	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	40 CFR Part 52

	[EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0506; FRL-         ]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Determination of Clean Data for the 1997
Fine Particulate Matter Standard

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Final rule.

SUMMARY:  EPA is determining that the Johnstown (Cambria and Indiana
Counties), Lancaster (Lancaster County), Reading (Berks County), and
York (York County), Pennsylvania nonattainment areas for the 1997 fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
have clean data for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

EFFECTIVE DATE:  This final rule is effective on [insert date of
publication].

ADDRESSES:  EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-

R03-OAR-2009-0506.  All documents in the docket are listed in the
HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov

website.  Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information (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 electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Rose Quinto,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Throughout this document whenever “we,”
“us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

Organization of this document.  The following outline is provided to aid
in locating information

in this preamble.

I.    What Action is EPA Taking?

II.   What is the Effect of this Action?

III.  When is this Action Effective?

IV.  What is EPA’s Final Action?

V.   What are the Statutory and Executive Order Reviews?

I.  What Action is EPA Taking?

EPA is determining that the Johnstown, Lancaster, Reading, and York
nonattainment areas have clean data for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.  This
determination is based upon quality assured, quality controlled and
certified ambient air monitoring data that show the area has monitored
attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS based on the 2006 – 2008 data.  In
addition, quality controlled and quality assured monitoring data
submitted during the calendar year 2009, which are available in the EPA
Air Quality System (AQS) database, but not yet certified, show that
these areas continue to meet the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Other specific requirements of the determination and the rationale for
EPA's proposed action are explained in the notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPR) published on July 31, 2009 (74 FR 38158) and will not be restated
here.  No public comments were received in response to the NPR.

II.  What is the Effect of this Action?

This final action, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.1004(c), suspends the
requirements for these areas to submit attainment demonstrations,
associated reasonably available control measures, reasonable further
progress plans, contingency measures, and other planning state
implementation plans (SIPs) related to attainment of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS for so long as these areas continue to meet the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

III.  When is the Action Effective?

EPA finds that there is good cause for this approval to become effective
on the date of

publication of this action in the Federal Register, because a delayed
effective date is unnecessary

due to the nature of the approval.  The expedited effective date for
this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides
that rule actions may become effective less than 30 days after
publication if the rule “grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves
a restriction” and 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), which allows an effective date
less than 30 days after publication “as

otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with
the rule.”  As noted above, this determination of attainment suspends
the requirements for the Johnstown, Lancaster, Reading, and York,
Pennsylvania PM2.5 nonattainment areas to submit an attainment
demonstration, associated reasonably available measures, a reasonable
further progress plan, contingency measures, and any other planning SIPs
related to attainment of the standard for so long as these areas
continue to meet the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.  The suspension of these
requirements is sufficient reason to allow an expedited effective date
of this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).  In addition, these nonattainment
areas’ suspension from these requirements provide good cause to make
this rule effective on the date of publication of this action in the
Federal Register, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).  The purpose of the
30-day waiting period prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is to give affected
parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before
the final rule takes effect.  Where, as here, the final rule suspends
requirements rather than imposing obligations, affected parties, such as
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, do not need time to adjust and prepare
before the rule takes effect.

IV.  What is EPA’s Final Action?

EPA is determining that the Johnstown, Lancaster, Reading, and York,
Pennsylvania nonattainment areas have clean data for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS.  This determination is based upon quality assured, quality
controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data showing that these
areas have monitored attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS based on the
2006 – 2008 data. This final action, in accordance with 40 CFR
51.1004(c), will suspend the requirements for these areas to submit
attainment demonstrations, associated reasonably available control
measures, reasonable further progress plans, contingency measures, and
other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for so
long as each of these areas continue to meet the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

V.   What  are Statutory and Executive Order Reviews?

A.   General Requirements

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal
regulations.  42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).  Thus, in reviewing
SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the CAA.  Accordingly, this action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.  For that
reason, this action:

is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993);

does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);

does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997);

is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211
(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the
CAA; and

does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects,
using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA
notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.

B.   Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the
rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States.  EPA will submit a report containing this action 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.  A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register.
 This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

C.  Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by [Insert date 60 days from date of publication of
this document in the Federal Register].  Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action, pertaining to the determination of clean data for the 1997
fine particulate matter standard for the Johnstown, Lancaster, Reading,
and York, Pennsylvania PM2.5 nonattainment areas, may not be challenged
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.  (See section
307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter.

__September 15, 2009____
_____________/s/______________

Dated:                            				William C. Early,

           Acting Regional Administrator,

                                  					Region III.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52 - [AMENDED]

1.  The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

               Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401et seq.

Subpart NN – Pennsylvania

2.  Section 52.2059 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as
follows:

§ 52.2059			Control strategy:  Particulate matter

*	*	*	*	*

Determination of Clean Data.  EPA has determined, as of [insert date of
publication], the Johnstown (Cambria and Indiana Counties), Lancaster
(Lancaster County), Reading (Berks County) and York (York County),
Pennsylvania nonattainment areas have clean data for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS.  This determination, in accordance with 40 CFR 52.1004(c),
suspends the requirements for these areas to submit an attainment
demonstration, associated reasonably available measures, a reasonable
further progress plan, contingency measures, and other planning SIPs
related to attainment of the standard for as long as these areas
continue to meet the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

 PAGE

 PAGE  7


To:
Integrated Iron and Steel (II&S) Response to Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN) Decision Project File
From:
Donna Lee Jones and Chuck French, OAQPS/EPA
Date:
December 14, 2021
Subject:
Minutes of the December 14, 2021 Conference Call with the American Iron and Steel Institute
NESHAP for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing

I.	Introduction
A conference call between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) was held on December 14, 2021. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss AISI's comments on the section 114 questionnaire and testing requirements for the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for the integrated iron and steel (II&S) manufacturing industry. This memorandum summarizes the major topics discussed during the meeting.

II.	Attendees and Affiliations
Paul Balserak, AISI
Rich Zavoda, Cleveland Cliffs
Rob Beranek, Cleveland Cliffs
Julianne Kurdila, Cleveland Cliffs
Jason Aagenes, Cleveland Cliffs
Brett Tunno, U.S. Steel
Chris Hardin U.S. Steel
David Hacker, U.S. Steel
Chuck Knauss, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Shannon Broome, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Donna Lee Jones, EPA/OAQPS
Chuck French, EPA/OAQPS
Kevin McGinn, EPA/OAQPS
Ned Shappley, EPA/OAQPS
Matt Woody, EPA/OAQPS
Meredith Miller, EPA/OGC Air & Radiation Law Office
Andy Doyle, DOJ-ENRD
Haley Key, RTI International
Gabrielle Raymond, RTI International

III.	Discussion
EPA addressed some of AISI's previous comments on a draft of the section 114 collection request for II&S.
EPA had collected blast furnace emissions data in 2010. This information will be included in the section 114 mail outs and facilities will be asked whether it is still representative data. Method 29 testing for blast furnace HAP metal emissions will only be required if the data is no longer representative. Method 29 testing for sinter plant HAP metal emissions will be required for 3 units. Sinter plants will also be required to perform emissions testing for hydrogen fluoride (HF).
Fenceline monitoring will be required for lead and arsenic as part of the section 114 data collection. Up to 4 monitors will be required at or near the fenceline. Samples should be taken every 6 days for 6 to 12 months. Data will need to be submitted quarterly. Testing will not be required for unmeasured fugitive and intermittent particulate (UFIP) sources as that would be too costly and there are no established methods for testing these sources. The questionnaire will include questions regarding opacity data and work practices, estimated costs of work practices, and what equipment is needed for each work practice.
In response to AISI comments on the draft section 114 collection request, EPA revised some of the language for clarity. EPA also added specification that there will be 2010 data prepopulated in the Excel questionnaire file which facilities will be able to update if applicable. EPA extended the original deadlines. There will be 3 separate deadlines: the first for the questionnaire response, the second for sinter plant testing, and the third for fenceline monitoring. EPA aims to publish a proposed rule by the end of 2022.
AISI indicated that lead and arsenic emissions data collected in the past near the fenceline of some II&S facilities showed emissions low enough to not be of concern, and that data collected on ambient air validates that lead and arsenic emissions are low. AISI suggests that EPA use this previously collected data instead of requiring fenceline monitoring as part of the section 114 collection, and expressed concern that fenceline monitoring would be costly. EPA indicated that since there is uncertainty about emissions from UFIP sources, testing options such as fenceline monitoring would inform EPA about on-site fugitive emissions. EPA will follow up on the previous collected data AISI referenced.
EPA indicated that 4 facilities would be required to conduct fenceline monitoring, but the specific facilities have been selected yet. Hunton suggested that the facilities selected be representative of an average II&S facility. EPA indicated that a meterology component would be included in the fenceline monitoring.
EPA clarified that HF emissions testing was required to address LEAN gaps, since no HF data had been collected from sinter plants in the past. HAP metals emission testing would be to refine the assessment of potential impacts on environmental justice communities.
EPA indicated in response to AISI's previous comments that slag pit sources would still be addressed in the section 114 questionnaire since they are located on-site at II&S facilities. RTI clarified that past opacity data would be requested for some UFIP sources, and addition Method 9 testing would be required if no past opacity data exists for those sources.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4271-4275]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01276]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96700; File No. SR-LCH SA-2023-002]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; LCH SA; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1, Relating to the CDSClear Fee Grid for 2023

January 18, 2023.
    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 January 5, 2023, Banque Centrale de Compensation, which conducts
business under the name LCH SA (``LCH SA''), filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'') the proposed rule
change described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been
prepared primarily by LCH SA. LCH SA filed the proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \4\
thereunder, so that the proposal was effective upon filing with the
Commission. On January 13, 2023, LCH SA filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change, which replaced and superseded in its entirety the
original filing.\5\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1
(hereafter, the ``proposed rule change''), from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
    \5\ Amendment No. 1 amends Exhibit 1A to correct a non-
substantive formatting error and adds further explanation and
justification to Part II(b), statutory basis. Amendment No. 1 also
submits an exhibit to the proposed rule change as an Exhibit 3. In a
separate correspondence that accompanies Amendment No. 1, LCH SA
requests confidential treatment for this Exhibit 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    (a) On January 5, 2023, Banque Centrale de Compensation, which
conducts business under the name LCH SA (``LCH SA''), filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change SR-LCH SA-2023-002 (``Proposed Rule Change'') pursuant to
Section 19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') and Rule
19b-4 thereunder in order to modify and update the current CDSClear fee
grid to be effective early January 2023. This Amendment No. 1 to the
Proposed Rule

Change,\6\ will replace and supersede entirety the original filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Available on LCH SA website: Proposed Rule Changes [verbar]
LCH Group (https://www.lch.com/resources/rulebooks/proposed-rule-changes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the Proposed Rule Change is in Exhibit 5 [sic].\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ All capitalized terms not defined herein have the same
definition as in the CDS Clearing Rule Book, Supplement or
Procedures, as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The implementation of the Proposed Rule Change will be contingent
on LCH SA's receipt of all necessary regulatory approvals.
    (b) Not applicable.
    (c) Not applicable.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, LCH SA 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. LCH SA 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

(a) Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed fee changes is for LCH SA to reflect
the ongoing development and new product scope of the CDSClear service
\8\ with the objective to meet clearing members and clients'
expectations on the clearing offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Self-Regulatory Organizations; LCH SA; Order Approving
Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Clearing of Markit
iTraxx[supreg] Australia Indices and the Associated Single-Name
Constituents and Remediation of WWR Margin Instability, Exchange Act
Release No. 34-95503 (August 16, 2022); 87 FR 51471 (August 22,
2022) (SR-LCH SA-2022-004); Self-Regulatory Organizations; LCH SA;
Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 and Order Granting Accelerated
Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2,
Relating to Providing Clearing Services for Additional Index and
Single Name Credit Default Swaps, Exchange Act Release No. 34-96468
(Dec. 8, 2022); 87 FR 76519 (Dec. 14, 2022) (SR-LCH SA-2022-007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As specified in Exhibit 5 [sic], LCH SA is proposing to amend the
CDSClear fee grid for 2023 as follows.
(1) Clearing Fees for Sovereign Index and Single Name CDS Activity
    LCH SA CDSClear currently offers an Unlimited Tariff for General
Members that covers all self-clearing Corporate and Financials CDS
Index and Single Names activity for a Financial Group of a Clearing
Member for an annual fixed fee of [euro]1,350,000 (no variable fees).
    As the scope of products covered by the Unlimited Tariff for
General Members does not include Sovereign Single Names CDS, the
proposed change introduces a distinct fixed fee of [euro]180,000 per
annum \9\ for General Members to cover all self-clearing Sovereign
Single Names CDS activity for a Financial Group of a Clearing Member.
General Members can opt-in for this tariff or pay variable fees to
clear Sovereign Single Name CDS as per the current fee grid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ This annual fixed fee of [euro]180,000 will be divided by
twelve and be charged monthly, equaling [euro]15,000 per month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As per the existing fee grid, CDSClear offers a full discount of
Sovereign Single Names variable fees for one calendar year from the
launch date of this initiative. This initiative launched on December
14, 2022. As such, LCH SA proposes to amend the fee grid to clarify the
full extent of this discount (i.e., from December 14, 2022 up to and
including December 14, 2023).
    LCH SA proposes to authorize General Members to switch between the
annual fixed fee tariff and the variable fees for Sovereign Single Name
CDS no more than once per year, such change to be effective from the
start of the next month following a 15 business days' notice period.
(2) General Members' Introductory Tariff
    General Members under the Introductory Tariff pay an annual
Membership and clearing fixed fee to cover all self-clearing Corporate,
Financials and Sovereign Index and Single Names activity of:
     [euro]200,000 if the total annual gross notional cleared
is under [euro]10bn.
     [euro]400,000 if the total annual gross notional cleared
is over [euro]10bn.
    Besides, currently:
     Where the total annual gross notional cleared by a General
Member under the Introductory Tariff reaches [euro]10bn in any calendar
year, then no further fixed fees are payable that year and the General
Member will automatically be invoiced at the higher tariff of
[euro]400,000 for the following year.
     Where the total annual gross notional cleared by a General
Member under the Introductory Tariff on the higher tariff of
[euro]400,000 falls below [euro]10bn in any calendar year, the General
Member will automatically be invoiced at the lower tariff of
[euro]200,000 for the following year.
    The General Members' Introductory Tariff is charged monthly at one-
twelfth of the total per month.
    Under the proposal, rather than having a dividing threshold of
[euro]10bn in total annual gross notional cleared, all General Members
automatically would be charged the higher tariff, and rebated a certain
amount if their gross notional clearing activity does not cross the
[euro]10bn threshold at the end of the year. As proposed, General
Members under the Introductory Tariff would be charged an annual
Membership and clearing fee of [euro]400,000 for any given calendar
year (one-twelfth being charged each month) but those having cleared
less than [euro]10bn in that year would get a rebate in their last bill
for the year such that their annual Membership and clearing fee amount
would revert to [euro]200,000.
(3) Select Members' Tariff
    Select Members currently pay an annual membership and clearing
fixed fee to cover all self-clearing Corporate, Financials and
Sovereign Index and Single Names activity of:
     [euro]250,000 if the total annual gross notional cleared
is under [euro]20bn.
     [euro]450,000 if the total annual gross notional cleared
is over [euro]20bn.
    With the proposed change, the threshold would be lowered to
[euro]10 billion from [euro]20 billion. Select Members would pay an
annual Membership and clearing fixed fee to cover all self-clearing
Corporate, Financials and Sovereign Index and Single Names activity of:
     [euro]250,000 if the total annual gross notional cleared
is under [euro]10bn.
     [euro]450,000 if the total annual gross notional cleared
is over [euro]10bn.
    Currently, where the total annual gross notional cleared by a
Select Member reaches [euro]20bn in any calendar year, then no further
fixed fees are payable that year and the Select Member will
automatically be invoiced at the higher tariff of [euro]450,000 for the
following year. Also under the present rules, where the total annual
gross notional cleared by a Select Member on the higher tariff of
[euro]450,000 falls below [euro]20bn in any calendar year, the Select
Member will automatically be invoiced at the lower tariff of
[euro]250,000 for the following year. As with the General Members'
Introductory Tariff, the Select Members' Tariff is charged monthly at
one-twelfth of the total per month.
    According to the proposal, not only would the total annual gross
notional cleared threshold be halved, but also Select Members
automatically would be charged the higher tariff, and rebated a certain
amount if their gross notional clearing activity does not cross the
newly lowered [euro]10bn threshold at the end of the year. Select
Members would be charged an annual membership and clearing fee of
[euro]450,000 for any given

calendar year (one twelfth being charged each month) but those having
cleared less than [euro]10bn in that year would get a rebate in their
last bill for the year such that their annual Membership and clearing
fee amount to [euro]250,000.
(4) CCP Switch Programme
    The proposals to the CDSClear fee grid are intended to reflect the
incentive fee programme offered to existing and new clearing members
(CCP Switch Programme), a proposed rule change that was recently filed
with and given immediate effectiveness by the SEC.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Self-Regulatory Organizations; LCH SA; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1, Relating to the CDSClear CCP Switch Programme,
Exchange Act Release No. Release No. 34-95808 (September 16, 2022);
87 FR 57931 (September 22, 2022) (SR-LCH SA-2022-005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(5) High Turnover Fee Plan
    The proposed CDSClear fee grid would introduce a High Turnover Fee
Plan (HTFP) for Clients and Select Members.
    Currently, CDSClear Clearing Members are charged a variable fee on
their client clearing flows per [euro]/$ million of gross notional
cleared, as follows:

                                                              Variable Fee--Client Clearing
                                                          [Per million gross notional cleared]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Credit index                                       Credit index
                            EUR indices                                 EUR single      options--EUR     U.S. indices     U.S. single      option--U.S.
                                                                          names           indices                            names           Indices
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[euro]4                                                                    [euro]12          [euro]4               $5              $17               $4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, Select Members are charged a variable fee on their House
flows per EUR/USD million of gross notional cleared defined as follows:

                                                       Variable Fee--Select Members Self-Clearing
                                                          [Per million gross notional cleared]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Credit index                                       Credit index
                            EUR indices                                 EUR single      options--EUR     U.S. indices     U.S. single      option--U.S.
                                                                          names           indices                            names           indices
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[euro]4                                                                    [euro]10         [euro]10               $5              $13              $10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposal, the HTFP introduction would establish a
variable fee grid based on notional in order to make it more attractive
for new Select Members as well as new buy-side clients to select
CDSClear as their CCP and/or CDSClear existing Select Members, and
clients to clear more by decreasing the marginal variable fee past
predefined notional thresholds as detailed below, and in Exhibit 5
[sic]. The HTFP thus provides Select Members and Clients with the same
type of incentive to clear more volumes than the Unlimited Tariff
offers to General Members, under which they pay an annual fixed fee of
[euro]1.35m that covers all self-clearing Corporate and Financial Index
and Single Names activity as well as Sovereign Index activity for all
entities part of the Financial Group of a given Clearing Member. As a
result, the HTFP doesn't need to be offered to the General Members.
    The buckets would apply to the actual notional cleared in a given
calendar year distinctly for Euro denominated Indices, US Dollar
denominated Indices, Euro denominated Single Names and US Dollar
denominated Single Names only.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN24JA23.252

    Finally, the HTFP would exclude from the determination of the total
cleared notional:
     the notional cleared for which a CCP Switch credit note
was used to zero out the clearing fees; and
     the notional cleared part of a CCP Switch that thus did
not attract any clearing fees.
(6) LSOC Account Structure Fees
    Today, LCH SA did not have any futures commission merchant (FCM)
using its clearing services but in view of a first FCM to join the
CDSClear service in the coming months, it is proposed to not charge any
account structure fees for Legally Segregated, Operationally Commingled
(LSOC) account structures.
(7) Extension of the Fee Holiday Period for Options Cleared by Clients
and Maintenance of the EEP Usage Free of Charge in 2023
    LCH SA is proposing to renew the fee holiday \11\ for Client
clearing Options in 2023 as well as to maintain for 2023 the Electronic
Exercise Platform (EEP) usage free of charge, both to promote and
encourage option clearing take-up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Self-Regulatory Organizations; LCH SA; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the
Amendments of the CDSClear Fee Grid, Release No. 34-90862 (Jan. 6,
2021), 86 FR 2468 (Jan. 12, 2021), File No. SR-LCH SA-2020-007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Statutory Basis
    Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act requires that the rules of a
clearing agency provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among its participants.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    LCH SA believes that this proposed rule change concerning its
clearing fee changes is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A
of the Act \13\ and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to
it, and in particular provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable fees, dues, and other charges among clearing members and
market participants by ensuring that clearing members and clients pay
reasonable fees and dues for the services provided by LCH SA, within
the meaning of Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to take into account the new product scope of the clearing
services offered by CDSClear, including, for example, Markit
iTraxx[supreg] Australia Indices and the Associated Single-Name
Constituents, as well as the iTraxx Asia ex Japan Index, the Markit CDX
Emerging Markets Index and the single name credit default swaps
(``CDS'') that comprise each index, LCH SA is proposing to introduce a
fixed fee tariff covering all self-clearing Sovereign Single Names CDS
activity carried out by a Financial Group of a Clearing Member. The
fixed fee amount was reasonably determined by LCH SA on the basis of
the expected General Members' cleared volumes, examining both the
Sovereign Single Name CDS cleared notional by other Credit CCPs as well
as the outstanding bilateral notional of Sovereign Single Name CDS
available to clear.
    This proposed additional tariff for Sovereign Single Name CDS does
not impact the existing tariffs applicable to existing clearing
services (i.e., the General Members' Unlimited tariff for Corporates
and Financials Index and Single Names the General Members' Unlimited
tariff for Options as well as the General Members' Introductory tariffs
for Indices, Single Names and Options). The proposed additional tariff
also provides General Members more optionality to manage their cost of
clearing Sovereign Single Name CDS by offering a similar choice of
tariffs to the existing ones for Corporates and Financials Index and
Single Names or for Options.
    For both General Members under the Introductory Tariff and Select
Members, LCH SA is proposing to adjust the way it collects the fixed
fee amount in a transparent manner that is equally applicable to ensure
that those Clearing Members are charged the relevant fixed fee amount
depending on their total notional cleared for the calendar year in
which they cleared such notional.
    Additionally, for Select Members, LCH SA is proposing to lower by
half the threshold amount which determines the amount of the annual
clearing fixed fee to cover all self-clearing Corporate, Financials and
Sovereign Index and Single Names activity, thus impacting the rebate
that may be granted.
    LCH SA believes that implementing such adjustments made to avoid
General Members under the Introductory Tariff paying more than Select
Members for the same notional cleared whilst General Members have more
obligations than Select Members is consistent with the requirements of
Section 17A of the Act \15\ and the regulations thereunder applicable
to it, and in particular provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable fees, dues, and other charges among clearing members and
market participants by ensuring that Members pay reasonable fees and
dues for the services provided by LCH SA, within the meaning of Section
17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    LCH SA has determined that the proposed fees associated to the High
Turnover Fee Plan are reasonable and appropriate to charge to offer and
maintain CDSClear clearing services. In particular, LCH SA believes
that the volume-based discounts have been set up at an appropriate
level, given the costs and expenses to LCH SA in providing such
services. LCH SA also considers that the introduction of the High
Turnover Fee Plan is designed to be more appropriate and attractive for
Select Members and Clients in order to promote the clearing activity.
As a reminder, the current fee grid already includes an Unlimited
Tariff for General Members which also implies a decreasing marginal
clearing fee rate as cleared notional increases, and thus promotes the
clearing activity even further than the HTFP as it applies to all
entities part of the Financial Group of a given Clearing Member.
    Finally, LCH SA believes that the renewal of the fee holiday for
options clearing fees for Clients in 2023 will contribute to growing
the options client clearing activity. As a result, LCH SA considers
that the introduction of the High Turnover Fee Plan as well as the
renewal of the fee holiday for Clients clearing Options are also
consistent with the prompt and accurate clearance in accordance with
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, LCH SA has determined that not charging any account
structure fees for Legally Segregated, Operationally Commingled (LSOC)
account structures is consistent with the absence of charge for account
structure fees for a Clearing Member's main Gross Omnibus Segregated
Account (GOSA), and as such guarantees equal applicability of fees to
any category of market participant wishing to access the CDSClear
clearing service.
    For all the reasons stated above, LCH SA believes that the Proposed
Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(D)
of the Act.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

B. Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition.

    Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act 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.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    LCH SA does not believe that the Proposed Rule Change would impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because LCH SA is offering the
possibility for CDSClear members and clients to obtain a more
appropriate and flexible access to the clearing services. The Proposed
Rule Change would not affect the ability of Clearing Members or other
market participants generally to engage in cleared transactions or to
access clearing services.
    Additionally, the clearing fee conditions would remain transparent
and equally applicable to any category of market participant wishing to
access the CDSClear clearing service for the extensive scope of
products offered, including those that are not mandatory for clearing.
    Further, as explained above, LCH SA believes that the fee rates
would be maintained at an appropriate level, given the costs and
expenses to LCH SA in offering the relevant clearing services.

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

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been
solicited or received. LCH SA will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by LCH SA.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective upon filing
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \20\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
\21\ thereunder because it establishes a fee or other charge imposed by
LCH SA on its Clearing Members. At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such proposed rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-LCH SA-2023-002 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-LCH SA-2023-002. 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 the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of LCH SA and on LCH SA's website
at: https://www.lch.com/resources/rulebooks/proposed-rule-changes. 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-LCH SA-2023-002 and should
be submitted on or before February 14, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-01276 Filed 1-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P