[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 135 (Thursday, July 14, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45471-45472]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16662]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Proposed Nexus Gas Transmission Project and Texas
Eastern Appalachian Lease Project

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Docket No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEXUS Gas Transmission, LLC...............  CP16-22-000
Texas Eastern Transmission, LP............  CP16-23-000
DTE Gas Company...........................  CP16-24-000
Vector Pipeline L.P.......................  CP16-102-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared a draft environmental impact statement (EIS)
for the NEXUS Gas Transmission (NGT) Project and Texas Eastern
Appalachian Lease (TEAL) Project (jointly referred to as ``Projects''),
proposed by NEXUS Gas Transmission, LLC (NEXUS) and Texas Eastern
Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) in the above-referenced dockets. NEXUS
and Texas Eastern request authorization to construct a new Greenfield
pipeline and expand an existing pipeline system from the Appalachian
Basin to deliver 1.5 million dekatherms per day to consuming markets in
Northern Ohio, Southeastern Michigan, and Ontario, Canada. DTE Gas
Company and Vector Pipeline L.P. are requesting approval to lease
capacity on their systems to NEXUS.
    The draft EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the Projects in accordance with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The FERC staff
concludes that approval of the Projects would result in some adverse
environmental impacts; however, most of these impacts would be reduced
to less-than-significant levels with the implementation of NEXUS's and
Texas Eastern's proposed mitigation measures and the additional
recommendations in the draft EIS.
    Some of the route alternatives suggested during scoping would
affect landowners that have not been part of the FERC's environmental
scoping process, as further discussed on page 5. Therefore, by this
letter we are notifying these parties of our evaluation and requesting
comments about the following alternative routes presented in section 3
of the draft EIS: City of Green Route Alternative, Chippewa Lake C
Route Variation, and Reserve Avenue Route Variation.
    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) participated as cooperating agencies in the
preparation of the draft EIS. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by
law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected
by the proposal and participate in the National Environmental Policy
Act analysis. Although the FWS and EPA provided input to the
conclusions and recommendations presented in the draft EIS, the FWS and
EPA will each present its own conclusions and recommendations in its
respective record of decision or determination for the Projects.
    The draft EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of both the NGT and TEAL Projects. The NGT
Project consists of about 255.9 miles of pipeline composed of the
following facilities:
     208.9 miles of new 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline
in Ohio;
     47 miles of new 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline in
Michigan;
     associated equipment and facilities.
    The TEAL Project would include two main components:
     4.4 miles of new 36-inch-diameter loop pipeline in Ohio;
     0.3 mile of new 30-inch-diameter interconnecting pipeline
Ohio; and
     associated equipment and facilities.
    The Projects' proposed aboveground facilities include five new
compressor stations in Ohio; additional compression and related
modifications to one existing compressor station in Ohio; five new
metering and regulating stations in Ohio; one new metering and
regulating station in Michigan; and minor modifications at existing
aboveground facilities at various locations across Ohio.
    The FERC staff mailed copies of the draft EIS to federal, state,
and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes;
potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and
groups; and newspapers and libraries near the Projects. Paper copy
versions of this draft EIS were mailed to those specifically requesting
them; all others received a CD version. In addition, the draft EIS is
available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (www.ferc.gov)
using the eLibrary link.
    A limited number of copies are available for distribution and
public inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public
Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426,
(202) 502-8371.
    Any person wishing to comment on the draft EIS may do so. To ensure
consideration of your comments on the proposal in the final EIS, it is
important that the Commission receive your comments on or before August
29, 2016.
    For your convenience, there are four methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the
Projects' docket numbers (CP16-22-000 for the NGT Project and CP16-23-
000 for the TEAL Project) with your submission. The Commission
encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available
to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment

feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief,
text-only comments on a project.
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' If you are filing a comment on a particular project,
please select ``Comment on a Filing'' as the filing type.
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address: Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426.
    (4) In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the
Commission invites you to attend one of the public comment meetings its
staff will conduct in the Project areas to receive comments on the
draft EIS. We \1\ encourage interested groups and individuals to attend
and present oral comments on the draft EIS at any of the meeting
locations provided on page 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the FERC's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There will not be a formal start of the meeting nor a formal
presentation by Commission staff, but FERC staff will be available to
answer your questions about the environmental review process. You may
arrive at any time after 5:00 p.m. and we will stop taking comments at
10:00 p.m. Eastern Time Zone. The primary goal is to have your verbal
environmental comments on the draft EIS documented in the public
record.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Date                               Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 10, 2016...................  Swanton High School, 604 North Main
                                     Street, Swanton, OH 43558, (419)
                                     826-3045.
August 11, 2016...................  Tecumseh Center for the Arts, 400
                                     North Maumee Street, Tecumseh, MI
                                     49286,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
August 15, 2016...................  Quality Inn, Fremont, 3422 Port
                                     Clinton Road, Fremont, OH 43420,
<PHONE_NUMBER>.
August 16, 2016...................  Elyria High School Performing Arts
                                     Center, 601 Middle Avenue, Elyria,
                                     OH 44035,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
August 17, 2016...................  Wadsworth High School--James A.
                                     Mcilvaine Performing Arts Center,
                                     625 Broad Street, Wadsworth, OH
                                     44281,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
August 18, 2016...................  Green High School, 1474 Boettler
                                     Road, Uniontown, OH 44685, (330)
                                     896-7575.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Verbal comments will be recorded by court reporter(s) and
transcriptions will be placed into the docket for the Projects and made
available for public viewing on FERC's eLibrary system (see page 5 for
instructions on using eLibrary). It is important to note that verbal
comments hold the same weight as written or electronically submitted
comments. If a significant number of people are interested in providing
verbal comments, a time limit of 3 to 5 minutes may be implemented for
each commenter to ensure all those wishing to comment have the
opportunity to do so within the designated meeting time. Time limits
will be strictly enforced if they are implemented.
    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a
motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedures (Title 18 Code of Federal Regulations Part
385.214).\2\ Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the
Commission's decision. The Commission grants affected landowners and
others with environmental concerns intervenor status upon showing good
cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this
proceeding that no other party can adequately represent. Simply filing
environmental comments will not give you intervenor status, but you do
not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See the previous discussion on the methods for filing
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Route Alternatives

    As indicated on page 1, some landowners are receiving this draft
EIS because their property has been identified as potentially being
affected by certain route alternatives recommended or being considered
by FERC staff to avoid or lessen environmental impacts along NEXUS's
proposed pipeline route in several locations. Refer to discussions in
section 3.3.3 of the draft EIS for the City of Green Route Alternative,
section 3.4.10 for the Chippewa Lake C Route Variation, and section
3.4.12 for the Reserve Avenue Route Variation. Please note that while
staff has recommended the use of the last two listed alternatives, a
decision whether or not to recommend the use of the City of Green Route
Alternative has not been made. The Commission staff wants to ensure
that all potentially affected landowners have the opportunity to
participate in the environmental review process, thus staff is
soliciting comments to assist with the environmental analysis of these
route alternatives, which will be presented in the final EIS.

Questions?

    Additional information about the Projects is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search,'' and enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP16-
22). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>; for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and
submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you
spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
subscribe.

    Dated: July 8, 2016.
 Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
 Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-16662 Filed 7-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 21, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 97)]
[Notices]
[Page 23909-23912]
[DOCID:fr21my09-136]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59920; File No. SR-CBOE-2009-029]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Permanently
Establish the Quarterly Option Series Pilot Program

May 14, 2009.
     Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby
given that on May 7, 2009, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (the ``Exchange''

or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change, as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is proposing to make permanent its Quarterly Option
Series pilot program (``QOS Program''). The text of the proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/
Legal), at the Office of the Secretary, CBOE and at the Commission.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to make the QOS Program permanent. On
July 7, 2006, the Exchange filed with the Commission SR-CBOE-2006-65,
which was effective on filing and established the QOS Program.\3\ The
QOS Program allows CBOE to list and trade Quarterly Option Series,
which expire at the close of business on the last business day or a
calendar quarter. Under the QOS Program, CBOE may select up to five (5)
currently listed exchange traded fund (``ETF'') or index option classes
on which Quarterly Option Series may be opened. In addition, CBOE may
also list Quarterly Option Series on any options classes that are
selected by other securities exchanges that employ a similar pilot
program under their respective rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54123 (July 11,
2006), 71 FR 40558, (July 17, 2006) (SR-CBOE-2006-65). The QOS
Program has since been extended and is currently scheduled to expire
on July 10, 2009. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 56035
(July 10, 2007), 72 FR 38851, (July 16, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2007-70)
(immediately effective rule change extending the QOS Program through
July 10, 2008) and 58018 (June 25, 2008), 73 FR 38010 (July 2, 2008)
(SR-CBOE-2008-62) (immediately effective rule change extending the
QOS Program through July 10, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange may list series that expire at the end of the next
consecutive four (4) calendar quarters, as well as the fourth quarter
of the next calendar year. For example, if the Exchange is trading
Quarterly Options Series in the month of May 2009, it may list series
that expire at the end of the second, third, and fourth quarters of
2009, as well as the first and fourth quarters of 2010. Following the
second quarter 2009 expiration, the Exchange could add series that
expire at the end of the second quarter of 2010.
    Quarterly Option Series are P.M. settled.
Quarterly Option Series in ETF Options
    If an ETF option is selected for participation in the QOS Program,
the strike price of each Quarterly Option Series is fixed at a price
per share, with at least two strike prices above and two strike prices
below the approximate value of the underlying security at about the
time the Quarterly Options Series is opened for trading on the
Exchange. CBOE shall list strikes prices for a Quarterly Option series
that are within $5 from the closing price of the underlying on the
preceding day.
    The Exchange may open for trading additional Quarterly Options
Series of the same class when the Exchange deems it necessary to
maintain an orderly market, to meet customer demand or when the market
price of the underlying security moves substantially from the initial
exercise price or prices. To the extent that any additional strike
prices are listed by the Exchange, such additional strike prices shall
be within thirty percent (30%) above or below the closing price of the
underlying ETF (or ``Units'' as defined in Rule 5.3.06) on the
preceding day.\4\ The Exchange may also open additional strike prices
of Quarterly Option Series in ETF options that are more than 30% above
or below the current price of the underlying ETF provided that
demonstrated customer interest exists for such series, as expressed by
institutional, corporate or individual customers or their brokers.
Market-Makers trading for their own account shall not be considered
when determining customer interest under this provision. The opening of
the new Quarterly Options Series shall not affect the series of options
of the same class previously opened. In addition to the initial listed
series, the Exchange may list up to sixty (60) additional series per
expiration month for each Quarterly Options Series in ETF options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57410 (March 3,
2008), 73 FR 12483 (March 7, 2008) (SR-CBOE-2007-96) (amended QOS
Program to permit the listing of additional Quarterly Option Series
in ETF options).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The interval between strike prices on Quarterly Options Series
shall be the same as the interval for strike prices for series in that
same options class that expire in accordance with the normal monthly
expiration cycle.
    The Exchange has adopted a delisting policy with respect to QOS in
ETF options.\5\ On a monthly basis, the Exchange reviews series that
are outside a range of five (5) strikes above and five (5) strikes
below the current price of the underlying ETF, and delists series with
no open interest in both the put and the call series having a: (i)
Strike higher than the highest strike price with open interest in the
put and/or call series for a given expiration month; and (ii) strike
lower than the lowest strike price with open interest in the put and/or
call series for a given expiration month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding the delisting policy, customer requests to add
strikes and/or maintain strikes in QOS in ETF options in series
eligible for delisting shall be granted.
    Further, in connection with the delisting policy, if the Exchange
identifies series for delisting, the Exchange shall notify other
options exchanges with similar delisting policies regarding eligible
series for listing, and shall work with such other exchanges to develop
a uniform list of series to be delisted, so as to ensure uniform series
delisting of multiply listed options classes.
    During the last quarter of 2008 (and for the new expiration month
added after December Quarterly Option Series expiration), the Exchange
was permitted to list up to one hundred (100) additional series per
expiration month for each Quarterly Options Series in ETF options.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58887 (October 30,
2008), 73 FR 66083 (November 6, 2008) (SR-CBOE-2008-111) (temporary
increase to the number of additional Quarterly Option Series in ETF
options).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quarterly Option Series in Index Options
    If an index option is selected for participation in the QOS
Program, the strike price of each Quarterly Option Series will be fixed
at a price per share, with at least two, but no more than five, strike
prices above and at least two, but no more than five, strike prices
below the value of the underlying index at

about the time that a Quarterly Options Series is opened for trading on
the Exchange. The Exchange shall list strike prices for Quarterly
Options Series that are reasonably related to the current index value
of the underlying index to which such series relates at about the time
such series of options is first opened for trading on the Exchange. The
term ``reasonably related to the current index value of the underlying
index'' means that the exercise price is within thirty percent (30%) of
the current index value.
    The Exchange may open for trading additional Quarterly Options
Series of the same class when the Exchange deems it necessary to
maintain an orderly market, to meet customer demand or when the market
price of the underlying security moves substantially from the initial
exercise price or prices. The Exchange may also open for trading
additional Quarterly Options Series that are more than thirty percent
(30%) of the current index value, provided that demonstrated customer
interest exists for such series, as expressed by institutional,
corporate, or individual customers or their brokers. Market-Makers
trading for their own account shall not be considered when determining
customer interest under this provision.
    The Exchange may open additional strike prices of a Quarterly
Option Series that are above the value of the underlying index provided
that the total number of strike prices above the value of the
underlying index is no greater than five. The Exchange may open
additional strike prices of a Quarterly Option Series that are below
the value of the underlying index provided that the total number of
strike prices below the value of the underlying index is no greater
than five. The opening of any new Quarterly Option Series shall not
affect the series of options of the same class previously opened.
    By definition, Quarterly Option Series on an option class can never
expire in the same week in which monthly option series on the same
class expires. The same, however, is not the case with regards to Short
Term Option Series. Quarterly Option Series and Short Term Option
Series on the same options class may expire concurrently. However, to
avoid any confusion in the market place, the Exchange will not list a
Short Term Option Series on an options class whose expiration coincides
with that of a Quarterly Option Series on the same options class. In
other words, the Exchange will not list a Short Term Options Series on
an ETF or an index if a Quarterly Option Series on that ETF or index
were to expire on a Friday, the only day of the week during which both
Quarterly Option Series and a P.M.-settled Short Term Option Series can
potentially expire concurrently.
    There being one exception to this rule. The Exchange may list a
P.M.-settled Quarterly Option Series on an options class concurrent
with an A.M.-settled Short Term Options Series on that same options
class, both of which may expire on a Friday. In other words, the
Exchange may list a P.M.-settled Quarterly Option Series on an ETF on
an index concurrent with an A.M.-settled Short Term Option Series on
that ETF or index and both of which expire on a Friday. The Exchange
believes that the concurrent listing of an A.M.-settled Short Term
Option Series and a P.M.-settled Quarterly Option Series on the same
underlying ETF or index will provide investors with yet another hedging
mechanism. Finally, the interval between strike prices on Quarterly
Option Series shall be the same as the interval for strike prices for
series in the same options class that expires in accordance with the
normal monthly expiration cycles.
    The Exchange has selected the following five ETF option classes to
participate in the QOS Program: DIAMONDS Trust (DIA) options, Standard
and Poor's Depositary Receipts/SPDRs (SPY) options, iShares Russell
2000 Index Fund (IWM) options, PowerShares QQQ Trust (QQQQ) options and
Energy Select SPDR (XLE) options. CBOE believes the QOS Program has
been successful and well received by its members and the investing
public for the nearly three years that it has been in operation as a
pilot.
    CBOE is now proposing to make the QOS Program permanent. In support
of approving the QOS Program on a permanent basis, the Exchange has
submitted to the Commission a Pilot Program Report (``Report'')
detailing the Exchange's experience with the QOS Program. Specifically,
the Report contains data and written analysis regarding the five ETF
option classes included in the QOS Program. The Report was submitted
under separate cover and seeks confidential treatment under the Freedom
of Information Act.
    The Exchange believes there is sufficient investor interest and
demand in the QOS Program to warrant its permanent approval. The
Exchange believes that, for the nearly three years that it has been in
operation, the QOS Program has provided investors with additional means
of managing their risk exposures and carrying out their investment
objectives. Furthermore, the Exchange has not experienced any capacity-
related problems with respect to Quarterly Option Series. The Exchange
also represents that it has the necessary system capacity to continue
to support the option series listed under the QOS Program.
    In seeking permanent approval, the Exchange is taking this
opportunity to update the expiration examples provided in Rules 5.5,
and 24.9. The revisions do not change the substance of the QOS Program.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act \7\ and the rules and regulations thereunder and, in
particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\8\
Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \9\ requirements that the rules of
an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of
trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, to remove
impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open market
and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and
the public interest. The Exchange believes that permanent approval of
the QOS Program will result in an ongoing benefit to investors, and
will continue to allow them additional means to manage their risk
exposures and carry out their investment objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposal.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory

organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules.sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2009-029 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2009-029. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2009-029 and should be
submitted on or before June 11, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-11811 Filed 5-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: October 28, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 207)]
[Notices]
[Page 55557-55558]
[DOCID:fr28oc09-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0215]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Recordkeeping
Requirements for Microbiological Testing and Corrective Measures for
Bottled Water

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by
November 27, 2009.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-NEW and
title ``Recordkeeping Requirements for Microbiological Testing and
Corrective Measures for Bottled Water.'' Also include the FDA docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonna Capezzuto, Office of Information
Management (HFA-710), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane,
Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Recordkeeping Requirements for Microbiological Testing and Corrective
Measures for Bottled Water--21 CFR 129.35(a)(3)(i) and 129.80(g) and
(h)

    FDA has amended its bottled water regulations in parts 129 and 165
(21 CFR parts 129 and 165) by requiring that if any coliform organisms
are detected in weekly total coliform testing of finished bottled
water, followup testing must be conducted to determine whether any of
the coliform organisms are E. coli. FDA also amended the adulteration
provision of the bottled water standard (Sec.  165.110(d)) to indicate
that finished product that tests positive for E. coli will be deemed
adulterated under section 402(a)(3) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 342(a)(3)). In addition, FDA amended the
Current Good Manufacturing Practices (CGMP) regulations for bottled
water in part 129 by requiring that source water from other than a
public water system (PWS) be tested at least weekly for total coliform.
If any coliform organisms are detected in the source water, the bottled
water manufacturers are required to determine whether any of the
coliform organisms are E. coli. Source water found to contain E. coli
is not considered water of a safe, sanitary quality and would be
unsuitable for bottled water production. Before a bottler may use
source water from a source that has tested positive for E. coli, a
bottler must take appropriate measures to rectify or otherwise
eliminate the cause of the contamination. A source previously found to
contain E. coli will be considered negative for E. coli after five
samples collected over a 24-hour period from the same sampling site are
tested and found to be E. coli negative.
    Description of Respondents: The respondents to this proposed
information collection are domestic and foreign bottled water
manufacturers that sell bottled water in the United States.
    In the Federal Register of May 29, 2009 (74 FR 25752 ), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received.

                               Table 1.--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       No. of        Annual Frequency       Total Annual
 21 CFR Section    Recordkeepers     per Recordkeeping        Records       Hours  per Record     Total Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  Sec.        319 (bottlers                       6            1,914                 0.08                153
 129.35(a)(3)(i)   subject to
 and 129.80(h)     source water
                   and finished
                   product
                   testing)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  Sec.        2.5 (bottlers                       5               12                 0.08                  1
 129.35(a)(3)(i)   conducting
 and 129.80(h)     secondary
                   testing of
                   source water)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  Sec.        2.5 (bottlers                       3                7.5               0.25                  2
 129.35(a)(3)(i)   rectifying
 and 129.80(h)     contamination)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   129.80(g)  95 (bottlers                        3              285                 0.08                 23
 and (h)           testing
                   finished
                   product only)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Burden                                                                                179
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    The current CGMP regulations already reflect the time and
associated recordkeeping costs for those bottlers that are required to
conduct microbiological testing of their source water, as well as total
coliform testing of their finished bottled water products. FDA
therefore concludes that any additional burden and costs in
recordkeeping based on the new testing requirements for source and
finished bottled water are negligible. FDA estimates that the labor
burden of keeping records of each test is about 5 minutes per test. FDA
also requires followup testing of source water and finished bottled
water products for E. coli when total coliform positives occur. FDA
expects that 319 bottlers that use sources other than PWSs may find a
total coliform positive sample about 3 times per year in source testing
and about 3 times in finished product testing, for a total of 153 hours
of recordkeeping. In addition to the 319 bottlers, about 95 bottlers
that use PWSs may find a total coliform positive sample about 3 times
per year in finished product testing, for a total of 23 hours of
recordkeeping. Upon finding a total coliform positive sample, bottlers
will then have to conduct a followup test for E. coli.
    FDA expects that recordkeeping for the followup test for E. coli
will also take about 5 minutes per test. As shown in table 1 of this
document, FDA expects that 2.5 bottlers per year will have to carry out
the additional E. coli testing, with a burden of 1 hour. These bottlers
will also have to keep records about rectifying the source
contamination, for a burden of 2 hours. For all expected total coliform
testing, E. coli testing, and source rectification, FDA estimates a
total burden of 179 hours. FDA bases its estimate on its experience
with the current CGMP regulations.

    Dated: October 20, 2009.
David Horowitz,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-25927 Filed 10-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


SUPPORTING STATEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	NSPS for Portland Cement Plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart F) (Renewal)

1.  Identification of the Information Collection

1(a)  Title of the Information Collection

NSPS for Portland Cement Plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart F) (Renewal)

1(b)  Short Characterization/Abstract

The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for the regulations
published at 40 CFR part 60, subpart F were proposed on August 17, 1971,
promulgated on December 23, 1971, and revised on December 14, 1988.
These regulations apply to the following facilities in portland cement
plants: kilns, clinker coolers, raw mill systems, raw mill dryers, raw
material storage, clinker storage, finished product storage, conveyor
transfer points, bagging and bulk loading and unloading systems.  New
facilities include those that commenced construction, modification or
reconstruction after the date of proposal.  This information is being
collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart F.

In general, all NSPS standards require initial notifications,
performance tests, and periodic reports.  Owners or operators are also
required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any
startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected
facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is
inoperative.  These notifications, reports, and records are essential in
determining compliance, and are required of all sources subject to NSPS.

Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall
maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least
two years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports,
and records.  All reports are sent to the delegated state or local
authority.  In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the
reports are sent directly to the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) regional office.

Approximately 118 sources are currently subject to the regulation, and
it is estimated that no new sources will become subject to the
regulation in the next three years.  However, we do expect that a small
percentage of existing sources will undergo modifications or
reconstruction such that they will have to do the initial notifications
and performance testing required by the standard.  We estimate that two
(2) existing sources per year over the next three years will be required
to resubmit notifications and retest as a result of a modification or
reconstruction.

The previous ICR had the following Terms of Clearance (TOC):

“When this ICR is resubmitted for renewal, EPA should review the
estimates of annual respondent burden hours and verify that they reflect
actual respondent burden, particularly the burden hours associated with
filing semi-annual reports.”

EPA has addressed each item of concern in the TOC by reviewing the
estimates of annual respondent burden hours to verify that they reflect
actual respondent burden, particularly the burden hours associated with
filing semi-annual reports.  Based on its knowledge of the industry, EPA
considers the estimates representative of the actual burden hours
encountered by facilities undertaking compliance with the rule.  The
semiannual report is merely the reporting of information already
collected under the recordkeeping requirements for the rule.  Therefore,
24 hours is a reasonable estimate of the time needed to write the
report.  For this ICR renewal, EPA also contacted Mr. Andy O'Hare of the
Portland Cement Association, trade organization for the industry, on
July 12, 2007, to request voluntary assistance in providing information
related to the burden associated with this ICR.  However, no comments
were received.

The term, “Affected Public”, applies to private sector businesses or
other for-profits that manufacture portland cement.  The burden to the
“Affected Public” may be found in Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden
and Cost, NSPS for Portland Cement Plants (attached).  The burden to the
“Federal Government” is attributed entirely to work performed by
federal employees or government contractors, and may be found in Table
2: Annual Agency Burden and Cost, NSPS for Portland Cement Plants
(attached).

2.  Need for and Use of the Collection

2(a)  Need/Authority for the Collection

The EPA is charged under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as
amended, to establish standards of performance for new stationary
sources that reflect:

. . . application of the best technological system of continuous
emissions reduction which (taking into consideration the cost of
achieving such emissions reduction, or any non-air quality health and
environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator
determines has been adequately demonstrated.  Section 111(a)(l).

The Agency refers to this charge as selecting the best demonstrated
technology (BDT).  Section 111 also requires that the Administrator
review and, if appropriate, revise such standards every four years.

In addition, section 114(a) states that the Administrator may require
any owner or operator subject to any requirement of this Act to:

(A) Establish and maintain such records; (B) make such reports; (C)
install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use such audit
procedures, or methods; (D) sample such emissions (in accordance with
such procedures or methods, at such locations, at such intervals, during
such periods, and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe);
(E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables
or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is
impractical; (F) submit compliance certifications in accordance with
Section 114(a)(3); and (G) provide such other information as the
Administrator may reasonably require.

 In the Administrator's judgment, particulate matter emissions from
portland cement plants cause or contribute to air pollution that may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
Therefore, the NSPS were promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR
part 60, subpart F.

2(b)  Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The control of particulate matter emissions from portland cement plants
requires not only the installation of properly designed equipment, but
also the operation and maintenance of that equipment.  Emissions of
particulate matter from portland cement plants are the result of the
operation of the affected facilities.  The subject standards are
achieved by the capture of particulate emissions using a baghouse or
electrostatic precipitator.

The notifications required in the applicable regulations are used to
inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject
to the requirements of the regulations.  The reviewing authority may
then inspect the source to check if the pollution control devices are
properly installed and operated and leaks are being detected and
repaired and the regulations are being met.  Performance test reports
are needed, as these are the Agency's record of a source's initial
capability to comply with the emission standards, and serve as a record
of the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved.

The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check
on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.
The information generated by the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements described in this ICR is used by the Agency to ensure that
facilities affected by the standard continue to operate the control
equipment in compliance with the regulation.  Adequate monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting are necessary to ensure compliance with the
applicable regulations, as required by the Clean Air Act.  The
information collected from recordkeeping and reporting requirements is
also used for targeting inspections, and is of sufficient quality to be
used as evidence in court.

3.  Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

The requested recordkeeping and reporting are required under 40 CFR part
60, subpart F.

3(a)  Nonduplication

 If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is
sent directly to the appropriate EPA regional office.  Otherwise, the
information is sent directly to the delegated state or local agency.  If
a state or local agency has adopted its own similar standards to
implement the Federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the
state or local agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the
report required by the Federal standards.  Therefore, no duplication
exists.

3(b)  Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR
was published in the Federal Register (72 FR 10735) on March 9, 2007.
No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal
Register.

3(c)  Consultations

In estimating the burden associated with this standard, EPA reviewed
economic information available on the Portland Cement Association
website (www.pca.org).  In addition, we conducted a data query of
portland cement plants included in EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance
History Online (ECHO).  Based on the information available from both PCA
and ECHO, we estimate that there are 118 existing sources subject to
this regulation and that no new source will be subject to this standard
over the next three years.  However, we do estimate that two (2)
existing sources will be modified or reconstructed such that the sources
will be required to resubmit initial notifications and retest.  The
estimated increase in the number of existing plants and the estimated
decrease in the growth rate compared to the previous ICR are due to the
availability of more reliable data.

For this ICR renewal, EPA also contacted Mr. Andy O'Hare of the Portland
Cement Association, trade organization for the industry, on July 12,
2007, to request voluntary assistance in providing information related
to the burden associated with this ICR.  However, no comments were
received.

3(d)  Effects of Less Frequent Collection

Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of
assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the standards.
Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful
techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are
applied and emission limitations are met.  If the information required
by these standards was collected less frequently, the likelihood of
detecting poor operation and maintenance of control equipment and
noncompliance would decrease.

3(e)  General Guidelines

None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the
regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

3(f)  Confidentiality

 Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of
confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency
policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, part 2, Subpart B -
Confidentiality of Business Information.  (See 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902,
September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR
42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

3(g)  Sensitive Questions

None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive
questions.

4.  The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(a)  Respondents/SIC Codes

The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are
portland cement plants.  The United States Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) code for the respondents affected by the standards
is 3241, which corresponds to the North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) 327310 for portland cement plants.

4(b)  Information Requested

(i)  Data Items

All data in this ICR that are recorded and/or reported are required by
NSPS for Portland Cement Plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart F).

A source must make the following reports:

Notification Reports

Notification of construction/reconstruction.	60.7(a)(1)

Notification of actual startup.	60.7(a)(3)

Notification of physical or operational change that may increase the
emission rate.	60.7(a)(4)

Notification of demonstration of continuous monitoring system.
60.7(a)(5)

Notification of initial performance tests.	60.8(d)

Reports

Report on initial performance test.	60.8(a)

Semiannual report on excess emissions.	60.7(c)

Semiannual malfunction report	60.65(c)

A source must keep the following records:

Recordkeeping

Startups, shutdowns, malfunctions, periods where the continuous
monitoring system is inoperative.	60.7(b)

Record daily production and kiln feed rates	60.63(a)

Records of exceedance	60.65(a) and (b)

Records are required to be retained for two (2) years.	60.7(f)

Electronic Reporting

Currently, sources are using monitoring equipment that provides
automated parameter data, e.g., continuous opacity monitoring.  Although
personnel at the affected facility must evaluate the data, this type of
monitoring equipment has significantly reduced the burden associated
with monitoring and recordkeeping.  In addition, some regulatory
agencies are setting up electronic reporting systems to allow sources to
report electronically which is reducing the reporting burden.  However,
electronic reporting systems are still not widely used by the regulatory
agencies.  It is estimated that approximately 10 percent of the
respondents use electronic reporting.

(ii)  Respondent Activities

Respondent Activities

Read instructions.

Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate Continuous Monitoring System
(CMS) for opacity.

Perform initial performance test, Reference Methods 5 (particulate
matter concentration) and Method 9 (opacity), and repeat performance
tests if necessary.

Write the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and
utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting,
validating, and verifying information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purpose of processing and maintaining information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purpose of disclosing and providing information.

Adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements.

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

5.  The Information Collected:  Agency Activities, Collection
Methodology, and Information Management

	5(a)  Agency Activities

EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the
acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required
information.

Agency Activities

Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if
necessary.

Review notifications and reports, including performance test reports,
and excess emissions reports, required to be submitted by industry.

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the Air Facility System (AFS).

5(b)  Collection Methodology and Management

Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might inspect
the source to determine whether the pollution control devices are
properly installed and operated.  Performance test reports are used by
the Agency to discern a source’s initial capability to comply with the
emission standard.  Data and records maintained by the respondents are
tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs.
The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check
on source operation and maintenance, and for

compliance determinations.

Information contained in the reports is entered into the AFS, which is
operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Compliance.  AFS is EPA’s
database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance
data for approximately 125,000 industrial and government-owned
facilities.  EPA uses the AFS for tracking air pollution compliance and
enforcement by local and state regulatory agencies, EPA regional offices
and EPA headquarters.  EPA and its delegated Authorities can edit,
store, retrieve and analyze the data.

The records required by this regulation must be retained by the owner or
operator for two (2) years.

5(c)  Small Entity Flexibility

A majority of the affected facilities are large entities (e.g., large
businesses).  However, the impact on small entities (i.e., small
businesses) was taken into consideration during the development of the
regulation.  Due to technical considerations involving the process
operations and the types of control equipment employed, the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are the same for both small and
large entities.  The Agency considers these requirements the minimum
needed to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce them further
for small entities.  To the extent that larger businesses can use
economies of scale to reduce their burden, the overall burden will be
reduced.

5(d)  Collection Schedule

The specific frequency for each information collection activity within
this request is shown in Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost,
NSPS for Portland Cement Plants (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart F).

6.  Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

Table 1 documents the computation of individual burdens for the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry for
the subpart included in this ICR.  The individual burdens are expressed
under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept
of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act.  Where appropriate,
specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified.  Responses to
this information collection are mandatory.

The 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.

6(a)  Estimating Respondent Burden

The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from
these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be 13,806
hours [Total Labor Hours from Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and
Cost, NSPS for Portland Cement Plants (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart F),
attached].  These hours are based on Agency studies and background
documents from the development of the regulation, Agency knowledge and
experience with the NSPS program, the previously approved ICR, and any
comments received.

6(b)  Estimating Respondent Costs

(i)  Estimating Labor Costs

This ICR uses the following labor rates:

Managerial	$95.32   ($45.39 + 110%)

Technical	$64.60   ($30.76 + 110%)

Clerical	$40.09   ($19.09 + 110%)

These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, December 2003, “Table 10.  Private industry, by
occupational and industry group.”  The rates are from column 1,
“Total compensation.”  The rates have been increased by 110 percent
to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by
private industry.

(ii)  Estimating Capital/Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs

  The type of industry costs associated with the information collection
activities in the subject standards are both labor costs, which are
addressed elsewhere in this ICR, and the costs associated with
continuous monitoring.  The capital/startup costs are one-time costs
when a facility becomes subject to the regulation.  The annual operation
and maintenance costs are the ongoing costs to maintain the monitors and
other costs such as photocopying and postage.

(iii)  Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

(A)

Continuous Monitoring Device	(B)

Capital/Startup Cost for One Respondent1	(C)

Number of New Respondents 	(D)

Total Capital/Startup Cost

(B X C)	(E)

Annual O&M Costs for One Respondent	(F)

Number of Respondents with O&M	(G)

Total O&M,

(E X F)

Continuous Opacity Monitor	$18,500	2	$37,000	$4,200	118	$495,600

1  Cost estimates were obtained from Environmental Monitor Services,
Inc. (EMS), a manufacturer of NSPS compliant continuous opacity monitors
(COMS).  EMS estimates the cost of a COMS to be approximately $18,500
with an average operation and maintenance (O&M) cost of $4,200.

	The total capital/startup costs for this ICR are $37,000.  This is the
total of column D in the above table.

The total operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for this ICR are
$495,600.  This is the total of column G.

The total respondent costs have been calculated as the addition of the
capital/startup costs, and the annual operation and maintenance costs.
The average annual cost for capital/startup and operation and
maintenance costs to industry over the next three years of the ICR are
estimated to be $533,000 (Rounded).  The continuous monitoring costs
that are included in this section consist only of those capital/startup
and O&M costs that a source incurs as a result of the standard.  Some
continuous monitoring costs may not be included in this section.  For
instance, if a particular industry typically utilizes a control device
that must have a continuous monitor (e.g., temperature, pressure drop,
etc.) to function properly, and the recordation of additional
measurements beyond the minimum are required by the standard, then there
is no capital/startup or O&M cost, but there is a labor cost to record
the additional readings.  Such a cost would not appear in this section,
but in the industry burden Section 6(d) below.

6(c)  Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

The only costs to the Agency are those costs associated with analysis of
the reported information.  EPA's overall compliance and enforcement
program includes activities such as the examination of records
maintained by the respondents, periodic inspection of sources of
emissions, and the publication and distribution of collected
information.

The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is
estimated to

be $46,943.

This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate as follows:

Managerial	$54.66   (GS-13, Step 5, $34.16 x 1.6)

Technical	$40.56   (GS-12, Step 1, $25.35 x 1.6)

Clerical	$21.95   (GS-6, Step 3, $13.72 x 1.6)

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) “2004
General Schedule“ which excludes locality rates of pay.  Details upon
which this estimate is based appear in

Table 2: Annual Agency Burden and Cost, NSPS for Portland Cement Plants
(40 CFR Part 60,

Subpart F).

6(d)  Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

Based on our research for this ICR, approximately 118 existing sources
are currently subject to the standard.  It is estimated that no new
source will become subject to the standard over the next three years.
However, we do estimate that two (2) existing sources will be modified
or reconstructed such that they will be required to resubmit initial
notifications and retest.

Number of respondents is calculated using the following table, which
addresses the three years covered by this ICR.

Number of Respondents

	Respondents That Submit Reports	Respondents That Do Not Submit Any
Reports

	Year	(A)Number of New Respondents	(B)

Number of Existing Respondents1	(C)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records but Do Not Submit
Reports	(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Are Also New Respondents	(E)

Number of Respondents

(E=A+B+C-D)

1	2	118	0	2	118

2	2	118	0	2	118

3	2	118	0	2	118

Average	2	118	0	2	118

1 We estimate that two (2) existing sources will undergo a modification
or reconstruction such that they will be required to resubmit initial
notifications and retest.

As shown above, the average Number of Respondents over the three-year
period of this ICR is 118 when rounded.

The total number of annual responses per year is calculated using the
following table:

Total Annual Responses

(A)

Information Collection Activity	(B)

Number of Respondents 	(C)

Number of Responses	(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit
Reports	(E)

Total Annual Responses

E=(BxC)+D

Notification of construction/reconstruction	2	1	N/A	2

Notification of actual startup	2	1	N/A	2

Notification of physical or operational change	2	1	N/A	2

Notification of demonstration of continuous monitoring system (CMS)	2	1
N/A	2

Notification of initial performance tests	2	1	N/A	2

Report of performance test	2	1	N/A	2

Semiannual report	118	2	N/A	236

	Total	248

The number of Total Annual Responses is 248.

6(e)  Bottom Line Burden Hours Burden Hours and Cost Tables

The detailed bottom line burden hours and cost calculations for the
respondents and the Agency are shown in the attached Tables 1 and 2,
respectively, and are summarized on the following page.

(i) Respondent Tally

The Total Hours Requested are 13,806 hours.  The total annual labor
costs are $880,911.  Details regarding these estimates may be found in
Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost, NSPS for Portland Cement
Plants (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart F), attached.  Furthermore, the annual
public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of
information is estimated to average 56 hours per response.

The total annual capital/startup and O&M costs to the regulated entity
are $533,000.  The cost calculations are detailed in Section 6(b)(iii),
Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs.

(ii) The Agency Tally

The average annual Agency burden and cost over next three years is
estimated to be 1,187 labor hours at a cost of $46,943.  See Table 2:
Annual Agency Burden and Cost, NSPS for Portland Cement Plants (40 CFR
Part 60, Subpart F), attached.

6(f)  Reasons for Change in Burden

There is no change in the labor hours or cost in this ICR compared to
the previous ICR.  This is due to two considerations.  First, the
regulations have not changed over the past three years and are not
anticipated to change over the next three years.  Secondly, the growth
rate for the industry is very low, negative or non-existent, so there is
no significant change in the overall burden.

	Since there are no changes in the regulatory requirements and there is
no significant industry growth, the labor hours and cost figures in the
previous ICR are used in this ICR and there is no change in burden to
industry.

6(g)  Burden Statement

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection
of information is estimated to average 56 hours per response.  Burden
means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or
for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review
instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and
systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to
be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information.

 An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB
Control Number.  The OMB Control Numbers for EPA’s regulations are
listed at 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

	To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0032.  An electronic version of the public docket is
available at http://www.regulations.gov/ which may be used to obtain a
copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to
access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically.  When in the system, select “search,” then key in
the docket ID number identified in this document.  The documents are
also available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance
Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC.  The EPA
Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number
for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
docket center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  Also, you can send comments to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk
Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0032 and OMB Control Number 2060-0025 in any
correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement

This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in
collecting this information.

 PAGE   14

 PAGE  11


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 231 (Monday, December 2, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66036-66039]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25960]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87612; File No. SR-ICC-2019-013]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICC Clearing Rules

November 25, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1) and Rule 19b-4, 17 CFR 240.19b-4, notice is
hereby given that on November 15, 2019, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICE
Clear Credit'' or ``ICC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission the proposed rule change, security-based swap submission, or
advance notice as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items
have been prepared primarily by ICC. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.

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

    The principal purpose of the proposed rule change is to make
certain changes to the ICC Clearing Rules (the ``Rules'') \1\ to
incorporate amendments to the industry-standard ISDA 2014 Credit
Derivatives Definitions (the ``2014 Definitions'') that are being
adopted in the broader CDS market to address so-called narrowly
tailored credit events and related matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the
meanings specified in the Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, ICC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change,
security-based swap submission, or advance notice and discussed any
comments it received on the proposed rule change, security-based swap
submission, or advance notice. The text of these statements may be
examined at the places specified in Item IV below. ICC has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most
significant aspects of these statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

(a) Purpose
    ICE Clear Credit proposes amendments to its Rules to incorporate
changes to the 2014 Definitions that are intended to address so-called
``narrowly tailored credit events''. In the wake of certain credit
events and potential credit events in the CDS market in recent years,
the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. (``ISDA''),
in consultation with market participants, has developed and published
the 2019 Narrowly Tailored Credit Event Supplement to the 2014 ISDA
Credit Derivatives Definitions (the ``NTCE Supplement'').\2\ The NTCE
Supplement, if applied to a CDS transaction, effects two principal
changes to the 2014 Definitions: (1) A change to the definition of the
``Failure to Pay'' credit event designed to exclude certain narrowly
tailored credit events and (2) a change to the process for determining
the Outstanding Principal Balance of an obligation to address certain
obligations of a reference entity that were issued at a discount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The NTCE Supplement is published on the ISDA website at
https://www.isda.org/a/KDqME/Final-NTCE-Supplement.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described by ISDA in the attached guidance to the NTCE
Supplement, the supplement was published in light of concerns among
market participants and regulators about ``instances of [CDS] market
participants entering into arrangements with corporations that are
narrowly tailored to trigger a credit event for CDS contracts while
minimizing the impact on the corporation, in order to increase payment
to the buyers of CDS protection.'' \3\ ISDA has expressed concern that
``narrowly tailored defaults . . . could negatively impact the
efficiency, reliability and fairness of the overall CDS market.''
Regulators have also expressed concern with narrowly tailored or
manufactured credit events, including a joint statement by the heads of
the Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the UK
Financial Conduct Authority that

such strategies ``may adversely affect the integrity, confidence and
reputation of the credit derivatives markets, as well as markets more
generally. These opportunistic strategies raise various issues under
securities, derivatives, conduct and antifraud laws, as well as policy
concerns.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NTCE Supplement, Guidance on the interpretation of the
definition of ``Failure to Pay''.
    \4\ Securities and Exchange Commission, Commodity Futures
Trading Commission and UK Financial Conduct Authority, Joint
Statement on Opportunistic Strategies in the Credit Derivatives
Markets (June 24, 2019); see also Update to June 2019 Joint CFTC-
SEC-FCA Statement on Opportunistic Strategies in the Credit
Derivatives Market (Sept. 19, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the Failure to Pay credit event, the NTCE
Supplement adopts a concept of a ``Credit Deterioration Requirement.''
If applicable, this requirement will provide that a failure of a
reference entity to make a payment on an obligation will not constitute
a Failure to Pay Credit Event if the failure ``does not directly or
indirectly either result from, or result in, a deterioration in the
creditworthiness or financial condition'' of the reference entity. As
such, a ``narrowly tailored'' or ``manufactured'' failure to pay, which
does not reflect or result in a credit deterioration, would not
constitute a Credit Event for CDS Contracts that incorporate the NTCE
Supplement and apply the Credit Deterioration Requirement. The NTCE
Supplement also includes guidance as to factors relevant to the
determination of whether credit deterioration has occurred. That
determination would, under the 2014 Definitions, in the ordinary course
be made by the relevant Credit Derivatives Determinations Committee.
    The NTCE Supplement also amends the method of calculating the
Outstanding Principal Balance of obligations. The amendments are
intended to address a potential scenario where a corporation agrees to
issue a bond at a substantial discount to its principal amount, where
the bond could be delivered in settlement of a CDS at its full
principal amount. Under the 2014 Definitions, the Quantum of the Claim
(which is used to determine the Outstanding Principal Balance used in
calculating settlement obligations) is determined taking into account
any applicable laws insofar as they reduce the size of the claim to
reflect the original issue price or accrued value of the obligation.
The NTCE Supplement clarifies that the applicable laws to be considered
include any bankruptcy or insolvency law or other law affecting
creditors' rights to which the relevant obligation is or may become
subject. In addition, the NTCE Supplement includes the concept of
``Fallback Discounting,'' which if designated to be applicable,
provides a method for discounting the Quantum of the Claim (where it is
not otherwise reduced under applicable law or pursuant to its own
terms) of an obligation that is issued at less than 95% of its
principal amount, based on straight-line interpolation between the
issue price and the principal amount.
    ICE Clear Credit has been advised that CDS market participants are
expected to commence transacting in CDS incorporating the NTCE
Supplement (with Credit Deterioration Requirement and Fallback
Discounting applicable) on or about January 27, 2020. In addition, ISDA
has published, and opened for adherence, an NTCE Protocol pursuant to
which parties may, on a multilateral basis, agree to amend outstanding,
non-cleared CDS transactions to incorporate the NTCE Supplement. The
amendments made by the NTCE Protocol are also expected to have an
implementation date on or about January 27, 2020. Adherence to the
protocol will thus make existing transactions fungible with
transactions on the new terms. Accordingly, ICE Clear Credit is
proposing to amend its Rules for relevant products to incorporate the
NTCE Supplement, both for new and existing cleared transactions. For
this purpose, the proposed ICC amendments will apply to all cleared CDS
contracts with corporate (i.e., non-sovereign) reference entities,
consistent with the NTCE Protocol and the expected approach for new CDS
transactions. ICC proposes to make such changes effective by the
industry implementation date.
    Specifically, ICC would amend Rule 20-102 to include new
definitions for ``NTCE Amending Contracts'', which would be those
Contracts being amended to incorporate the NTCE Supplement, as
specified in a list to be maintained by ICC, and ``NTCE Effective
Date'', which will be the date of implementation of the amendment. The
NTCE Effective Date will initially be January 27, 2020 (or such later
date as designated by ICC by Circular). Rule 20-102 would also include
a definition for the NTCE Supplement.
    ICC would further amend each relevant subchapter of Chapter 26 of
the Rules to implement the NTCE Supplement. A set of amendments would
apply to index CDS transactions and a separate set of amendments would
apply to single-name CDS transactions.
    In the case of index CDS, for CDX.NA Index CDS transactions, in
subchapter 26A, in Rule 26A-102, the definition of CDX.NA Untranched
Terms Supplement would be amended to include the new 2020 standard
terms supplement for such transactions, as published by ISDA, which
incorporates the NTCE Supplement, along with conforming changes to
cross-references. Rule 26A-316 would be amended by adding a new
paragraph (e), which provides that open positions in CDX.NA Untranched
Contracts that are NTCE Amending Contracts would be amended, effective
as of the NTCE Effective Date, to reference the updated 2020 standard
terms supplement in lieu of the standard terms supplement previously in
effect. This will have the effect of converting all existing CDX.NA
Untranched Contracts to reference the new standard terms supplement,
such that they will be fungible with new CDX.NA Untranched Contracts,
which will also reference the new standard terms supplement. New
paragraph (e) would also provide that the amendments will be effective
regardless of whether any transaction record in the Deriv/SERV
warehouse is updated to reflect the change.
    Substantially similar changes for other categories of index CDS
would also be made in subchapters 26F (for iTraxx Europe Untranched
Contracts) and 26J (for iTraxx Asia/Pacific Untranched Contracts).
    In the case of single-name CDS, for Standard North American
Corporate (SNAC) Contracts, in subchapter 26B, Rule 26B-616 would be
amended by adding a new paragraph (c), which provides that open
positions in SNAC Contracts that are NTCE Amending Contracts would be
amended, effective as of the NTCE Effective Date, to incorporate the
NTCE Supplement and specify that Fallback Discounting and Credit
Deterioration Requirement will be applicable. The contracts would also
be amended to reference the new ISDA physical settlement matrix, to be
published as of the NTCE Effective Date (or other relevant
implementation date as determined by ICC). The amendments will have the
effect of converting existing SNAC Contracts to reference the updated
physical settlement matrix, such that they will be fungible with new
SNAC Contracts, which will also reference that matrix. New paragraph
(c) would also provide that the amendments will be effective regardless
of whether any transaction record in the Deriv/SERV warehouse is
updated to reflect the change.
    Substantially similar changes for other categories of single-name
CDS would also be made in subchapters 26G (for Standard European
Corporate Contracts), 26H (for Standard European Financial Corporate
Contracts), 26M (for

Standard Australian Corporate Contracts), 26N (for Standard Australia
Financial Corporate Contracts), 26O (for Standard Asia Corporate
Contracts), 26P (for Standard Asia Financial Corporate Contracts) and
26Q (for Standard Emerging Market Corporate Contracts).
(b) Statutory Basis
    ICC believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Act \5\ and the regulations
thereunder applicable to it, including the applicable standards under
Rule 17Ad-22.\6\ In particular, Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
requires that the rule change be consistent with the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and
derivative agreements, contracts and transactions cleared by ICC, the
safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody or control of ICC
or for which it is responsible, and the protection of investors and the
public interest.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendments incorporate changes to the standard terms of CDS
Contracts that are being widely adopted by market participants to
address potential concerns that have arisen with so-called narrowly
tailored credit events. The amendments reflect amendments to the 2014
Definitions, specifically with respect to the Failure to Pay and
Outstanding Principal Balance definitions, that have been developed by
ISDA, in consultation with market participants in both the cleared and
uncleared CDS markets, and are set out in the NTCE Supplement. ICE
Clear Credit understands that for the uncleared swap market, these
amendments are expected to be widely implemented through the NTCE
Protocol. ICE Clear Credit notes that the heads of the Commission, the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the UK Financial Conduct
Authority have stated that they welcome the efforts to implement the
amendments set out in the NTCE Supplement and NTCE Protocol.\8\ ICE
Clear Credit is proposing to adopt amendments to its Rules to implement
these same changes for both new and existing contracts cleared by it.
As a result, in ICE Clear Credit's view, the amendments will enhance
the integrity of the credit derivatives markets and the confidence of
market participants in those markets, and will therefore facilitate the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of such contracts at ICC
and will further facilitate the protection of investors and the public
interest, within the meaning of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act. ICE
Clear Credit does not believe the amendments will materially affect the
safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody or control of ICC
or for which it is responsible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Update to June 2019 Joint CFTC-SEC-FCA Statement on
Opportunistic Strategies in the Credit Derivatives Markets (Sept.
19, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendments will also satisfy relevant requirements of Rule
17Ad-22,\9\ as set forth in the following discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Legal Framework. Rule 17Ad-22(d)(1) requires a clearing agency to
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to ``provide for a well-founded,
transparent and enforceable legal framework for each aspect of its
activities in all relevant jurisdictions.'' \10\ The amendments to the
Rules are designed to supplement the contractual terms, consistent with
industry initiatives, to address and reduce the likelihood of certain
situations involving narrowly tailored credit events that have given
rise to concerns among market participants and regulators, as described
above. As such, ICC believes that the amendments will enhance the legal
framework for clearing of CDS Contracts, consistent with the
requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(d)(1).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(1).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Operational Risk. Rule 17Ad-22(d)(4) requires a clearing agency to
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to ``identify sources of operational
risk and minimize them through the development of appropriate systems,
controls and procedures.'' \12\ ICC believes the amendments, by
implementing the NTCE Supplement for existing and new CDS Contracts,
will be consistent with, and eliminate basis risk as compared to,
changes being made in the uncleared CDS markets. The changes will also
ensure the fungibility of new and existing contracts in light of the
NTCE Supplement amendments, which will facilitate ongoing risk
management by the clearing house and market participants. As a result,
in ICC's view, the amendments are consistent with the requirements of
Rule 17Ad-22(d)(4).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(4).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    ICE Clear Credit does not believe the proposed amendments would
have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The amendments
reflect an industry-wide initiative designed to apply to all CDS market
participants, in both the cleared and uncleared markets. ICC's specific
amendments to its Rules will apply consistently across all Participants
and Non-Participant Parties. ICC further expects that other market
participants will make similar changes to their contracts and terms of
trading. As a result, ICC does not expect that the proposed changes
will adversely affect access to clearing or the ability of
Participants, their customers or other market participants to continue
to clear contracts, including CDS Contracts. ICC also does not believe
the amendments would materially affect the cost of clearing or
otherwise limit market Participants' choices for selecting clearing
services. Accordingly, ICC does not believe the amendments would impose
any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance
of the purpose of the Act.

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

    ICC has not solicited or received written comments with respect to
the proposed rule changes. ICC will notify the Commission of any
written comments on the proposed rule changes received by ICC.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, security-based swap

submission, or advance notice is consistent with the Act. Comments may
be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ICC-2019-013 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2019-013. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Credit and on ICE
Clear Credit's website at https://www.theice.com/clear-credit/regulation.
    All comments received will be posted without change. Persons
submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2019-013 and should be
submitted on or before December 23, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-25960 Filed 11-29-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P