[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 20, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 64061]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25124]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CD20-2-000]

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Farm and Ranch Enterprise; Notice of
Preliminary Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility
and Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene

    On November 13, 2019, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Farm and Ranch
Enterprise filed a notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit
hydropower facility, pursuant to section 30 of the Federal Power Act
(FPA). The proposed UMUT-FRE Irrigation Hydro Project would have an
installed capacity of 221 kilowatts (kW), and would be located along
the applicant's existing irrigation system near Towaoc, Montezuma
County, Colorado.
    Applicant Contact: Tim Olsen, 1428 S Humboldt St., Denver, CO
80210, Phone No.<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    FERC Contact: Christopher Chaney, Phone No.<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Description: The proposed
project would consist of: (1) 10 turbine-generators, each with a
capacity between 10-30 kW, with a total capacity of 221 kW; (2) 10
powerhouse vaults; and (3) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project
would have an estimated annual generation of up to 636 megawatt-hours.
    A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined
or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.

                          Table 1--Criteria for Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Satisfies (Y/
              Statutory provision                                   Description                          N)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FPA 30(a)(3)(A)................................  The conduit the facility uses is a tunnel, canal,            Y
                                                  pipeline, aqueduct, flume, ditch, or similar
                                                  manmade water conveyance that is operated for
                                                  the distribution of water for agricultural,
                                                  municipal, or industrial consumption and not
                                                  primarily for the generation of electricity.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(i).............................  The facility is constructed, operated, or                    Y
                                                  maintained for the generation of electric power
                                                  and uses for such generation only the
                                                  hydroelectric potential of a non-federally owned
                                                  conduit.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(ii)............................  The facility has an installed capacity that does             Y
                                                  not exceed 40 megawatts.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(iii)...........................  On or before August 9, 2013, the facility is not             Y
                                                  licensed, or exempted from the licensing
                                                  requirements of Part I of the FPA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Preliminary Determination: The proposed UMUT-FRE Irrigation Hydro
Project will not alter the primary purpose of the conduits, which is to
transport water for irrigation. Therefore, based upon the above
criteria, Commission staff preliminarily determines that the proposal
satisfies the requirements for a qualifying conduit hydropower
facility, which is not required to be licensed or exempted from
licensing.
    Comments and Motions to Intervene: Deadline for filing comments
contesting whether the facility meets the qualifying criteria is 30
days from the issuance date of this notice.
    Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the
issuance date of this notice.
    Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance
with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.
    Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1)
bear in all capital letters the ``COMMENTS CONTESTING QUALIFICATION FOR
A CONDUIT HYDROPOWER FACILITY'' or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' as
applicable; (2) state in the heading the name of the applicant and the
project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3)
state the name, address, and telephone number of the person filing; and
(4) otherwise comply with the requirements of sections 385.2001 through
385.2005 of the Commission's regulations.\1\ All comments contesting
Commission staff's preliminary determination that the facility meets
the qualifying criteria must set forth their evidentiary basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.2001-2005 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration,
using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the
end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. A copy of all other filings in
reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service
on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in
this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    Locations of Notice of Intent: Copies of the notice of intent can
be obtained directly from the applicant or such copies can be viewed
and reproduced at the Commission in its Public Reference Room, Room 2A,
888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be
viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number (i.e., CD20-2) in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-
free 1-866-208-3676 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call
(202) 502-8659.

    Dated: November 14, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-25124 Filed 11-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 34 (Wednesday, February 20, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5137-5140]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02733]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85128; File No. SR-ICEEU-2018-024]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1,
Relating to the ICE Clear Europe Model Risk Governance Framework

February 13, 2019.

I. Introduction

    On November 21, 2018, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear
Europe'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to adopt a Model Risk Governance Framework
(``MRGF'') and related Independent Validator Selection Guidelines
(``Guidelines''). On December 21, 2018, ICE Clear Europe filed
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\3\ The proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, was published for comment in
the Federal Register on December 31, 2018.\4\ The Commission did not
receive comments on the proposed rule change. For the reasons discussed
below, the Commission is approving the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ The amendment clarified Items 1(a) and 2(a) in the Form 19b-
4 but did not change any other items in Form 19b-4, any exhibits to
the filing, or the text of the proposed rule change.
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84933 (Dec. 21, 2018),
83 FR 67810 (Dec. 31, 2018) (SR-ICEEU-2018-024) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change would adopt a new MRGF and related
Guidelines. The MRGF would establish overall standards and principles
for managing and mitigating model risk for all product categories that
ICE Clear Europe clears.\5\ Specifically, the MRGF would (1) establish
a definition of model and model risk; (2) establish and define criteria
for assessing the materiality and significance of models and model
changes; (3) establish procedures for oversight and validation of
models and model changes; and (4) establish related governance
structures. The MRGF would apply to models developed internally, third-
party models, and models shared with other group entities (but not to
models in research and development or that are already retired), and
would apply throughout the life cycle of all such models used by the
Clearing House. In addition, the Guidelines would establish standards
for the independence and competence of the persons that validate models
pursuant to the MRGF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the
meaning given to them in the MRGF or the ICE Clear Europe rulebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Definition of Model and Model Changes

    The MRGF would define a ``model'' as a quantitative method, system
or approach that applies statistical, economic, financial or
mathematical theories, techniques and assumptions to process input data
into quantitative estimates.\6\ The MRGF would also define ``model
risk'' as the risk that a model does not perform as it was designed,
either due to error or failure in the model specification or
inappropriate use.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Notice, 84 FR at 67811.
    \7\ Notice, 84 FR at 67811.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MRGF would assess the materiality of models based on the
potential impact the related model risk may have on ICE Clear Europe
and its clearing members. In particular, the MRGF would treat a model
as material where the output of the model is the primary factor
affecting risk management decisions relating to counterparty and
liquidity risk.\8\ The MRGF may also treat a model as material if it
has a high error potential with sizeable impact resulting from: (1)
Complexities in the data model and inputs (like complex manipulation of
input data); (2) the modelling approach (such as reliance on a large
number of assumptions); (3) the model output (such as a large number of
other models dependent on the output); or (4) model users and
operations (such as a large number of independent systems that use the
model).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Notice, 84 FR at 67811.
    \9\ Notice, 84 FR at 67811, n.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to model changes, the MRGF would categorize changes as
significant and not significant. In determining whether a model change
is significant, the MRGF would consider the size of resulting changes
in risk requirements calculated by the model, alterations in the scope
of model use and the risk profile of products covered, and the
development of new model features.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Notice, 84 FR at 67811.

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

B. Oversight and Validation of Models and Model Changes

    The MRGF would set out a general oversight process for models
throughout their life cycle, including development of new models, model
changes, review of existing models, and model retirements. For new
models, the MRGF would require that they be subject to validation
before being approved and introduced into use.\11\ For model changes,
the MRGF would require that significant changes be validated before
being approved using the same process as for new models.\12\ The MRGF
would validate model changes that are not significant in accordance
with ICE Clear Europe's periodic re-validation pipeline, as discussed
below.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Notice, 84 FR at 67811.
    \12\ Notice, 84 FR at 67811.
    \13\ Notice, 84 FR at 67811.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MRGF would re-validate and assess the performance of models to
determine whether they continue to be fit for use. The Risk Oversight
Department (``ROD'') would establish a validation pipeline, meaning a
periodic cycle for re-validation of existing models.\14\ The ROD would
establish the frequency of re-validation based on applicable regulatory
requirements, which may be annually where required or more frequently
as needed.\15\ Similarly, the MRGF would require that performance
assessments be conducted on a periodic basis at least annually, in
accordance with applicable regulatory requirements.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Notice, 84 FR at 67811.
    \15\ Notice, 84 FR at 67811.
    \16\ Notice, 84 FR at 67811.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MRGF would make the ROD responsible for conducting the
independent validation (if done internally) at the appropriate
frequency and coordinating an external independent validation when
appropriate.\17\ The Guidelines would establish both technical
expertise and independence requirements for model validations.\18\ The
Guidelines would provide that the Clearing House may engage an external
independent model validator when (1) there are insufficient internal
resources to meet both the technical expertise and independence
requirements for the model undergoing independent validation; (2)
internal resources do not have the operational capacity to perform the
validation within the required timeframe; or (3) otherwise at the
discretion of the ROD.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Notice, 84 FR at 67811.
    \18\ Notice, 84 FR at 67811.
    \19\ Notice, 84 FR at 67811.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the MRGF and the Guidelines, ICE Clear Europe's Model
Oversight Committee (``MOC'') would be required to review and approve
the use of external independent model validators.\20\ The ROD would
maintain a list of external validators approved by the MOC.\21\ The
Guidelines would provide that the MOC may decide, for models deemed
complex and material, to perform a competitive selection process for
external independent validators. Similarly, the ROD may, with the
consent of the MOC, split components of the independent model
validation scope across one or more external independent validators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Notice, 84 FR at 67812.
    \21\ Notice, 84 FR at 67812.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MRGF would also provide a process for model retirements and
deactivations (retirement would permanently discontinue a model while
deactivation would be a temporary discontinuation).\22\ Prior to
retiring or deactivating a model, the MRGF would require an impact
assessment of the risks and consequences of such retirement or
deactivation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Notice, 84 FR at 67811.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Governance

    The MRGF would establish the roles of the MOC and ICEEU Board in
controlling overall model risk, including reviewing and approving
models and changes. Under the MRGF, the MOC would be responsible for
model risk governance at an executive level and for advising the Board
on material model risk.\23\ Under the MRGF, the MOC also would be
responsible for approving new models, model changes, retirement of
models, the periodic validation cycle, remediation actions, external
validators, and reviewing model performance assessments.\24\ The MRGF
would assign the ICE Clear Europe Board ultimate responsibility for
model risk governance, approving material new models and significant
model changes for material models, reviewing the actions of the MOC,
reviewing performance of material models outside of acceptable levels
for model risk, and reviewing impact assessments for the retirement of
material models.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Notice, 84 FR at 67811.
    \24\ Notice, 84 FR at 67811.
    \25\ Notice, 84 FR at 67811.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MRGF would further apply a three-tiered approach to the
development and validation of models and changes. Specifically, the
MRGF would: (1) Designate the owner of the models as the First Line;
(2) designate the ROD as the Second Line; and (3) designate the
Internal Audit Department as the Third Line. The First Line (owners of
the models) would be responsible for ensuring that models are properly
developed, implemented and used, establishing a model inventory,
proposing new models, proposing model changes, proposing model
retirements, conducting performance and impact assessments, and
proposing and implementing remediation actions as needed. The Second
Line (ROD) would be responsible for performing or overseeing
independent validations, reviewing and performing performance
assessments, establishing risk appetite metrics for model performance,
establishing guidelines for validations and external validators, and
reporting results of validations and assessments. The Third Line
(Internal Audit Department) would be responsible for assessing the
overall effectiveness of the MRGF and related governance policies and
assessing independent validation work.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Notice, 84 FR at 67811.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a
proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that
such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such
organization.\27\ For the reasons given below, the Commission finds
that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
of the Act \28\ and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v), (e)(3),
(e)(4)(vii), (e)(6)(vii), and (e)(7)(vii) thereunder.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \29\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v), (e)(3), (e)(4)(vii),
(e)(6)(vii), and (e)(7)(vii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of ICE Clear Europe be designed to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to
the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and
transactions, as well as to assure the safeguarding of securities and
funds which are in the custody or control of ICC or for which it is
responsible, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the proposed rule change would adopt the MRGF
and Guidelines. The MRGF would establish overall standards and
principles for managing and mitigating model risk for all product
categories that ICE Clear Europe clears. The MRGF would do so

by establishing processes for the oversight and validation of models
and changes to models and defining related governance responsibilities.
Finally, the Guidelines would help ensure the independence and
competence of validations by establishing standards for model
validators regarding independence and technical proficiency.
    The Commission believes that these changes, taken as a whole, would
help ICE Clear Europe establish and maintain effective and functioning
models. For example, in requiring the validation of new models and
significant model changes, the Commission believes that the MRGF would
help ICE Clear Europe to identify and remediate possible errors in
models and changes thereto before such models or changes are put into
effect. Doing so may help ICE Clear Europe avoid the potential harm
that could result from models that do not function properly, such as
margin requirements that are not effective at mitigating risk.
Similarly, the Commission believes that the Guidelines, in establishing
standards for independence and technical proficiency of validators,
would help ensure that validations are completed objectively and
competently. Because biased or ineffective validations could miss
potential errors in models and model changes, the Commission believes
that the Guidelines may also help ICE Clear Europe avoid the potential
harm that could result from models that do not function properly.
    Given that ICE Clear Europe uses its models, such as its margin
models, to manage and mitigate ICE Clear Europe's credit exposures to
its Clearing Members and the risks associated with clearing security
based swap-related portfolios, the Commission believes that the
proposed rule change would enhance ICE Clear Europe's ability to avoid
losses that could result from the mismanagement of such credit
exposures and risks. Because such losses could disrupt ICE Clear
Europe's ability to promptly and accurately clear security based swap
transactions, by adopting the MRGF and the Guidelines, the Commission
believes that the proposed rule change would enhance ICE Clear Europe's
ability to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions.
    Similarly, appropriate management of ICE Clear Europe's credit
exposures to its Clearing Members and the risks associated with
clearing security based swap-related portfolios is critical to avoiding
the realization of losses on such portfolios that could threaten ICE
Clear Europe's ability to operate, thereby threatening access to
securities and funds in ICE Clear Europe's control. Because the
proposed rule change would improve the processes to review and maintain
the models that ICE Clear Europe uses to manage and mitigate such
exposures, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change would
help assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the
custody or control of ICE Clear Europe or for which it is responsible.
Finally, for both of these reasons, the Commission believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with protecting investors and the
public interest.
    Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change would
promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions, assure the safeguarding of securities and funds in ICE
Clear Europe's custody and control, and, in general, protect investors
and the public interest, consistent with the Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of
the Act.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency With Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v)

    Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v) require that ICE Clear Europe
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to provide for governance arrangements
that are clear and transparent and specify clear and direct lines of
responsibility.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the MRGF would define the responsibilities of
the MOC and ICEEU Board in model review and approval. For example,
under the MRGF, the MOC would be responsible for approving new models,
model changes, and retirement of models, while the Board ultimately
would be responsible for model risk governance, and approving material
new models and significant model changes for material models, among
other things. In doing so, the Commission believes that the MRGF would
clearly and transparently define who is responsible for which aspect of
oversight of the MRGF (i.e., the MOC or the Board) and specify the
responsibilities of the MOC and the Board under the MRGF.
    Moreover, the proposed rule change would establish the
responsibilities of the first line model owners, ROD, and ICE Clear
Europe Internal Audit Department in performing certain functions under,
and assessing the effectiveness of, the MRGF. For example, the MRGF
would make the First Line responsible for developing models, the ROD,
as the Second Line, responsible for validating models, and the Internal
Audit Department, as the Third Line, responsible for assessing the
effectiveness of the MRGF and validations. In doing so, the Commission
believes the proposed rule change would improve the transparency of the
governance related to the MRGF by defining the relevant
responsibilities for the development and validation of models and the
review of the overall effectiveness of the MRGF. The Commission
believes these aspects of the MRGF would also clearly define the
responsibilities of the first line model owners, ROD, and ICE Clear
Europe Internal Audit Department with respect to the MRGF.
    Therefore, for the above reasons the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and
(v).\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3) requires that ICE Clear Europe establish,
implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to maintain a sound risk management framework for
comprehensively managing legal, credit, liquidity, operational, general
business, investment, custody, and other risks that arise in or are
borne by ICE Clear Europe which includes risk management policies,
procedures, and systems designed to identify, measure, monitor, and
manage the range of risks that arise in or are borne by ICE Clear
Europe, that are subject to review on a specified periodic basis and
approved by the board of directors annually.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the MRGF would require the review and
validation of new models, existing models, and model changes, which the
Commission believes would identify and remediate possible errors in
models and changes thereto before such models or changes are put into
effect. In this way, the Commission believes the MRGF would help reduce
model risk at ICE Clear Europe. Moreover, the Commission believes the
Guidelines would help ensure the objectivity and competence of
validations by establishing standards for model validators regarding
independence and technical proficiency. The Commission believes that
competent and objective validations would, in turn, help to reduce
model risk. Finally, the Commission believes that the governance
aspects of the MRGF discussed above would help ensure that the MRGF and
its processes are effectively reviewed and

maintained. Thus, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change
would enable ICE Clear Europe to maintain a sound risk management
framework for comprehensively managing its model risk.
    Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3).\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Consistency With Rules 17Ad-22(e)(4)(vii), (e)(6)(vii), and
(e)(7)(vii)

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(vii) requires that ICE Clear Europe establish,
implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to effectively identify, measure, monitor, and
manage its credit exposures to participants and those arising from its
payment, clearing, and settlement processes, including by performing a
model validation for its credit risk models not less than annually or
more frequently as may be required by its risk management
framework.\36\ Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(vii) requires that ICE Clear Europe
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to cover its credit exposures to its
participants by establishing a risk-based margin system that, among
other things, requires a model validation for its margin system and
related models to be performed not less than annually, or more
frequently as may be contemplated by its risk management framework.\37\
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(vii) requires that ICE Clear Europe establish,
implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to effectively measure, monitor, and manage the
liquidity risk that arises in or is borne by ICE Clear Europe,
including measuring, monitoring, and managing its settlement and
funding flows on an ongoing and timely basis, and its use of intraday
liquidity by, among other things, performing a model validation of its
liquidity risk models not less than annually or more frequently as may
be contemplated by its risk management framework.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(vii).
    \37\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(vii).
    \38\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7)(vii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the MRGF would specify the frequency of model
validations. Specifically, the MRGF would provide that model
validations shall comply with applicable regulatory requirements, in
particular in regards to annual validation cycles, and that model
performance assessments shall also be conducted on a periodic basis,
with cycles no greater than one year.
    The Commission believes that these aspects of the MRGF would help
ensure that ICE Clear Europe complies with the aspects of Rules 17Ad-
22(e)(4)(vii), (e)(6)(vii), and (e)(7)(vii) \39\ that require annual
model validations by providing that the frequency of model validations
shall comply with applicable regulatory requirements, in particular in
regards to annual validation cycles, and that model performance
assessments shall also be conducted on cycles no greater than one year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(vii), (e)(6)(vii), and
(e)(7)(vii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Rules 17Ad-22(e)(4)(vii), (e)(6)(vii), and
(e)(7)(vii).\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(vii), (e)(6)(vii), and
(e)(7)(vii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act,
and in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act \41\ and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v), (e)(3), (e)(4)(vii),
(e)(6)(vii), and (e)(7)(vii) thereunder.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \42\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v), (e)(3), (e)(4)(vii),
(e)(6)(vii), and (e)(7)(vii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\43\ that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1 (SR-
ICEEU-2018-024), be, and hereby is, approved.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \44\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-02733 Filed 2-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                                  MEMORANDUM

Tetra Tech, Inc.
10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340
Fairfax, VA 22030
phone<PHONE_NUMBER>
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

DATE: 		July 3, 2008

TO:			Paul Shriner and Jan Matuszko, EPA

FROM:		Christine Wong, Kelly Meadows and Shari Goodwin, Tetra Tech

SUBJECT:	Design Intake Flow for Test Cooling Water Intake Structures

Introduction
After reviewing technology efficacy studies in the June 23, 2008 memo from Battelle for impingement mortality data, EPA and Tt identified 6 studies that best represent the efficacy of Ristroph-type coarse mesh traveling screens.  To enable the development of technology-based limits, EPA requested that Tt determine the intake flows that correspond to the study periods in these documents.  None of the studies were completely clear in describing the test conditions, including the intake flows withdrawn during testing.  As such, Tt was tasked with determining an estimate of the flow rates.  Tt reviewed the studies and other supporting documentation (including summary reports, primary studies, and information from industry surveys) to determine the design intake flow (DIF) of the cooling water intake structures (CWIS) tested.  The results of Tt's study reviews are presented in the table on the following page.

Degree of Confidence
Tt is reasonably confident that the DIFs for the Dunkirk and Huntley studies are correct, because the design capacity is explicitly stated for the study screens at each facility.  (Whether the screens operated at the DIF for the entire study period is unknown; Tt is assuming they were.)

Based on the information available, Tt used its best professional judgment to assign a CWIS-specific DIF to the Arthur Kill and Salem studies.  Tt has attempted to contact representatives at both facilities to confirm these assumptions.  At this time, communication efforts have not been successful with either facility.  If and when contact is made with the facility representatives and DIF assumptions are confirmed, Tt will amend the table as necessary.

Facility Name
Generating Units/CWISs
DIF for Test CWIS Screens
Notes
Data Source(s)
Arthur Kill
Unit 20
87 MGD
Each unit contains 4 screens; only one of the four screens was upgraded for the study.  No information provided on unit operation during study; assume that the flow through the upgraded test screen was 0.25 the maximum flow for the unit (347.9 MGD  -  provided in study), or 87 MGD.
EPRI 2007

Unit 30
85 MGD
Each unit contains 4 screens; only one of the four screens was upgraded for each study.  No information provided on unit operation during study; assume that the flow through the upgraded test screen was 0.25 the maximum flow for the unit (339.3 MGD  -  provided in study), or 85 MGD.
EPRI 2007
Dunkirk
Screenhouse #1, including Units 1 and 2
92.2 MGD
Modifications were made to one of three existing screens.  No information provided on unit operation during study; assume flow through the test screen at maximum capacity.  92.2 MGD specified as prototype study screen capacity.
Beak Consultants, Inc., 2000 (DCN 5-4327)
Huntley
Units 67 and 68
82.8 MGD
All (4 existing) screens replaced at Units 67 and 68 with 5 Ristroph-types screens.  No information provided on unit operation during study; assume flow through the test screen at maximum capacity.  82.8 MGD specified as prototype study screen capacity.
Beak Consultants, Inc., 2000 (DCN 5-4325)
Salem
Unit 1
(1995 study)
266.4 MGD

No information provided on unit operation during study; assume flow through the test screen at maximum capacity.  266.4 MGD specified as Unit 1 design flow rate; 1995 study looked only at performance of Unit 1 screens.
Ronafalvy, Cheesman, and Matejek, 2000 (DCN 5-4333)

Units 1 and 2
(1997-1998 study)
532.8 MGD
No information provided on unit operation during study; assume flow through the test screen at maximum capacity.  266.4 MGD specified as flow rate at each unit; 1997-1998 study looked at performance of screens at both Unit 1 and Unit 2 for a total DIF of 532.8 MGD.
Ronafalvy, Cheesman, and Matejek, 2000 (DCN 5-4333)


                                            Safer Choice   Third Party Profiler Application     Instructions for Application Form                                                      Background: Safer Choice is a voluntary partnership program that is grounded in more than 40 years of EPA experience in evaluating the human health and environmental characteristics of chemicals. The Safer Choice label represents leadership in safer product formulation. Every chemical used in a Safer Choice-labeled product, regardless of percentage, is evaluated against stringent toxicological criteria. A product is only allowed to carry the Safer Choice label if each ingredient is among the safest in its ingredient class.

EPA works with certified third party profilers to review applications from product manufacturers interested in qualifying their products for the Safer Choice label. The third party profiler compiles all hazard information available on each chemical, including detailed structure, physical-chemical properties, human health and environmental toxicology, and regulatory/administrative status. This compilation of data is known as a profile. Qualified third party profilers have the expertise and objectivity needed to ensure a quality review, with high confidence in its accuracy and reliability.

Safer Choice has set stringent requirements, as outlined in Section 7 of EPA's Safer Choice Standard, for parties applying to become qualified third party profilers. Before filling out the application in Section 2B, please review and consider the roles and responsibilities you will be asked to undertake as a third party profiler (TPP):

       Supporting the Safer Choice Program.  Safeguard and uphold the integrity, quality, and trustworthiness of the Safer Choice product and chemical evaluation processes, program, and label, including development of strong and effective working relationships with Safer Choice staff.         Meeting and Maintaining the TPP Provisions in the Safer Choice Standard.  Satisfy the provisions of the Safer Choice Standard, section 7 -- "Profiler Requirements," which include technical competence in chemical hazard and fate reviews; staffing with experts in the various profiling disciplines; facility with toxicological models and estimation tools; program managerial skills; credibility and good standing; and success at a pilot review that simulates an actual product evaluation.  (See Safer Choice Standard at http://www2.epa.gov/saferchoice/safer-choice-standard.)        Following the Procedures in the TPP Handbook. Use the Third Party Profiler Handbook/Guidance Manual to inform its profiling activities, including, for example, searching the approved set of data sources; digesting the key, distinguishing hazard data; and preparing a dossier on each chemical ingredient in a candidate product.  Beyond regular oversight, the TPP will conduct annual partner surveillance, including triennial on-site audits, to ensure compliance with program requirements.        Submitting to Performance Review. In addition to regular feedback and recommendations from Safer Choice staff, engage in annual performance reviews and, once every five years, a full performance evaluation.         Adopting and Using the Salesforce Data System.  Use the Safer Choice Salesforce data system to manage all Safer Choice product review and partnership activities, including purchase and maintenance of the necessary computer hardware and system licenses.        Performing Supplemental Duties.  Fulfill other requests and functions related to its TPP duties that may arise, if Safer Choice deems it necessary to the successful operation of the program.        Adhering to Good Business Practices.  Demonstrate and follow good business practices in dealing with companies working with Safer Choice.  Good business practices include: offering open access to your services to legitimate potential clients in the TPP's sole discretion; adopting and implementing customer service standards; and avoiding potential conflicts of interest.

Application Process: To apply to serve as a Safer Choice third party profiler, a candidate should complete this application and have it signed by an authorized company or organization official.

EPA may request additional information in support of your application. Failure to provide the information may result in a delay or suspension of your application review.

The application is available online and may be filled out, scanned and emailed (preferred), or submitted in hard copy by mail or fax.  Online applications must be electronically signed and sent to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

As part of the application process, an applicant who meets the basic TPP qualifications will be asked to perform a trial review (i.e., a simulated or mock product review) to demonstrate technical competence and will be screened for their history of civil or criminal enforcement actions.  Safer Choice will reach out to schedule a pilot review after the paper application has been received.

If you choose to send a hard copy, the application may be mailed to the following address maintained by our contractor (EPA Contract No. EP-W-08-010):

Safer Choice TPP Application c/o Abt Associates Inc. Attn: Klara Zimmerman 4550 Montgomery Avenue, Suite 800 North Bethesda, MD 20814-5341 P:<PHONE_NUMBER> F:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Confirmation of Receipt: You will receive an email within one week confirming any materials you submit.  It will be sent to the contact provided in the application.  If you do not receive confirmation within one week, please contact Klara Zimmerman.

Questions:  Questions about eligibility, application procedures, or the Safer Choice Program should be directed to David Difiore at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

        Safer Choice Partner of the Year Awards 2016

SECTION 1: Contact information. Enter requested information for the authorized representative.

Organization Name

Contact Name

Address

City, State, Zip

Phone Fax

Email

Website

SECTION 2: Technical Competence and Credibility

Please describe your company or organization's abilities and experience as a third party profiler, using the sections below to guide your response. Your narrative should be no more than five pages, not including any additional documentation referenced in section 2.1 and 2.7.

2.1 Staff

____/10 A profiler shall have the appropriate personnel to perform hazard assessments. Staff shall include chemists, biologists, toxicologists, or others with science/technical backgrounds.

 Please list and attach resumes of personnel qualified to support the Safer Choice program. 2.2 Assessment and interpretation abilities

____/10 A profiler shall have the ability to assess and interpret diverse toxicological and other health and environmental information. This includes maintenance of appropriate staffing; a track record as a data reviewer; experience as a standards developer or certifier to standards or criteria.

 Describe your organization's experience and expertise with assessing and interpreting chemical hazard and fate information.  Identify whether your organization currently meets all ISO 65 criteria.

2.3 Access and management of hazard information

____/10 A profiler shall have the ability to access and manage chemical, health and environmental hazard information, including fluency with chemicals at the structural level.

 Describe your information technology expertise; protocol and equipment for data searching, storage and retrieval; and relevant experience and work products. 2.4 Use of estimation models and software

____/10 A profiler shall demonstrate skill at using EPA and other physical-chemical and environmental estimation models and software.

 Describe experience with EPA's Sustainable Futures Program and/or other relevant hazard modeling software and work products. 2.5 Secure handling of proprietary business information

____/10 A profiler shall have the appropriate systems and procedures in place to ensure the protection of all proprietary business information obtained through the review process for this program.

 Describe protocols and procedures in place for handling proprietary business information. 2.6 Safer Choice training and interaction

____/10 The profiler shall have the skills, experience, and training necessary to uphold the integrity, quality, and trustworthiness of the Safer Choice product and chemical evaluation processes, program, and label.

 Describe any previous interaction or training with Safer Choice or companies interested in Safer Choice recognition.  Demonstrate your adoption of good business practices  -  e.g., your policy on how to avoid conflict of interest.      2.7 Additional information  You may include testimonials, sample case studies, or other materials as attachments. 2.8 Pilot Review

____/40 Safer Choice will reach out to schedule a pilot review that simulates an actual product evaluation after the paper application has been received. Total

____/100

SECTION 3: Certification of Application       Please have the appropriate company or organization official (e.g., CEO, vice president for governmental affairs, division head, or other authorized signatory) sign here to verify the accuracy of the application.

Signature of Authorizing Official Date Printed Name and Title Date    I hereby affirm that the contents of this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, and that I am a representative of the company or organization named above and am duly authorized to sign on its behalf.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 84628-84629]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28257]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release Nos. 33-10258; 34-79350; File No. 265-27]

Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission Advisory Committee on
Small and Emerging Companies is providing notice that it will hold an
open, public telephone meeting on Wednesday, December 7, 2016,
beginning at 11:00 a.m. ET. Members of the public may attend the
meeting by listening to the audiocast accessible on the Commission's
Web site at www.sec.gov. Persons needing special accommodations to
access the meeting because of a disability should notify the contact
person listed below. The agenda for the meeting includes a continuation
of discussions started at the Committee's meeting on October 5, 2016,
including outreach and board diversity. The public is invited to submit
written statements to the Committee.

DATES: The public meeting will be held on Wednesday, December 7, 2016.
Written statements should be received on or before Monday, December 5,
2016.

ADDRESSES: Written statements may be submitted by any of the following
methods:

Electronic Statements

     Use the Commission's Internet submission form (http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/acsec.shtml); or
     Send an email message to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File Number 265-27 on the subject line; or

Paper Statements

     Send paper statements to Brent J. Fields, Federal Advisory
Committee Management Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File No. 265-27. This file number
should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us
process and review your statement more efficiently, please use only one
method. The Commission will post all statements on the Advisory
Committee's Web site at http://www.sec.gov./info/smallbus/acsec.shtml.
    Statements also will be available for Web site 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. All statements received will be posted without
change; we do not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Z. Davis, Senior Special
Counsel, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of Small Business Policy, Division
of Corporation Finance, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-3628.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with Section 10(a) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C.--App. 1, and the regulations
thereunder, Keith F. Higgins, Designated Federal Officer of the
Committee, has ordered publication of this notice.

    Dated: November 18, 2016.
Brent J. Fields,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016-28257 Filed 11-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P