyard Employment, 29 CFR 1915

Ventilation Requirements

In the ship repairing, shipbuilding, and shipbreaking industries,
welding, cutting, and burning operations must be provided with
mechanical exhaust ventilation.  Mechanical exhaust ventilation can be
accomplished by providing either local exhaust ventilation or dilution
ventilation. (Possibly include definitions of local exhaust and dilution
ventilation or photos or diagrams)

Local exhaust ventilation must consist of freely movable hoods intended
to be placed by the welder or burner as close to the work as
practicable.  The hood should be provided with a flange that provides a
barrier to unwanted air flow from behind the hood.  Use of a flange can
achieve either of two positive effects.  It can decrease the volumetric
flow rate required to achieve a given capture velocity at a given point,
or it can increase the velocity achieved by a given flow rate at a given
point.

Unlike dilution ventilation, local exhaust ventilation captures and
removes air contaminants at their source before they are dispersed in
the workplace environment.  The system must be of sufficient capacity
and so arranged as to remove fumes and smoke at the source and keep the
concentration of them in the breathing zone within safe limits.
Contaminated air exhausted from a working space must be discharged to
the open air, or otherwise clear of the source of intake air.  In
addition, exhaust openings should be located as close as possible to the
source producing the contamination.

Dilution ventilation must be of sufficient capacity and so designed to
maintain welding fumes and smoke within safe limits.  Dilution
ventilation refers to the dilution of contaminated air with clean air.
This technique dilutes airborne contaminants by circulating large
quantities of air into and out of the work area.

When using dilution ventilation, there are several points to keep in
mind.  To keep contaminants out of the breathing zone of the worker and
reduce the level of air contamination, the fresh air supplied to the
workspace should first pass through the worker’s breathing zone, then
across the workspace where the contaminants are generated and into the
exhaust system as rapidly as possible.

The amount of dilution ventilation depends on several factors:

the size of the space in which welding or cutting is done, especially
the height of the overhead;

the total number of employees performing hot work within the space

the hazardous chemical or physical agents produced by the welding or
cutting.

Oxygen must not be used for ventilation, comfort cooling, or blowing
dust or dirt from clothing, or for cleaning the work area.

Welding, Cutting, or Heating of Metals in Confined Spaces

Either local exhaust ventilation or mechanical dilution ventilation, as
described above, must be provided whenever, welding, cutting, or torch
heating is performed in a confined space.  If sufficient ventilation
cannot be obtained without blocking the access, employees in the
confined space must be protected by airline respirators, and an employee
on the outside of the confined space must be assigned to maintain
communication with those working within it and to aid them in an
emergency.

Welding, Cutting, or Heating of Metals of Toxic Significance in Enclosed
Spaces

Welding, cutting or (torch) heating in any enclosed space on a vessel,
or vessel section involving the metals specified below must be performed
with either local exhaust or mechanical dilution ventilation that
ensures that employees are not exposed to hazardous levels of air
contaminants:

zinc-bearing base or filler metals, or metals coated with zinc-bearing
materials;

lead based metals

cadmium-bearing filler materials; and

chromium-bearing metals, or metals coated with chromium-bearing
materials.

(PCB impregnated materials)

When employees weld, cut, or torch heat any of the following materials
in an enclosed space in a vessel or vessel section, they must either be
provided with local exhaust ventilation, or protected by airline
respirators.

metals containing lead, other than as an impurity, or metals coated with
lead-bearing materials;

cadmium-bearing or cadmium coated base metals;

metals coated with mercury-bearing metals; and

beryllium-containing base or filler metals.  Note: Because of its high
toxicity, work involving beryllium must be done with both local exhaust
ventilation and airline respirators in an enclosed space.

Welding, Cutting, or Heating of Metals of Toxic Significance in the Open
Air

Employees working on the materials listed above in the open air must be
protected by filter type respirators.  Employees performing such
operations on beryllium-containing base or filler metals must be
protected by airline respirators, in accordance with the requirements of
§1910.134 on respiratory protection. (Any other materials?)  Other
employees exposed to the same atmosphere as the welders or burners must
be protected in the same manner as the welder or burner.

Inert-Gas, Metal-Arc Welding in Enclosed or Confined Spaces

When inert-gas metal-arc welding is being performed on stainless steel,
local exhaust ventilation must be provided that consists of freely
movable hoods intended to be placed by the welder or burner as close to
the work as practicable, or the employees must be protected by airline
respirators,  in accordance with the requirements of §1910.134 on
respiratory protection.  These requirements are designed to protect
against dangerous concentrations of nitrogen dioxide that can
potentially be generated.

General Welding, Cutting, and Heating

Welding, cutting and heating not involving the conditions or the
materials described above may normally be done without mechanical
exhaust ventilation or respiratory protective equipment.  However, where
unusual physical or atmospheric conditions create an unsafe accumulation
of contaminants, suitable mechanical ventilation, or respiratory
protective equipment must be provided.

Recommendation: Add pictures to the document.


[Federal Register: August 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 158)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 46009-46010]
[DOCID:fr16au07-37]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL-8455-8]

Louisiana: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste
Management Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The State of Louisiana has applied to EPA for Final
Authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant
Final Authorization to the State of Louisiana. In the ``Rules and
Regulations'' section of this Federal Register, EPA is authorizing the
changes by an immediate final rule. EPA did not make a proposal prior
to the immediate final rule because we believe this action is not
controversial and do not expect comments that oppose it. We have
explained the reasons for this authorization in the preamble to the
immediate final rule. Unless we get written comments which oppose this
authorization during the comment period, the immediate final rule will
become effective on the date it establishes, and we will not take
further action on this proposal. If we receive comments that oppose
this action, we will withdraw the immediate final rule and it will not
take effect. We will then respond to public comments in a later final
rule based on this proposal. You may not have another opportunity for
comment. If you want to comment on this action, you must do so at this
time.

DATES: Send your written comments by September 17, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional

Authorization Coordinator (6PD-O), Multimedia Planning and Permitting
Division, at the address shown below. You can examine copies of the
materials submitted by the State of Louisiana during normal business
hours at the following locations: EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, phone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality, 602 N. Fifth Street, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana 70884-2178, phone number<PHONE_NUMBER>. Comments may also be
submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier; please
follow the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the
immediate final rule which is located in the Rules section of this
Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alima Patterson<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, please see the
immediate final rule published in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section
of this Federal Register.

    Dated: July 25, 2007.
Lawrence E. Starfield,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 07-4000 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P