Notice of Filing: Pesticide Petition 7E7287

EPA Registration Division contact: Susan Stanton<PHONE_NUMBER>)

Interregional Research Project #4

Pesticide Petition #7E7287

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP#7E7287) from Interregional
Research Project #4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,
500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540 proposing,
pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.438 by establishing
tolerances for residues of gamma-cyhalothrin
((S)-[alpha]-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl
(Z)-(1R,3R)-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoripropenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropan
ecarboxylate) in or on the raw agricultural commodity pistachio at 0.05
parts per million (ppm) and okra at 0.2 parts per million (ppm).  EPA
has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding
the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has
not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time
or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data
may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism. Gamma-cyhalothrin relies on the metabolism data
conducted on lambda-cyhalothrin, which has been thoroughly tested and is
adequately understood.  Gamma-cyhalothrin is a resolved isomer of the
lambda-cyhalothrin mixture.

	2. Analytical method. An adequate analytical method is available for
enforcement purposes.  Per the Federal Register of April 8, 2004 (69
FRL-7353-4),  the ICI method 81 for lamda-cyhalothrin has been validated
by EPA.  Given the enantiomeric relation of gamma-cyhalothrin to
lambda-cyhalothrin and the fact that the method does not provide chiral
resolution, the method is also applicable to gamma-cyhalothrin.

	3. Magnitude of residues. This petition is based on existing IR-4
proposals (previously reviewed by HED) regarding crop groupings with
rational for the addition of okra to “Vegetables, fruiting, group 8
(except cucurbits)” and the additional of pistachio to “Nut, tree,
group 14”.  Gamma-cyhalothrin has tolerances established in these
related crop groupings per Federal Register of April 8, 2004 (69
FRL-7353-4).  A tolerance of 0.05 ppm is established for the “Nut,
tree, group 14” and a tolerance of 0.2 ppm is established for the
“Vegetables, fruiting, group 8 (except cucurbits)”.  For okra, the
currently-labeled use pattern for the fruiting vegetables will be
adopted. For pistachio, the currently-labeled use pattern for tree nuts
will be used.  Because the proposed use patterns are the same, the
residues should not exceed those of currently approved uses and the
tolerances are supported.

B. Toxicological Profile Per the Federal Register of April 8, 2004 (69
FRL-7353-4), EPA has determined the toxicological profile and endpoints
for gamma-cyhalothrin which support this petition.  The toxicological
evaluation is accomplished by studies with gamma-cyhalothrin as well as
by studies on lambda-cyhalothrin and/or cyhalothrin.  Because
gamma-cyhalothrin is a resolved component (single isomer) of the
registered isomer mixtures of both lambda-cyhalothrin and cyhalothrin,
much of the toxicological testing has been accomplished through existing
tests on the previous cyhalothrin mixtures (as discussed in further
detail within the Federal Register of September 27, 2002 (67 FR 60902).

	1. Acute toxicity.  Per the Federal Register of April 8, 2004 (69
FRL-7353-4), an acute reference dose (aRfD) of 0.0025 mg/kg for
gamma-cyhalothrin is established.  This value is based on: 1) an UF=100;
 2) the NOEL of 0.5 mg/kg/day for the 1 and 2 day timeframe within the
chronic oral study in the dog with lambda-cyhalothrin with clinical
signs of neurotoxicity observed from day 2, 3 to 6 hour post-dose; and
3) multiplication of ½ factor based on the purity of the lambda isomer
compared to the enriched isomer gamma cyhalothrin.  Given the FQPA
SF=1X, the aRfD = aPAD = 0.0025 mg/kg/day for gamma-cyhalothrin.

	2. Genotoxicty. Per Federal Register of February 13, 1998 (63 Number
30), genotoxicity tests for lambda-cyhalothrin were all negative: a gene
mutation assay (Ames), a mouse micronucleus assay, an in-vitro
cytogenetics assay and a gene mutation study in mouse lymphoma cells.

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. Per Federal Register of
April 8, 2004 (69 FRL-7353-4) and Federal Register of August 15, 2007
(72 FRL-8143-1, no quantitative or qualitative evidence of increased
susceptibility of rat or rabbit fetuses to in utero exposure in the
developmental studies was observed.  For both species, the Developmental
NOAEL = Maternal LOAEL and the values were 15 mg/kg/day in the rat and
30 mg/kg/day in the rabbit.

A 3-generation reproduction test in the rat covering cyhalothrin,
lambda-cyhalothrin and gamma-cyhalothrin indicated a reproductive NOAEL
of 5 mg/kg/day, the reproductive LOAEL was not established and the
Offspring NOAEL/LOAEL was 1.5 mg/kg/day.  Offspring toxicity (decreased
body weight and body weight gain) was observed in the reproduction study
at the same dose level as parental toxicity; these effect are not
considered to be more several than the effects in the parent.

	4. Subchronic toxicity. Per the Federal Register of April 8, 2004 (69
FRL-7353-4), the short-term incidental oral exposure scenario is to be
evaluated against a NOAEL of 0.1 mg/kg/day with a residential MOE of
100; this was based on observations with the chronic oral study in the
dog for lambda-cyhalothrin.  However for this tolerance petition for
food use on okra and pistachios, this endpoint is not applicable.

	5. Chronic toxicity. Per the Federal Register of April 8, 2004 (69
FRL-7353-4), a chronic reference dose (cRfD) of 0.001 mg/kg for
gamma-cyhalothrin is established.  This value is based on: 1) an UF=100;
2) the NOAEL of 0.1 mg/kg/day from the chronic oral study in the dog
with lambda-cyhalothrin; and 3) and no adjustment for the relative
amounts of the lambda isomer compared to the gamma-cyhalothrin.  Given
the FQPA SF=1X, the cRfD = cPAD = 0.001 mg/kg/day for gamma-cyhalothrin.
 For all routes (oral, dermal and inhalation), gamma-cyhalothrin has
been classified as “not likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans”; no
cancer assessment is needed.

	6. Animal metabolism. Per the Federal Register of April 8, 2004 (69
FRL-7353-4), the rat model indicates 55% of the oral dose is absorbed
and then extensively metabolized.  The ester is cleaved to the
cyclopropylcarboxylic acid and a phenoxybenzyl derivative.  Comparison
of multi and single dose studies indicates distribution and excretion
rates are similar.  With the exception of accumulation of unchanged
compound in the fat with chronic dosing, cyhalothrin is rapidly
metabolized and excreted.

	7. Metabolite toxicology. Per Federal Register of February 13, 1998 (63
Number 30), the metabolism of lambda-cyhalothrin in livestock was
studied in the goat, chicken and cow; only unchanged parent is the major
residue component of toxicological concern in meat and milk.

	8. Endocrine disruption. No studies have been conducted to investigate
the potential of gamma-cyhalothrin to induce estrogenic or other
endocrine effects.  However, no evidence of such effects has been noted
in the battery of toxicity studies which have been conducted on
cyhalothrin/lambda-cyhalothrin.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. The agency has conducted an extensive assessment
of the aggregate exposure for lambda-cyhalothrin reported in the Federal
Register of September 27, 2002 (FR 65 60902) (FRL-7200-1).  The EPA
recently conducted a refined exposure assessment to cover new uses for
lambda-cyhalothrin per Federal Register of August 15, 2007 (72
FRL-8143-1).  In the Federal Register of April 8, 2004 (69 FRL-7353-4),
the EPA concluded that risk assessments on lambda-cyhalothrin
sufficiently covers gamma-cyhalothrin and “no new aggregate risk
assessment is needed for gamma-cyhalothrin”.  Their conclusion is
based on the following: 1) gamma-cyhalothrin is the isolated active of
lambda-cyhalothrin, 2) the residue data from comparison studies showed
that residues “from the gamma uses are, on average , no more than half
of those of lambda-cyhalothrin” and 3) the toxicological endpoints
selected for gamma-cyhalothrin are not less than half those selected for
lambda-cyhalothrin.

	i. Food. The lambda-cyhalothrin assessment in the Federal Register of
August 15, 2007 (72 FRL-8143-1) includes Tier I worse-case assumptions
of 100 PCT and tolerance level values for residues on pistachio and
okra.  Dietary exposure for the resolved isomer gamma-cyhalothrin has
already been implicitly assessed; there is no new data and the
assessment need not be repeated.

	ii. Drinking water. The lambda-cyhalothrin assessment in the Federal
Register of August 15, 2007 (72 FRL-8143-1) includes a modeled estimate
for acute water exposure of 5.35 ppb and a modeled estimate for chronic
water exposure of 0.130 ppb.  Exposure to the resolved isomer
gamma-cyhalothrin has already been implicitly assessed; there is no new
data and no new assessment is needed.

	2. Non-dietary exposure. The newly proposed tolerances for
gamma-cyhalothrin on pistachios and okra are dietary uses and there is
no increase in the non-dietary exposure potential previously included in
the recent exposure assessment Federal Register of August 15, 2007 (72
FRL-8143-1).  The existing residential uses were assessed by the agency
via a screening-level approach to address the risks associated with the
use of the aerosol can product of lambda-cyhalothrin purchased by
homeowners.  This use is assumed to have the highest exposure potential
of all the residential uses.  No new assessment is needed for
gamma-cyhalothrin.

D. Cumulative Effects

	For the purpose of this request, it has been assumed that the
cyhalothrins (i. e., cyhalothrin, gamma-cyhalothrin and
lambda-cyhalothrin) do not have a common mechanism of toxicity with
other substances.

E. Safety Determination In a recent exposure assessment Federal Register
of August 15, 2007 (72 FRL-8143-1), the proposed uses of
gamma-cyhalothrin on okra and pistachios was implicitly covered by the
assessment for lambda-cyhalothrin, which already assumed 100 percent
crop treated (PCT) for okra and pistachios.  EPA concluded there is a
reasonable certainly that no harm will result to the general population
of infants and children for lambda-cyhalothrin.  Because
gamma-cyhalothrin is a resolved isomer of lambda-cyhalothrin, the risk
has already been implicitly assessed and no new assessment is needed.

	1. U.S. population. In a recent exposure assessment Federal Register of
August 15, 2007 (72 FRL-8143-1), the agency determined the acute dietary
exposure from food and water to lambda-cyhalothrin to occupy 46% of the
aPAD and 17% of cPAD for the general US population.  EPA concluded that
food, water and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 140 to
490.  Because the MOEs are greater than 100, there were no concerns for
aggregate exposure.  There is no additional new exposure to be added to
this model; gamma-cyhalothrin has already been implicitly assessed
through the use of 100 PCT for lambda-cyhalothrin and no new assessment
is needed.

	2. Infants and children. Per Federal Register of August 15, 2007 (72
FRL-8143-1), EPA has reviewed a DNT for lambda-cyhalothrin (MRID
46449102); while the study has been deemed technically unacceptable, the
EPA is not requiring a repeat of the study.  Instead a 10X factor has
been applied to the NOAEL of 4 mg/kg bw/day to arrive at a 0.4 mg/kg
bw/day.  This value is similar to the acute and chronic NOAELs.  EPA
concluded that use of the NOAELs from the dog study is protective of
infants and children and the FQPA SF=1.

In the exposure assessment of Federal Register of August 15, 2007 (72
FRL-8143-1), the agency determined the acute dietary exposure from food
and water to lambda-cyhalothrin to occupy 61% of the aPAD for all
infants as the most highly exposed populations subgroup.  The chronic
assessment for children indicated that children (1-2 years old) were the
most highly exposed subpopulation with potential exposure at 50% of
cPAD.  Because the projected exposures are less than 100% of the PAD,
there is a reasonable certainty of no harm.

F. International Tolerances

	A review of national websites and the Homologa MRL database reveals
that for nuts and fruiting vegetables there are no MRLs outside the US
which have been specifically established for gamma cyhalothrin.  MRLS
are fairly harmonized for the related isomers of lambda-cyhalothrin per
the table below.  In addition, there are Codex maximum residue levels
pending for residues of cyhalothrin, as the sum of all isomers, in or
tree nuts (shelled and unshelled) at 0.05 ppm.  For Canada, treenuts
including pistachios are covered based on the “negligible” residue
clause of Canadian Food and Drug Act Regulations (B.15.002(1).

Active	Country	Commodity	Value	Unit

Lambda-cyhalothrin 	US, Canada, EU, Mexico	Tomatoes	0.1	ppm

Gamma-cyhalothrin	US	Tomato	0.1	ppm

Lambda-cyhalothrin	Mexico	Peppers	0.2	ppm

Lambda-cyhalothrin	EU	Peppers	0.1	ppm

Lambda-cyhalothrin and Gamma-cyhalothrin	US	Peppers	0.2	ppm

Gamma-cyhalothrin	US	Treenuts	0.05	ppm

Lambda-cyhalothrin	EU, US	Treenuts and Pistachio	0.05	ppm

]

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 83 (Monday, May 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23400-23401]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09153]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4511-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; Amendment No. 5 to
Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (FEMA-4511-DR), dated
April 1, 2020, and related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued March 22, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated March 22, 2021, the President amended the cost-sharing
arrangements regarding Federal funds provided under the authority of
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''), in a letter to Robert J.
Fenton, Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Administrator,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security,
under Executive Order 12148, as follows:

    I have determined that the emergency conditions in the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands resulting from the
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic beginning on January
20, 2020,

and continuing, are of sufficient severity and magnitude that
special cost sharing arrangements are warranted regarding Federal
funds provided under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
    Therefore, I amend the declaration of April 1, 2020, to
authorize a waiver of the non-Federal cost share for Other Needs
Assistance--Lost Wages Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

Robert J. Fenton,
Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Administrator, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-09153 Filed 4-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 25, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3589-3590]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1394]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1398; Airspace Docket No. 11-AAL-21]
RIN 2120-AA66

Revision of Compulsory Reporting Points; Alaska

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action revises the published description of two low
altitude Alaskan compulsory reporting points; one in the vicinity of
Homer and the other in the vicinity of Kenai. Specifically, the FAA is
revising the description of CLAMS and SKILA to address recent technical
adjustments to their actual locations.

DATES: Effective Dates: Effective date 0901 UTC, April 5, 2012. The
Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by
reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Airspace, Regulations
and ATC Procedures Group, Office of Mission Support Services, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The FAA has determined that the low altitude Alaskan compulsory
reporting point CLAMS, in the vicinity of Homer, and SKILA, in the
vicinity of Kenai, require their published descriptions be revised to
match updated position information contained in the FAA's aeronautical
database and align with their actual locations. In addition to improved
measurement accuracies for describing both low altitude compulsory
reporting points, SKILA is also affected by the Anchorage VHF
Omnidirectional Range (VOR) navigation aid relocation from Fire Island,
AK, onto the Ted Stevens International Airport, AK, property. There are
no changes to routing or air traffic control procedures resulting from
this action. Accordingly, since this is an administrative change and
does not affect the boundaries, altitudes, or operating requirements of
the airspace, notice and public procedures under Title 5 U.S.C. 553(b)
are unnecessary.

The Rule

    The FAA amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part
71 by revising the low altitude Alaskan compulsory reporting point
CLAMS and SKILA descriptions to match updated position information
contained in the FAA aeronautical database and more accurately reflect
the actual locations of compulsory reporting points.
    Alaskan Low Altitude Reporting Points are listed in paragraph 7004
of FAA Order 7400.9V dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15,
2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The compulsory
reporting points listed in this document will be revised subsequently
in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant
preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so
minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air
traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends low altitude compulsory reporting points in Alaska.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with 311a, FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures.'' This airspace action is not expected to cause

any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary
circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental
assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

     Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9V,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 9, 2011, and
effective September 15, 2011, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 7004 Alaskan Low Altitude Reporting Points

* * * * *

CLAMS [Amended]

Lat. 59[deg]53'30'' N., long. 152[deg]16'56'' W. (INT Homer, AK,
294[deg], Kenai, AK, 217[deg] radials).
* * * * *

SKILA [Amended]

Lat. 60[deg]29'50'' N., long. 150[deg]40'02'' W. (INT Anchorage, AK,
208[deg], Homer, AK, 026[deg] radials).
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 17, 2012.
Gary A. Norek,
Acting Manager, Airspace, Regulations, & ATC Procedures Group.
[FR Doc. 2012-1394 Filed 1-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25475-25483]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09931]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77699; File No. SBSDR-2016-01]

Security-Based Swap Data Repositories; ICE Trade Vault, LLC;
Notice of Filing of Application for Registration as a Security-Based
Swap Data Repository

April 22, 2016.

I. Introduction

    On March 29, 2016, and as amended on April 18, 2016, ICE Trade
Vault, LLC (``ICE Trade Vault'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') a Form SDR seeking registration as a
security-based swap data repository (``SDR'') under Section 13(n) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') \1\ and the
Commission's rules promulgated thereunder.\2\ ICE Trade Vault proposes
to operate as a registered SDR for security-based swap (``SBS'')
transactions in the credit derivatives asset class. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments from interested persons
regarding ICE Trade Vault's Form SDR,\3\ and the Commission will
consider any comments it receives in making its

determination whether to grant ICE Trade Vault registration as an
SDR.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78m(n)(3).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.13n-1 through 240.13n-12.
    \3\ ICE Trade Vault filed its Form SDR, including the exhibits
thereto, electronically with the Commission. The descriptions set
forth in this notice regarding the structure and operations of ICE
Trade Vault have been derived, excerpted, and/or summarized from
information in ICE Trade Vault's Form SDR application, and
principally from ICE Trade Vault's Guidebook (Exhibit GG.2), which
outlines the applicant's policies and procedures designed to address
its statutory and regulatory obligations as an SDR registered with
the Commission. ICE Trade Vault's Form SDR application and non-
confidential exhibits thereto are available in EDGAR at http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?CIK=0001658496&owner=exclude&action=getcompany&Find=Search. In
addition, the public may access copies of these materials on the
Commission's Web site at: http://www.sec.gov/rules/other/2016/ice-trade-vault-form-sdr-htm.
    \4\ ICE Trade Vault's Form SDR application also constitutes an
application for registration as a securities information processor
(``SIP''). See Exchange Act Release No. 74246 (Feb. 11, 2015), 80 FR
14438, 14458 (Mar. 19, 2015) (``SDR Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

A. SDR Registration, Duties and Core Principles, and Regulation SBSR

    Section 763(i) of the Dodd-Frank Act added Section 13(n) to the
Exchange Act, which requires an SDR to register with the Commission and
provides that, to be registered and maintain registration as an SDR, an
SDR must comply with certain requirements and ``core principles''
described in Section 13(n) and any requirement that the Commission may
impose by rule or regulation.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78m(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission adopted Exchange Act Rules 13n-1 through 13n-12
(``SDR rules''), which require an SDR to register with the Commission
and comply with certain ``duties and core principles.'' \6\ Among other
requirements, the SDR rules require an SDR to collect and maintain
accurate SBS data and make such data available to the Commission and
other authorities so that relevant authorities will be better able to
monitor the buildup and concentration of risk exposure in the SBS
market.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See SDR Adopting Release, 80 FR at 14438.
    \7\ See SDR Adopting Release, 80 FR at 14450.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Concurrent with the Commission's adoption of the SDR rules, the
Commission adopted Regulation SBSR,\8\ which, among other things,
provides for the reporting of SBS information to registered SDRs, and
the public dissemination of SBS transaction, volume, and pricing
information by registered SDRs. In addition, Regulation SBSR requires
each registered SDR to register with the Commission as a securities
information processor.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Exchange Act Release No. 74244 (Feb. 11, 2015), 80 FR
14563 (Mar. 19, 2015) (``Regulation SBSR Adopting Release'').
    \9\ See Regulation SBSR Adopting Release, 80 FR at 14567.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Standard for Granting SDR Registration

    To be registered with the Commission as an SDR and maintain such
registration, an SDR is required (absent an exemption) to comply with
the requirements and core principles described in Exchange Act Section
13(n), as well as with any requirements that the Commission adopts by
rule or regulation.\10\ Exchange Act Rule 13n-1(c)(3) provides that the
Commission shall grant the registration of an SDR if it finds that the
SDR is so organized, and has the capacity, to be able to (i) assure the
prompt, accurate, and reliable performance of its functions as an SDR;
(ii) comply with any applicable provisions of the securities laws and
the rules and regulations thereunder; and (iii) carry out its functions
in a manner consistent with the purposes of Section 13(n) of the
Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.\11\ The
Commission must deny registration of an SDR if it does not make such a
finding.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Exchange Act Section 13(n)(3), 15 U.S.C. 78m(n)(3).
    \11\ See 17 CFR 240.13n-1(c)(3).
    \12\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether an applicant meets the criteria set forth in
Rule 13n-1(c), the Commission will consider the information reflected
by the applicant on its Form SDR, as well as any additional information
obtained from the applicant. For example, Form SDR requires an
applicant to provide, among other things, contact information, a list
of the asset class(es) for which the applicant is collecting and
maintaining data or for which it proposes to collect and maintain data,
a description of the functions that it performs or proposes to perform,
and general information regarding its business organization.\13\ This,
and other information reflected on the Form SDR, will assist the
Commission in understanding the basis for registration as well as the
SDR applicant's overall business structure, financial condition, track
record in providing access to its services and data, technological
reliability, and policies and procedures to comply with its statutory
and regulatory obligations.\14\ Furthermore, the information requested
in Form SDR will enable the Commission to assess whether the SDR
applicant would be able to comply with the federal securities laws and
the rules and regulations thereunder, and ultimately whether to grant
or deny an application for registration.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See SDR Adopting Release, 80 FR at 14458.
    \14\ See id.
    \15\ See SDR Adopting Release, 80 FR at 14458-59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. ICE Trade Vault Application for Registration

    ICE Trade Vault currently operates as a trade repository under the
regulatory framework of other authorities. Specifically, ICE Trade
Vault is a swap data repository regulated and provisionally registered
by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'').\16\ In that
capacity, ICE Trade Vault has been accepting derivatives data for the
commodity and credit asset classes in the United States since October
2012. Additionally, in 2014, ICE Trade Vault was approved by the
Ontario Securities Commission,\17\ the Autorit[eacute] des
march[eacute]s financiers,\18\ and the Manitoba Securities Commission
\19\ as a Canadian Trade Repository to serve the commodity, credit, and
foreign exchange asset classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Order of Provisional Registration, In the Matter of the
Request of ICE Trade Vault, LLC for Provisional Registration as a
Swap Data Repository Pursuant to Section 21 of the Commodity
Exchange Act and Part 49 of the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission's Regulations (June 27, 2012), available at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    \17\ See Ontario Securities Commission, Order (Section 21.2.2 of
the Securities Act), in the Matter of the Securities Act, R.S.O.
1990, Chapter S.5, as amended, and in the Matter of ICE Trade Vault,
LLC (Sept. 19, 2014), available at http://www.osc.gov.on.ca/documents/en/Securities/ord_20140923_215-ice-trade-vault-llc.pdf.
    \18\ See Autorit[eacute] des march[eacute]s financiers, Decision
2014-PDG-0111, Bulletin 2014-09-25, Vol. 11, n[deg]38 (Sept. 23,
2014), available at http://www.lautorite.qc.ca/files/pdf/bourses-oar-chambres/referentiels-centraux/2014_pdg_0111_ice_tv.pdf.
    \19\ See Manitoba Securities Commission, Order No. 7014 (Oct.
23, 2014), available at http://docs.mbsecurities.ca/msc/oe/en/item/105126/index.do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Corporate Structure and Governance Arrangements

    ICE Trade Vault is a Delaware limited liability company, and is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc.,
which, in turn, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Intercontinental
Exchange, Inc. (``ICE''), a publicly traded company.\20\ ICE Trade
Vault is managed by a Board of Directors responsible for overseeing its
operations.\21\ The Board of Directors has the ability to: (i)
Designate and authorize specific appointed officers to act on behalf of
the Board of Directors; (ii) fix, determine and levy all fees, when
necessary; (iii) prepare and amend ICE Trade Vault's Guidebook; \22\
(iv) act in emergencies; and (v) delegate any such power to the
appropriate party.\23\ The Board of Directors would oversee ICE Trade
Vault's SDR functions as it currently oversees the other regulated
services that ICE Trade Vault provides.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Exhibit V.2 (Disclosure Document). ICE is a global
operator of exchanges, clearing houses, and data services for
financial and commodity markets. ICE operates global marketplaces
for trading and clearing a broad array of securities and derivatives
contracts across major asset classes, including energy and
agricultural commodities, interest rates, equities, equity
derivatives, credit derivatives, bonds, and currencies.
    \21\ See id.
    \22\ See Exhibit GG.2 (Guidebook).
    \23\ See id.
    \24\ See id.

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

    According to ICE Trade Vault, the Board of Directors is required to
have at least three Directors, all appointed by ICE.\25\ ICE Trade
Vault represents that ICE considers several factors in determining the
composition of the Board of Directors, including whether directors,
both individually and collectively, possess the required integrity,
experience, judgment, commitment, skills and expertise to exercise
their obligations of oversight and guidance over an SDR.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See id.
    \26\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, ICE Trade Vault represents that its participants are
afforded the opportunity to participate in the process for nominating
the ICE Trade Vault Independent Director and with the right to petition
for alternative candidates.\27\ According to ICE Trade Vault, at least
one Director will at all times be ``independent'' in accordance with
applicable provision(s) of the New York Stock Exchange Listed Company
Manual.\28\ ICE Trade Vault represents that two officers of ICE Trade
Vault's parent, ICE, currently serve as the Non-Independent
Directors.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See id.
    \28\ See id.
    \29\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICE Trade Vault's Chief Compliance Officer (``CCO'') is appointed
by the Board of Directors and reports directly to the President of ICE
Trade Vault.\30\ The Board of Directors approves the compensation of
the CCO and meets with the CCO at least annually.\31\ According to ICE
Trade Vault, the CCO also works directly with the Board of Directors in
certain instances, for example, when resolving conflicts of
interest.\32\ ICE Trade Vault represents that the CCO's
responsibilities include, but are not limited to: (i) Preparing and
signing a compliance report with a financial report to be provided to
the Commission annually; (ii) reviewing the compliance of ICE Trace
Vault with respect to regulatory requirements and core principles; and
(iii) establishing and administering written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to prevent violations of the Exchange Act.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Exhibit V.2.
    \31\ See id.
    \32\ See id.
    \33\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICE Trade Vault directors, officers and employees must comply with
the ICE Global Code of Business Conduct, which describes policies for,
among other things, handling conflicts of interest, prohibiting insider
trading, complying with the law and document management and retention
requirements.\34\ In addition, ICE Trade Vault prohibits any member of
its Board or of any Board committee (that the Board may create from
time to time as it deems necessary) \35\ that has authority to take
action for ICE Trade Vault from knowingly participating in
deliberations or voting in any matter involving a named party in
interest where such member: (i) Is a named party in interest; (ii) is
an employer, employee, or guarantor of a named party in interest; (iii)
has a family relationship with a named party in interest; or (iv) has
any other significant ongoing relationship with a named party in
interest or an affiliate of such party.\36\ Furthermore, the CCO of ICE
Trade Vault shall determine whether any member of a deliberating body
is subject to a prohibition under its conflicts of interest
policies.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Exhibit D.4 (Global Code of Business Conduct).
    \35\ See Exhibit D.3 (Governance Principles).
    \36\ See Exhibit GG.2.
    \37\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Description of ICE Trade Vault's SDR Service

    ICE Trade Vault has applied to become a registered SDR with the
Commission to accept data in respect of all SBS trades in the credit
derivatives asset class.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See ICE Trade Vault Form SDR, Item 6; see also Exhibits V.2
and GG.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICE Trade Vault states that it intends to provide an SDR service
that facilitates the collection, storage and regulatory reporting of a
comprehensive range of trade data in respect of credit derivatives
trades.\39\ ICE Trade Vault also states that it intends to offer
certain ancillary services (i.e., services offered by ICE Trade Vault
that are not core SDR functions), which include: (i) Confirmation of
the accuracy of the data submitted to ICE Trade Vault; and (ii)
resolution of trade record errors and disputes.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Exhibit V.2.
    \40\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Access

    ICE Trade Vault represents that it would provide access to its SDR
service on a fair, open and not unreasonably discriminatory basis.\41\
According to ICE Trade Vault, access to and usage of its SDR service is
available to all market participants that engage in SBS transactions,
and do not require the use of any other ancillary service offered by
ICE Trade Vault, except for any ancillary service(s) that ICE Trade
Vault is required to provide.\42\ ICE Trade Vault represents that for
security reasons, access to the ICE Trade Vault system is strictly
limited to market participants with valid permissions and security
access who have executed a Participant Agreement with ICE Trade Vault
and have completed and delivered to ICE Trade Vault the applicable ICE
Trade Vault Enrollment Form (such market participants,
``Participants'').\43\ According to ICE Trade Vault, Participants will
only have access to their own data and data that ICE Trade Vault is
required to make publically available.\44\ ICE Trade Vault notes that
passwords must meet technical and procedural processes for information
security, must be from eight to fourteen characters in length, utilize
three different character types, and must be reset at least
annually.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Exhibits V.2 and GG.2.
    \42\ See id.; see also SDR Adopting Release, 80 FR at 14451-52
(Commission noting that confirmation and dispute resolution services
or functions ``are ancillary. . . . [and are] not `core' SDR
services, which would cause a person providing such core services to
meet the definition of an SDR, and thus, require the person to
register with the Commission as an SDR. However, SDRs are required
to perform these two services or functions, and thus, they are
required ancillary services[.] . . . An SDR may delegate some of
these required ancillary services to third party service providers,
who do not need to register as SDRs to provide such services. The
SDR will remain legally responsible for the third party service
providers' activities relating to the required ancillary services
and their compliance with applicable rules under the Exchange
Act.'').
    \43\ See Exhibit V.2 (stating also that these documents are
available upon request, and when enrolling with ICE Trade Vault,
Participants must designate a master user (``Administrator''), who
will, among other things, create and maintain all user IDs for its
firm, which will ensure ICE Trade Vault access is granted by a
trusted individual at the Participant's firm who is closest to and
has the most knowledge of those in the firm who require access).
    \44\ See id.
    \45\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICE Trade Vault represents that determinations to revoke access to
its system, its SDR service or data maintained by ICE Trade Vault shall
be made by the CCO.\46\ According to ICE Trade Vault, unless
circumstances require immediate action, prior to implementing a
limitation or revocation of access to its system, its SDR service or
SDR information, ICE Trade Vault's President and General Counsel shall
review the basis for the limitation or revocation, with the CCO
providing notice to the Participant of such limitation or
revocation.\47\ ICE Trade Vault represents that if the President and
General Counsel determine that revocation of access is the result of
unreasonable discrimination, the President and General Counsel will
take

such actions as are necessary to restore access to such service or
data.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See id.
    \47\ See Exhibit GG.2.
    \48\ See id. Because persons applying to be SDRs are also
applying to be SIPs with the Commission, the procedures for
notifying the Commission of any prohibitions or limitations of
access to services as provided in Section 11A(b)(5)(A) would apply.
See SDR Adopting Release, 80 FR at 14482 (``Rule 909 of Regulation
SBSR, which the Commission is concurrently adopting in a separate
release, requires each registered SDR to register as a SIP, and, as
such, Exchange Act Section 11A(b)(5) governs denials of access to
services by an SDR. This section provides that `[i]f any registered
securities information processor prohibits or limits any person in
respect of access to services offered, directly or indirectly, by
such securities information processor, the registered securities
information processor shall promptly file notice thereof with the
Commission.' Accordingly, an SDR must promptly notify the Commission
if it prohibits or limits access to any of its services to any
person.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Use of Data

    ICE Trade Vault represents that access to information it maintains
as an SDR would be limited to those with the direct responsibility for
supporting the ICE Trade Vault system, its SDR service, Participants
and regulators.\49\ ICE Trade Vault would prohibit its employees and
others performing similar functions on behalf of ICE Trade Vault from
using information it maintains as an SDR other than in the performance
of their job responsibilities.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See Exhibits V.2 and GG.2.
    \50\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Asset Class Accepted; Submission Requirements; Validation

    ICE Trade Vault has represented that it would accept data in
respect of all SBS trades in the credit derivatives asset class.\51\
ICE Trade Vault has represented that Participants would be required to
submit trade information in the data format required by ICE Trade
Vault.\52\ The ICE Trade Vault system would accept tab delimited file
uploads via web access and Applicable Programming Interface submissions
in FpML format.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See id.
    \52\ See Exhibit GG.2.
    \53\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exhibit N.5 to ICE Trade Vault's application enumerates the
required fields and acceptable values for the submission of trade
information into the ICE Trade Vault system. According to ICE Trade
Vault, the ICE Trade Vault system would perform certain validations to
ensure that a submitted trade report adheres to the enumerated fields
and values contained in Exhibit N.5.\54\ Under ICE Trade Vault's
policies and procedures, upon receipt of trade information for an SBS,
the ICE Trade Vault system would validate that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. The submission file is in a valid format for receipt and
processing;
    b. All fields meet the required field format (e.g., number, date,
date timestamp, free form text, or standard data value);
    c. All required and conditionally required fields are contained in
the submission;
    d. All conditionally required fields meet the validation standards;
and
    e. All standard data value fields are provided with an acceptable
value.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICE Trade Vault's policies and procedures provide that, if the
submitted trade information fails any of the above validations, the ICE
Trade Vault system would generate an error message and give such
information an ``invalid'' status.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For historical SBS reporting, ICE Trade Vault represents that the
ICE Trade Vault system would require Participants to indicate a ``Y''
value for ``Flag for Historical Security-Based Swap public
dissemination exemption.'' \57\ In addition, the ICE Trade Vault system
allows Participants to submit ``Y'' or ``N'' values for a field ``Flag
for Historical Security-Based Swap Life Cycle Event public
dissemination'' to update information in the ICE Trade Vault system
associated with such SBS.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See id.
    \58\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICE Trade Vault represents that it would support the reporting of
highly customized and bespoke SBS (``exotic SBS'').\59\ ICE Trade Vault
would require a Participant that wishes to submit a trade report for
exotic SBS to upload a file to the ICE Trade Vault system that contains
that trade information and the corresponding confirmed terms.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See id.
    \60\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Verification of Transaction Data

    To fulfill its obligations under Exchange Act Rule 13n-5(b)(1), ICE
Trade Vault's policies and procedures provide that it would require
Participants to report complete and accurate trade information and to
review and resolve all error messages generated by the ICE Trade Vault
system.\61\ If any trade information is found to be incorrect or
incomplete, ICE Trade Vault would require Participants to correct and
resubmit such information to the ICE Trade Vault system.\62\ For SBS
that are not executed on a platform, ICE Trade Vault would require the
reporting side to provide the method used to confirm the trade
information (e.g., electronic confirmation service or paper
confirmation). ICE Trade Vault would further require Participants to
warrant and represent that all trade information reported to ICE Trade
Vault is complete and accurate.\63\ If the counterparties to an SBS use
a paper confirmation to confirm the trade, ICE Trade Vault would
require the reporting side to upload to the ICE Vault Trade system a
copy of the confirmation that was agreed upon by the
counterparties.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See id.; see also Exhibit V.2.
    \62\ See Exhibit GG.2.
    \63\ See id.
    \64\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to ICE Trade Vault, clearing agencies would access ICE
Trade Vault as Participants to report SBS that have been accepted for
clearing. Platforms (such as an SBS execution facility) will access ICE
Trade Vault as Participants to report the relevant data with respect to
SBS that have been executed on their respective platforms or subject to
the rules of their markets.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICE Trade Vault's policies and procedures provide that Participants
would be responsible for the timely resolution of trade record errors
contained in trade information that has been submitted to ICE Trade
Vault.\66\ ICE Trade Vault would provide Participants with electronic
methods to extract information maintained by ICE Trade Vault for
reconciliation.\67\ If the non-reporting side for an SBS transaction
discovers an error contained in the trade information submitted to ICE
Trade Vault on its behalf, ICE Trade Vault requires that counterparty
to notify promptly the reporting side of such error.\68\ ICE Trade
Vault represents that if the reporting side discovers an error
contained in the trade information that it previously submitted to ICE
Trade Vault or receives notification from a counterparty of an error,
the reporting side is required to submit promptly to ICE Trade Vault
amended trade information that remedies such error.\69\ ICE Trade Vault
would disseminate a corrected transaction report in instances where the
initial report included erroneous primary trade information.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See Exhibits V.2 and GG.2.
    \67\ See id.
    \68\ See id.
    \69\ See id.
    \70\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Disputed Trade Data

    Under ICE Trade Vault's policies and procedures, Participants would
be required to notify promptly ICE Trade Vault of trade information
that is

disputed by the counterparties to the trade. ICE Trade Vault states
that when a Participant ``disputes'' a trade stored in ICE Trade
Vault's system, the status of the trade would remain ``Disputed'' until
the party that disputed the trade sends a message to ICE Trade Vault
indicating that the dispute has been resolved.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Application and Dissemination of Condition Flags

    ICE Trade Vault represents that it would apply submitted flags to
trade information that is: (i) An error correction required to be
disseminated by Rule 905(b)(2) of Regulation SBSR; or (ii) a life cycle
event, or any adjustment due to a life cycle event, required to be
disseminated by Rule 902(a) of Regulation SBSR.\72\ In addition, ICE
Trade Vault's policies and procedures require Participants of ICE Trade
Vault to apply certain flags with respect to primary trade information
(i.e., flags required under Rule 901(c)(1)(v) of Regulation SBSR),\73\
and ICE Trade Vault would publicly disseminate such flags if the SBS is
eligible for public dissemination. ICE Trade Vault represents that
certain flags address security-based swap characteristics that may
contribute to creating a distorted market view.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ See Exhibit GG.2.
    \73\ See 17 CFR 240.901(c)(i)(v).
    \74\ See Exhibit GG.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Calculation and Maintenance of Positions

    As provided in ICE Trade Vault's policies and procedures, ICE Trade
Vault states that it would calculate open positions for persons with
open SBS for which ICE Trade Vault maintains records.\75\ ICE Trade
Vault's policies and procedures relating to its calculation of
positions are provided in Exhibit GG.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Assignment of Unique Identification Codes

    ICE Trade Vault's policies and procedures include the methodology
ICE Trade Vault would utilize in connection with its assignment of
unique identification codes (``UICs'') in accordance with Rule 903 of
Regulation SBSR.\76\ In particular, ICE Trade Vault represents that it
would assign UICs as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Any SEC endorsed standard will be used, or in its absence;
    2. Any CPMI-IOSCO endorsed standard will be used, or in its
absence;
    3. Any industry endorsed standard will be used, or in its absence;
    4. ICE Trade Vault will generate an ID for the applicable UIC.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

K. Transaction ID Methodology

    ICE Trade Vault represents that it has ``endorsed'' a transaction
ID methodology as follows:
    1. If a transaction is executed on a platform, that platform would
generate the transaction ID.
    2. If a transaction is cleared, the clearing agency would generate
the transaction IDs for resulting cleared SBS.
    3. If the transaction is executed off-platform and is not cleared,
the parties must mutually agree which side of the trade will generate
the transaction ID. When the transaction ID generator is the reporting
side, that party may request that ICE Trade Vault generate the
transaction ID on its behalf.
    4. For historical SBS that have been reported in another
jurisdiction, the transaction ID assigned in that jurisdiction will be
used for reporting.
    5. For historical SBS that have not been reported in another
jurisdiction, the methodology described in items 1-3 above will apply.
    6. A multi-jurisdictional transaction should never have multiple
transaction IDs.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

L. Ultimate Parent and Affiliate Information

    ICE Trade Vault's policies and procedures provide that
Participants, except for those that are platforms or clearing agencies,
would be required to provide ICE Trade Vault information (e.g., parent
IDs and counterparty IDs) to identify their ultimate parent(s) and
affiliates.\79\ In addition, ICE Trade Vault requires that Participants
promptly notify ICE Trade Vault of any changes to such information.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ See id.
    \80\ See id.; see also Exhibit U.5 (ICE Trade Vault Ultimate
Parent & Affiliate Information Notification).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

M. Branch and Trading Desk ID

    Under ICE Trade Vault's policies and procedures, in order to
receive a branch ID or trading desk ID from ICE Trade Vault,
Participants must submit the branch and desk information to ICE Trade
Vault before reporting an SBS.\81\ More information concerning branch
ID and trading desk ID is contained in Exhibit GG.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ See Exhibit GG.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

N. Product ID

    ICE Trade Vault states that it would issue product IDs and maintain
reference data representation for SBS that will include schema
definitions and will be made publicly available on a non-fee basis on
ICE Trade Vault's internet Web site (www.icetradevault.com).\82\
According to ICE Trade Vault, if the industry creates and adopts a
product ID taxonomy and registry, ICE Trade Vault would comply with the
published standard at such time.\83\ ICE Trade Vault has represented
that it would create product IDs based on an industry accepted UPI
taxonomy or, where not available, its own product taxonomy.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ See id.
    \83\ See id.
    \84\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICE Trade Vault would require its Participants to notify ICE Trade
Vault of any new SBS products they intend to report to ICE Trade Vault
by submitting the relevant product information to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>A complete list of available
product information would be made available via a link on ICE Trade
Vault's internet Web site.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ See id.
    \86\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

O. Missing UIC Information

    ICE Trade Vault's policies and procedures provide that the
reporting side to an SBS may report the non-reporting side's UIC
information (other than counterparty ID) but is not required to do
so.\87\ ICE Trade Vault's policies and procedures provide that, if the
non-reporting side is not a Participant, the non-reporting side
``should contact ICE Trade Vault'' via electronic mail to register for
access to ICE Trade Vault and its trade information. ICE Trade Vault
represents that it would identify in its records any SBS reported to it
for which it does not have required UIC information.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ See id.; see also Exhibit GG.2 (Guidebook, section 6.2
requirements relating to counterparty IDs, execution agent IDs and
broker IDs).
    \88\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to ICE Trade Vault, once a day, ICE Trade Vault would
send a report to each Participant that is a counterparty to an SBS(s)
that lacks required UIC information.\89\ ICE Trade Vault represents in
its policies and procedures that a Participant that receives a report
must provide the missing information with respect to its side of each
SBS referenced in the

report to ICE Trade Vault within 24 hours.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ See id.
    \90\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

P. Public Dissemination

    ICE Trade Vault represents that it would publicly disseminate
information required for public dissemination pursuant to Regulation
SBSR, including SBS transaction reports, which contain all of the
primary transaction information, and information regarding life cycle
events or adjustments due to a life cycle event.\91\ In addition, ICE
Trade Vault would provide the public, Participants and regulators with
the ability to download historical data.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ See id.
    \92\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q. Safeguarding Data, Operational Reliability, and Emergency Authority

    ICE Trade Vault represents that it has implemented systems and
procedures to allow for timely resumption of key business processes and
operations following unplanned interruptions, unavailability of staff,
inaccessibility of facilities, and disruption or disastrous loss to one
or more of ICE Trade Vault's facilities or services.\93\ ICE Trade
Vault represents that its SDR service data is saved to a redundant,
local database and a remote disaster recovery database in near real-
time and that its SDR service database is backed up to tape daily with
tapes moved offsite weekly.\94\ ICE Trade Vault also states that
Participants' individual trade data records remain available to
Participants and regulators at no charge for online access through its
SDR service from the date of submission until five years after
expiration of the trade (last day of delivery or settlement as defined
for each product).\95\ According to ICE Trade Vault, after the initial
five-year period, Participants' trade data will be stored off-line and
remain available to Participants and regulators, upon a three-day
advance request to ICE Trade Vault, until ten years from the
termination date.\96\ ICE Trade Vault also states that Participants
will retain unimpaired access to its online and archived trade
data.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ See id.
    \94\ See Exhibits V.2 and GG.2.
    \95\ See id.
    \96\ See Exhibit V.2.
    \97\ See Exhibits V.2 and GG.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICE Trade Vault represents that it maintains and will continue to
maintain a robust emergency and business-continuity and disaster
recovery plan (``Business Continuity Plan'') that allows for timely
resumption of key business processes and operations following unplanned
interruptions, unavailability of staff, inaccessibility of facilities,
and disruption or disastrous loss to one or more of ICE Trade Vault's
facilities or services.\98\ ICE Trade Vault represents that its
Business Continuity Plan requires that all production system hardware
and software is replicated in near real-time at a geographical- and
vendor-diverse disaster recovery site to avoid any loss of data.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ See id.
    \99\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICE Trade Vault represents that it is authorized to determine, in
its sole discretion, whether an emergency exists with respect to, or
otherwise threatens, its system or its SDR service (an ``Emergency'')
and whether emergency action is warranted to mitigate such
circumstances, but that it may also exercise emergency authority if
ordered to do so by the Commission or other regulatory agency of
competent jurisdiction.\100\ Circumstances requiring the invocation of
emergency authority pursuant to ICE Trade Vault's policies and
procedures include: (i) Any occurrence or circumstance that ICE Trade
Vault determines to constitute an Emergency; (ii) any ``Physical
Emergency'' (such as a fire or other casualty, bomb threats, terrorist
acts, substantial inclement weather, power failures, communications
breakdowns, computer system breakdowns, or transportation breakdowns);
(iii) any occurrence or circumstance that threatens or may threaten the
proper functionality of ICE Trade Vault's system or its SDR service;
(iv) any occurrence or circumstance that may materially affect the
performance of its system or its SDR service; (v) any action taken by
any governmental body or any regulator that may have a direct impact on
its system or its SDR service; and (vi) any other circumstance that may
impact ICE Trade Vault, its system or its SDR service in a materially
adverse manner.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ See Exhibit GG.2.
    \101\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under ICE Trade Vault's policies and procedures, if the President
of ICE Trade Vault, or any individual designated by the President or
the Board of Directors, determines that an Emergency is likely to arise
or has arisen, the President or such designee, as the case may be, may,
consistent with ICE Trade Vault's conflict of interest policies,
declare an Emergency with respect to its system, its SDR service or the
facilities of ICE Trade Vault and take or place into immediate effect a
temporary emergency action or protocol.\102\ ICE Trade Vault represents
that any such action or protocol may remain in effect for up to 30
business days, after which time, and for each 30-business day period
thereafter, it must be reissued by the Board of Directors to remain in
effect.\103\ Under ICE Trade Vault's policies and procedures, the CCO
would be consulted in the event any emergency action or protocol may
raise potential conflicts of interest.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ See id.
    \103\ See id.
    \104\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICE Trade Vault represents that any such action or protocol may
provide for, or may authorize ICE Trade Vault, the Board of Directors
or any committee thereof to undertake, actions deemed necessary or
appropriate by the President or its designee to respond to the
Emergency, including, but not limited to, the following: Modifying or
suspending any relevant provision of the Guidebook; changing the
operating hours of its SDR service; temporarily limiting or denying
access to its system or its SDR service; or requiring re-submission of
any data lost or otherwise affected due to such Emergency.\105\ Any
such action placed into effect in accordance with the preceding
paragraph may be reviewed by the Board of Directors at any time and may
be revoked, suspended or modified by the Board of Directors.\106\ ICE
Trade Vault represents that it will notify the SEC as soon as is
reasonably practicable of ICE Trade Vault's invocation of its emergency
authority, any material business disruption, or any threat that
actually or potentially jeopardizes automated system capacity,
integrity, resiliency, availability or security,\107\ with the
decision-making process with respect to, and the reasons for, any such
action recorded in writing \108\ and with ICE Trade Vault notifying
Participants via email as soon as practicable of any action taken (time
permitting), or proposed to be taken.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ See id.
    \106\ See id.
    \107\ See Exhibits V.2 and GG.2.
    \108\ See Exhibit GG.2.
    \109\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

R. Data Confidentiality; Sensitive Information and Security

    ICE Trade Vault represents that it ``recognizes its responsibility
to ensure data confidentiality and [that it] dedicates significant
resources'' to information security to prevent the misappropriation or
misuse of confidential information, and that it does not, as a
condition of accepting SBS data from Participants, require the waiver
of any privacy rights by such Participants.\110\ ICE Trade Vault would
use a multi-tiered firewall scheme to

provide network segmentation and access control to its services.\111\ A
second set of firewalls would further isolate ICE Trade Vault's systems
and provide added security to detect any threats.\112\ In addition,
network sensors would analyze all internet and private line traffic for
malicious patterns.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ See id.
    \111\ See id.
    \112\ See Exhibits V.2 and GG.2.
    \113\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICE Trade Vault's application states that certain controls would be
regularly examined and tested by multiple tiers of internal and
external test groups, auditors and independently contracted third-party
security testing firms.\114\ In addition, ICE Trade Vault has
represented that it would undertake an audit for adherence to its data
security policies on at least an annual basis.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ See id.
    \115\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning ICE Trade Vault's Form SDR, including whether ICE
Trade Vault has satisfied the requirements for registration as an SDR.
To the extent possible, commenters are requested to provide empirical
data and other factual support for their views. In addition, the
Commission seeks comment on the following issues:
    1. Please provide your views as to whether ICE Trade Vault's
application for registration as an SDR demonstrates that ICE Trade
Vault is so organized, and has the capacity, to be able to assure the
prompt, accurate, and reliable performance of its functions as an SDR,
comply with any applicable provisions of the securities laws and the
rules and regulations thereunder, and carry out its functions in a
manner consistent with the purposes of Section 13(n) of the Exchange
Act and Commission's SDR rules.
    2. Exchange Act Rule 13n-5(b)(1)(iii) requires every SDR to
establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to satisfy itself that the transaction data that
has been submitted to the SDR is complete and accurate. Please provide
your views as to whether ICE Trade Vault's policies and procedures
concerning verification of trade data are sufficiently detailed and
reasonably designed to satisfy ICE Trade Vault that the transaction
data that has been submitted to ICE Trade Vault is complete and
accurate, as required by Rule 13n-5(b)(1)(iii).
    3. Please provide your views as to whether ICE Trade Vault's
policies and procedures to address confirmation of data accuracy and
completeness for bespoke, bilateral SBS transactions (i.e., requiring
the reporting side of the transaction to identify the method used to
confirm the trade information, either by use of an electronic
confirmation service or by paper confirmation agreed upon by the
counterparties) are appropriate and reasonably designed to meet its
obligations under the Rule 13n-5(b)(1)(iii). In this regard, the
Commission is also interested in receiving comments as to whether ICE
Trade Vault's definition of ``confirmed'' as contained in its Guidebook
(Exhibit GG.2) is appropriate.
    4. Please provide your views as to whether ICE Trade Vault's
policies and procedures relating to invalidly entered UICs being
subject to an error message and an ``invalid'' status as noted in
Exhibit GG.2 are sufficiently detailed to meet the objectives of
Exchange Act Rule 13n-5(b)(1)(iii).
    5. Please provide your views as to whether ICE Trade Vault's
policies and procedures are sufficiently detailed and reasonably
designed to ensure that the transaction data and positions that it
maintains are complete and accurate, as required by Exchange Act Rule
13n-5(b)(3).
    6. Please provide your views as to whether ICE Trade Vault's
policies and procedures are sufficiently detailed and reasonably
designed to ensure that it has the ability to protect the privacy of
SBS transaction information that it receives, as required by Exchange
Act Rule 13n-9.
    7. Please provide your views as to whether ICE Trade Vault's
policies and procedures are sufficiently detailed and reasonably
designed to ensure that it has the ability to calculate positions, as
required by Exchange Act Rule 13n-5(b)(2).
    8. Please provide your views as to whether ICE Trade Vault's
policies and procedures are sufficiently detailed and reasonably
designed to provide a mechanism for Participants and their
counterparties to effectively resolve disputes over the accuracy of SBS
data that it maintains, as required by Exchange Act Rule 13n-5(b)(6).
Are ICE Trade Vault's policies and procedures relating to dispute
resolution adequate? Why or why not? Should the policies and procedures
specify timeframes in the dispute resolution process to facilitate
timely and conclusive resolution of disputes? Why or why not?
    9. Please provide your views as to whether ICE Trade Vault's
policies and procedures are sufficiently detailed and reasonably
designed to ensure that its systems that support or are integrally
related to the performance of its activities provides adequate levels
of capacity, integrity, resiliency, availability and security, as
required by Exchange Act Rule 13n-6.
    10. Please provide your views as to whether the disclosures in ICE
Trade Vault's Disclosure Document to a Participant prior to accepting
any SBS data from that Participant or upon the Participant's request,
as required by Exchange Act Rule 13n-10, are adequate. Specifically,
the Commission is interested in receiving comments as to whether ICE
Trade Vault's Disclosure Document contains adequate and sufficiently
detailed information that would reasonably enable the Participant to
identify and evaluate accurately the risks and costs associated with
using ICE Trade Vault's services. Such information includes ICE Trade
Vault's criteria for providing others with access to its services and
data it maintains, its criteria for those seeking to connect to or link
with it, its description of its policies and procedures regarding its
noncommercial and/or commercial use of the SBS transaction information
that it receives from a Participant, any registered entity, or any
other person, its description of all the SBS data repository's
services, including any ancillary services, and its description of its
governance arrangements.
    11. Please provide your views as to whether ICE Trade Vault's
policies and procedures are sufficiently detailed and reasonably
designed for the CCO's handling, management response, remediation,
retesting, and closing of noncompliance issues, as required by Exchange
Act Rule 13n-11(c)(7).
    12. Please provide your views as to whether ICE Trade Vault's
policies or procedures could result in an unreasonable restraint of
trade or impose any material anticompetitive burden on the trading,
clearing, or reporting of transactions.
    13. Please provide your views as to whether ICE Trade Vault's
proposed dues, fees, or other charges, discounts or rebates and the
process for setting dues, fees, or other charges, discounts or rebates
are fair and reasonable and not unreasonably discriminatory. Please
address whether such proposed dues, fees, other charges, discounts, or
rebates are applied consistently across all similarly situated users of
ICE Trade Vault's services, including, but not limited to,
Participants, market infrastructures (including central
counterparties), venues from which data can be submitted to ICE Trade
Vault (including exchanges, SBS execution facilities, electronic
trading venues, and

matching and confirmation platforms), and third party service
providers.
    14. Exchange Act Rule 13n-4(c)(2)(ii)-(iii) provides that each SDR
must establish governance arrangements that provide for fair
representation of market participants, and must provide representatives
of market participants, including end-users, with the opportunity to
participate in the process for nominating directors and with the right
to petition for alternative candidates. Please provide your views as to
whether ICE Trade Vault's governance structure provides fair
representation and an opportunity for participation by market
participants pursuant to Rule 13n-4(c)(2)(ii)-(iii).
    15. Rule 903(a) of Regulation SBSR provides, in relevant part, that
if no system has been recognized by the Commission, or a recognized
system has not assigned a UIC to a particular person, unit of a person,
or product, the registered SDR shall assign a UIC to that person, unit
of person, or product using its own methodology. Is the methodology
that ICE Trade Vault proposes to use to assign UICs as described in its
application materials appropriate in light of the requirements under
Rule 903(a) of Regulation SBSR? Why or why not?
    16. Rule 907(c) of Regulation SBSR requires a registered SDR to
make its Regulation SBSR policies and procedures publicly available on
its Web site. The Commission has stated that this public availability
requirement will allow all interested parties to understand how the
registered SDR is utilizing the flexibility it has in operating the
transaction reporting and dissemination system, and will provide an
opportunity for Participants to make suggestions to the registered SDR
for altering and improving those policies and procedures, in light of
the new products or circumstances, consistent with the principles set
out in Regulation SBSR.\116\ ICE Trade Vault has proposed to satisfy
its obligation under Rule 907(c) of Regulation SBSR by making the
policies and procedures contained in Exhibit GG.2 and the other
application exhibits referenced therein available on its public Web
site. Is the information that is included in or referenced in Exhibit
GG.2 appropriate in light of the requirements of Rule 907(c)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ See Regulation SBSR Adopting Release, 80 FR at 14648.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. For certain data fields, Exhibit N.5 indicates that the
acceptable data format is the ``standard data value'' for the field,
but Exhibit N.5 does not provide more specific information regarding
acceptable data formats for such fields. ICE Trade Vault has indicated
to Commission staff that it plans to make available to its Participants
detailed specifications for reporting SBS information, and Participants
will be permitted to download detailed descriptions of the acceptable
data format for each ``standard data value'' from the ICE Trade Vault
system. However, ICE Trade Vault stated in its discussions with
Commission staff that it will make such additional specifications
available only to Participants who have executed a Participant
Agreement. Is it anticipated to be problematic for persons seeking to
report SBS information to an SDR to be required to execute a
Participant Agreement as a condition to ICE Trade Vault providing
access to the additional data format specifications?
    18. Regulation SBSR imposes duties on various market Participants
to report SBS transaction information to a registered SDR. Please
provide your views as to whether the ICE Trade Vault application and
the associated policies and procedures (including technical
specifications for submission of data) provide sufficient information
to potential Participants about how they would discharge these
regulatory duties when reporting to ICE Trade Vault. In particular,
please provide your views as to whether ICE Trade Vault's technical
specifications for submission of data are sufficiently detailed,
especially with regard to historical SBSs and bespoke SBS. Please
describe in detail what additional information you believe is necessary
to allow you to satisfy any reporting obligation you may incur under
Regulation SBSR.
    19. Rule 906(a) of Regulation SBSR provides, in relevant part, that
a Participant of the registered SDR must provide the missing
information with respect to its side of each SBS referenced in the
report to the registered SDR within 24 hours. ICE Trade Vault has
represented that a non-reporting-side participant must be fully
onboarded before it may submit information that it is required to
provide to a registered SDR by Rule 906(a) of Regulation SBSR. Please
provide your views as to whether this form of access afforded to the
non-reporting-side is fair, open, and not unreasonably discriminatory.
    20. Please provide your views as to whether ICE Trade Vault's
policies and procedures relating to Rule 906(a) are sufficiently
detailed, appropriate and reasonably designed to ensure data accuracy
and completeness.
    21. Please provide your views as to whether ICE Trade Vault has
provided sufficient information to explain the SBS transaction
information that it would publicly disseminate to discharge its duties
under Rule 902 of Regulation SBSR. Please describe any additional
information that you feel is necessary. Please offer any suggestions
generally for how the publicly disseminated information could be made
more useful.
    22. Please provide your views as to whether ICE Trade Vault has
provided sufficient information to explain how Participants would be
required to report life cycle events under Rule 901(e). Please describe
any additional information that you feel is necessary. In particular,
please indicate whether you believe ICE Trade Vault's specifications
are reasonably designed to identify the specific data element(s) that
change and thus that trigger the report of the life cycle event.
    23. Please provide your views as to whether ICE Trade Vault has
provided sufficient information about how an agent could report SBS
transaction information to ICE Trade Vault on behalf of a principal
(i.e., a person who has a duty under Regulation SBSR to report). Please
describe any additional information that is necessary. In particular,
please provide your views as to whether ICE Trade Vault should
differentiate between agents who are Participants of ICE Trade Vault
because they themselves at times are principals (i.e., they are
counterparties to one or more SBSs that are reported to ICE Trade Vault
on a mandatory basis) and agents who are never principals (e.g., a
vendor).
    24. Please provide your views as to whether ICE Trade Vault's
policies and procedures for developing condition flags for transactions
having special characteristics under Rule 907(a)(4) of Regulation SBSR
are consistent with the goal of preventing market participants without
knowledge of these characteristics receiving a distorted view of the
market. Are there additional condition flags that you believe ICE Trade
Vault should utilize? If so, please describe them and why you believe
they are appropriate.
    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SBSDR-2016-01 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments to Brent J. Fields, Secretary,
Securities and

Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All
submissions should refer to File Number SBSDR-2016-01.
    To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method of submission. The Commission
will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml).
    Copies of the Form SDR, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the Form SDR that are filed with the
Commission, and all written communications relating to the Form SDR
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 Section, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m.
    All 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 SBSDR-2016-01 and
should be submitted on or before May 31, 2016.

    By the Commission.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-09931 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 82 (Monday, April 29, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18014-18015]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08561]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2146-252]

Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting
Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests: Alabama Power Company

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Non-Project Use of Project Lands and Waters.
    b. Project No: 2146-252.
    c. Date Filed: March 14, 2019.
    d. Applicant: Alabama Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: Coosa River Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: Coosa River, in Etowah County, Alabama.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Justin Bearden, Shoreline Management, Alabama
Power Company, 600 North 18th Street, Birmingham, Alabama 35203, (205)
257-6769, [email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Shana High,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: May 23, 2019.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, and protests 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<PHONE_NUMBER> (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-2146-252. Comments emailed to Commission
staff are not considered part of the Commission record.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears 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. Description of Request: Alabama Power Company requests
Commission approval to permit The City of Southside to construct
shoreline-based amenities associated with a riverfront development
project. The following amenities are proposed within the project
boundary: a boat ramp and fixed pier; four boat docks that would
accommodate 24 watercraft each; a boardwalk that would accommodate 20

watercraft, and have a pier with a platform, and a gas pump; a
delineated swim area; riprap; a drainage ditch; and a concrete walkway.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC
20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also 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. 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, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
[email protected], for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from
the applicant.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: 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,
.214, respectively. 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.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'' as applicable; (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 commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor 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
385.2010.

    Dated: April 23, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-08561 Filed 4-26-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 219 (Thursday, November 12, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71892-71893]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24998]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2020-0521; FRL-10016-49-OLEM]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Survey
of State Emergency Response Commissions (SERCs)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an
information collection request (ICR), ``Survey of State Emergency
Response Commissions (SERCs)'' (EPA ICR No. 2660.01, OMB Control No.
2050-new) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing
so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the
proposed information collection as described below. This is a request
for approval of a new collection. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor
and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 11, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-
2020-0521, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method) or
by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail
Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sicy Jacob, Regulations Implementation
Division, Office of Emergency Management, Mail Code 5104A,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this information collection request (ICR). The docket
can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA
Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-
1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit
http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology,

e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA will consider
the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR
package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that
time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the
submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional
comments to OMB.
    Abstract: The EPA's Office of Emergency Management is conducting a
survey of the State Emergency Response Commissions (SERCs) of each
State and territories of the U.S. The SERCs were created under the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986. The
purpose of this survey is to gather information on how EPCRA is being
implemented, best practices, challenges, and gaps in meeting the
requirements. After the survey is completed, EPA is planning to publish
the results of the survey, including success stories and lessons
learned to share with all states and territories.
    EPCRA established State Emergency Response Commissions (SERCs) and
Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) and assigned implementation
responsibilities to these state and local agencies. EPCRA required
SERCs to appoint LEPCs \1\ within a few months after the enactment of
EPCRA and to supervise their activities. Importantly, SERCs should
ensure that LEPCs develop local emergency response plans for their
community, review the plans, and make suggestions to coordinate the
plans with neighboring LEPCs. In addition, SERCs are required to
collect and manage hazardous chemical information from facilities and
to provide access to the public on the presence of hazardous chemicals
in the community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Approximately, 3,000 LEPCs were established within few
months after the enactment of EPCRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the deadly explosion at a fertilizer distribution
facility in West Texas, Executive Order (E.O.) 13650 was signed, which
directed the federal government to improve the safety and security of
chemical facilities and reduce the risks of hazardous chemicals to
workers and communities. One of the key components of the E.O. was to
strengthen the state and local infrastructure created by EPCRA for
emergency planning and preparedness. EPA published additional guidance
documents, and developed on-line training for states, tribes and local
agencies to implement EPCRA to protect their community and first
responders.
    As part of the America's Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA),\2\
promulgated in October 2018, additional coordination and provision of
information responsibilities were established for SERCs and LEPCs under
EPCRA. Specifically, these EPCRA amendments establish notification and
information coordination with State Drinking Water Agency and Community
Water Systems to ensure that these agencies prepare and protect the
community from contamination of their water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The America's Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA) amended the
emergency release notification and the hazardous chemical inventory
provisions of the 1986 legislation. The amendments require the SERCs
to provide immediate notification to the State Drinking Water
Primacy Agency or the Community Water Systems where there is no
primacy agency. The amendment to the hazardous chemical inventory
provisions require the SERCs and LEPCs to provide access to the
``Tier II'' information upon request by the community water systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The data collected in this survey will inform the Agency about how
SERCs are fulfilling the requirements of the law, specifically in
sharing key information among all appropriate State organizations and
managing LEPCs and their activities. Additionally, the results of the
survey will help to identify areas where SERCs are having difficulty
meeting their requirements, the specific challenges they are facing,
and will identify areas where EPA can better assist SERCs and LEPCs in
implementing EPCRA and its amendments under AWIA.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Respondents to this voluntary ICR
are State Emergency Response Commissions (SERCs).
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.
    Estimated number of respondents: Approximately 56 (total).
    Frequency of response: Once.
    Total estimated burden: 4 Hours/respondent, 224 hours total. Burden
is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $284/respondent, $15,904 total, includes $0
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

Reggie Cheatham,
Director, Office of Emergency Management.
[FR Doc. 2020-24998 Filed 11-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P