[Federal Register: October 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 201)]
[Notices]
[Page 59088-59090]
[DOCID:fr18oc07-41]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0048; FRL-8152-2]

Amitraz; Notice of Receipt of Request to Voluntarily Cancel Uses
of Amitraz Pesticide Registrations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 6(f)(1) of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended, EPA is issuing a
notice of receipt of requests by the registrant to voluntarily cancel
their registration of Amitraz-Pyriproxyfen Flea and Tick Collar for
Dogs and Puppies 1 product containing the pesticide amitraz.
The requests would not terminate amitraz use in or on dogs via amitraz
impregnated dog collars or terminate the last amitraz products
registered for use in the United States. EPA intends to grant this
request at the close of the comment period for this announcement unless
the Agency receives substantive comments within the comment period that
would merit its further review of the request, or unless the registrant
withdraws their requests within this period. Upon acceptance of this
request, any sale, distribution, or use of products listed in this
notice will be permitted only if such sale, distribution, or use is
consistent with the terms as described in the final order.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 19, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0048, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2004-

0048. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the docket without change and may be made available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The
regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means
EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment
directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced Search,'' then ``Docket

Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the
``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov
website to view the docket index or access available documents.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this
Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amaris Johnson, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

     1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
     ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background on the Receipt of Requests to Cancel and/or Amend
Registrations to Delete Uses

    This notice announces receipt by EPA of a request from the
registrant Virbac to cancel EPA Reg. No. 2382-170. Amitraz is used in
dog collars to treat ticks. In a letter dated July 31, 2006, Virbac
requested EPA cancel EPA Reg. No. 2382-170. The product registration
identified in this notice Table 1. Specifically, Virbac requests
cancellation of EPA Reg. No. 2382-170.

III. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    This notice announces receipt by EPA of a request from a registrant
to cancel one amitraz product registration. The affected product and
the registrant making the request are identified in Tables 1-2 of this
unit.
    Under section 6(f)(1)(A) of FIFRA, registrants may request, at any
time, that their pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to
terminate one or more pesticide uses. Section 6(f)(1)(B) of FIFRA
requires that before acting on a request for voluntary cancellation,
EPA must provide a 30-day public comment period on the request for
voluntary cancellation or use termination. In addition, section
6(f)(1)(C) of FIFRA requires that EPA provide a 180-day comment period
on a request for voluntary cancellation or termination of any minor
agricultural use before granting the request, unless:
    1. The registrant requests a waiver of the comment period, or
    2. The Administrator determines that continued use of the pesticide
would pose an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment.
    The amitraz registrant has requested that EPA waive the 180-day
comment period. EPA will provide a 30-day comment period on the
proposed request.
    Unless a request is withdrawn by the registrant within 30 days of
publication of this notice, or if the Agency determines that there are
substantive

comments that warrant further review of this request, an order will be
issued canceling the affected registration.

    Table 1.--Amitraz Product Registration with Pending Requests for
                              Cancellation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Registration Number           Product Name           Company
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2382-170                          Amitraz-            Virbac
                                   Pyriproxyfen Flea
                                   and Tick Collar
                                   for Dogs and
                                   Puppies < greek-
                                   i>1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 of this unit includes the name and address of record for
the registrant of the products listed in Table 1 of this unit.

 Table 2. --Registrant Requesting Voluntary Cancellation and Amendments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            EPA Company Number                Company Name and Address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2382                                        Virbac, 3200 Meacham Blvd.,
                                             Fort Worth, TX 76137
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide
product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations
be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further
provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice
of receipt of any such request in the Federal Register. Thereafter,
following the public comment period, the Administrator may approve such
a request.

V. Procedures for Withdrawal of Request and Considerations for
Reregistration of Amitraz

    Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for cancellation must
submit such withdrawal in writing to the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, postmarked before November 19, 2007. This
written withdrawal of the request for cancellation will apply only to
the applicable FIFRA section 6(f)(1) request listed in this notice. If
the products(s) have been subject to a previous cancellation action,
the effective date of cancellation and all other provisions of any
earlier cancellation action are controlling.

VI. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks

    Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products
which are currently in the United States and which were packaged,
labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the
cancellation action.
    In any order issued in response to this request for voluntary
cancellation, the Agency proposes to allow Virbac to ship, sell and
distribute their Amitraz-Pyriproxyfen Flea and Tick Collar for Dogs and
Puppies 1 (EPA Reg. No. 2382-170) for 12 months after
publication of the cancellation order.
    If the request for voluntary cancellation is granted as discussed
in this unit, the Agency intends to issue a cancellation order that
will allow persons other than the registrant to continue to sell and/or
use existing stocks of cancelled products until such stocks are
exhausted, provided that such use is consistent with the terms of the
previously approved labeling on, or that accompanied, the cancelled
product. The order will specifically prohibit any use of existing
stocks that is not consistent with such previously approved labeling.
If, as the Agency currently intends, the final cancellation order
contains the existing stocks provision just described, the order will
be sent only to the affected registrants of the cancelled products. If
the Agency determines that the final cancellation order should contain
existing stocks provisions different than the ones just described, the
Agency will publish the cancellation order in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: October 4, 2007.
Steven Bradbury,
Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E7-20440 Filed 10-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 236 (Wednesday, December 9, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76383-76384]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30753]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Parts 730, 734, 736, 742, 744, and 745

[Docket No. 151123999-5999-01]
RIN 0694-AG78

Updated Statements of Legal Authority for the Export
Administration Regulations

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule updates the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) legal
authority citations in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to
cite the most recent Presidential notice continuing an emergency
declared pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
This is a non-substantive rule that only updates authority paragraphs
of the EAR. It does not alter any right, obligation or prohibition that
applies to any person under the EAR.

DATES: The rule is effective December 9, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Arvin, Regulatory Policy
Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The authority for parts 730, 734, 736, 742, 744, and 745 of the EAR
rests, in part, on Executive Order 12938 of November 14, 1994--
Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994
Comp., p. 950 and on annual notices continuing the emergency declared
in that executive order. This rule revises the authority citations for
the affected parts to cite the most recent such notice, which the
President signed on November 12, 2015.
    This rule is purely non-substantive, and makes no changes other
than to revise CFR authority citations for the purpose of making the
authority citations current. It does not change the text of any section
of the EAR, nor does it alter any right, obligation or prohibition that
applies to any person under the EAR.

Rulemaking Requirements

    1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). This rule
does not impose any regulatory burden on the public and is consistent
with the goals of Executive Order 13563. This rule has been determined
to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently
valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This rule
does not involve any collection of information.
    3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications
as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132.
    4. The Department finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B) to waive the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act
requiring prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because
they are unnecessary. This rule only updates legal authority citations.
It clarifies information and is non-discretionary. This rule does not
alter any right, obligation or prohibition that applies to any person
under the EAR. Because these revisions are not substantive changes, it
is unnecessary to provide notice and opportunity for public comment. In
addition, the 30-day delay in effectiveness otherwise required by 5
U.S.C. 553(d) is not applicable because this rule is not a substantive
rule. Because neither the Administrative Procedure Act nor any other
law requires that notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for
public comment be given for this rule, the analytical requirements of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are not
applicable. Accordingly, no Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is required
and none has been prepared.

List of Subjects

15 CFR Part 730

    Administrative practice and procedure, Advisory committees,
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Strategic and
critical materials.

15 CFR Part 734

    Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Inventions and
patents, Research, Science and technology.

15 CFR Part 736

    Exports.

15 CFR Part 742

    Exports, Terrorism.

15 CFR Part 744

    Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.

15 CFR Part 745

    Administrative practice and procedure, Chemicals, Exports, Foreign
trade, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, parts 730, 734, 736, 742, 744, and 745 of the EAR (15
CFR parts 730-774) are amended as follows:

PART 730--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 730 is revised to read as
follows:

    Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.;
10 U.S.C. 7420; 10 U.S.C. 7430(e); 22 U.S.C. 287c; 22 U.S.C. 2151
note; 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6004; 30 U.S.C. 185(s),
185(u); 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 42 U.S.C. 6212; 43 U.S.C. 1354; 15 U.S.C.
1824a; 50 U.S.C. app. 5; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210;
E.O. 11912, 41 FR 15825, 3 CFR, 1976 Comp., p. 114; E.O. 12002, 42
FR 35623, 3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p. 133; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 20947, 3 CFR,
1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12214, 45 FR 29783, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p.
256; E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 608; E.O. 12854,
58 FR 36587, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12918, 59 FR 28205, 3
CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 899; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp.,
p. 950; E.O. 12947, 60 FR 5079, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 356; E.O.
12981, 60 FR 62981, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 419; E.O. 13020, 61 FR
54079, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 219; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR,
1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13099, 63 FR 45167, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p.
208; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 13224,
66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786; E.O. 13338, 69 FR 26751, 3
CFR, 2004 Comp., p 168; E.O. 13637, 78 FR 16129, 3 CFR, 2014 Comp.,
p. 223; Notice of January 21, 2015, 80 FR 3461 (January 22, 2015);
Notice of May 6, 2015, 80 FR 26815 (May 8, 2015); Notice of August
7, 2015, 80 FR 48233 (August 11, 2015); Notice of September 18,
2015, 80 FR 57281 (September 22, 2015); Notice of November 12, 2015,
80 FR 70667 (November 13, 2015).

PART 734--[AMENDED]

0
2. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 734 is revised to read as
follows:

    Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.;
E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 13020, 61
FR 54079, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 219; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR,
1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p.
783; E.O. 13637, 78 FR 16129, 3 CFR, 2014 Comp., p. 223; Notice of
August 7, 2015, 80 FR 48233 (August 11, 2015); Notice of November
12, 2015, 80 FR 70667 (November 13, 2015).

PART 736--[AMENDED]

0
3. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 736 is revised to read as
follows:

    Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.;
22 U.S.C. 2151 note; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p.
950; E.O. 13020, 61 FR 54079, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 219; E.O. 13026,
61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3
CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 13338, 69 FR 26751, 3 CFR, 2004 Comp.,
p. 168; Notice of May 6, 2015, 80 FR 26815 (May 8, 2015); Notice of
August 7, 2015, 80 FR 48233 (August 11, 2015); Notice of November
12, 2015, 80 FR 70667 (November 13, 2015).

PART 742--[AMENDED]

0
4. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 742 is revised to read as
follows:

    Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.;
22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22
U.S.C. 7210; Sec. 1503, Pub. L. 108-11, 117 Stat. 559; E.O. 12058,
43 FR 20947, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3
CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 608; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp.,
p. 950; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O.
13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Presidential
Determination 2003-23, 68 FR 26459, 3 CFR, 2004 Comp., p. 320;
Notice of August 7, 2015, 80 FR 48233 (August 11, 2015); Notice of
November 12, 2015, 80 FR 70667 (November 13, 2015).

PART 744--[AMENDED]

0
5. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 744 is revised to read as
follows:

    Authority:  50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.;
22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22
U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 20947, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 179;
E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 608; E.O. 12938, 59
FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 12947, 60 FR 5079, 3 CFR,
1995 Comp., p. 356; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p.
228; E.O. 13099, 63 FR 45167, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 208; E.O. 13222,
66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 13224, 66 FR 49079, 3
CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786; Notice of January 21, 2015, 80 FR 3461
(January 22, 2015); Notice of August 7, 2015, 80 FR 48233 (August
11, 2015); Notice of September 18, 2015, 80 FR 57281 (September 22,
2015); Notice of November 12, 2015, 80 FR 70667 (November 13, 2015).

PART 745--[AMENDED]

0
6. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 745 is revised to read as
follows:

    Authority: 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3
CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; Notice of November 12, 2015, 80 FR 70667
(November 13, 2015).

    Dated: November 30, 2015.
Kevin J. Wolf,
Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-30753 Filed 12-8-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 216 (Friday, November 7, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66302-66305]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26528]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0393; FRL-9918-50]

Acetic Acid Ethenyl Ester, Polymer With Ethane,
Ethenyltriethoxysilane and Sodium Ethenesulfonate (1:1); Tolerance
Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of acetic acid ethenyl ester, polymer with
ethane, ethenyltriethoxysilane and sodium ethenesulfonate (1:1);
minimum number average molecular weight (in amu), 16,200 (CASRN 913187-
38-9); when used as an inert ingredient in a pesticide chemical
formulation. Celanese, Ltd. submitted a petition to EPA under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the
need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of acetic
acid ethenyl ester, polymer with ethane, ethenyltriethoxysilane and
sodium ethenesulfonate (1:1); on food or feed commodities.

DATES: This regulation is effective November 7, 2014. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before January 6, 2015,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0393, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lewis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. Can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0393 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
January 6, 2015. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0393, by one of
the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of August 1, 2014 (Vol. 79 FR 44732) (FRL-
9911-67), EPA issued a notice pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C.
346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (IN-10689) filed
by Celanese Ltd, 222 W. Las Colinas Blvd., Suite 900 N, Irving, TX
75039. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by
establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of acetic acid ethenyl ester, polymer with ethane,
ethenyltriethoxysilane and sodium ethenesulfonate (1:1). That notice
included a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner and
solicited comments on the petitioner's request. The Agency did not
receive any comments.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and use in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance and to ``ensure that there is a

reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children
from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . .'' and
specifies factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.

III. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate
exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable
circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order
to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert
ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in
conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to
determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability
and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children. In the case of certain chemical substances that
are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria
to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no
risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the
exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are
described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). Acetic acid ethenyl ester, polymer with
ethane, ethenyltriethoxysilane and sodium ethenesulfonate (1:1)
conforms to the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and
meets the following criteria that are used to identify low-risk
polymers.
    1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably
anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic
environment.
    2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition
the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
    3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its
composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed
in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
    4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably
anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.
    5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or
reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance
Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
    6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number
average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.
    7. The polymer does not contain certain perfluoroalkyl moieties
consisting of a CF3- or longer chain length as specified in 40 CFR
723.250(d)(6).
    Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following
exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).
    8. The polymer's number average MW is greater than or equal to
10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 2% oligomeric material
below MW 500 and less than 5% oligomeric material below MW 1,000.
    Thus, acetic acid ethenyl ester, polymer with ethane,
ethenyltriethoxysilane and sodium ethenesulfonate (1:1) meets the
criteria for a polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250.
Based on its conformance to the criteria in this unit, no mammalian
toxicity is anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to
acetic acid ethenyl ester, polymer with ethane, ethenyltriethoxysilane
and sodium ethenesulfonate (1:1).

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this
exemption, EPA considered that acetic acid ethenyl ester, polymer with
ethane, ethenyltriethoxysilane and sodium ethenesulfonate (1:1) could
be present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities and
drinking water, and that non-occupational non-dietary exposure was
possible. The number average MW of acetic acid ethenyl ester, polymer
with ethane, ethenyltriethoxysilane and sodium ethenesulfonate (1:1) is
16,200 daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly
absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact
human skin. Since acetic acid ethenyl ester, polymer with ethane,
ethenyltriethoxysilane and sodium ethenesulfonate (1:1) conform to the
criteria that identify a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns for
risks associated with any potential exposure scenarios that are
reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a tolerance is
not necessary to protect the public health.

V. Cumulative Effects From Substances With a Common Mechanism of
Toxicity

    Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency
consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of
a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found acetic acid ethenyl ester, polymer with ethane,
ethenyltriethoxysilane and sodium ethenesulfonate (1:1) to share a
common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and acetic acid
ethenyl ester, polymer with ethane, ethenyltriethoxysilane and sodium
ethenesulfonate (1:1) does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite
produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance
action, therefore, EPA has assumed that acetic acid ethenyl ester,
polymer with ethane, ethenyltriethoxysilane and sodium ethenesulfonate
(1:1) does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

VI. Additional Safety Factor for the Protection of Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes
that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and
children. Due to the expected low toxicity of acetic acid ethenyl
ester, polymer with ethane, ethenyltriethoxysilane and sodium
ethenesulfonate (1:1), EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to
assess the risk. For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety
factor is unnecessary.

VII. Determination of Safety

    Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-
risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no
harm to the

U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate
exposure to residues of acetic acid ethenyl ester, polymer with ethane,
ethenyltriethoxysilane and sodium ethenesulfonate (1:1).

VIII. Other Considerations

A. Existing Exemptions From a Tolerance

    None.

B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

C. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for acetic acid ethenyl ester,
polymer with ethane, ethenyltriethoxysilane and sodium ethenesulfonate
(1:1).

IX. Conclusion

    Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of acetic acid
ethenyl ester, polymer with ethane, ethenyltriethoxysilane and sodium
ethenesulfonate (1:1) from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d)
in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these rules from review under
Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted
from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject
to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it involve any
technical standards that would require Agency consideration of
voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or otherwise have any unique
impacts on local governments. Thus, the Agency has determined that
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule
does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as
described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    Although this action does not require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), EPA seeks to achieve
environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of
any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies. As such, to the extent that information is
publicly available or was submitted in comments to EPA, the Agency
considered whether groups or segments of the population, as a result of
their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical
or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or
environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide discussed in this
document, compared to the general population.

XI. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 30, 2014.
Susan Lewis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.960, alphabetically add the following polymer to the
table to read as follows:

Sec.  [emsp14]180.960  Polymers; exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Polymer                              CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetic acid ethenyl ester, polymer with ethane,              913187-38-9
 ethenyltriethoxysilane and sodium ethenesulfonate
 (1:1); minimum number average molecular weight (in
 amu), 16,200...........................................

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2014-26528 Filed 11-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61060-61065]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27695]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82355; File No. SR-OCC-2017-007]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No.
1, Related to The Options Clearing Corporation's Margin Policy

December 19, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 11, 2017, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by OCC. On December 18, 2017, OCC filed
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\3\ The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, OCC modified a portion of its Margin
Policy to: (i) State that OCC's Board of Directors (``Board'') is
ultimately responsible for annual review and approval of the Policy,
and (ii) correctly cite provisions in OCC's Rules governing its
stock loan program. OCC did not propose any other changes in
Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to formalize and update
OCC's Margin Policy in connection with requirements applicable to OCC
under Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6), which generally requires a covered clearing
agency to have policies and procedures reasonably designed to, among
other things, cover its credit exposures to its participants through
the establishment of a risk-based margin system meeting certain
standards.\4\ The Margin Policy is included as confidential Exhibit 5
of the filing. The policy is being submitted without marking to improve
readability as it is being submitted in its entirety as new rule text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change does not require any changes to the text
of OCC's By-Laws or Rules. All terms with initial capitalization that
are not otherwise defined herein have the same meaning as set forth in
the OCC By-Laws and Rules.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ OCC's By-Laws and Rules can be found on OCC's public
website: http://optionsclearing.com/about/publications/bylaws.jsp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

(1) Purpose
Background
    On September 28, 2016 the Commission adopted amendments to Rule
17Ad-22 \6\ and added new Rule 17Ab2-2 \7\ pursuant to Section 17A of
the Act \8\ and the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act
of 2010 (``Clearing Supervision Act'') \9\ to establish enhanced
standards for the operation and governance of those clearing agencies
registered with the Commission that meet the definition of a ``covered
clearing agency,'' as defined by Rule 17Ad-22(a)(5) \10\ (collectively,
the new and amended rules are herein referred to as ``CCA'' rules). The
CCA rules require that a covered clearing agency, among other things:
``establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to . . . [c]over . . . its credit
exposures to its participants by establishing a risk-based margin
system'' that satisfies certain criteria, including that it produces
margin levels commensurate with the risks of particular products,
collects margin at least daily, collects margin sufficient to cover
exposure between the last margin collection and position closeout, uses
reliable pricing sources, appropriately measures credit exposure and
regularly reviews, tests and verifies its margin methodology.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.17Ab2-2.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \9\ 12 U.S.C. 5461 et seq.
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(a)(5).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC is defined as a covered clearing agency under the CCA rules,
and therefore is subject to the requirements of the CCA rules,
including Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6).\12\ Accordingly, OCC proposes to
formalize its Margin Policy, as described below, to describe its
approach for collecting margin and managing the credit exposures
presented by its Clearing Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Margin Policy
    The purpose of the Margin Policy is to describe OCC's approach for
collecting margin and managing the credit exposure presented by its
Clearing Members, so as to ensure that its margin methodologies are
governed and implemented in a manner that is compliant with Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(6).\13\ The Margin Policy describes, in general:

(i) The treatment of the various types of positions held by Clearing
Members in connection with margin calculations; (ii) OCC's cross-margin
programs with other clearing agencies; (iii) the treatment of
collateral included in margin calculations; (iv) the model assumptions
and market data OCC uses as inputs for its margin calculation
methodologies; (v) OCC's margin calculation methodologies; (vi)
protocols surrounding OCC's exercise of margin calls and adjustments;
and (vii) daily back-testing and model validation that OCC conducts to
measure performance of its margin methodologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Margin Policy is designed to reflect OCC's efforts to provide
for robust internal controls and governance surrounding its margin
methodologies and promote compliance with the CCA rules, in particular
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6),\14\ as informed by the Commission in the adopting
release for the CCA rules.\15\ The Margin Policy is part of a broader
framework, including OCC's By-Laws, Rules and other policies, that is
designed to support the resiliency of OCC by ensuring that it
appropriately sizes margin to market risks.\16\ The key substantive
aspects of the Margin Policy, and how they foster compliance with the
requirements of the CCA rules, are described in greater detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id.
    \15\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78961 (September 28,
2016), 81 FR 70786 (October 13, 2016) (``CCA Adopting Release'').
    \16\ CCA Adopting Release, supra note 14 at 70812 (noting that
the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6) ``further support the
resiliency of a covered clearing agency by requiring the covered
clearing agency to have policies and procedures that are designed to
appropriately size . . . margin to market risks.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Treatment of Various Types of Positions
    The Margin Policy describes the treatment of various types of
positions, originating from different types of market participants, in
connection with OCC's calculation of margin requirements. As specified
in OCC's By-Laws, OCC utilizes different types of Clearing Member
accounts in order to maintain compliance with the relevant Customer
protection and segregation requirements of the Commission and the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC''), which affects how
margin is calculated because of different assumptions regarding how
such accounts or positions would be liquidated in the event of a
Clearing Member default. Taking into account these different types of
products in different types of accounts, with different Clearing Member
liquidation scenarios, enables OCC to set margin requirements
commensurate with the actual risks presented by these positions and
further its compliance with the requirements in Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i)
and (v), which require that a covered clearing agency's policies and
procedures be reasonably designed to establish a risk-based margin
system that takes into account the ``risks and particular attributes of
each relevant product, portfolio, and market'' and use ``an appropriate
method for measuring credit exposure that accounts for relevant product
risk factors and portfolio effects across products.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) and (v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One category of positions addressed in the Margin Policy is long
securities options positions. Under the Margin Policy, these positions
are segregated from a Clearing Member's other positions under the
assumption that such positions are fully paid and pose no additional
risk to OCC, and the Margin Policy explains that a Clearing Member's
segregated long positions are not included as part of its margin
calculation. In addition, Clearing Members' customer segregated futures
accounts are margined separately from Clearing Members' securities and/
or proprietary accounts, and margin for these accounts is calculated on
a gross basis by computing margin requirements for each customer
account independently, and then aggregating the individual margin
calculations to calculate the gross margin required from the Clearing
Member. The Margin Policy further notes that OCC also computes the
margin requirements for customer segregated futures accounts on a net
basis and holds the greater of the net or gross margin requirement.
    As described in the Margin Policy, stock loan/borrow positions are
included as long/short stock positions in margin calculations on a net
basis and may be offset against other positions held in an account.
However, while OCC includes these positions in its risk calculations,
it does not include the net asset value of these positions in its
margin requirement calculations, which allows OCC to maintain financial
resources in a manner that is consistent with the manner in which such
positions would be liquidated during a Clearing Member default. In the
event of such a default, OCC would instruct the non-defaulting Clearing
Member to buy in or sell out of the position, with OCC compensating the
Clearing Member for any difference between last mark and the closeout
price.
Cross-Margining
    The Margin Policy addresses the cross-margin programs that OCC
maintains with other clearinghouses, which affects the calculation of
margin with respect to positions in certain index options, options on
centrally cleared fund shares, and futures and options on futures held
as part of one of the programs, because positions are treated as if
they were held within a single account at OCC. Under Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(6)(v) a covered clearing agency's policies and procedures must be
reasonably designed to establish a risk-based margin system that uses
appropriate margin methods for measuring ``credit exposure . . . and
portfolio effects across products,'' \18\ which the CCA Adopting
Release expressly states should take into consideration cross-margining
arrangements with other clearinghouses.\19\ The Margin Policy's
allowance for offsets in required margin when calculating requirements
for cross-margin products furthers compliance with this CCA rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(v).
    \19\ CCA Adopting Release, supra note 14, at 70819.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Collateral
    To mitigate credit risk exposure, OCC generally requires Clearing
Members to deposit collateral as margin with respect to each account
type on the morning following the trade date. Collateral management is
generally governed by OCC's Collateral Risk Management Policy, but the
Margin Policy does provide a general description of how the use of
deposits in lieu of margin and collateral in margins may affect margin
calculations. This furthers the purpose of Rules 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) and
(v) in that incorporating these elements enables OCC to set margin
requirements commensurate with its actual credit exposure to its
Clearing Members.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) and (v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Margin Policy describes that OCC permits Clearing Members to
make deposits in lieu of margin, which enable them to meet their margin
requirements for securities options by posting escrow or specific
deposits, i.e., typically customer securities that have been fully paid
and that represent the securities deliverable upon assignment of a
short option or a deposit of acceptable collateral equal to the
underlying value or aggregate exercise price of the option being
covered, depending on the type of option. Because these short positions
are fully collateralized, the Margin Policy specifies that OCC does not
include deposits in lieu of margin when calculating margin
requirements.

    The Margin Policy also indicates that OCC's margin methodology
takes into account certain forms of posted margin when calculating a
Clearing Member's margin requirement, a practice OCC refers to as
``collateral in margins.'' OCC computes margin requirements based on a
combination of open positions in cleared contracts and any deposits of
collateral eligible for inclusion in OCC's margin methodologies, e.g.,
stocks, exchange-traded fund securities and eligible government
securities. OCC's margin methodologies also incorporate scenarios that
could exacerbate or mitigate risk exposure as a result of the
collateral type deposited into its margin requirement calculations,
thereby mitigating risk by creating an incentive for Clearing Members
to deposit collateral that hedges their exposures in cleared contracts.
The Margin Policy's recognition of the risk interactions between these
open positions and collateral deposited as margin is consistent with
the requirement of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(v) that a covered clearing
agency's policies and procedures be reasonably designed to establish a
risk-based margin system that takes into account ``portfolio effects
across products'' when measuring credit exposure.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Model Assumptions, Sensitivity Analyses and Market Data
    The Margin Policy has historically specified that OCC performs: (i)
Daily backtesting of each Clearing Member Account, (ii) daily
backtesting of OCC's margin methodology and (iii) monthly review of the
assumptions used in performing the backtesting. The Margin Policy has
also specified that all critical margin model assumptions should be
consistent with OCC's default management assumptions. OCC performed the
aforementioned backtesting in order to monitor whether the margin
methodology is functioning as intended and appropriately captures the
risks that OCC's Clearing Members present to it.
    With the adoption of the CCA rules, and to enhance OCC's monitoring
of its margin methodology, the proposed Margin Policy would establish
additional monthly reviews of its margin methodology. First, the Margin
Policy would specify that key model parameters and assumptions are also
subject to a monthly, or more frequently when market conditions
warrant, sensitivity analysis. In identifying which parameters and
assumptions should be subject to this sensitivity analysis, OCC
surveyed relevant industry guidance on the appropriate parameters and
assumptions to first include in the sensitivity analysis. OCC plans to
increase the number of assumptions and parameters included in the
sensitivity analysis on an iterative basis as the process becomes more
mature. Second, the Margin Policy would specify that OCC performs a
monthly review of its parameters for business backtesting. OCC
determined that all parameters contained in its margin methodology
should be included in this monthly parameter review, and has identified
all of these. The Margin Policy would also specify that this
sensitivity analysis and parameter review would make use of both actual
and hypothetical portfolios. These additions to the Margin Policy are
designed to be consistent with Rules 17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi)(B) and (C),
which require that policies and procedures of a covered clearing agency
be reasonably designed to establish a risk-based margin system that
incorporates monthly, or more frequent, sensitivity analyses and review
of its parameters and assumptions for backtesting.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(v)(B) and (C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Margin Policy would specify that the results of all
such analyses are reported no less frequently than monthly to OCC's
Model Risk Working Group, which then may escalate any issues to OCC's
Management Committee. This reporting requirement is designed to be
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi)(D), which requires policies and
procedures of a covered clearing agency to be reasonably designed to
establish a risk-based margin system under which such analyses are
reported to the covered clearing agency's ``appropriate decision
maker,'' who may use ``these results to evaluate the adequacy of and
adjust its margin methodology, model parameters, and any other relevant
aspects of its credit risk framework.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(v)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Margin Policy describes how OCC obtains the market data that it
uses to value Clearing Members' portfolios and collateral deposits,
perform mark-to-market calculations, support expiration processing,
generate theoretical values for margin and Clearing Fund calculations,
and support customer-level margin calculations. Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(iv)
requires that a covered clearing agency's policies and procedures be
reasonably designed to establish a risk-based margin system that uses
``reliable sources of timely price data'' and uses ``procedures and
sound valuation models for addressing circumstances in which pricing
data are not readily available or reliable.'' \24\ In compliance with
this requirement, the Margin Policy requires OCC to take measures to
ensure the quality and completeness of any market data it acquires.
Primary among these measures is the use of redundant sources for market
data and pricing system infrastructure and, when selecting vendors,
prioritizing the quality and reliability of a data provider's service
and its ability to provide data in a variety of market conditions,
including periods of market stress. This aspect of the Margin Policy is
specifically responsive to the Commission's statement in the CCA
Adopting Release that a covered clearing agency should consider the
ability of the vendor to provide data in a variety of market
conditions, including periods of market stress and not just based on
cost alone.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(iv).
    \25\ CCA Adopting Release, supra note 14, at 70819.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Margin Policy explains how, in order to ensure the integrity of
this data, OCC monitors for delays in its receipt of price data and
overall system health, as well as erroneous price data or interruptions
in pricing data availability. The Margin Policy specifies that, in
certain cases, OCC may be obligated to use settlement prices that are
provided directly by the listing exchange \26\ and prescribes
procedures for utilizing alternative data sources where a final
settlement value is not available from the listing exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ In such a case, the listing exchange transmits price files
to OCC, and the data is then processed by OCC systems and manually
validated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Margin Policy also specifies that OCC utilizes sound valuation
models, such as price-editing and smoothing,\27\ as well as system edit
checks, and automated and manual controls with any price data it
obtains. Where OCC does not receive pricing information on a daily
basis for a product, the Margin Policy specifies that OCC would rely on
modeled prices. These requirements are designed to facilitate OCC's
compliance with the Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(iv) requirement to maintain
policies reasonably designed to establish a risk-based margin system
that addresses ``circumstances in which pricing data are not readily
available or reliable.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ ``Smoothing'' is a process OCC uses to calculate final
prices, volatility measures, delta values and vega values for
securities and futures options. The purpose of smoothing is to
minimize arbitrage opportunities while producing final prices that
remain within the bid-ask spread provided to OCC by the market.
    \28\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Margin Methodology
    OCC's Margin Policy contains a description of OCC's System for

Theoretical Analysis and Numerical Simulations (``STANS''), its margin
methodology for all positions it margins on a net basis. As required in
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6), STANS is a risk-based methodology that is designed
to produce a margin requirement that exceeds OCC's minimum regulatory
obligations. OCC achieves this through the use of an Expected Shortfall
methodology (``ES''), which is effectively a weighted average of tail
losses beyond the 99% Value-at-Risk (``VaR'') level.
    As a statistical methodology that relies on randomized Monte Carlo
simulations to generate ES estimates, STANS will produce slightly
different ES estimates when Monte Carlo simulations are performed on
each Clearing Member account; OCC refers to such variance in ES
estimates as the ``standard error.'' However, significant variations in
ES estimates among Clearing Member accounts may also signify other
issues, such as underlying issues with STANS or its appropriateness for
estimating ES for a particular Clearing Member account. Previously, OCC
has relied on the expert judgment of its staff and undefined,
qualitative factors to identify whether STANS may not be functioning as
expected. After performing statistical analysis on the size of the
standard error, and at what level an observed error is greater than the
standard error at a statistically significant level, the proposed
Margin Policy would state that the tolerance for the standard error of
a typical, or median, Clearing Member account ES measurement in STANS
is 5%.\29\ This tolerance would define a statistical error threshold
above which OCC must investigate whether STANS is appropriately
measuring a Clearing Member's account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ This use of a 5% ES error tolerance is a proposed
enhancement to OCC's existing margin policies and procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, any margin requirement calculated by STANS is on a
``portfolio'' basis, which inherently reflects offsets between products
within each portfolio. This is intended to meet the Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(6)(iii) requirement, as explained in the CCA Adopting Release,
that a covered clearing agency's policies and procedures be reasonably
designed to establish a risk-based margin system that calculates margin
on a portfolio level and set initial margin requirements that meet ``an
established single-tail confidence level of at least 99 percent'' with
respect to each portfolio's distribution of future exposure.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ CCA Adopting Release, supra note 14, at 70819; 17 CFR
240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Margin Policy also describes how STANS utilizes Monte Carlo
simulations of portfolio values at a two-day risk horizon, based on the
behavior of various risk factors affecting values of Clearing Member
accounts, including implied volatility surfaces of options for all
equity and index risk factors. These risk factors are relevant to the
products in a Clearing Member's portfolio and are critical drivers of
the inherent exposure OCC has to its Clearing Members' portfolios.
Including them in STANS therefore enhances the robustness of OCC's
margin resources and incentivizes Clearing Members to be aware of the
risks in their portfolios and mitigate those risks to avoid higher
margin requirements. The use of risk factors is intended to comply with
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(v), which requires that a covered clearing agency's
policies and procedures be reasonably designed to establish a risk-
based margin system that uses ``an appropriate method for measuring
credit exposure that accounts for relevant product risk factors and
portfolio effects across products.'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of calculating margin requirements, STANS assumes a
two-day liquidation period for all positions margined on a net basis.
The Margin Policy explains that this assumption is based on a thorough
analysis of market conditions and the risks associated with the
products OCC clears. As the Commission noted in the CCA Adopting
Release, the assumed liquidation period in a margin model should be
tailored to the market conditions and the risks of the products being
cleared.\32\ OCC's assumed two-day liquidation period is so tailored,
and the Margin Policy is designed to enable OCC to comply with Rule
17Ad-22(e)(6)(iii), under which a covered clearing agency's policies
and procedures must be reasonably designed to establish a risk-based
margin system requirement that covers potential future exposure to
Clearing Members in the interval between the last margin collection and
the close-out of a Clearing Member's positions should it default.\33\
This assumption allows OCC to maintain consistency with the timeframes
required to facilitate the hedging or close-out of a position, which
OCC would employ under its default management procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ CCA Adopting Release, supra note 14, at 70818 (``. . .
liquidation periods generally should be tailored to the market
conditions and risks of the products being cleared.'').
    \33\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Margin Policy describes other aspects of STANS that are
designed to address the particular attributes and risk factors of the
products being margined, as is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i)
and (v).\34\ This includes the use of 500 business days of ``look-
back'' historical data, where available, in its econometric models and
the incorporation of multiple stress tests components into STANS that
are designed to identify increases in OCC's exposure that may arise
from atypical market movements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) and (v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Margin Policy provides for daily evaluation of the market data
that supports STANS' econometric models and monthly recalibration of
STANS to ensure that it accounts for changes to market conditions over
the past month. These recalibrations incorporate a long-run historical
volatility estimate, which serves as a minimum volatility value during
periods of low market volatility, reducing procyclicality in OCC's
margin estimates by not allowing margin rates to drop below a certain
long-run measure of market volatility. The Margin Policy also provides
that on a daily basis OCC utilizes a ``scale factor'' to account for
daily changes in market volatility that may occur between monthly
recalibrations. In some instances, products less dependent on the
monthly recalibration process--such as Treasury and volatility
contracts--may have their econometric models recalibrated on a daily
basis.
    The Margin Policy provides for the use of alternatives to STANS for
certain products or accounts. For example, OCC has the ability to apply
add-on charges to cover Stock Loan position exposures arising from
Clearing Member specific preferences and surcharges for certain
Clearing Members with higher risk levels. Furthermore, the Margin
Policy explains that OCC utilizes the Standard Portfolio Analysis of
Risk margin methodology (``SPAN''), instead of STANS, to compute gross
margin for the segregated futures customer accounts of Clearing
Members. SPAN is a market simulation-based VaR system that assesses
risk on a portfolio basis for a wide variety of financial instruments.
SPAN uses ``scan ranges'' that estimate price movements based on
historical volatility data of specific products, which are in turn used
to estimate movements in affected portfolios. ``Scan ranges'' also
serve as minimum estimates of portfolio volatility in times of low
market volatility to guard against the effects of procyclicality, and
are regularly monitored and recalibrated by OCC's Pricing & Margins
team. A description of SPAN is provided in the Margin Policy. Like
STANS, SPAN is intended to comply with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6), including
the Rule 17Ad-

22(e)(6)(iii) requirement that a covered clearing agency's policies and
procedures be reasonably designed to establish a risk-based margin
system that calculates margins on a portfolio level and sets initial
margin requirements that meet ``an established single-tailed confidence
level of at least 99 percent'' with respect to each portfolio's
distribution of future exposure.\35\ The Margin Policy indicates that
OCC will also calculate a segregated futures customers account's net
margin requirement under STANS, and that if the STANS-calculated
requirement exceeds the SPAN-calculated requirement, an add-on is
applied to the Clearing Member's account so that the Clearing Member is
effectively required to meet the greater of the gross SPAN or two-day
net STANS requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ CCA Adopting Release, supra note 14, at 70819; 17 CFR
240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Margin Calls and Adjustments
    The Margin Policy provides for OCC calculating and collecting
margin requirements on a daily basis, as well as making intraday margin
calls and adjustments. This is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(ii),
under which a covered clearing agency must maintain policies and
procedures reasonably designed to establish a risk-based margin system
that ``collects margin . . . at least daily'' and includes ``the
authority and operational capacity to make intraday margin calls in
defined circumstances.'' \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described in the Margin Policy, OCC issues margin calls during
standard trading hours within a timeframe established in OCC's
procedures, when unrealized losses \37\ exceeding 50% of an account's
total risk charges are observed for that account, based on start-of-day
positions. Intraday margin calls are also subject to a minimum value
established in OCC's procedures, and must be approved by a Vice
President or above. The Margin Policy describes the process by which
margin calls may be deferred and evaluated and for execution of a
margin call outside of the time frame described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ This excludes accounts holding only collateral positions or
long option positions where the account's net asset value could
never become negative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Margin Policy provides for certain exceptions to the above
intraday margin call time frame. For instance, in the case of extended
trading hours (``ETH''), OCC may issue a margin call prior to 9:00 a.m.
Central Time when (1) unrealized losses observed for an account, based
on new ETH positions, exceed 25% of that account's total risk charges
and (2) the overall Clearing Member portfolio is also experiencing
losses. ETH margin calls are limited to price changes in ETH-eligible
products, and similarly remain subject to a minimum value established
in OCC's procedures and must be approved by a Vice President or above.
In the case of bank holidays, margin calls may be issued against
Clearing Members on the day prior to the bank holiday when it coincides
with a day one or more of OCC's markets are open for trading.
    The Margin Policy indicates that additional margin adjustments may
be performed as the need arises and following approval by an officer of
OCC.
Back-Testing and Model Validation
    OCC's Margin Policy provides that OCC conducts daily back-tests for
each margin account, analyzing in detail all accounts exhibiting losses
in excess of calculated margin requirements. This is intended to comply
with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi)(A), which calls for back-tests of the
margin model at least daily, ``using standard predetermined parameters
and assumptions.'' \38\ To the extent the results of these back-tests
reflect losses in excess of the aggregate ES and stress test add-on
charges required for a Clearing Member's account, the test result will
be classified as an ``exceedance,'' and all such exceedances will be
reported no less frequently than monthly and evaluated through OCC's
governance process for model risk management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Margin Policy states that OCC's Model Validation Group
(``MVG''), an independent group with a separate reporting line from
model developers, is responsible for evaluating the overall performance
of STANS and its associated models on at least an annual basis. This
aspect of the policy is intended to comply with Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(6)(vii), under which a covered clearing agency's policies and
procedures must be reasonably designed to establish a risk-based margin
system that requires ``a model validation for the covered clearing
agency's margin system and related models to be performed not less than
annually'' or more frequently as may be contemplated by the agency's
risk management framework.\39\ MVG presents its findings and
recommendations to the Risk Committee of OCC's Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(vii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Statutory Basis
    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \40\ requires, among other things,
that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to assure the
safeguarding of securities and funds which are in its custody or
control or for which it is responsible and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. Through each of its respective
sections, the Margin Policy provides a framework for managing margin
and credit exposure presented by OCC's Clearing Members. To manage
these exposures, the Margin Policy establishes the manner in which OCC
requires Clearing Members to deposit margin to assure performance and
to mitigate their credit exposures if a Clearing Member defaults. The
Margin Policy also describes the types of positions OCC will use in
making margin calculations, how OCC will manage margin risk arising
from its cross-margining program, key assumptions of OCC's margin
methodologies, OCC's margin methodologies, how OCC administers margin
calls on both daily and intraday bases, and how OCC monitors and
reports on the performance of its margin systems. The Margin Policy's
promotion of each aforementioned activity ultimately inures to the
protection of investors and the public interest, as well as the
safeguarding of securities and funds in OCC's custody or control \41\
in a manner consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \41\ These activities, in turn, help ensure that OCC remains
capable of continuing its operations and services in a manner that
promotes the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions.
    \42\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC also believes that the Margin Policy is consistent with the
requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6), as detailed above.\43\ For example,
the Margin Policy is reasonably designed to cover its credit exposures
to its participants by establishing a risk-based margin system that
meets the minimum regulatory requirements in: Collecting margin on a
daily or intraday basis at levels commensurate with the risks and
particular attributes of each relevant product, portfolio and market,
as is consistent with Rules 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i), (ii) and (v); \44\
calculating margin requirements sufficient to cover potential future
exposures to a defaulting Clearing Member during the interval between
last margin collection and closeout, as is consistent with Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(6)(iii); \45\ using reliable sources of timely price data and
sound valuation models and procedures when

data is unavailable, as is consistent with Rule 17Ad-(22)(e)(6)(iv);
\46\ using appropriate methods for measuring credit exposures that
account for relevant product risk factors and portfolio effects across
products, as is consistent with Rules 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) and (v); \47\
and conducting daily backtests of its margin models, conducting
sensitivity analyses of the underlying parameters and assumptions
monthly, or more frequently, and engaging in model validation not less
frequently than annually, as is consistent with Rules 17Ad-22(e)(vi)
and (vii).\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See supra notes 12-20, 21-24, 27, 29-35, 37 and 38 and
accompanying text.
    \44\ See supra notes 16, 33 and 35 and accompanying text.
    \45\ See supra note 32 and accompanying text.
    \46\ See supra notes 23 and 27 and accompanying text.
    \47\ See supra notes 16, 17, 20 and 30 and accompanying text.
    \48\ See supra notes 37 and 38 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is not inconsistent with the existing
rules of OCC, including any other rules proposed to be amended.

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

    Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act \49\ requires that the rules of a
clearing agency not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. OCC does not
believe that the proposed rule change would impact or impose any burden
on competition. The proposed rule change sets forth the framework
surrounding OCC's margin methodologies. The Margin Policy primarily
describes OCC's existing policies and practices with respect to margin,
much of which is also addressed in OCC's By-Laws and Rules. All
Clearing Members are subject to the same methodologies for determining
their margin requirements, dictated by the overall risk to OCC
presented by the positions in their respective portfolios.
Consequently, no Clearing Member is provided a competitive advantage
over any other Clearing Member. Further, the Margin Policy does not
affect Clearing Members' access to OCC's services or impose any direct
burdens on Clearing Members. Accordingly, the proposed rule change
would not unfairly inhibit access to OCC's services or disadvantage or
favor any particular user in relationship to another user.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the foregoing reasons, OCC believes that the proposed rule
change is in the public interest, would be consistent with the
requirements of the Act applicable to clearing agencies, and would not
impact or impose a burden on competition.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were not and are not
intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change and
none have been received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-OCC-2017-007 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2017-007. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of OCC and on OCC's website at
https://www.theocc.com/components/docs/legal/rules_and_bylaws/sr_occ_17_007.pdf.
    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-OCC-2017-007 and
should be submitted on or before January 16, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated Authority.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-27695 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 245)]
[Notices]
[Page 76643-76644]
[DOCID:fr21de06-37]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0445; FRL-8259-2]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request: NESHAP for Site Remediation
(Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2062.03, OMB Control Number 2060-0534

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. The ICR which is abstracted below,
describes the nature of the information collection and its expected
burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before January 22,
2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2006-0445, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA

Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency, Enforcement
and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code 2201T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460, and (2) OMB by mail to:
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), Attention Desk Officer for EPS, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this ICR, contact
Zofia Kosim, Air Enforcement Division, Office Civil Enforcement, Mail
Code 2242A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20460; phone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0068; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Refer to EPA ICR
Number 2062.03.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On June 21, 2006, (71 FR 35652), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-OECA-2006-0445, which is available for public viewing online
at http://www.regulations.gov, in person viewing at the Enforcement and

Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/
DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and
Information Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comments system at http://www.regulations.gov
 to submit or view public comments, access the index

listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once
in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, as EPA receives them

and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material,
CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by
statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to
http://www.regulations.gov.

    Title: NESHAP for Site Remediation (Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 2062.03, OMB Control Number 2060-0534.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2006.
Under the OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or
sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending
at OMB. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed
either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate
means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if
applicable. The display of OMB

control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR
part 9.
    Abstract: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required
under section 111 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, to collect data.
The information will be used by Agency enforcement personnel to (1)
Identify existing sources subject to these standards; (2) ensure that
Best Demonstrated Technology is being properly applied; and (3) ensure
that the emission control devise is being properly operated and
maintained on a continuous basis. In addition, records and reports are
necessary to enable the EPA to identify those site remediation
facilities that may not be in compliance with these standards. Based on
reported information, the EPA can decide which facilities should be
inspected and what records or processes should be inspected at the
facilities. The records that site remediation facilities maintain would
indicate to the EPA whether the personnel are operating and maintaining
control equipment properly. The type of data required is principally
emissions data (through parametric monitoring) and would not be
confidential. If any information is submitted to the EPA for which a
claim of confidentiality is made, the information would be safeguarded
according to the Agency policies set forth in 40 CFR, chapter 1, part
2, subpart B.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and record keeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 219
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; train personnel to respond to a
collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the
collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Site remediation facilities.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 286.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion and semiannually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 125,027.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $582,000 for operating and maintenance
costs. There are no capital/startup costs associated with this ICR.
    Change in Estimates: There is a decrease in hours in the total
estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved
ICR Burdens. This decrease is not due to any program changes. Over the
past three years, the respondents completed those activities required
to achieve initial compliance. Such activities are more burdensome than
the burden associated with the rule requirements for continuing
compliance as addressed by this ICR. Hence, there is a decrease in
burden.

    Dated: December 13, 2006.
Oscar Morales,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
 [FR Doc. E6-21892 Filed 12-20-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P