[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 135 (Tuesday, July 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41320-41325]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16542]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72582; File No. SR-ICEEU-2014-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice
of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to EMIR Requirements

July 10, 2014.
    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 July 7, 2014, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear Europe'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which
Items have been prepared primarily by ICE Clear Europe. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The principal purpose of the proposed changes is to amend the ICE
Clear Europe Procedures in order to comply with requirements under the
European Market Infrastructure Regulation (including regulations and
implementing technical standards thereunder, ``EMIR'') \3\ that will
apply to ICE Clear Europe as an authorized central counterparty. ICE
Clear Europe has separately filed with the Commission proposed changes
to its Clearing Rules (the ``Rules'') relating to EMIR implementation
and certain other matters (the ``Rule Submission'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 4 July 2012 on OTC derivatives, central
counterparties and trade repositories, as well as various
implementing regulations and technical standards.
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-72540 (July 3, 2014),
79 FR 39429 (July 10, 2014) (SR-ICEEU-2014-09).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, ICE Clear Europe 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. ICE Clear Europe has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant
aspects of these statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

(1) Purpose
    ICE Clear Europe submitted proposed amendments to its Procedures in
order to comply with requirements under EMIR that will apply to ICE
Clear Europe upon its authorization as a central counterparty and to
further implement the related changes made to its Rules pursuant to the
Rule Submission. As described in more detail in the Rule Submission, in
order to comply with EMIR, ICE Clear Europe is adopting changes to the
structure of customer accounts for cleared transactions to enhance
segregation options for customers of Clearing Members. This includes
the adoption of an individual client segregation framework (through
Individually Segregated Sponsored Accounts and Individually Segregated
Margin-flow Co-mingled Accounts) for Non-FCM/BD Clearing Members as
well as certain modifications relating to the existing, omnibus client
segregation model. The amendments to the Procedures described herein
are intended to further implement these changes, as well as various
other consolidating, conforming and clarifying changes and drafting
improvements to the existing Procedures.
    As described in the Rule Submission, the amendments to the Rules
would establish two new types of individually segregated accounts,
Individually Segregated Margin-flow Co-mingled Accounts and
Individually Segregated Sponsored Accounts. The proposed Rules will
also establish multiple new types of omnibus accounts, Segregated
Customer Omnibus Accounts (separately for each product: FX, F&O and
CDS) and Segregated TTFCA Customer Omnibus Accounts (separately for
each product: FX, F&O and CDS) as well as Omnibus Margin-flow Co-
mingled Accounts. These new individually segregated and omnibus
accounts will be available only to Non-FCM/BD Clearing Members and
their customers. For FCM/BD Clearing Members and their customers,
individual client segregation is not being offered at this time, and
the existing account types and segregation framework (which are
required under applicable law) would be maintained.
    ICE Clear Europe proposes to make amendments to the following
Procedures: the Clearing Procedures, Finance Procedures, Membership
Procedures, Business Continuity Procedures, Complaint Resolution
Procedures, General Contract Terms, CDS Procedures, FX Procedures, OTC
FX Product Guide and Published Terms for FX Contracts, Auction Terms
for FX Default Auctions, Auction Terms for F&O Default Auctions and
Delivery Procedures. The CDS Operational Procedures are being
eliminated as they are no longer applicable.
    The proposed Procedure amendments are described in detail as
follows.

    Certain common changes are being made to all relevant sections of
the Procedures. In each such section of the Procedures, ICE Clear
Europe has added provisions addressing governing law, arbitration and
submission to jurisdiction that are substantially the same as those set
forth in the Rules (specifically, Rules 117 and 1608). In addition,
various references to Sponsored Principals are added throughout, as
well as conforming changes to reflect changes in defined terms in the
Rules, such as the use of ``Buying Counterparty'' and ``Selling
Counterparty''.
    In the Clearing Procedures, paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 (which relate to
position keeping and recording of contract positions) have been revised
to reflect the additional categories of customer accounts. Similarly,
paragraph 3.1, which addresses margining of accounts, has been revised
to reflect the new customer accounts and the manner in which the new
customer accounts are margined in accordance with the Rules. In
addition, the Summary of Account Codes in Table A of the Clearing
Procedures has been updated with the new account classes. Paragraph 4
has also been updated to incorporate relevant defined terms for margin
for the relevant product categories (F&O, CDS and FX), as well as
clarify that certain terms only apply to the F&O product category,
consistent with current practice. Paragraph 5 is amended to clarify
that it applies only to options that are F&O contracts, as well as make
certain other drafting clarifications. Existing paragraph 6, which
related to ICE OTC transactions, has been removed, consistent with the
removal of related provisions in the Rules, as such provisions are no
longer used. A new paragraph 6 has been added addressing customer
clearing. Paragraph 6.1 provides a procedure for a Clearing Member to
close out or transfer customer positions to its proprietary account in
the event of termination of the related Customer-CM Transaction
(including as a result of a customer default). Paragraph 6.2 provides
for transfer of customer positions at the request of a customer (this
provision is substantially similar to existing paragraph 13.2 of the
CDS Procedures, but has been revised to apply to all product categories
and to apply to Sponsored Principals as well). New Paragraph 6.3
addresses certain matters with respect to Customer-CM Collateral
provided to Non-FCM/BD Clearing Members, including the treatment of
such collateral that is not in the form of Permitted Cover and the
treatment of excess collateral provided to the Clearing Member beyond
the clearing house requirement. New Paragraph 6.4 establishes certain
recordkeeping requirements for Clearing Members with respect to
Customers (including as to the identity and default portability
preferences thereof) and requirements to provide such information to
the clearing house. New Paragraph 7 adopts certain additional defined
terms and procedures relating to position transfers made under Rule
408(a)(i) and Part 12 of the Rules, as well as paragraph 6 of the
Clearing Procedures.
    The Finance Procedures have been revised in paragraph 2 to
incorporate relevant defined terms for margin for the relevant product
categories as well as references to Sponsored Principals. Paragraph 3,
which addresses the use of triparty collateral arrangements with
Euroclear Bank, has been revised to apply to Sponsored Principals in
addition to Clearing Members. The revisions also accommodate the use of
pledged collateral arrangements as well as title transfer collateral
and make certain drafting clarifications. Paragraph 4, which addresses
ICE Clear Europe's assured payment system, has been amended to include
references to FX Clearing Members and Sponsored Principal arrangements,
as well as clarifications for the new account categories. Paragraph 5
contains additional procedures for the assured payment system in
connection with the Sponsored Principal model. Paragraph 6 has been
revised to address the requirements for payments in respect of each
proprietary or customer account of a Clearing Member (including the new
account categories), as well as changes to apply to Sponsored
Principals the requirements applicable to Clearing Members. Certain
provisions relating to margin for various product categories are also
clarified and consolidated in this section. In particular, for drafting
clarity, provisions relating to variation or mark-to-market margin for
the F&O, CDS and FX product categories have been consolidated in
Paragraph 6(i)(i) and provisions relating to original or initial margin
for those product categories have been consolidated in Paragraph
6(i)(ii). Certain conforming references to such margin categories have
also been added. In connection with the removal of the CDS Operational
Procedures, references in paragraph 6 to making of CDS contract coupon
payments thereunder have also been removed (with the effect that such
payments will be made as provided under Paragraph 6). Paragraph 7,
which applies to custody accounts for non-cash margin, has been revised
to apply to Sponsored Principals as well as Clearing Members. The
revised paragraph also specifies the requirements for each customer and
proprietary account and clarifies certain tax form requirements.
Paragraphs 8-11, which address permitted cover in the form of
securities, emissions allowances, gold bullion and transfer procedures,
respectively, have been revised to apply to Sponsored Principals as
well as Clearing Members. New Paragraph 8.4 prohibits the use by a
Clearing Member, Sponsor or Sponsored Principal of securities that are
otherwise eligible as permitted cover where such securities are issued
by such person or one of its affiliates (except in the case of a
covered bond otherwise eligible as permitted cover \5\ and only where
the assets backing that bond are appropriately segregated within a
robust legal framework that the clearing house determines to satisfy
applicable legal requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Covered bonds are not currently eligible as permitted cover.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Revised Paragraphs 9.2 and 9.3 limit, for risk management purposes,
the use of emissions allowances to satisfy margin requirements to
contracts in respect of which such allowances are deliverable.
Paragraph 10 also includes certain updates to defined terms and allows
use of gold bullion as FX original margin. Paragraph 11 has also been
revised to reflect the use by the clearing house of direct accounts at
securities settlement systems. The provisions of Paragraph 12 of the
Finance Procedures, which address use of letters of credit as margin
for F&O contracts, have been revised to address use by Sponsored
Principals. Certain other drafting clarifications are also made,
including to clarify the right of the clearing house to reject a letter
of credit, to make explicit requirements as to irrevocability and lack
of defenses and to limit acceptance of letters of credit from issuing
banks otherwise providing critical services to the clearing house. New
provisions have been added to address collateralization of letters of
credit consistent with certain EU regulations.
    In paragraph 13, various conforming changes have been made to
include references to Sponsors and Sponsored Principals, as well as
appropriate references to original margin for the relevant product
categories. Paragraph 14 has been revised to incorporate certain
parameters for the FX guaranty fund, and to allow the clearing house to
allow different currencies to be used for the guaranty fund
contributions for any

product category. Revised paragraph 15 of the Finance Procedures
specifies additional parameters for the Clearing House contributions to
the three guaranty funds. Paragraph 15.1 specifies a minimum initial
contribution of ICE Clear Europe's own resources (including retained
earnings and reserves), equal to 25% of the minimum capital required to
be maintained in accordance with article 16 of EMIR, to be divided
among the three product category guaranty funds in proportion to the
size of those guaranty funds. Paragraph 15.2 further specifies the
minimum requirements for the Clearing House Initial CDS Contribution
and Clearing House CDS GF Contribution. In the case of the Clearing
House Initial CDS Contribution, the required amount will be the higher
of the amount currently required under the CDS Procedures (as discussed
below) and the minimum amount determined under paragraph 15.1 as
discussed above. (Accordingly, the amendments will not reduce the
current level of the Clearing House Initial CDS Contribution.) The
provisions of Paragraph 15.2 addressing the Clearing House CDS GF
Contribution substantially codify the existing requirements under the
CDS Procedures. Paragraph 15.3 further specifies the minimum
requirements for the Clearing House FX Initial Contribution and
Clearing House FX GF Contribution, which substantially codify existing
requirements under the FX Procedures, but in the case of the Clearing
House FX Initial Contribution are now also subject to the minimum
required under paragraph 15.1. Paragraph 15.4 addresses substitution of
assets constituting Clearing House contributions, and clarifies that
the clearing house is not obligated to make additional Clearing House
contributions in certain situations in which clearing is being
terminated in accordance with the Rules. Various drafting
clarifications have also been made throughout the Finance Procedures.
    The Membership Procedures, which set out various aspects of the
clearing membership application process, have been modified to also
cover Sponsors and Sponsored Principals, in substantially the same
manner as for Clearing Members. Other revisions include various updates
to defined terms and drafting clarifications.
    The CDS Procedures contain changes to implement the Sponsored
Principal model as well as various updates to defined terms (and
conforming references to terms) and drafting improvements for clarity,
as discussed herein. Paragraph 1 contains various conforming updates to
defined terms, including the removal of unnecessary cross-references to
certain provisions of the ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions, the
addition of references to Sponsored Principals and uses of the defined
terms Matched CDS Buyers and Matched CDS Sellers in connection with
procedures relating to restructuring credit events (as well as the
updates to governing law and similar provisions discussed above). As
noted in the Rule Submission, various membership requirements in
Paragraph 2 have been moved to Part 2 of the Rules. Cross-references in
Paragraph 3 to other Procedures sections have been updated. Paragraph 4
has been updated to include references to Sponsored Principals as well
as Clearing Members, and to reflect the use of CDS Trade Execution/
Processing Platforms for execution and the additional categories of
customer accounts. In paragraph 5, various cross-references have been
updated, along with changes reflecting the Sponsored Principal model.
Paragraph 6, which addresses the Clearing House's contributions to the
CDS guaranty fund, has been removed and moved to the Finance
Procedures, as discussed above. Former paragraph 7 (now renumbered as
paragraph 6) has been revised to incorporate the Sponsored Principal
model as well as update the use of certain defined terms (such as CDS
Buyer, CDS Seller, Matched CDS Buyer, Matched CDS Seller and Manual
Notifier). Paragraph 8 (formerly paragraph 9) of the CDS Procedures has
similarly been revised to reflect the Sponsored Principal model, as
well as other conforming changes. In addition, new paragraph 8.1(e)
amends the definition of Repudiation/Moratorium Credit Event in Section
4.6 of the ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions for sovereign CDS to
eliminate manual notification of that credit event (consistent with the
approach used for other credit events). Paragraph 8.2(e) has been
modified to provide for transfer of CDS contracts in the case of a
``Merger Without Assumption'' (a merger of a Clearing Member or
Sponsored Principal where the successor entity fails to assume the
obligations thereof), in the same manner as is currently provided for
Tax Events and Tax Events Upon Merger. Paragraph 9 (formerly paragraph
10) is similarly revised to reflect the Sponsored Principal model,
update cross-references and make other conforming changes.
    In paragraph 10 (formerly paragraph 11) of the CDS Procedures,
which addresses single-name European corporate CDS contracts, the
definitions of ``Eligible SNEC Reference Obligation'' and ``SNEC
Contract Reference Obligation'' have been revised to clarify the
treatment of CDS contracts for which market practice is to trade
without a specified reference obligation.\6\ The existing limitations
in paragraph 10.4 on self-referencing CDS involving Clearing Members or
their affiliates have been updated to apply also to Sponsors and
Sponsored Principals. Various other conforming changes are made in
paragraph 10. Substantially similar changes to those made in paragraph
10 have been made in paragraph 11 of the CDS Procedures (formerly
paragraph 12), which addresses sovereign CDS contracts. Paragraph 13,
which addresses certain aspects of customer transactions, including
transfer of customer positions, has been moved to paragraph 6 of the
Clearing Procedures (and generalized to apply all product categories,
not just CDS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This change is not specifically required by EMIR, but
reflects a clarification to trading terms that reflects existing
market practice for CDS involving certain reference entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FX Procedures have been revised to update various definitions,
conform to new defined terms (including use of the defined term FX
Trade Particulars in place of FX Transaction) and other provisions of
the updated Rules, and incorporate the Sponsored Principal model. In
Paragraph 2 of the FX Procedures, which addresses membership
requirements, certain changes have been made to conform to the
membership standards for CDS Clearing Members, including minimum
requirements for US-based Clearing Members consistent with CFTC
requirements. Paragraph 4, which addresses submission and acceptance of
FX contracts, has been revised to incorporate the Sponsored Principal
model. References to Sponsored Principals have also been added to
paragraphs 5-7. Certain conforming changes have been made in paragraph
9. Paragraph 10, which addressed the Clearing House contribution to the
FX guaranty fund, has been moved to the Finance Procedures, as
discussed above. Conforming changes have also been made in paragraph
11, which has been renumbered paragraph 10.
    The section of the Procedures titled ``General Contract Terms and
ICE OTC Contract Standard Contract Terms and Eligibility Criteria'' has
been renamed ``General Contract Terms.'' Consistent with changes made
to the Rules, references to ICE OTC Contracts have been removed as such
contracts are no longer cleared by the Clearing House.

Accordingly, paragraph 3.2 of the General Contract Terms has been
deleted.
    The Auction Terms for F&O Default Auctions have been revised to
incorporate participation by Sponsored Principals. Paragraph 2 has also
been revised to clarify the minimum bid requirement for Clearing
Members as well as the ability of a Clearing Member to outsource its
minimum bid obligations to an affiliate. In paragraph 3, the order of
application of F&O guaranty fund contributions has been revised, such
that guaranty fund contributions of Clearing Members that are not
winning bidders are used first, starting with the contributions of
those with the least competitive bids. After application of guaranty
fund contributions of losing bidders, guaranty fund contributions of
winning bidders may be applied on a pro rata basis. ICE Clear Europe
believes that this approach strengthens the incentive for Clearing
Members to participate in the auction. The same order of priority
applies to the use of F&O assessment contributions. Paragraph 3.7 has
also been revised to address the correction of erroneous bids.
Paragraph 4.4 has been amended to clarify that invalid bids do not
count toward the minimum bid requirement. Paragraph 5.4 has been
revised to limit the Clearing House's ability to change the normal pro
rata procedure for allocating contracts to multiple winning bidders.
Paragraph 6 has been revised to clarify the treatment of certain
customer positions arising from an F&O auction. Paragraph 7 has been
revised to update references to certain legal requirements in
connection with auctions. Substantially similar changes have been made
in the Auction Terms for FX Default Auctions as well.
    Various amendments have also been made to the Delivery Procedures.
In many cases these do not strictly relate to EMIR implementation but
reflect other general updates and conforming changes. In paragraph 5,
provisions allowing buyers and sellers to nominate transferors and
transferees to make or take delivery on their behalf have been extended
to additional power and gas contracts. In addition, under revised
paragraph 9, these same additional contracts are not eligible for
alternative delivery procedures.
    Part C of the Delivery Procedures has been expanded to apply to ICE
Futures UK Base Electricity Futures (Gregorian) and ICE Futures UK Peak
Electricity Futures (Gregorian) as well as the existing EFA contracts.
Various drafting clarifications have been made to the procedures for
ICE UK Electricity Futures Contracts. Part D of the Delivery Procedures
has been expanded to apply also to ICE Futures UK Natural Gas (EUR/MWh)
Futures Contracts and ICE Futures UK Natural Gas Daily Futures
Contracts, and various related conforming changes have been made,
including relevant contract and delivery specifications for such
contracts. A new delivery timetable has been added for the ICE Futures
UK Natural Gas Daily Futures Contract, as well as new documentation
requirements and procedures for invoicing for such contracts.
    Various non-substantive conforming changes and drafting
clarifications are also made to the Business Continuity Procedures and
Complaint Resolution Procedures.
(2) Statutory Basis
    ICE Clear Europe believes that the proposed amendments to the
Procedures are consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the
Act \7\ and the regulations thereunder applicable to it, including the
standards under Rule 17Ad-22.\8\ Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \9\
requires, among other things, that the rules of a clearing agency be
designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivative
agreements, contracts, and transactions. The proposed amendments are
principally intended to further implement the rule amendments described
in the Rule Submission, which in turn are intended principally to
ensure compliance by the clearing house with the requirements of EMIR
and implement new, strengthened options for the segregation and
safeguarding of customer funds and property for customers of Non-FCM/BD
Clearing Members.\10\ As such, the proposed amendments to the
Procedures are part of a set of amendments that will enhance, and not
reduce, the level of customer protection available under the current
ICE Clear Europe rules for those Clearing Members and their customers.
As a result, ICE Clear Europe believes that the proposed changes to the
Procedures, like the amendments to the Rules discussed in the Rule
Submission, will contribute to the safeguarding of funds and securities
associated with derivative transactions that are in the custody or
control of the clearing house or for which it is responsible, as set
forth herein, within the meaning of Section 17(A)(b)(3)(F).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \10\ As discussed herein, certain additional amendments are in
the nature of clarifications and drafting improvements to various
provisions of the Procedures, and as such ICE Clear Europe believes
that they also promote the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities and derivatives transactions cleared by the
clearing house.
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, a key aspect of the amendments to the
Procedures is the incorporation of the new ICE Clear Europe Sponsored
Principal model. EMIR requires that the clearing house offer an
individual segregation model that Clearing Members may in turn offer to
their customers. Under such a model, the clearing house is required to
separately account for, and track, the portfolio of positions of a
customer of a Clearing Member and specific assets provided to margin
such contracts. ICE Clear Europe has developed its Individually
Segregated Sponsored Account model to satisfy this requirement of EMIR.
The Individually Segregated Sponsored Account provides a separate
account for the positions, and margin, of a particular customer, and
accordingly should be protected in the event of a default of the
sponsoring Clearing Member or other customers of the Clearing Member.
It also facilitates the transition to a new Sponsor in the event of a
default of the current Sponsor. For market participants that elect to
use the Individually Segregated Sponsored Account model, the approach
will thus provide a higher degree of protection for customer assets
than is currently available.
    As such, ICE Clear Europe believes that the proposed Procedure
changes, together with the related Rule changes described in the Rule
Submission will enhance the safeguarding of securities and funds
associated with securities and derivative transactions that are in the
custody or control of ICE Clear Europe or for which it is responsible.
ICE Clear Europe also believes that the proposed rule changes will
enhance the stability of the clearing system, by reducing the risk to
market participants of a default by a Clearing Member or other
customer. As a result, the proposed changes are, in the clearing
house's view, consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
of the Act. For the reasons set forth in the Rule Submission, ICE Clear
Europe also believes that the amendments are consistent with relevant
requirements of Rule 17Ad-22.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed changes to the
Procedures

would have any adverse impact, or impose any burden, on competition not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The
proposed amendments are principally intended to implement the new
segregation models and account classes adopted pursuant to the Rule
Submission.
    As discussed in more detail in the Rule Submission, ICE Clear
Europe is not proposing to materially change its standards for Clearing
Membership or financial requirements for Clearing Membership. ICE Clear
Europe is permitting a new form of access to the clearing house, for
Sponsored Principals, and ICE Clear Europe believes that this
development should facilitate, rather than limit, access to the
clearing house. Although cost models remain to be developed, use of
these accounts may be more expensive than use of omnibus accounts,
reflecting the additional operational complexity and segregation
available. It is possible that these additional costs may deter some
market participants for using the Individually Segregated Sponsored
Account. The clearing house retains other, omnibus segregation models,
however, that are based on existing models and will be available to
market participants that do not elect individual segregation. The
clearing house also recognizes that the new segregation models may
impose certain additional costs on Clearing Members, including
potentially additional guaranty fund contributions, which could raise
the cost of customer clearing. However, ICE Clear Europe believes that
this is the result of the requirement under EMIR to offer such models
and in any event is justified by the benefits provided by such models
for those who use them.
    ICE Clear Europe also does not believe the proposed amendments to
the Procedures are likely to adversely affect competition among
Clearing Members. The new segregation models are (and are required to
be) made available to all Non-FCM/BD Clearing Members. (As described in
the Rule Submission, the new models are not being offered to FCM/BD
Clearing Members, which will continue to use the account and
segregation framework provided under applicable U.S. law. The ability
for FCM/BD Clearing Members to continue using the existing framework
should mitigate any competitive impact of the new models for such
Clearing Members.) ICE Clear Europe believes that the new options will
facilitate competition among Clearing Members as they seek to offer the
segregation models to clients, consistent with the commercial
requirements of the Clearing Member and their customers and the
competitive environment as well as background regulatory requirements.
To the extent that the new segregation models impose additional costs
and operational complexity, those will fall on all Clearing Members
that seek to use the models, and are not designed to favor one type of
Clearing Member over another.
    In terms of the impact on customers of Clearing Members, the
proposed amendments are intended to provide those customers a greater
range of choices and protections for margin assets provided by those
customers, as required under EMIR. Certain models, such as the
individually segregated model, may impose higher costs on customers.
ICE Clear Europe believes that such costs are accompanied by the higher
protection to customer assets afforded by those models and required
under EMIR. In addition, other models, including omnibus segregation
models, remain available for customers that prefer such models. As a
result, ICE Clear Europe does not believe that the proposed amendments
will impose a significant burden on customers seeking access to
clearing.
    For similar reasons, ICE Clear Europe does not believe that the
rule amendments will adversely affect the ability of market
participants to continue to clear transactions, or otherwise limit
market participants' choices for clearing derivatives. The rule changes
implement a range of different models, each with different costs and
benefits to customers. ICE Clear Europe is also maintaining a
segregation framework analogous to that available today for customers
of Clearing Members. Furthermore, the amendments are intended to
implement requirements that will apply to European clearing houses
generally under EMIR, including the requirement to offer an individual
segregation model. As a result, ICE Clear Europe expects that other
clearing house will offer a similar range of clearing segregation
options, and the changes are not expected to reduce access to clearing
or clearing services.
    For the foregoing reasons, ICE Clear Europe does not believe that
the proposed amendments to the Procedures will impose any burden on
competition not appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others 13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ ICE Clear Europe included the following statement regarding
comments on the proposed rule change received from members,
participants or others in its Form 19b-4 filing but omitted the
statement from Exhibit 1 to the filing. On a July 9, 2014, telephone
call, staff in the Division of Trading and Markets confirmed with
ICE Clear Europe's counsel that ICE Clear Europe also intended to
include this statement in Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although written comments have not been specifically solicited with
respect to the Procedure changes, comments relating to the related rule
changes have been solicited from Clearing Members through extensive
discussions with Clearing Members and a public consultation. ICE Clear
Europe received various comments during this consultation and took such
comments into account in making further modifications to the proposed
rules and in developing the Procedures. The rule changes also reflect
comments received from the Bank of England in connection with ICE Clear
Europe's application for EMIR authorization. ICE Clear Europe will
notify the Commission of any additional written comments received by
ICE Clear Europe.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ICEEU-2014-11 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2014-11. 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 Web site (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 Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Europe
and on ICE Clear Europe's Web site at https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/regulatory_filings/ICEU_070714_SEC.pdf.
    All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2014-11
and should be submitted on or before July 25, 2014.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Commission believes that a 10-day comment period is
reasonable, given the urgency of the matter. It will provide
adequate time for comment.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-16542 Filed 7-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 185 (Monday, September 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58907-58909]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23451]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA 2012-0006-N-13]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and its
implementing regulations, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
hereby announces that it is seeking renewal of the following currently
approved information collection activities. Before submitting these
information collection requirements (ICRs) for clearance by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB), FRA is soliciting public comment on
specific aspects of the activities identified below.

DATES: Comments must be received no later than November 23, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on any or all of the following
proposed activities by mail to either: Mr. Robert Brogan, Office of
Safety, Planning and Evaluation Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC
20590, or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20,
Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop
35, Washington, DC 20590. Commenters requesting FRA to acknowledge
receipt of their respective comments must include a self-addressed
stamped postcard stating, ``Comments on OMB control number 2130-----
--.'' Alternatively, comments may be transmitted via facsimile to (202)
493-6216 or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via email to Mr. Brogan at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or to Ms. Toone at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Please refer to the assigned OMB control number in any correspondence
submitted. FRA will summarize comments received in response to this
notice in a subsequent notice and include them in its information
collection submission to OMB for approval.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Brogan, Office of Planning
and Evaluation Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200
New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:
(202) 493-6292) or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Office of Information
Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Ave. SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-
6132). (These telephone numbers are not toll-free.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law 104-13, Sec.  2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised
at 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part
1320, require Federal agencies to provide 60 days notice to the public
for comment on information collection activities before seeking
approval for reinstatement or renewal by OMB. 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A);
5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), 1320.10(e)(1), 1320.12(a). Specifically, FRA
invites interested respondents to comment on the following summary of
proposed information collection activities regarding (i) Whether the
information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly
execute its functions, including whether the activities will have
practical utility; (ii) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden
of the information collection activities, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (iii) ways
for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
being collected; and (iv) ways for FRA to minimize the burden of
information collection activities on the public by automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology (e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses). See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)(I)-(iv); 5 CFR
1320.8(d)(1)(I)-(iv). FRA believes that soliciting public comment will
promote its efforts to reduce the administrative and paperwork burdens
associated with the collection of information mandated by Federal
regulations. In summary, FRA reasons that comments received will
advance three objectives: (i) Reduce reporting burdens; (ii) ensure
that it organizes information collection requirements in a ``user
friendly'' format to improve the use of such information; and (iii)
accurately assess the resources expended to retrieve and produce
information requested. See 44 U.S.C. 3501.
    Below is a brief summary of the currently approved ICRs that FRA
will submit for clearance by OMB as required under the PRA:
    Title: State Safety Participation Regulations and Remedial Actions.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0509.
    Abstract: The collection of information is set forth under 49 CFR

part 212, and requires qualified state inspectors to provide various
reports to FRA for monitoring and enforcement purposes concerning state
investigative, inspection, and surveillance activities regarding
railroad compliance with Federal railroad safety laws and regulations.
Additionally, railroads are required to report to FRA actions taken to
remedy certain alleged violations of law.
    Form Number(s): FRA F 6180.33/61/67/96/96A/109/110/111/112.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Respondent Universe: States and Railroads.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.

                                                Reporting Burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Respondent          Total annual       Average time per    Total annual
           CFR section                   universe            responses             response        burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application For Participation....  15 States..........  15 updates.........  2.5 hours..........              38
Training Funding Agreement.......  30 States..........  30 agreements......  1 hour.............              30
Inspector Training Reimbursement.  30 States..........  300 vouchers.......  1 hour.............             300
Annual Work Plan.................  30 States..........  30 reports.........  15 hours...........             450
Inspection Form (Form FRA F        30 States..........  16,000 forms.......  15 minutes.........           4,000
 6180.96).
Violation Report--Motive, Power,   17 States..........  550 reports........  4 hours............           2,200
 and Equipment Regulations (Form
 FRA F 6180.109).
Violation Report--Operating        16 States..........  140 reports........  4 hours............             560
 Practices Regulations (Form FRA
 F 6180.67).
Violation Report--Hazardous        15 States..........  170 reports........  4 hours............             680
 Materials Regulations (Form FRA
 F 6180.110).
Violation Report--Hours of         16 States..........  35 reports.........  4 hours............             140
 Service Law (F 6180.33).
Violation Report--Accident/        16 States..........  30 reports.........  4 hours............             120
 Incident Reporting Rules (Form
 FRA F 6180.61).
Violation Report--Track Safety     25 States..........  100 reports........  4 hours............             400
 Regulations (Form FRA F
 6180.111).
Violation Report--Signal and       14 States..........  20 reports.........  4 hours............              80
 Train Control Regulations (Form
 FRA F 6180.112).
Remedial Actions Reports.........  563 Railroads......  3,500 reports......  15 minutes.........             875
Violation Report Challenge.......  563 Railroads......  700 challenges.....  1 hours............             700
Delayed Reports..................  573 Railroads......  350 reports........  30 minutes.........             175
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Responses: 21,970.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 10,748 hours.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0560.
    Abstract: Under Title 49 Part 222 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, FRA seeks to collect information from railroads and public
authorities in order to increase safety at highway-rail grade crossings
nationwide by requiring that locomotive horns be sounded when trains
approach and pass through these crossings or by ensuring that a safety
level at least equivalent to that provided by blowing locomotive horns
exists for corridors in which horns are silenced. FRA reviews
applications by public authorities intending to establish new or, in
some cases, continue pre-rule quiet zones to ensure the necessary level
of safety is achieved.
    Form Number(s): N/A.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Respondent Universe: 728 railroads/340 Public Authorities.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Total annual       Average time per    Total annual
           CFR section             Respondent universe       responses             response        burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
222.11--Penalties--Falsified       728 Railroads/340    1 report/record....  2 hours............               2
 Report.                            Public Authorities.
222.15--Waiver Petitions.........  728 Railroads/340    5 petitions........  4 hours............              20
                                    Public Authorities.
222.17--Application to Become      68 State Agencies..  1 application......  8 hours............               8
 Recognized State Agency.
222.39--Applications to Establish  340 Public           10 applications....  80 hours...........             800
 Quiet Zone.                        Authorities.
    --Diagnostic Team Rev........  340 Public           2 team reviews.....  16 hours...........              32
                                    Authorities.
    --Updated Crossing Inventory   340 Public           50 updated forms...  1 hour.............              50
     Forms.                         Authorities.
    --Copies of Quiet Zone         340 Public           60 copies..........  10 minutes.........              10
     Application.                   Authorities.
    --Comments to FRA on Quiet     715 Railroads/State  20 comments........  2.5 hours..........              30
     Zone Application.              Agencies.
222.43--Written Notice of Public   216 Communities/     30 notices + 90      40 hours + 10                 1,215
 Authority Intent to Create New     Public Authorities.  notifications.       minutes.
 Quiet Zone and Notification to
 Required Parties.
    --Updated Crossing Inventory   216 Communities....  150 updated forms..  1 hour.............             150
     Forms.
Comments on proposed Quiet Zone..  715 Railroads/State  60 comments........  4 hours............             240
                                    Agencies.
    --Notice of Quiet Zone         316 Public           30 notices + 180     40 hours + 10                 1,230
     Establishment + Notification   Authorities.         notifications.       minutes.
     to Required Parties.
    --Updated Crossing Inventory   316 Public           150 updated forms..  1 hour.............             150
     Forms.                         Authorities.

    --Certification by CEO of      216 Public           30 certifications..  5 minutes..........               3
     Public Authority Regarding     Authorities.
     Accuracy of Information.
222.47--Periodic Updates: Written  200 Public           70 written           30 minutes + 2                   70
 Affirmation that Supplementary     Authorities.         affirmations + 420   minutes.
 Safety Measures Implemented w/in                        copies (to
 Quiet Zone Conform to Rule or                           required parties).
 Terms of Approval.
    --Updated Crossing Inventory   200 Public           350 updated forms..  1 hour.............             350
     Forms.                         Authorities.
222.51--Written Commitment to      9 Public             5 written            5 hours............              25
 Lower Risk to Traveling Public     Authorities.         commitments.
 in Quiet Zones Exceeding
 Nationwide Significant Risk
 Threshold.
    --Comments Upon FRA Review of  3 Public             4 comments.........  30 minutes.........               2
     Quiet Zone Status.             Authorities.
222.55--Request for FRA Approval   265 Interested       1 letter...........  30 minutes.........               1
 of New Supplementary Safety        Parties.
 Measures or Alternative Safety
 Measures (ASMs) for Quiet Zone.
    --Comments on New SSMs or      265 Interested       5 comments.........  30 minutes.........               3
     ASMs.                          Parties/General
                                    Public.
    --Request for SSM/ASM          265 Interested       1 letter...........  30 minutes.........               1
     Approval--Demo.                Parties.
222.57--Petition for FRA Review    265 Public           5 petitions + 5      60 minutes + 2                    1
 of Decision Granting or Denying    Authorities/         petition copies.     minutes.
 a New SSM or ASM; Petition         Interested Parties.
 Copies to Relevant Parties.
    --Request for FRA              200 Public           1 letter + 6 letter  5 hours + 2 minutes               5
     Reconsideration of             Authorities.         copies.
     Disapproval of Quiet Zone +
     Party Copies.
    --Additional Documents to FRA  200 Public           1additional          2 hours............               2
     as Follow-up to Petition for   Authorities.         document/set of
     Reconsideration.                                    materials.
    --Letter Requesting FRA        200 Public           1 letter...........  30 minutes.........               1
     Informal Hearing.              Authorities.
222.59--Written Notice of Use of   200 Public           5 notices + 30       2.5 hours + 10                   18
 Wayside Horn at Grade Crossing     Authorities.         notice copies.       minutes.
 within Quiet Zone + Party Copies.
    --Notice of Wayside Horn       200 Public           5 notices + 30       2.5 hours + 10                   18
     Outside Q. Zone.               Authorities.         notice copies.       minutes.
Appendix B--Public Authority       200 Public           1 record...........  500 hours..........             500
 Record Relating to Monitoring      Authorities.
 and Sampling Efforts at Grade
 Crossing in Quiet Zone with
 Programmed Enforcement.
    --Public Authority Record      200 Public           1 record...........  9 hours............               9
     Relating to Monitoring and     Authorities.
     Sampling Efforts at Grade
     Crossing in Quiet Zone with
     Photo Enforcement.
222.129--Written Reports/Records   728 Railroads......  650 reports/records  60 minutes.........             650
 of Locomotive Horn Testing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Estimated Responses: 2,466.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 5,596 hours.
    Status: Regular Review.
    Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b),
1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA informs all interested parties that it may not
conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 18, 2012.
Rebecca Pennington,
Chief Financial Officer, Federal Railroad Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-23451 Filed 9-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 71 (Friday, April 12, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21867-21871]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08670]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2013-0192, FRL-9802-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Revision to
the New York State Implementation Plan for Carbon Monoxide

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing action
on a proposed State Implementation Plan revision submitted by the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation. This revision
consists of a change to New York's November 15, 1992 Carbon Monoxide
Attainment Demonstration that would remove a reference to a limited
off-street parking program as it relates to the New York County portion
of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Carbon
Monoxide attainment area. EPA is proposing approval of this State
Implementation Plan revision because it will not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards
in the affected area.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 13, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket Number EPA-R02-
OAR-2013-0192, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
     Mail: Richard Ruvo, Acting Branch Chief, Air Programs
Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway,
25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
     Hand Delivery: Richard Ruvo, Acting Branch Chief, Air
Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290
Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. 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, 8:30 to 4:30 excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-R02-OAR-2013-
0192. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters or any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway,
25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. EPA requests, if at all
possible, that you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4
p.m., excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Henry Feingersh
(feingersh.henry@epa.gov), Air Programs Branch, Environmental
Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-
1866,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. What is the background information for this proposal?
III. What was included in New York's proposed SIP submittal?
IV. What are the Carbon Monoxide trends?
V. What is EPA's evaluation?
VI. What are EPA's conclusions?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing?

    The EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the New York State
Implementation Plan (SIP) in response to a request submitted by the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation (New York) on April
5, 2007. This revision consists of a change to New York's November 15,
1992 Carbon Monoxide Attainment Demonstration that would remove a
reference to a limited off-street parking program as it relates to the
New York County portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long
Island, NY-NJ-CT Carbon Monoxide attainment area. EPA's proposal is to
remove the off-street parking program that was identified by New York
as one of the Transportation Control Measures in New York's 1992 SIP
submittal. This limited off-street parking program is imposed and
enforced by the City of New York. EPA is proposing approval of this SIP
revision because it will not interfere with attainment or maintenance
of the national ambient air quality standards in the affected area.

II. What is the background information for this proposal?

    New York submitted a Carbon Monoxide SIP on November 13, 1992
entitled ``Carbon Monoxide Attainment Demonstration--New York
Metropolitan Area'' and EPA published a final approval on July 25, 1996
(61 Federal Register (FR) 38594.) These actions became effective on
August 26, 1996. On November 23, 1999, New York submitted a request to
EPA to redesignate this area from nonattainment to attainment of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Carbon Monoxide. EPA
published a final approval of this request on April 19, 2002 (67 FR
19337) and the action became effective on May 20, 2002.
    On April 5, 2007, New York submitted a request to revise the SIP to
remove a reference to a limited off-street parking program as it
relates to New York County. This proposed SIP revision underwent a
public hearing and public notice and comment process. In a July 26,
2007 letter to the State, the EPA responded to the April 5, 2007
revision request by asking for the public hearing record including a
response to comments received. New York submitted this additional
information to EPA in a letter dated October 5, 2012.
    The New York portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long
Island, NY-NJ-CT CO attainment area is composed of the five boroughs of
New York City and the surrounding counties of Nassau, Suffolk,
Westchester and Rockland. This is collectively referred to as the New
York City Metropolitan Area or NYMA.
    The NYMA has been meeting the Carbon Monoxide (CO) standard for
over twenty years, since 1992, and CO levels have continuously trended
downward. As discussed later in Section IV--``What are the Carbon
Monoxide Trends,'' current 8-hr CO levels are less than \1/3\ of the 8-
hr standard while 1-hr CO levels not only achieve the 1-hour standard,
they are much less than the 8-hr standard.

III. What was included in New York's proposed SIP submittal?

    New York submitted to EPA a proposed SIP revision that includes a
change to the New York State Carbon Monoxide SIP. The change is a
clarification to a commitment identified in New York's November 13,
1992 submittal. New York also submitted air quality monitoring data
from 1997 through 2011 along with an ambient monitoring trends analysis
for the period 1988 through 2011. This analysis shows a marked downward
trend in CO ambient concentrations. These concentrations are, and have
been for a number of years now, lower than the background values used
in the 1992 CO SIP.
    In addition, New York held a public hearing on July 17, 2007 and
written comments were accepted until July 24, 2007, which was an
extension of the original May 30, 2007 deadline. New York submitted to
EPA a summary of the public comments received and responses to those
comments.

IV. What are the Carbon Monoxide trends?

    There has been a steadily declining Carbon Monoxide trend in the
NYMA since the 1980's. The last few years have seen a ``bottoming out''
of these concentrations. CO values have been dropping steadily for
several years and are now lower than background values were at the time
of the CO SIP attainment demonstration in 1992. While we observed
concentrations over 13 ppm in the 1980's, we are now seeing these
values at approximately 2 ppm. This means we are seeing almost no
contributions from automobiles at this time. Much of this improvement
can be attributed to newer cars with advanced anti-pollution controls.
    The following chart shows how the CO monitored design values in New
York County have declined from 1988-1989 through 2010-2011. The design
values are derived by first taking the second highest 8-hour value for
each site in the county for each year. Of these, the highest value for
each year (from all of the sites in the county) is the design value for
that year. Thus, the design value went from 13.5 ppm in 1988-1989 to
1.8 ppm in 2010-2011.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP13.005

V. What is EPA's evaluation?

    Revisions to SIP-approved control measures must meet the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(l) to be approved
by EPA. Section 110(l) states: ``The Administrator shall not approve a
revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as
defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of this
Chapter.''
    EPA interprets section 110(l) to apply to all requirements of the
CAA and to all areas of the country, whether attainment, nonattainment,
unclassifiable, or maintenance for one or more of the six criteria
pollutants. EPA also interprets section 110(l) to require a
demonstration addressing all pollutants whose emissions and/or ambient
concentrations may change as a result of the SIP revision. Thus, for
example, modification of a SIP-approved measure which may impact
nitrogen oxide emissions, may also impact particulate matter emissions,
and this would have to be evaluated. The scope and rigor of an adequate
section 110(l) demonstration of noninterference depends on the air
quality status of the area, the potential impact of the revision on air
quality, the pollutant(s) affected, and the nature of the applicable
CAA requirements.
    As discussed previously, the air quality data shows a striking
downward trend in ambient CO concentrations in the NYMA area for the
past twenty years. This dramatic improvement can be attributed to the
Federal Motor Vehicle Turnover Program along with advanced anti-
pollution controls on motor vehicles.
    The NYMA has been attaining the CO standard since 1993. As
discussed in Section II, above, on April 19, 2002, EPA published a
final rule redesignating the area to attainment. A maintenance plan
explaining how the area will maintain the CO standard has been in place
since that time. Action on a second 10 year maintenance plan explaining
how the area will continue to attain the CO standard for another 10
years will be taken in a separate Federal Register Notice.
    It is important to note, aside from ozone, the NYMA is attaining
the NAAQS for all of the other criteria pollutants. The area has been
attaining the SO2, NO2, and Pb standards for many
years. For CO, the area was redesignated to attainment in 2002 and is
currently a maintenance area. For ozone, the area has been designated
nonattainment and continues to be designated nonattainment. However,
the area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard and has attained the
1997 8-hour ozone standard by its required attainment date. In
addition, the area has been attaining the annual and 24-hour
PM2.5 standards and New York has proposed redesignations for
both PM standards. EPA will be taking action on the PM2.5
standards in a separate Federal Register Notice.
    EPA reviewed New York's proposed change to its CO attainment
demonstration to determine whether the change will add or contribute to
any air quality violations. EPA proposes to determine that removal of
the limited off-street parking program from the previous federally
approved CO attainment demonstration will not add or contribute to an
already existing air quality violation, primarily because there is no
existing air quality violation. EPA, in essence, continues to evaluate
the New York CO SIP because New York continues to have their CO
maintenance plan in place. This plan meets the requirements set forth
in section 175A of the CAA and provides for continued attainment of the
CO NAAQS.
    As for the only other pollutants, ozone and PM2.5, for
which there may be any potential impact on air quality, EPA notes that
for each of these pollutants, New York has developed several other
revisions to the SIP to continue the reductions of emissions toward
meeting the NAAQS. Specifically for ozone, EPA approved New York's
reasonable further progress plan and attainment demonstration for NYMA
(see 76 FR 51264 (Aug. 18, 2011) and 78 FR 9596 (Feb. 11, 2013),
respectively) which included those measures necessary to attain and
maintain the standard. Also, on June 15, 2001 and supplemented on
October 1, 2001, New York submitted to EPA its assessment of whether
any Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) are available to
advance the 1-hour ozone attainment date from 2007 to an earlier year
for the New York Metro Area. In this study New York evaluated the
emissions reductions associated with several transportation control
measures. EPA approved New York's RACM Analysis on February 4,

2002 (67 FR 5170) and determined that there were no additional RACMs
(including the transportation control measures) that, when implemented,
would advance the attainment date in the NYMA from 2007 to an earlier
year. In addition, to address the RACM requirement for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard, New York did a similar analysis and determined that
there were additional measures that New York State believes represent
RACM as they are reasonably available and can be expected to advance
the attainment date and contribute to reasonable further progress.
However, the measures identified by New York were all stationary source
related and have since been adopted and implemented by New York State.
On July 13, 2010 (75 FR 43066), EPA approved New York's RACM analysis
for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
    New York developed a RACM analysis for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS that was submitted to EPA on October 27, 2009.
Although EPA has not yet proposed action on the PM2.5 RACM
analysis submitted by the state, New York has adopted and implemented
control measures that will provide for additional emissions reductions
of PM2.5 and its precursors since the NYMA first
demonstrated attainment with the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
The measures will be undergoing EPA rulemaking in the near future and,
if approved, will become federally enforceable. These measures will
collectively help ensure continued compliance with both the 1997 annual
and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. These measures include New
York's Hot Mix Asphalt Production Plants rule (6 NYCRR Part 212.12),
Reasonably Available Control Technology for Major Facilities of Oxides
of Nitrogen (6 NYCRR Part 227-2), and Best Available Retrofit
Technology (6 NYCRR Part 249).
    EPA recognizes that DEC's April 7, 2007 SIP submittal is asserting
that off-street parking is regulated by the New York City Department of
City Planning and its zoning resolutions and not by the CO SIP.
    EPA proposes to determine that removal of this one Transportation
Control Measure (TCM) will not interfere with air quality or attainment
of the NAAQS. In addition, New York has revised the rules which address
TCMs before and concluded not to rely on these similar measures in more
recent SIP actions. This provides further evidence to lead EPA to
determine that this measure will not have an impact on air quality.
    We are aware that any new construction project using federal funds
must undergo a review pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), [42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. Specifically, all federal agencies are
to prepare detailed assessments of the environmental impacts of and
alternatives to major federal actions significantly affecting the
environment. These documents are commonly referred to as environmental
impact statements (EIS). The public has an important role in the NEPA
process, particularly during scoping, in providing input on what issues
should be addressed in an EIS and in commenting on the findings in an
agency's NEPA documents. The public can participate in the NEPA process
by attending NEPA-related hearings or public meetings and by submitting
comments directly to the lead agency. The lead agency must take into
consideration all comments received from the public and other parties
on NEPA documents during the comment period.
    New York has demonstrated that the changes to its CO SIP will not
interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS for all criteria
pollutants. EPA proposes to find that New York has satisfied the
demonstration of noninterference required by CAA section 110(l).

VI. What are EPA's conclusions?

    EPA is proposing to approve New York's request to remove a
reference to a limited off-street parking program in New York County
because this SIP revision will not cause an exceedance of the NAAQS.
EPA reviewed the public comments from the July 17, 2007 public hearing
record. EPA agrees with New York's responses that New York City
continues to run the limited off-street parking program and, although
New York City may have relaxed aspects of the program, there is no
evidence that this relaxation caused any degradation in CO air quality
in the area. In addition, New York did not rely on any emission
reductions from this program in its SIP modeling to support the
demonstration of attainment of the CO standard. Finally, any new
construction project in the area would have to undergo a NEPA process.
The NEPA process ensures that a NAAQS violation would not occur due to
the project in question.
    EPA's review of the materials submitted indicates that New York has
revised its CO SIP in accordance with the requirements of the CAA, 40
CFR Part 51 and all of EPA's technical requirements for a CO SIP.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the removal of a reference to a
limited off-street parking program in New York County.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, 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 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 (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 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: April 1, 2013.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2013-08670 Filed 4-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 29, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56595-56596]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25725]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1510-018]

City of Kaukauna, Wisconsin; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests, Ready for
Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Terms
and Conditions, and Prescriptions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 1510-018.
    c. Date filed: March 24, 2017.
    d. Applicant: City of Kaukauna, Wisconsin (Kaukauna).
    e. Name of Project: Kaukauna Project.
    f. Location: On the Fox River in the City of Kaukauna, Outagamie
County, Wisconsin. There are no federal or tribal lands within the
project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Mike Pedersen, Kaukauna Utilities, 777
Island Street, P.O. Box 1777, Kaukauna, WI 54130-7077;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Erin Kimsey,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments,
recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions: 60 days from
the issuance date of this notice; reply comments are due 105 days from
the issuance date of this notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and protests, comments, recommendations, terms and
conditions, and prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration,
using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the
end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-1510-018.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready
for environmental analysis.
    l. The existing Kaukauna City Plant Hydroelectric Project consists
of: (1) An approximately 3,842-foot-long dam that includes: (a) A 930-
foot-long, 14-foot-high masonry retaining wall section (left forebay
dam) with a 4-foot-wide trash sluice; (b) a 92-foot-long, 25-foot-high
concrete intake and powerhouse section; (c) a 292-foot-long, 26- to 30-
foot-high masonry and concrete retaining wall section (right forebay
dam); (d) a 34-foot-long, 11-foot-high trash sluice; (e) a 66-foot-
long, 18-foot-high gated spillway section with two 30-foot-wide, 8.8-
foot-high spillway gates; and (f) a 2,428-foot-long, 0.5- to 10-foot-
high concrete and natural rock spillway section; (2) a 19-acre,1.5-
mile-long impoundment with a normal maximum elevation of 629.0 feet
above mean sea level (msl); (3) a 25-foot-high, 88-foot-wide intake
structure with seven 11-foot-high, 7-foot-wide head gates and a
continuous 25-foot-high, 88-foot-wide trashrack with 5-inch clear-bar
spacing; (4) a 92-foot-long, 47.5-foot-high concrete and brick
powerhouse containing two 2.4-megawatt turbine-generator units for a
total installed capacity of 4.8 megawatts; (5) a 440-foot-wide, 49-
foot-deep, 1,200-foot-long excavated tailrace; (6) two 68-foot-long,
2.4-kilovolt generator leads that connect the turbine-generator units
to the licensee's local distribution system; and (7) appurtenant
facilities. Kaukauna operates the project in a run-of-river mode with
an average annual generation of approximately 29,704 megawatt-hours.
    Kaukauna is not proposing any new project facilities, and proposes
to continue operating the project in a run-of-river mode, with a
minimum impoundment elevation of 628.5 feet msl (0.5 foot less than the
spillway crest elevation). Kaukauna also proposes to develop resource
plans for mitigating the effects of reservoir drawdowns, woody debris
removal, and erosion on aquatic resources; and mitigating the spread of
invasive species.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at

http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h
above.
    n. Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene
in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure,
18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action
to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments
filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with
the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any
comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified comment date for the particular application.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title PROTEST,
MOTION TO INTERVENE, COMMENTS, REPLY COMMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS, TERMS
AND CONDITIONS, or PRESCRIPTIONS; (2) set forth in the heading the name
of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the
filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of
the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments,
recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth
their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of
18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly
from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must
be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the
particular application. A copy of all other filings in reference to
this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons
listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this
proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    o. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following
the date of issuance of this notice: (1) A copy of the water quality
certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including
proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request;
or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.

    Dated: November 21, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-25725 Filed 11-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P