[Federal Register: March 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 43)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 11564-11565]
[DOCID:fr04mr08-22]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2007-1180; FRL-8535-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the state of Iowa to demonstrate that the state
meets the requirements of Section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air
Act (CAA). Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each state adopt and
submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of
each NAAQS promulgated by the EPA and is commonly referred to as an
infrastructure SIP. In 1997, EPA promulgated the 8-hour ozone primary
and secondary NAAQS. A revision to Iowa's SIP detailing how the state
plans to ensure that the revised ozone standard is implemented,
enforced, and maintained in Iowa was submitted on June 15, 2007. The
submittal addressed all the elements of the October 2, 2007, guidance
issued by the Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards with respect
to infrastructure SIPs.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by
April 3, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2007-1180 by one of the following methods:

    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail: Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City,
Kansas 66101.
    4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: Heather
Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development
Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Hamilton at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of the Federal
Register, EPA is approving the state's SIP revision as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial revision and anticipates no relevant adverse comments
on this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in
the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in
response to this action, no further activity is contemplated in
relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the
direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received
will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed
action. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action.
Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at
this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of
this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the
rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the
subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the
direct final rule which is located in the rules section of this Federal
Register.

    Dated: February 15, 2008.
John B. Askew,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
 [FR Doc. E8-4046 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 10, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47618-47625]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19538]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86876; File No. SR-FICC-2019-801]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of Advance Notice To Amend the GSD Rulebook To
Establish a Process To Address Liquidity Needs in Certain Situations in
the GCF Repo and CCIT Services and Make Other Changes

September 5, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act entitled the Payment,
Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (``Clearing
Supervision Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4(n)(1)(i) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\2\ notice is hereby given that on
August 9, 2019, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the advance
notice SR-FICC-2019-801 (``Advance Notice'') as described in Items I,
II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the clearing
agency.\3\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the Advance Notice from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(n)(1)(i).
    \3\ On August 9, 2019, FICC filed this Advance Notice as a
proposed rule change (SR-FICC-2019-004) with the Commission pursuant
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1), and Rule 19b-4
thereunder, 17 CFR 240.19b-4. A copy of the proposed rule change is
available at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Advance
Notice

    This Advance Notice consists of amendments to the FICC Government
Securities Division (``GSD'') Rulebook (the ``Rules'') \4\ to: (i)
Establish a new deadline and associated late fees for satisfaction of
net cash obligations in GCF Repo Transaction \5\ and CCIT Transaction
\6\ activity (hereinafter ``GCF Repo/CCIT activity'') \7\ and remove
the current 6:00 p.m. Collateral Allocation Obligation \8\ deadline;
(ii) establish a process to provide liquidity to FICC in situations
where a Netting Member or CCIT Member \9\ with a net cash obligation in
GCF Repo/CCIT activity, that is otherwise in good standing, is either
(1) delayed in satisfying or (2) unable to satisfy its cash obligation
(in whole or in part); and (iii) make a clarification, certain
technical changes and corrections, all as further described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Capitalized terms not defined herein are defined in the
Rules, available at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures.
    \5\ ``GCF Repo Transaction'' means a Repo Transaction involving
Generic CUSIP Numbers the data on which are submitted to FICC on a
Locked-In-Trade basis pursuant to the provisions of Rule 6C, for
netting and settlement by FICC pursuant to the provisions of Rule
20. Rule 1, supra note 4.
    \6\ ``CCIT Transaction'' means a transaction that is processed
by FICC in the CCIT Service. Because the CCIT Service leverages the
infrastructure and processes of the GCF Repo Service, a CCIT
Transaction must be: (i) In a Generic CUSIP Number approved for the
GCF Repo Service and (ii) between a CCIT Member and a Netting Member
who participates in the GCF Repo Service where the CCIT Member is
the cash lender in the transaction. Rule 1, supra note 4.
    \7\ The GCF Repo Service is primarily governed by Rule 20 and
enables Netting Members to trade general collateral finance
repurchase agreement transactions based on rate, term, and
underlying product throughout the day with brokers on a blind basis.
The CCIT Service is governed by Rule 3B and enables tri-party
repurchase agreement transactions in GCF Repo Securities between
Netting Members that participate in the GCF Repo Service and
institutional cash lenders (other than investment companies
registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended).
Rule 20 and Rule 3B, supra note 4.
    \8\ ``Collateral Allocation Obligation'' means the obligation of
a Netting Member to allocate securities or cash for the benefit of
FICC to secure such Member's GCF Net Funds Borrower Position. Rule
1, supra note 4.
    \9\ ``CCITTM'' means Centrally Cleared Institutional
Triparty. The terms ``Centrally Cleared Institutional Triparty
Member'' and ``CCIT Member'' mean a legal entity other than a
Registered Investment Company approved to participate in the FICC's
CCIT Service as a cash lender. Rule 1, supra note 4. Eligibility to
become a CCIT Member is described in Section 2 of Rule 3B. Rule 3B,
Section 2, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Advance Notice

    In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included
statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the Advance Notice
and discussed any comments it received on the Advance Notice. The text
of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV
below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A and B below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Advance Notice
Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments relating to this proposal have not been solicited
or received. FICC will notify the Commission of any written comments
received by FICC.

(B) Advance Notice Filed Pursuant to Section 806(e) of the Clearing
Supervision Act

Nature of the Proposed Change
    The proposed rule change would amend the Rules to: (i) Establish a
new deadline and associated late fees for satisfaction of net cash
obligations in GCF Repo/CCIT activity and remove the current 6:00 p.m.
Collateral Allocation Obligation deadline; (ii) establish a process to
provide liquidity to FICC in situations where a Netting Member or CCIT
Member with a net cash obligation in GCF Repo/CCIT activity, that is
otherwise in good standing, is either (1) delayed in satisfying or (2)
unable to satisfy its cash obligation (in whole or in part); and (iii)
make a clarification, certain technical changes and corrections, all as
further described below.
(i) Proposed Change To Establish a New Deadline and Associated Late
Fees for Satisfaction of Net Cash Obligations in GCF Repo/CCIT Activity
and Remove the Current 6:00 p.m. Collateral Allocation Obligation
Deadline
Securities Obligations (Collateral Allocation Obligations)
    The Rules (Section 3 of Rule 20, the Schedule of GCF Timeframes and
the Fee Structure) currently address a Netting Member's failure to
satisfy its Collateral Allocation Obligation on a timely basis.\10\
Specifically, Section 3 of Rule 20 states that Collateral Allocation
Obligations must be satisfied by a Netting Member within the timeframes
established for such by FICC.\11\ The current deadline in the Schedule
of GCF Timeframes for Netting Member allocation of collateral to
satisfy securities obligations is 4:30 p.m.\12\ This 4:30 p.m. deadline
is the first deadline

by which Netting Members that have Collateral Allocation Obligations
must allocate their securities collateral or be subject to a late fee
of $500 (the late fee is set forth in the Fee Structure of the
Rules).\13\ In addition, the Schedule of GCF Timeframes includes a
second deadline of 6:00 p.m. by which Netting Members that have
Collateral Allocation Obligations must allocate their securities
collateral; after 6:00 p.m., FICC will process such collateral
allocations on a good faith basis only.\14\ These provisions are
mirrored in Section 3 of Rule 20, which also references the ``final
cutoff'' (i.e., the 6:00 p.m. deadline).\15\ Section 3 of Rule 20 also
provides FICC's processing of such late allocations is on a good faith
basis only.\16\ Furthermore, Section 3 of Rule 20 states that Netting
Members that do not satisfy their Collateral Allocation Obligations by
the close of the Fedwire Funds Service shall be deemed to have failed
on such Position (the consequence of which shall be that such Netting
Member would not be entitled to receive the funds borrowed, but shall
owe interest on such funds amount).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Rule 20, Section 3, Schedule of GCF Timeframes, and Fee
Structure, supra note 4. Collateral Allocation Obligations do not
apply to CCIT Members because they can only be cash lenders in the
CCIT Transactions.
    \11\ Rule 20, Section 3, supra note 4.
    \12\ Schedule of GCF Timeframes, supra note 4.
    \13\ Fee Structure, supra note 4.
    \14\ Schedule of GCF Timeframes, supra note 4. Today, after 6:00
p.m., FICC will process collateral allocations on a good faith
basis, namely if FICC is able to contact both affected Netting
Members and such Netting Members agree to settle such transaction,
then FICC and its GCF Clearing Agent Bank will settle such
transaction.
    \15\ Rule 20, Section 3, supra note 4.
    \16\ Id.
    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the foregoing regarding allocation of securities
collateral on a timely basis, FICC proposes to establish 4:30 p.m. as
the only deadline for Netting Member allocation of collateral.\18\ In
other words, FICC proposes to remove the current second deadline (i.e.,
6:00 p.m.) by which Netting Members that have Collateral Allocation
Obligations must allocate their securities obligations. This proposed
change would align the deadline for allocating securities obligations
with the proposed deadline for satisfying cash obligations (i.e., 4:30
p.m. or one hour after the close of the Fedwire Securities Service
reversals, if later). Netting Members typically have obligations to
satisfy outside of FICC after the collateral allocations occur at FICC.
FICC believes that all parties (including FICC) would benefit from
securities settlement occurring by 4:30 p.m. This is because the more
settlements that complete earlier, the more potential operational risk
is removed from the market. Specifically, there is interconnectivity
between the GCF Repo market and the tri-party market outside of FICC.
The securities collateral that is used to settle GCF Repo positions can
be subsequently used by Netting Members to complete tri-party
transactions outside of FICC. Therefore, the earlier that securities
settlement occurs in the GCF Repo Service, the less potential
operational risk of incomplete tri-party transactions outside of FICC.
Under the current Rules, the second deadline of 6:00 p.m. creates an
environment of later settlement both at FICC and outside of FICC. Even
though Netting Members are generally abiding by the 4:30 p.m.
securities allocation deadline, FICC would like to address the
possibility of later settlement by deleting the 6:00 p.m. deadline.
Therefore, by imposing 4:30 p.m. as the only deadline, FICC believes it
would be lowering potential operational risk in the market that could
arise if Netting Members chose to avail themselves of the current 6:00
p.m. deadline. This risk is the risk of disorder if firms are
attempting to fulfill GCF Repo settlement and tri-party transaction
settlement at the same time later in the day. Under the proposal, FICC
would continue to process collateral allocations after the 4:30 p.m.
deadline on a good faith basis only (like it currently does for
collateral allocations after the current 6:00 p.m. deadline). Netting
Members would remain subject to the $500 late fee if they do not meet
the 4:30 p.m. deadline unless FICC determines, in its sole discretion,
that failure to meet this timeframe is not primarily the fault of the
Netting Member, as currently stated in Section IX of the Fee Structure.
This determination would be made by FICC Product Management based on
input from the GCF Clearing Agent Bank, internal FICC Operations staff
and the Netting Member. The Netting Member would not be charged if the
lateness is due to the GCF Clearing Agent Bank or FICC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Schedule of GCF Timeframes, supra note 4. Currently,
the Schedule of GCF Timeframes provides that the first deadline for
collateral allocation is 4:30 p.m. or one hour after the close of
the securities FedWire, if later. The reference regarding one hour
after the FedWire close would remain, subject to a correction
discussed below in Item II(B)(iii) of this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Obligations
    The Rules do not currently contain a deadline for a Netting
Member's or CCIT Member's satisfaction of cash obligations in the GCF
Repo Service and the CCIT Service. FICC proposes to establish 4:30 p.m.
(or one hour after the close of the Fedwire Securities Service
reversals, if later) as the deadline for a ``Net Funds Payor'' (as
defined by this proposed rule change) \19\ to satisfy their cash
obligations after which a late fee of $500 would be imposed unless FICC
determines that failure to meet this timeframe is not the fault of the
Net Funds Payor. This determination would be made by FICC Product
Management based on input from the GCF Clearing Agent Bank, internal
FICC Operations staff and the Netting Member. The Net Funds Payor would
not be charged if the lateness is due to the GCF Clearing Agent Bank or
FICC. To encourage Netting Members and CCIT Members that are Net Funds
Payors to satisfy their cash obligations by the 4:30 p.m. deadline, the
proposed rule change would provide for progressive increases in the
amount of the late fee for additional late occurrences. Specifically,
the late fees would apply as follows: (a) $500 for the first occurrence
(within 30 calendar days), (b) $1,000 for the second occurrence (within
30 calendar days), (c) $2,000 for the third occurrence (within 30
calendar days), and (d) $3,000 for the fourth occurrence (within 30
calendar days) or additional occurrences (within the 30 calendar days).
The Rules currently set forth a late fee of $500 for late securities
settlement. As such, for late cash settlement, FICC is also proposing
to establish $500 as the initial late fee; however, as described above,
there would be progressive increases in the amount of the late fee for
additional late occurrences. FICC derived these amounts by starting
with the equivalent late fee of $500 that is currently imposed with
respect to late securities settlement and then increased the late fee
amounts to provide a disincentive effect.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ FICC is proposing to add ``Net Funds Payor'' as a new
definition as explained in Item II(B)(iii) below.
    \20\ Because the deadline for cash settlement is newly proposed,
FICC would like to provide a disincentive for cash lateness and,
therefore, is proposing fee increases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, FICC proposes to establish additional late fees that
would be imposed on Netting Members and CCIT Members that are Net Funds
Payors that fail to make the required payment of cash by the close of
the Fedwire Funds Service. Specifically, the following additional late
fees would be imposed if cash obligations are not satisfied by the
close of the Fedwire Funds Service (unless FICC determines that the
failure to meet this timeframe is not primarily the fault of the Net
Funds Payors \21\): (a) 100 basis points on

the unsatisfied cash obligation amount for the first occurrence (within
90 calendar days),\22\ (b) 200 basis points on the unsatisfied cash
obligation amount for the second occurrence (within 90 calendar days),
(c) 300 basis points on the unsatisfied cash obligation amount for the
third occurrence (within 90 calendar days), and (d) 400 basis points on
the unsatisfied cash obligation amount for the fourth occurrence
(within 90 calendar days) or additional occurrences (within the 90
calendar days). As there is no comparative data, FICC believes these
amounts in this section represent reasonable and scaling incentives for
Netting Members and CCIT Members that are Net Funds Payors to satisfy
their cash obligations in a timely manner. The proposed late fees
related to the 4:30 p.m. deadline are in flat dollar amounts whereas
the proposed late fees related to cash obligations not being satisfied
by the close of the Fedwire Funds Service are in basis points and based
on the amount of unsettled cash obligations. FICC has structured its
proposal in this way because the proposed late fees related to the 4:30
p.m. deadline would address lateness whereas the proposed late fee
related to cash obligations not being satisfied by the close of the
Fedwire Funds Service would charge for the amount of cash that was not
settled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ This determination would be made by FICC Product Management
based on input from the GCF Clearing Agent Bank, internal FICC
Operations staff and the Netting Member. The Net Funds Payor would
not be charged if the lateness is due to the GCF Clearing Agent Bank
or FICC.
    \22\ The late fee is based on the ACT/360 day count convention,
where ``ACT'' represents the actual number of days in the period.
For example, assuming a first occurrence unsatisfied cash obligation
of $100 million, the late fee would be $100 million * 100/3600000 =
$2,777.78. This example uses the first occurrence amount. This
calculation would apply to the rest of the proposed late fees in
this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(ii) Proposed Change To Establish a Process To Provide Liquidity to
FICC in Situations Where a Netting Member or CCIT Member With a Net
Cash Obligation in GCF Repo/CCIT Activity, That Is Otherwise in Good
Standing, Is Either (1) Delayed in Satisfying or (2) Unable To Satisfy
Its Cash Obligation (in Whole or in Part)
Proposed Process
    FICC is proposing to establish a process to address FICC's
liquidity needs in situations in which a Netting Member or CCIT Member
that is a Net Funds Payor, that is otherwise in good standing with
FICC, is delayed or unable to satisfy (either in whole or in part) its
GCF Repo/CCIT activity cash obligations.\23\ The proposed process would
not apply if FICC ceases to act for the Netting Member or CCIT Member,
in which case the close-out rules would apply.\24\ Because settlement
of GCF Repo/CCIT activity occurs late in the day, having an established
process to handle a non-default related liquidity need would benefit
FICC and its members by improving FICC's ability to complete settlement
and thereby reduce risk to FICC and the industry. This proposal would
provide FICC with the tools to replace failed settlement with a
financing transaction with FICC, as further described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Such delay could, for example, be due to operational issues
experienced by the Net Funds Payor. If a Netting Member with a
collateral obligation does not deliver its securities, FICC
considers it a fail. However, if a Netting Member or CCIT Member
with a cash obligation is unable to deliver its cash (and is in good
standing), FICC intends to employ the proposed process.
    \24\ See Rule 22A, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC would first evaluate whether to recommend to the Board's Risk
Committee that FICC cease to act for such Net Funds Payor. FICC would
consider, but would not be limited to, the following factors in its
evaluation: (i) The Net Funds Payor's current financial position, (ii)
the amount of the outstanding payment, (iii) the cause of the late
payment, (iv) current market conditions, and (v) the size of the
potential overnight reverse repurchase transactions under the GCF Repo
Allocation Waterfall MRAs (as defined below) on the GSD membership.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ FICC already has the authority to cease to act for a member
that does not fulfill an obligation to FICC and will continually
evaluate throughout the proposed process whether FICC will cease to
act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the proposal, once FICC determines that a Net Funds
Payor is in good standing with GSD but is experiencing an issue, such
as an operational issue, that may result in a late payment, partial
payment or non-payment of its cash obligation on the settlement date,
the following process would occur:
     In the case where the Net Funds Payor only satisfies part
of its cash obligation, the GCF Clearing Agent Bank would settle the
cash it received pursuant to such GCF Clearing Agent Bank's settlement
algorithm (as is done today). The GCF Clearing Agent Bank has its own
settlement algorithm, which would allocate the partial amount of cash
received from the Net Funds Payor among the various Net Funds
Receivers.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ An example of how the satisfaction of a partial cash
obligation may be allocated among the Net Funds Receivers is
provided in the third paragraph under ``Example'' in this section of
this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     FICC would evaluate whether FICC will provide liquidity
(in the form of end-of-day borrowing of Clearing Fund cash (``EOD
Clearing Fund Cash,'' which is a new definition proposed to be added by
this filing) and/or GCF Clearing Agent Bank loans) to satisfy any
remaining unsettled cash obligation of a Net Funds Payor on a pro rata
basis based upon such Net Funds Receivers' percentage of the entire
remaining amount of the unsettled cash obligation.
     FICC would first consider whether its GCF Clearing Agent
Bank will provide overnight financing. Because FICC's overnight
financing arrangements with its GCF Clearing Agent Bank are
uncommitted, such arrangements are subject to the GCF Clearing Agent
Bank's discretion. Financing extended by the GCF Clearing Agent Bank
would use such bank's haircut schedule, and Clearing Fund securities
would be used to satisfy the haircut.\27\ FICC would not set a priority
between the Clearing Fund cash and the overnight financing arrangements
from its GCF Clearing Agent Bank (if any) because GSD's decision to use
either or both resources would be influenced on a case-by-case basis by
factors such as the specific circumstances, availability of a bank
loan, market conditions, commercial considerations and ease of
operational execution.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Rule 4, Section 5, supra note 4.
    \28\ The specific circumstances that FICC would consider are the
time of day and the size of the shortfall. Regarding the market
conditions, FICC would consider whether there are stress events
occurring in the market. With respect to commercial considerations,
FICC would consider the current loan rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     FICC's use of EOD Clearing Fund Cash for this situation
would be subject to certain internal limitations. Specifically, GSD
would establish a cap on the amount of EOD Clearing Fund Cash that may
be used for this purpose to the lesser of $1 billion or 20 percent of
available Clearing Fund Cash. GSD reviewed GCF and CCIT settlement
activity for the period from July 2, 2018 through February 28, 2019 and
noted that the average cash amount required across all 71 Members was
between zero and $23.7 billion. Over this period, there were 27 Members
with no cash amount required and 18 Members with an average cash amount
of less than $1 billion. Therefore, FICC believes that the proposed cap
would provide resources to facilitate settlement for a typical cash
amount at a level that would not materially impact its liquidity
resources in the event that there is a simultaneous need for liquidity
both under the scenario this proposal is seeking to address and another
Member-related default. GSD would not set a priority between Clearing
Fund cash and overnight financing by the GCF Clearing Agent Bank (if
any) because GSD's decision to use either or both resources would be
influenced on a case-by-case

basis by various factors, as described in the previous bullet.
     The cash amount that FICC would be able to raise from EOD
Clearing Fund Cash and/or GCF Clearing Agent Bank loans would be
applied to unsettled cash obligations of the Net Funds Receivers on a
pro rata basis. The pro-ration would be based upon the percentage of
each Net Fund Receiver's unsettled obligation versus the total amount
of all unsettled obligations.
     For example, assume the unsettled obligations totaled $1
billion and the liquidity raised is $800 million. In this case, FICC
would instruct the GCF Clearing Agent Bank(s) to apply the liquidity
amount ($800 million) to the remaining unsettled GCF Repo/CCIT
obligations. Assume there are two Net Funds Receivers with unsettled
obligations (one Netting/CCIT Member is short $600 million and the
other is short $400 million). In this case, the first Net Funds
Receiver would receive 60 percent of the $800 million ($480 million)
and the second Net Funds Receiver would receive 40 percent of the $800
million ($320 million). The remaining unfunded $200 million would be
distributed via overnight reverse repurchase transactions.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ All pro-ration calculations would be rounded to the nearest
million unless a smaller denomination is required to complete
settlement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     To the extent that the amount from the application of the
Clearing Fund cash and overnight financing arrangement (if any) is
insufficient to cover the outstanding cash obligations, FICC would
enter into overnight repurchase agreements with Net Funds Receivers
that are in unsettled Net Funds Receiver Positions. These repos would
be done pursuant to the ``GCF Repo Allocation Waterfall MRA'' (as
proposed to be added by this filing) and would be Rules-based.
     FICC would notify each unsettled Net Funds Receiver at the
GCF Clearing Agent Bank that did not satisfy its cash obligation, and
each such Net Funds Receiver would be required to enter into an
overnight reverse repurchase agreement at the applicable Generic CUSIP
Number with FICC. The amount of such reverse repurchase agreement would
be at the remaining unsettled amount per Net Funds Receiver. Therefore,
amounts received by FICC from these overnight reverse repurchase
agreements would be used to satisfy remaining unsettled cash
obligations.
     Such reverse repurchase agreements would be entered into
pursuant to the terms of a 1996 SIFMA Master Repurchase Agreement,\30\
which would be incorporated into the Rules, subject to specific changes
set forth in the Rules. Such reverse repurchase transactions would be
overnight trades at a market rate.\31\ The associated overnight
interest of the reverse repurchase agreement would be debited from the
Net Funds Payor that did not satisfy its cash obligation and credited
to the affected Net Funds Receivers in the funds-only settlement
process as a Miscellaneous Adjustment Amount.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The September 1996 Securities Industry and Financial
Markets Association Master Repurchase Agreement is available at
http://www.sifma.org/services/standard-forms-and-documentation/mra,-gmra,-msla-and-msftas/.
    \31\ The market rate would be the overnight par weighted average
rate at the Generic CUSIP Number level.
    \32\ See Rule 13, Section 1(m) and Rule 3B, Section 13(a)(ii),
supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Any resulting costs incurred by the Net Funds Receivers
would be debited from the Net Funds Payor whose shortfall raised the
need for the reverse repurchase agreement. The Net Funds Receivers
requesting compensation in this regard would need to submit a formal
claim to FICC. Upon review and approval by FICC, the Net Funds Receiver
would receive a credit that would be processed in the funds-only
settlement process as a Miscellaneous Adjustment Amount.\33\ The debit
of the Net Funds Payor would be processed in the same way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Unless FICC has restricted the Member's access to services
pursuant to Rule 21 or Rule 21A or has ceased to act for the Member
pursuant to Rule 21 or Rule 21A, the Net Funds Payor shall be permitted
to continue to submit activity to FICC.
Example
    The following example illustrates the application of the proposed
rule changes described above:
    Assume that Dealer A has a cash payment obligation for $100 million
and Dealers B, C, D and E are in GCF Net Funds Receiver Positions for
$25 million each. Assume further that by 4:30 p.m., Dealer A satisfies
only $60 million of its cash obligation thereby leaving $40 million
outstanding. Dealer A would be subject to a late fee of $500.
    The GCF Clearing Agent Bank satisfies transactions based upon its
own settlement algorithms. As such, assume that the $60 million was
settled as follows: (i) $25 million was settled with Dealer B, (ii) $10
million was settled with Dealer C, (iii) $25 million was settled with
Dealer D, and (iv) $0 was settled with Dealer E.
    As such, $40 million remains unfunded. Assume FICC uses its
liquidity resources (EOD Clearing Fund Cash and financing arrangements
with the GCF Clearing Agent Bank (if available)) and is only able to
raise $30 million. Dealer A would be responsible for the financing
costs incurred by FICC. The $30 million borrowed by FICC would be
prorated among the Netting Members in GCF Net Funds Receiver Positions
that still have unsettled obligations. In this example, Dealer C has an
unsettled obligation of $15 million and Dealer E has an unsettled
obligation of $25 million. The proration calculation would be the
percentage of the dealer's unsettled obligation versus the entire
unsettled amount. In Dealer C's case, the $15 million unsettled amount
is 38 percent of the $40 million total unsettled amount and in Dealer
E's case, the $25 million unsettled amount is 62 percent of the $40
million. Dealer C would receive 38 percent of the $30 million that was
raised by FICC (i.e., $11,400,000), and Dealer E would receive 62
percent of the $30 million that was raised by FICC (i.e., $18,600,000).
    At this point, $10 million remains unsettled. This is the amount
that would need to be satisfied using overnight reverse repos under the
GCF Repo Allocation Waterfall MRA and would be distributed between the
two remaining unsettled amounts with Dealer C (i.e., $3,600,000) and
Dealer E (i.e., $6,400,000). FICC would notify these dealers and
initiate the GCF Repo Allocation Waterfall MRA requirement with each of
them. Dealer A would be subject to a late fee for failing to settle by
the close of the Fedwire Funds Service. Such late fee of 100 basis
points would be calculated based on the $40 million that Dealer A did
not fund. In addition, the reverse repurchase agreements would be
overnight trades at a market rate; \34\ the associated overnight
interest of the reverse repurchase agreement would be debited from
Dealer A and credited to Dealers C and E in funds-only settlement. If
Dealers C and/or E incurred any damages from the cost of securing
alternate financing, FICC would determine if such costs are
sufficiently demonstrated and would charge Dealer A for such costs to
the extent that they do not include special, consequential, or punitive
damages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Supra note 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Throughout the foregoing process, Dealer A is subject to
disciplinary action, up to and including termination of its GSD
membership. Moreover, FICC retains its right to cease to act for Dealer
A.

(iii) Clarification, Technical Changes and Corrections
    FICC proposes to make a clarification to Section 3 of Rule 20 by
adding a descriptive parenthetical regarding net-of-net settlement.
    FICC also proposes to make a technical change to the title of the
``Schedule of GCF Timeframes,'' which would be amended to ``Schedule of
GCF Repo Timeframes'' to enhance accuracy. References to ``Schedule of
GCF Timeframes'' in Section 3 of Rule 20 would also be updated to
``Schedule of GCF Repo Timeframes.''
    FICC also proposes to make a correction by revising the language in
``Late Fee Related to GCF Repo Transactions'' in Section IX (Late Fees)
of the Fee Structure from ``Fedwire reversals'' to ``Fedwire Securities
Service reversals.'' FICC also proposes to revise ``securities
FedWire'' to ``Fedwire Securities Service reversals'' in the Schedule
of GCF Timeframes to be consistent with the proposed change in ``Late
Fee Related to GCF Repo Transactions'' in Section IX (Late Fees) of the
Fee Structure. FICC also proposes to revise the title from ``Late Fee
Related to GCF Repo Transactions'' to ``Late Fees Related to GCF Repo
Transactions.'' FICC believes these proposed changes would enhance
consistency, clarity, and accuracy.
    FICC also proposes to update the current references to ``dealer,''
``dealers,'' or ``GCF Counterparties (``dealers'')'' in the ``Schedule
of GCF Timeframes'' and ``Fee Structure'' to ``Netting Member'' or
``Netting Members'' for additional clarity and consistency because the
GCF Repo Service is not only available to Dealer Netting Members and
FICC believes that the references to ``dealers'' may cause confusion.
    In addition, FICC proposes to update the descriptions for 3:00 p.m.
and 3:30 p.m. in the Schedule of GCF Timeframes to correct certain
descriptions that appear to have been reversed in error. Specifically,
the description for 3:00 p.m. currently states that collateral
allocations begin. However, collateral allocations actually begin at
3:30 p.m. and therefore, FICC proposes to correct this error by
deleting the reference to collateral allocations beginning in the 3:00
p.m. description and adding a reference to the 3:30 p.m. description
that would state that collateral allocations begin. Furthermore, the
current 3:00 p.m. description states that notifications by FICC to
banks and dealers of final positions occurs at this time, which is
incorrect. There is not a strict established time for notifications by
FICC to Members of final positions. FICC believes that it is reasonably
and fairly implied that output would follow the cut-off for trade
submission and therefore, does not believe the phrase ``notification by
FICC to banks and dealers of final positions'' is necessary in the
Schedule of GCF Timeframes. As such, FICC proposes to correct this
error by deleting the reference to notifications by FICC to banks and
dealers of final positions from the 3:00 p.m. description.
    Furthermore, in connection with the proposed changes described
herein, FICC also proposes to revise four relevant defined terms that
indicate whether a Netting Member's obligation is a cash obligation or
a securities obligation with respect to GCF Repo/CCIT activity (i.e.,
``GCF Net Funds Borrower Position,'' ``GCF Net Funds Borrower,'' ``GCF
Net Funds Lender Position,'' and ``GCF Net Funds Lender''). In
addition, FICC would add two new defined terms (i.e., ``Net Funds Payor
Position'' and ``Net Funds Receiver Position'') to distinguish the
foregoing defined terms from a Netting Member's or CCIT Member's after
net-of-net settlement.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ A Netting Member's or CCIT Member's obligation prior to
net-of-net settlement describes such Netting Member's or CCIT
Member's obligation for that particular Business Day. A Netting
Member's or CCIT Member's obligation after net-of-net settlement
describes such Netting Member's or CCIT Member's obligation after
its obligation from the previous Business Day has been netted with
its obligation for that particular Business Day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, there are currently four relevant defined terms that
indicate whether a Netting Member's obligation is a cash obligation or
a securities obligation with respect to GCF Repo/CCIT activity. These
terms are: ``GCF Net Funds Borrower Position,'' \36\ ``GCF Net Funds
Borrower,'' ``GCF Net Funds Lender Position,'' \37\ and ``GCF Net Funds
Lender.'' With respect to CCIT Members, which are only permitted to
initiate transactions as cash lenders for submission to GSD, the
applicable definitions are ``GCF Net Funds Lender Position'' and ``GCF
Net Funds Lender.'' The four existing terms represent a Netting
Member's and CCIT Member's position with respect to GCF Repo/CCIT
activity that is processed by GSD on a particular Business Day prior to
net-of-net settlement \38\ and the proposed rule change would add
language in the definitions of ``GCF Net Funds Borrower Position'' and
``GCF Net Funds Lender Position'' to make this clear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The term ``GCF Net Funds Borrower Position'' means, with
respect to a particular Generic CUSIP Number, both the amount of
funds that a Netting Member has borrowed as the net result of its
outstanding GCF Repo Transactions and CCIT Transactions and the
equivalent amount of Eligible Netting Securities and/or cash that
such Netting Member is obligated, pursuant to Rule 20, to allocate
to the Corporation to secure such borrowing (such Netting Member
holding a GCF Net Funds Borrower Position, a ``GCF Net Funds
Borrower''). See Rule 1, supra note 4.
    \37\ The term ``GCF Net Funds Lender Position'' means, with
respect to a particular Generic CUSIP Number, both the amount of
funds that a Netting Member or CCIT Member has lent as the result of
its outstanding GCF Repo Transactions or its outstanding CCIT
Transactions, as applicable, and the equivalent amount of Eligible
Netting Securities and/or cash that such Netting Member or CCIT
Member, as applicable, is entitled, pursuant to Rule 20, to be
allocated for its benefit to secure such loan (such Netting Member
or CCIT Member holding a GCF Net Funds Lender Position, a ``GCF Net
Funds Lender''). See Rule 1, supra note 4.
    \38\ Net-of-net settlement is described in Section 3 of Rule 20
and the proposal would add a parenthetical to clarify that such
applicable paragraph in this section refers to net-of-net
settlement, as described further below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To distinguish the foregoing from a Netting Member's or CCIT
Member's position after net-of-net settlement, FICC proposes to amend
Rule 1 (Definitions) to add two new defined terms, ``Net Funds Payor
Position'' and ``Net Funds Receiver Position'' with two additional
defined terms embedded within these definitions, ``Net Funds Payor''
and ``Net Funds Receiver,'' respectively. These defined terms would
represent a Netting Member's and CCIT Member's, as applicable, position
in GCF Repo/CCIT activity as a result of net-of-net settlement.
Specifically, as a result of net-of-net settlement, a Netting Member or
CCIT Member may be either in a cash debit position (i.e., in a ``Net
Funds Payor Position'' or a ``Net Funds Payor'') or cash credit
position (i.e., in a ``Net Funds Receiver Position'' or a ``Net Funds
Receiver'').\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Even though CCIT Members can only initiate cash lending
transactions, they could be Net Funds Receivers. For example, assume
that on Monday, a CCIT Member entered into a CCIT Transaction to
lend $125 million and on Tuesday, the same CCIT Member entered into
a CCIT Transaction to lend $50 million in the same Generic CUSIP
Number. On Tuesday, after net-of-net settlement, the CCIT Member
would be in a Net Funds Receiver Position of $75 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(iv) Implementation Timeframe
    Subject to no objection to this Advance Notice and the approval of
the related proposed rule change (the ``Proposed Rule Change'') \40\ by
the Commission, FICC would implement the proposed changes no later than
60 days after the later of the approval of the Proposed Rule Change and
no objection to this Advance Notice by the Commission. FICC would
announce the effective date of the proposed changes

by Important Notice posted to its website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Expected Effect on Risks to the Clearing Agency, its Participants and
the Market
    FICC believes that the proposed rule change described in Item
II(B)(i) above to establish a new deadline and associated late fees for
satisfaction of net cash obligations in GCF Repo/CCIT activity and
remove the current 6:00 p.m. Collateral Allocation deadline would help
lower the potential operational risk of incomplete tri-party
transactions outside of FICC. As described above, FICC believes that
all parties (including FICC) would benefit from securities settlement
occurring by 4:30 p.m. because the more settlements that complete
earlier, the more potential operational risk is removed from the
market. Specifically, FICC believes having securities settlement occur
by 4:30 p.m. would lower the risk of disorder that could arise if firms
are attempting to fulfill GCF Repo settlement and tri-party transaction
settlement at the same time later in the day. There is
interconnectivity between the GCF Repo market and the tri-party market
outside of FICC, so the securities collateral that is used to settle
GCF Repo positions can be subsequently used by Netting Members to
complete tri-party transactions outside of FICC. FICC believes the
current second deadline of 6:00 p.m. for allocation of securities
collateral creates an environment of later settlement both at FICC and
outside of FICC. FICC believes that it would be lowering potential
operational risk in the market (i.e., the risk of disorder) that could
arise if Members chose to avail themselves of the current 6:00 p.m.
deadline. FICC believes that timely settlement at FICC would help with
timely completion of onward processing outside of FICC.
    FICC also proposes to establish a deadline for a Netting Member's
or CCIT Member's satisfaction of cash obligations in the GCF Repo
Service and the CCIT Service. As described above, for late cash
settlement, the initial late fee would be $500 and would progressively
increase for additional late occurrences. In addition, FICC would also
impose additional late fees on Netting Members and CCIT Members that
are Net Funds Payors that fail to make the required payment of cash by
the close of the Fedwire Funds Service. Because the deadline for cash
settlement is newly proposed, FICC would like to provide a disincentive
for cash lateness, and therefore, is proposing fee increases for
repeated late occurrences in satisfying cash obligations. FICC believes
that the proposed deadline for satisfaction of cash obligations and the
associated late fees would mitigate the risk of later settlement by
incenting Netting Members and CCIT Members to meet their settlement
obligations on a more timely basis, which would better enable FICC to
settle on a timely basis.
    FICC believes that the proposed rule change described in Item
II(B)(ii) above to establish a process to provide liquidity to FICC in
situations where a Netting Member or CCIT Member with a net cash
obligation in GCF Repo/CCIT activity, that is otherwise in good
standing, is either (1) delayed in satisfying or (2) unable to satisfy
its cash obligation (in whole or in part) would benefit FICC and its
members. FICC believes that because settlement of GCF Repo/CCIT
activity occurs late in the day, having an established process to
handle non-default related liquidity would improve FICC's ability to
complete settlement and thereby reduce risk to FICC and the industry.
Management of Identified Risks
    FICC believes that that the proposed changes described in Item
II(B)(i) above are designed to help FICC manage the potential
operational risk (i.e., the risk of disorder) of incomplete tri-party
transactions outside of FICC. FICC believes that, removing the 6:00
p.m. deadline and establishing 4:30 p.m. as the deadline for securities
settlement, it would encourage Members to complete more settlements
earlier and thereby, lower potential operational risk from the market.
    FICC believes that the proposed changes described in Item II(B)(i)
above to establish a new deadline and associated late fees for
satisfaction of net cash obligations in GCF Repo/CCIT activity are
designed to help FICC manage the risk of later settlement. FICC
believes that the proposed new deadline and the related increasing late
fees would provide an incentive for Netting Members and CCIT Members to
meet their cash settlement obligations on a more timely basis, which in
turn, would better enable FICC to complete settle on a timely basis.
    FICC believes that the proposed changes described in Item II(B)(ii)
above are designed to help FICC manage its risks by establishing a
process to provide liquidity to FICC in situations where a Netting
Member or CCIT Member with a net cash obligation in GCF Repo/CCIT
activity, that is otherwise in good standing, is either (1) delayed in
satisfying or (2) unable to satisfy its cash obligation (in whole or in
part). This proposed process would provide a process for FICC to raise
liquidity to complete settlement. By better enabling FICC to complete
settlement by providing FICC with a process to raise liquidity, FICC
and its members would be less likely to be faced with the uncertainty
of unsettled obligations and the risks related thereto. As such, FICC
believes this proposed process would better enable FICC to better
manage its risk related to the uncertainty of unsettled obligations and
later settlement.
Consistency With the Clearing Supervision Act
    FICC believes that the proposed rule change would be consistent
with Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act.\41\ The objectives
and principles of Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act are to
promote robust risk management, promote safety and soundness, reduce
systemic risks, and support the stability of the broader financial
system.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).
    \42\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC believes that the proposed changes described in Item II(B)(i)
regarding securities collateral above are designed to promote robust
risk management, promote safety and soundness, and support the
stability of the broader financial system. FICC believes that all
parties (including FICC) would benefit from securities settlement
occurring by 4:30 p.m. This is because the more settlements that
complete earlier, the more potential operational risk is removed from
the market. Specifically, there is interconnectivity between the GCF
Repo market and the tri-party market outside of FICC. The securities
collateral that is used to settle GCF Repo positions can be
subsequently used by Netting Members to complete tri-party transactions
outside of FICC. Therefore, the earlier that securities settlement
occurs in the GCF Repo Service, the less potential operational risk of
incomplete tri-party transactions outside of FICC. Under the current
Rules, the second deadline of 6:00 p.m. creates an environment of later
settlement both at FICC and outside of FICC. Even though Netting
Members are generally abiding by the 4:30 p.m. securities allocation
deadline, FICC would like to address the possibility of later
settlement by deleting the 6:00 p.m. deadline. Therefore, by imposing
4:30 p.m. as the only deadline, FICC believes it would be lowering
potential operational risk in the market that could arise if Netting
Members chose to avail themselves of the current 6:00 p.m. deadline.
This risk is the risk of disorder if firms are attempting to fulfill
GCF Repo settlement and tri-party

transaction settlement at the same time later in the day. As such, FICC
believes the proposed change to remove the 6:00 p.m. deadline for
securities settlement would promote robust risk management by lessening
the potential operational risk of incomplete tri-party transactions
outside of FICC and also promote the safety and soundness and support
the stability of the broader financial market by lessening the risk of
disorder if firms are attempting to fulfill GCF Repo settlement and
tri-party transactions settlement at the same time later in the day.
    FICC also believes that the proposed changes described in Item
II(B)(i) above to establish a new deadline and associated late fees for
satisfaction of net cash obligations in GCF Repo/CCIT activity are
designed to help promote robust risk management, promote safety and
soundness, and support the stability of the broader financial system.
Specifically, FICC believes the proposed deadline and associated late
fees are designed to promote robust risk management by helping FICC
manage the risk of later settlement because FICC believes that the
proposed new deadline and the related increasing late fees would
provide an incentive for Netting Members and CCIT Members to meet their
cash settlement obligations on a more timely basis, which in turn,
would better enable FICC to complete settle on a timely basis. FICC
believes that having settlement complete on a timely basis would
promote safety and soundness and also support the stability of the
broader financial system by lessening the potential operational risk of
incomplete settlement.
    FICC believes that the proposed changes described in Item II(B)(ii)
above are designed to promote robust risk management, promote safety
and soundness, and support the stability of the broader financial
market. FICC believes this proposed process is designed to promote
robust risk management because the proposed process would enable FICC
to mitigate the risks related to the uncertainty of unsettled
obligations and later settlement in certain circumstances. FICC would
be able to mitigate these risks because the proposed process is
designed to provide FICC with liquidity in certain circumstances (i.e.,
where a Netting Member or CCIT Member with a net cash obligation in GCF
Repo/CCIT activity, that is otherwise in good standing, is either (1)
delayed in satisfying or (2) unable to satisfy its cash obligation (in
whole or in part)). FICC believes having a proposed process to provide
FICC with liquidity in the circumstances described above would better
enable FICC to complete timely settlement. In turn, timely settlement
would promote safety and soundness by providing FICC's members with
certainty as to the completion of their transactions that were
submitted to FICC. Furthermore, timely settlement at FICC would support
the stability of the broader financial system by aiming to avoid the
market disruption that could occur if FICC cannot settle. Timely
settlement at FICC demonstrates to the market that parties' rights and
obligations vis-[agrave]-vis settlement have been completed and
therefore, promotes certainty and stability.
    FICC also believes that the proposed conforming and technical
changes described above are designed to provide clear and coherent
Rules regarding GCF Repo transactions for Netting Members and CCIT
Members. FICC believes that clear and coherent Rules would enhance the
ability of FICC and its Netting Members and CCIT Members to more
effectively plan for, manage, and address the risks related to GCF Repo
transactions. As such, FICC believes that the conforming and technical
changes are designed to promote robust risk management, consistent with
the objectives and principles of Section 805(b) of the Clearing
Supervision Act cited above.
    FICC believes the proposal would be consistent with Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(7)(i), (ii), and (viii), as promulgated under the Act, for the
reasons described below.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7)(i), (ii), and (viii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(i) requires FICC to 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 the covered clearing agency, including
measuring, monitoring, and managing its settlement and funding flows on
an ongoing and timely basis, and its use of intraday liquidity by
maintaining sufficient liquid resources to effect same-day settlement
of payment obligations in the event of a default of the participant
family that would generate the largest aggregate payment obligation for
the covered clearing agency in extreme but plausible market
conditions.\44\ FICC believes that the proposal would be consistent
with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(i) because the GCF Repo Allocation Waterfall
MRA would help FICC maintain sufficient liquid resources to settle the
same-day cash obligations of a Netting Member or CCIT Member that is
otherwise in good standing with FICC but (i) is delayed in satisfying
its cash obligation related to its GCF Repo/CCIT activity or (ii) does
not fulfill, or only partially fulfills, such cash obligation.\45\ FICC
believes that the proposal would be consistent with Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(7)(i) because the GCF Repo Allocation Waterfall MRA would be
sized based on the actual liquidity need which would help FICC maintain
sufficient liquid resources to settle the cash obligations of a Netting
Member.\46\ The GCF Repo Allocation Waterfall MRA would be a committed
arrangement, and all transactions entered into pursuant to the GCF
Allocation Waterfall MRA are designed to be readily available to meet
the cash obligations owed to Netting Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7)(i).
    \45\ Id.
    \46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(ii) requires FICC to 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 the covered clearing agency, including
measuring, monitoring, and managing its settlement and funding flows on
an ongoing and timely basis, and its use of intraday liquidity by
holding qualifying liquid resources \47\ sufficient to meet the minimum
liquidity resource requirement under Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(i) in each
relevant currency for which the covered clearing agency has payment
obligations owed to clearing Members.\48\ FICC believes that the
proposed rule change would be consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(ii)
because the GCF Repo Allocation Waterfall MRA would be a committed
arrangement,\49\ and all transactions entered into pursuant to the GCF
Repo Allocation Waterfall MRA are designed to be readily available to
meet the cash obligations owed to Netting Members.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ ``Qualifying liquid resources'' means, for any covered
clearing agency, the following, in each relevant currency: (i) Cash
held either at the central bank of issue or at creditworthy
commercial banks; (ii) Assets that are readily available and
convertible into cash through prearranged funding arrangements, such
as: (A) Committed arrangements without material adverse change
provisions, including (1) Lines of credit; (2) Foreign exchange
swaps; and (3) Repurchase agreements; or (B) Other prearranged
funding arrangements determined to be highly reliable even in
extreme but plausible market conditions by the board of directors of
the covered clearing agency following a review conducted for this
purpose not less than annually; and (iii) Other assets that are
readily available and eligible for pledging to (or conducting other
appropriate forms of transactions with) a relevant central bank, if
the covered clearing agency has access to routine credit at such
central bank in a jurisdiction that permits said pledges or other
transactions by the covered clearing agency. 17 CFR 240.17Ad-
22(a)(14).
    \48\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7)(ii).
    \49\ See 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(a)(14).
    \50\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(viii) requires FICC to 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 the covered clearing agency, including measuring,
monitoring, and managing its settlement and funding flows on an ongoing
and timely basis, and its use of intraday liquidity by addressing
foreseeable liquidity shortfalls that would not be covered by the
covered clearing agency's liquid resources and seek to avoid unwinding,
revoking, or delaying the same-day settlement of payment
obligations.\51\ FICC believes that the proposed rule change would be
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)(viii) because the GCF Repo
Allocation Waterfall MRA would be a committed arrangement that would be
available to avoid unwinding, revoking, or delaying same-day settlement
obligations. All transactions entered into pursuant to the GCF Repo
Allocation Waterfall MRA are designed to be readily available to settle
same-day cash obligations owed to non-defaulting Netting Members in
instances where existing resources (i) may not be readily available
after 4:30 p.m. to permit timely settlement or (ii) are maintained
primarily to settle the outstanding transactions in the event of a
default of a Member and its entire affiliated family.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7)(viii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Advance Notice, and Timing for
Commission Action

    The proposed change may be implemented if the Commission does not
object to the proposed change within 60 days of the later of (i) the
date that the proposed change was filed with the Commission or (ii) the
date that any additional information requested by the Commission is
received. The clearing agency shall not implement the proposed change
if the Commission has any objection to the proposed change.
    The Commission may extend the period for review by an additional 60
days if the proposed change raises novel or complex issues, subject to
the Commission providing the clearing agency with prompt written notice
of the extension. A proposed change may be implemented in less than 60
days from the date the advance notice is filed, or the date further
information requested by the Commission is received, if the Commission
notifies the clearing agency in writing that it does not object to the
proposed change and authorizes the clearing agency to implement the
proposed change on an earlier date, subject to any conditions imposed
by the Commission.
    The clearing agency shall post notice on its website of proposed
changes that are implemented.
    The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions
required with respect to the proposal are completed.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FICC-2019-801 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2019-801. 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 Advance Notice that are filed with the
Commission, and all written communications relating to the Advance
Notice 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 FICC and on DTCC's website
(http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). 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-FICC-2019-801 and should be submitted on
or before September 25, 2019.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-19538 Filed 9-9-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 10, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 32901]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14672]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL19-83-000]

City of Lubbock, Acting by and Through Its Municipally Owned
Electric Utility Lubbock Power & Light v. Public Service Company of
Colorado Southwestern Public Service Company; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on July 2, 2019, pursuant to sections 206 and 306
of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e, 825e, and Rules 206 and
212, of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules
of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 and 385.212, City of Lubbock
(Complainant), acting by and through its municipally owned electric
utility, Lubbock Power & Light (LP&L), filed a formal complaint against
Public Service Company of Colorado and Southwestern Public Service
Company (SPS) (collectively Respondents) alleging that SPS's Wholesale
Distribution Service rate as applied to LP&L is unjust, unreasonable
and unduly discriminatory, all as more fully explained in the
Complaint.
    LP&L certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the
contacts for Public Service Company of Colorado and SPS as listed on
the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
eLibrary link and is available for review in the Commission's Public
Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the
website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a
document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any
FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 22, 2019.

    Dated: July 3, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-14672 Filed 7-9-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 14, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56770-56773]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24658]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2018-0675; FRL-9985-91-Region 6]

Air Plan Approval; Texas; Reasonably Available Control Technology

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
convert its September 22, 2017 conditional approval of revisions to the
Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP), addressing Oxides of Nitrogen
(NOX) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for the
TXI Operations, LP (Texas Industries, Inc., TXI) cement manufacturing
plant in Ellis County, to full approval. The August 21, 2018 SIP
submittal satisfies Texas' commitment which was the basis for our
conditional approval of NOX RACT for this plant. Final
approval of this SIP submittal will convert our earlier conditional
approval to full approval. We are taking this action in accordance with
the Clean Air Act (CAA, the Act) requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 14, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2018-0675 at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
[email protected]. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact Mr. Alan Shar, (214) 665-
6691, [email protected]. For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available at either location
(e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Mr. Alan Shar (6MM-AA),<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected]. To
inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with
Alan Shar.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Outline

I. Background
    A. RACT and the RACT Requirements Relevant for This Action
    B. Conditional Approval
II. Evaluation
III. Proposed Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    As a part of its July 10, 2015 Dallas Fort Worth (DFW) SIP
submittal, TCEQ conducted RACT analyses to demonstrate that the RACT
requirements for affected NOX sources in the DFW 2008 8-Hour
Ozone nonattainment area have been satisfied, relying on the
NOX RACT rules EPA had previously approved for the DFW area
for its classification as Serious for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone standard.
See March 27, 2015 (80 FR 16292), and 40 CFR 51.1112. The RACT analysis
is contained in Appendix F of the TCEQ July 10, 2015 SIP submittal as a
component of the DFW 2008 8-Hour Ozone attainment demonstration plan.
On September 22, 2017, we conditionally approved NOX RACT
for the TXI cement manufacturing plant in Ellis County, and fully
approved NOX RACT for all other affected sources in the ten
county DFW 2008 8-Hour Ozone nonattainment area.
    On August 21, 2018 TCEQ submitted a revision to Texas SIP
addressing NOX RACT for the TXI cement manufacturing plant
in Ellis County as a part of its DFW 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) SIP update. The August 21, 2018 SIP
submittal contains both an Agreed Order (AO) concerning TXI and a SIP
narrative for DFW NOX RACT.

A. RACT and the RACT Requirements Relevant for This Action

    Section 172(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA, Act) requires that
SIPs for nonattainment areas ``provide for the implementation of all
reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable
(including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the
area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of
reasonably available control technology) and shall provide for
attainment of the primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS).'' The EPA has defined RACT as the lowest emissions limitation
that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of
control technology that is reasonably available, considering
technological and economic feasibility.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ September 17, 1979 (44 FR 53761).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 182(b)(2) of the Act requires states to submit a SIP
revision and implement RACT for major stationary sources in moderate
and above ozone nonattainment areas. For a Moderate, Serious, or Severe
area, a major stationary source is one that emits, or has the potential
to emit, 100, 50, or 25 tons per year (tpy) or more of VOCs or
NOX, respectively.\2\ The DFW area was classified as Serious
on December 20, 2010 (75 FR 79302). Ellis County is one of the ten
Counties constituting the DFW 2008 8-Hour Ozone nonattainment area.
Thus, per section 182(c) of the CAA, a major stationary source in the
DFW area, is one which emits, or has the potential to emit, 50 tpy or
more of VOCs or NOX. The TXI cement manufacturing plant in
Ellis County is a major source of NOX, and subject to RACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ CAA sections 182(b), 182(c), and 182(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The terms ``TXI Operations, LP'', ``TXI'', ``Martin Marietta'', and
``MM'' are used interchangeably in this action.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Index of written testimony, Reference number W-1, August 21,
2018 SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA provides states with guidance concerning what types of
controls could constitute RACT for a given source category through the
issuance of Control Technique Guidelines (CTG) and Alternative Control
Techniques (ACT) documents.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See http://www.epa.gov/airquality/ozonepollution/SIPToolkit/ctgs.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Conditional Approval

    Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, the Administrator may approve a
plan revision based on a commitment of the State to adopt specific
enforceable measures by a date certain, but not later than 1 year after
the date of approval of the plan revision. Any such conditional
approval shall be treated as a disapproval, if the State fails to
comply with such commitment.
    The EPA conditionally approved NOX RACT for the TXI
cement manufacturing plant in Ellis County on September 22, 2017 (82 FR
44320), with an effective date of October 23, 2017.\5\ The RACT
determination action was based on the State's written commitment to EPA
that through an AO or rulemaking action, between TCEQ and TXI, certain
conditions of their air permit, concerning the NOX emission
limitation of 1.95 lb/ton of clinker produced from kiln #5, would be
incorporated into a forthcoming revision to the Texas SIP.\6\ This SIP
revision was necessary so that the emission limit relied upon to
implement NOX RACT would be part of the Texas SIP. The
forthcoming revision to the Texas SIP was to be submitted to EPA no
later than one year from the effective date of final conditional
approval of the NOX RACT for kiln #5, or no later than
October 23, 2018. See section 110(k)(4) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0496 available at
www.regulations.gov.
    \6\ July 29, 2016 letter at www.regulations.gov document ID No.
EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0496-0035.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The August 21, 2018 SIP submittal was provided to fulfil TCEQ's
written commitment to EPA. RACT for the TXI

cement kiln #5 is fulfilled by an AO \7\ which is included in the SIP
submittal and will become part of the SIP, if EPA finalizes this
proposed approval. The scope of this rulemaking action is strictly
limited to evaluating the SIP revision, including the AO, and whether
it meets the requirements of the conditional approval. The AO includes
incorporation of certain TXI's New Source Review (NSR) SIP permit
conditions (Specific Conditions 3.A(1)-(3) of NSR Permit
1360A(PSDTX632M1)) such that the AO stands on its own and insures the
necessary requirements will become a part of the Texas SIP. No further
RACT review or determination is being conducted here. Comments
concerning the area's ozone attainment demonstration plan, or review of
NOX RACT are beyond the scope of this rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ TCEQ Docket No. 2017-1648-SIP, Agreed Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Evaluation

    As a part of our July 19, 2017 proposal (82 FR 33026) and September
22, 2017 final (82 FR 44320) rulemaking actions we, among other things,
determined the NOX emission limitations and control
requirements in Appendix F meet RACT for each cement manufacturing
plant in Ellis County, including the TXI cement manufacturing plant in
Ellis County.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Technical Support Document (TSD) ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-
0496-0036 at www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a part of our RACT determination at 82 FR 44320, we found that
emission limitations and control requirements for the TXI plant
contained in certain terms of TXI's air permit, including the
NOX emission limitation of 1.95 lb/ton of clinker are
consistent with our guidance and ACT documents, and meet the lowest
emission limitation through application of control techniques that are
reasonably available considering technological and economic
feasibility. The air permit, however, is not part of the SIP.
Therefore, our approval was conditioned on certain terms of the permit
being approved by EPA as a source-specific SIP revision. TCEQ committed
to address the referenced terms of TXI's air permit through rule
revision or an AO in a SIP revision, and submit that SIP to the EPA as
a revision to its NOX RACT SIP no later than October 23,
2018. See section 110(k)(4) of the Act (conditional approval). As
stated above, the August 21, 2018 SIP submittal satisfies that
commitment.
    The August 21, 2018 SIP submittal consists of an AO which states
that the kiln #5 NOX CEMS is subject to the provisions in 30
TAC section 117.3140(b), 40 CFR 60.13, 40 CFR 60 Appendix B,
Performance Specification 2, and is subject to audits in accordance
with section 5.1 of Appendix F Quality Assurance Procedures.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Part I, stipulation 16 of the Agreed Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The kiln #5 stack exhaust flow rate is subject under the AO to 30
TAC section 117.3142(a)(2), which requires monitoring with a flow meter
subject to 40 CFR part 60 Appendix B, Performance Specification 6 or 40
CFR part 75 Appendix A.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the AO, the TXI must monitor and record clinker
production rates, in tons per hour, tons per day, daily summed on a 30-
day rolling basis, and monthly summed on a 12-month rolling basis.
Hourly and daily clinker production rates may be based on the previous
month's feed-to-clinker ratio multiplied by the measured hourly/daily
kiln feed rate, as specified in 40 CFR 60 subpart F section 60.63(b).
Records in units of lb NOX/ton of clinker produced are
maintained on a 30-day rolling average basis.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The AO also requires that the NOX emission limit is 1.95
lb NOX/ton of clinker for kiln #5, on a 30-day rolling
average basis. Furthermore, this limit of 1.95 lb NOX per
ton of clinker cannot be revised to be less stringent without an
approved revised RACT determination in accordance with the State and
Federal requirements for SIP revisions.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Part I, Item #19 of Agreed Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The AO states that the Company shall make records available upon
request by the TCEQ or any other air pollution control agency with
jurisdiction over the Company.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Part II, Item #3 of Agreed Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Special Conditions outlined in Part II, Item #2,
subparagraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the AO shall be incorporated in Company's
NSR permit 1360A (PSDTX632M1) as they concern the NOX RACT
limit, averaging periods, and NOX CEMS provisions for kiln
#5, respectively. These provisions will provide for consistency between
the TCEQ air permit and the federally enforceable NOX RACT
SIP requirements for kiln #5.
    The AO has gone through public notice and comment at the State
level, and it adopts specific enforceable measures in conformance with
section 110(k)(4) of the Act.
    We find that the submitted AO meets the conditions for full
approval and includes all the required provisions to meet the
NOX RACT requirements that EPA approved in the September 22,
2017 final action.

III. Proposed Action

    We are proposing to find TCEQ's August 21, 2018 SIP submittal
satisfies its obligation under the September 22, 2017 (82 FR 44320)
conditional approval, and to convert the September 22, 2017 (82 FR
44320) rulemaking to full approval. We are proposing to approve the
August 21, 2018 SIP submittal, including approval of the AO as a
source-specific NOX RACT revision to the SIP.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by
reference revisions to Texas' regulations, as described in the Proposed
Action section above. The EPA has made, and will continue to make,
these documents generally available electronically through
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act 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 Act. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve 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) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     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 (Pub. L. 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 Act; 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: November 5, 2018.
Anne Idsal,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2018-24658 Filed 11-13-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P