67810 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 249 / Monday, December 31, 2018 / Notices 

9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 

10 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b– 

4(f)(6)(iii) requires a self-regulatory organization to 

give the Commission written notice of its intent to 

file the proposed rule change, along with a brief 

description and text of the proposed rule change, 

at least five business days prior to the date of filing 

of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time 

as designated by the Commission. The Exchange 

has satisfied this requirement. 

11 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). 

12 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6)(iii). 

13For purposes only of waiving the 30-day 

operative delay, the Commission also has 

considered the proposed rule’s impact on 

efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 

15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 14 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3The amendment clarified Items 1(a) and 2(a) in 

the Form 19b–4 but did not change any other items 

in Form 19b–4, any exhibits to the filing, or the text 

of the proposed rule change. 

4Capitalized terms used but not defined herein 

have the meanings specified in the ICE Clear 

Europe Clearing Rules (the ‘‘Rules’’). 

19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 9 and Rule 19b– 

4(f)(6) thereunder.10

A proposed rule change filed 

pursuant to Rule 19b–4(f)(6) under the 

Act 11 normally does not become 

operative for 30 days after the date of its 

filing. However, Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii) 12

permits the Commission to designate a 

shorter time if such action is consistent 

with the protection of investors and the 

public interest. The Exchange has asked 

the Commission to waive the 30-day 

operative delay so that it may avoid any 

investor confusion over the 

implementation of the Extended Life 

Priority Order Attribute. In particular, 

the Exchange previously indicated that 

the Extended Life Priority Order 

Attribute would be implemented in the 

second half of 2018 but has since 

determined not to implement the Order 

Attribute at this time. For this reason, 

the Commission believes that waiver of 

the 30-day operative delay is consistent 

with the protection of investors and the 

public interest. Therefore, the 

Commission hereby waives the 

operative delay and designates the 

proposal as operative upon filing.13

At any time within 60 days of the 

filing of the proposed rule change, the 

Commission summarily may 

temporarily suspend such rule change if 

it appears to the Commission that such 

action is necessary or appropriate in the 

public interest, for the protection of 

investors, or otherwise in furtherance of 

the purposes of the Act. If the 

Commission takes such action, the 

Commission shall institute proceedings 

to determine whether the proposed rule 

change should be approved or 

disapproved. 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Act. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s internet 

comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an email to rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– 

NASDAQ–2018–106 on the subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Secretary, Securities and Exchange 

Commission, 100 F Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–NASDAQ–2018–106. This 

file number should be included on the 

subject line if email is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

internet website (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 

submission, all subsequent 

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the proposed rule 

change that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule change between the 

Commission and any person, other than 

those that may be withheld from the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 

available for website viewing and 

printing in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20549, on official 

business days between the hours of 

10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the 

filing also will be available for 

inspection and copying at the principal 

office of the Exchange. 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–NASDAQ–2018–106 and 

should be submitted on or before 

January 22, 2019. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.14

Brent J. Fields, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–28400 Filed 12–28–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–84933; File No. SR–ICEEU– 

2018–024] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE 

Clear Europe Limited; Notice of Filing 

of Proposed Rule Change as Modified 

by Amendment No. 1 Relating to the 

ICE Clear Europe Model Risk 

Governance Framework (the ‘‘MRGF’’) 

December 21, 2018. 

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2

notice is hereby given that on December 

14, 2018, ICE Clear Europe Limited 

(‘‘ICE Clear Europe’’ or the ‘‘Clearing 

House’’) filed with the Securities and 

Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’) 

the proposed rule changes described in 

Items I, II and III below, which Items 

have been prepared by ICE Clear 

Europe. On December 21, 2018, ICE 

Clear Europe filed Amendment No.1 to 

the proposed rule change.3 The 

Commission is publishing this notice to 

solicit comments on the proposed rule 

change, as modified by Amendment 

No. 1, from interested persons. 

I. Clearing Agency’s Statement of the 

Terms of Substance of the Proposed 

Rule Change 

ICE Clear Europe proposes to adopt a 

Model Risk Governance Framework (the 

‘‘MRGF’’). The revisions do not involve 

any changes to the ICE Clear Europe 

Clearing Rules or Procedures.4

II. Clearing Agency’s Statement of the 

Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the 

Proposed Rule Change 

In its filing with the Commission, ICE 

Clear Europe included statements 

concerning the purpose of and basis for 

the proposed rule change and discussed 

any comments it received on the 

proposed rule change. The text of these 

statements may be examined at the 

places specified in Item IV below. ICE 

Clear Europe has prepared summaries, 

set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) 

below, of the most significant aspects of 

such statements. 


khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 249 / Monday, December 31, 2018 / Notices 67811 

5A model may also be considered material if it 

has a high error potential, with sizeable impact, 

most likely resulting from complexities in the data 

model and inputs (e.g., complex manipulation of 

input data), the modelling approach (e.g., reliance 

on large number of assumptions), the model output 

(e.g., large number of dependent downstream 

models) or model users and operations (e.g., large 

number of independent systems). 

(A) Clearing Agency’s Statement of the 

Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the 

Proposed Rule Change 

(a) Purpose 

ICE Clear Europe is proposing to 

adopt a new MRGF, which is intended 

to establish overall standards and 

principles for managing and mitigating 

model risk, for all product categories. 

Specifically, it is designed to ensure that 

(1) the roles and responsibilities for 

model oversight are clearly defined, (2) 

an appropriate organizational structure 

is in place to address new models, 

model changes, review of existing 

models and model retirement, and (3) 

appropriate guidelines and schedules 

exist for model inventory, model 

validation and remediation of concerns 

with models. The MRGF applies 

throughout the life cycle of models used 

by the Clearing House. 

The MRGF defines a ‘‘model’’ for this 

purpose as a quantitative method, 

system or approach that applies 

statistical, economic, financial or 

mathematical theories, techniques and 

assumptions to process input data into 

quantitative estimates. The framework 

also defines ‘‘model risk’’ as the risk 

that a model does not perform as it was 

designed, either due to error or failure 

in the model specification or 

inappropriate use. 

The MRGF addresses the materiality 

of models, based on the potential impact 

the related model risk may have on ICE 

Clear Europe and its clearing members. 

A model will be deemed material where 

the output of the model is the primary 

factor affecting risk management 

decisions relating to counterparty and 

liquidity risk.5 With respect to model 

changes, the framework also assess the 

significance of the change, in 

accordance with applicable law and 

regulatory guidelines. Relevant factors 

include an assessment of the size of 

resulting changes in risk requirements 

calculated by the model, alterations in 

the scope of model use and the risk 

profile of products covered, and the 

development of new model features. As 

discussed herein, the materiality of a 

model, and significance of changes, are 

factors in the model review process. 

The MRGF establishes the role of 

governance bodies in model review and 

approval, including the Model 

Oversight Committee (‘‘MOC’’) and 

Board. The MOC is responsible for 

model risk governance at an executive 

level, and advises the Board on material 

model risk. The MOC is responsible for 

approving new models, model changes 

and retirement of models, approving the 

periodic validation cycle, or validation 

pipeline, approving remediation 

actions, reviewing model performance 

assessments and approving external 

validators. The Board has ultimate 

responsibility for model risk 

governance, approving material new 

models and significant model changes 

for material models, reviewing the 

actions of the MOC, reviewing 

performance of material models outside 

of acceptable levels for model risk, in 

light of risk appetite metrics, and 

reviewing impact assessments for the 

retirement of material models. 

The MRGF uses the Clearing House’s 

tiered approach to model governance. 

This approach entails: (i) A first line, 

such as the clearing risk department, 

that is responsible for owning the 

model, ensuring that models are 

properly developed, implemented and 

used, establishing a model inventory, 

proposing new models, model changes 

and model retirements and related 

materiality and significance levels, 

conducting performance and impact 

assessments, and proposing and 

implementing remediation actions as 

needed; (ii) a second line, represented 

by the risk oversight department 

(‘‘ROD’’), that is responsible for 

performing or overseeing independent 

validation, reviewing performance 

assessments, establishing risk appetite 

metrics for model performance, 

establishing guidelines for validations 

and external validators (including 

criteria for expertise and independence), 

and reporting results of validations and 

assessments to appropriate committees; 

and (iii) a third line, represented by the 

Internal Audit Department, that is 

responsible for assessing the overall 

effectiveness of the MRGF and related 

governance policies and assessing 

independent validation work. 

The MRGF sets out a general oversight 

process for models throughout their life 

cycle, including development of new 

models, model changes, review of 

existing models and model retirements. 

New models will be subject to 

validation before being approved and 

introduced into use. For model changes, 

significant changes will be validated 

before being approved (using the same 

criteria as for new models). Model 

changes that are not significant will be 

validated in accordance with the 

periodic re-validation pipeline. The 

MRGF provides for model re-validation 

and performance assessments, to 

determine whether a model continues to 

be fit for its designed purposes. The 

ROD will establish a validation 

pipeline, or periodic re-validation cycle. 

The frequency of re-validation will be in 

accordance with regulatory 

requirements, which may be annually 

where required or more frequently as 

needed. Similarly, performance 

assessments will also be conducted on 

a periodic basis at least annually, in 

accordance with applicable regulatory 

requirements. 

The MRGF also addresses model 

retirements and deactivations 

(retirement permanently discontinues a 

model while deactivation is a temporary 

discontinuation). Prior to retiring or 

deactivating a model, the Clearing 

House will conduct an impact 

assessment of the risks and 

consequences. 

In terms of validation, the ROD is 

responsible for conducting the 

independent validation (if done 

internally) at the appropriate frequency 

and coordinating external validation 

when appropriate. ICE Clear Europe has 

adopted a set of independent validator 

selection guidelines addressing external 

validation. Under the guidelines, the 

Clearing House may engage an external 

independent model validator when 

there are insufficient internal resources 

to meet both the technical expertise and 

independence requirements for the 

model undergoing independent 

validation, internal resources do not 

have the operational capacity to perform 

the validation within an appropriate 

timeframe or otherwise at the discretion 

of the ROD. The use of external 

independent model validators is subject 

to review and approval by the MOC. 

To be considered independent with 

respect to a model: 

• The validator must have no 

involvement or responsibility for any 

component of the model development, 

implementation or operation for at least 

two years other than reviewing and 

commenting on the scope of model 

documentation, the completeness and 

appropriateness of documentation, the 

scope of model performance testing and 

analysis on the acceptance criteria for 

performance testing and analysis; 

• the validator must have no 

involvement or responsibility for a 

period of two years or more for any 

upstream development process relating 

to an input feeding into the model being 

submitted for validations; 

• If the validator is an employee of 

ICE Clear Europe, they must report into 

the chief risk officer; and 

• If the validator is an employee of an 

Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. group 


khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
67812 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 249 / Monday, December 31, 2018 / Notices 

6 15 U.S.C. 78q–1. 

7 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F). 

8 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F). 

9 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22. 

10 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(b)(4). The rule states that 

‘‘[a] registered clearing agency that performs central 

counterparty services shall establish, implement, 

maintain and enforce written policies and 

procedures reasonably designed to: 

(4) Provide for an annual model validation 

consisting of evaluating the performance of the 

clearing agency’s margin models and the related 

parameters and assumptions associated with such 

models by a qualified person who is free from 

influence from the persons responsible for the 

development or operation of the models being 

validated’’. 

11 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(4)(vii). The rule states 

that ‘‘[e]ach covered clearing agency shall establish, 

implement, maintain and enforce written policies 

and procedures reasonably designed to, as 

applicable: 

(4) Effectively identify, measure, monitor, and 

manage its credit exposures to participants and 

those arising from its payment, clearing, and 

settlement processes, including by: 

(vii) Performing a model validation for its credit 

risk models not less than annually or more 

frequently as may be contemplated by the covered 

clearing agency’s risk management framework 

established pursuant to paragraph (e)(3) of this 

section’’. 

12 17 CFR 240.17Ad–22(e)(6)(vii). The rule states 

that ‘‘[e]ach covered clearing agency shall establish, 

implement, maintain and enforce written policies 

and procedures reasonably designed to, as 

applicable: 

(6) Cover, if the covered clearing agency provides 

central counterparty services, its credit exposures to 

its participants by establishing a risk-based margin 

system that, at a minimum: 

(vii) Requires a model validation for the covered 

clearing agency’s margin system and related models 

to be performed not less than annually, or more 

frequently as may be contemplated by the covered 

clearing agency’s risk management framework 

established pursuant to paragraph (e)(3) of this 

section’’. 

13 17 CFR 240.17 Ad–22(e)(2). The rule states that 

‘‘[e]ach covered clearing agency shall establish, 

implement, maintain and enforce written policies 

and procedures reasonably designed to, as 

applicable: 

(2) Provide for governance arrangements that: 

(i) Are clear and transparent; 

(ii) Clearly prioritize the safety and efficiency of 

the covered clearing agency; 

(iii) Support the public interest requirements in 

Section 17A of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78q–1) applicable 

to clearing agencies, and the objectives of owners 

and participants; 

(iv) Establish that the board of directors and 

senior management have appropriate experience 

and skills to discharge their duties and 

responsibilities; 

(v) Specify clear and direct lines of responsibility; 

and 

(vi) Consider the interests of participants’ 

customers, securities issuers and holders, and other 

relevant stakeholders of the covered clearing 

agency.’’ ’’ 

14 17 CFR 240.17 Ad–22(e)(3)(i). The rule states 

that ‘‘[e]ach covered clearing agency shall establish, 

implement, maintain and enforce written policies 

and procedures reasonably designed to, as 

applicable: 

(3) Maintain a sound risk management framework 

for comprehensively managing legal, credit, 

liquidity, operational, general business, investment, 

custody, and other risks that arise in or are borne 

by the covered clearing agency, which: 

(i) Includes risk management policies, 

procedures, and systems designed to identify, 

measure, monitor, and manage the range of risks 

that arise in or are borne by the covered clearing 

agency, that are subject to review on a specified 

periodic basis and approved by the board of 

directors annually’’. 

company, the company they are 

employed by must have no direct 

dependence on the outcome of the 

validation. 

Requirements may be waived at the 

discretion of the ROD, subject to review 

and approval by the MOC. In evaluating 

the independence of an external 

validator, the ROD may also take into 

account the following factors: 

• Connections of the validator to ICE 

Clear Europe; 

• duration of time that the validator 

has been performing independent model 

validations for ICE Clear Europe; 

• dependence of the validator on ICE 

Clear Europe; and 

• outside interests of or any other 

conflicts of interest with the validator. 

ICE Clear Europe maintains a list of 

external validators, which is approved 

by the MOC, and the use of a particular 

validator depends on their ability to 

fulfill both the technical and 

independence requirements for a 

particular external validation. In 

addition, the second line keeps track of 

the frequency of the reviews per 

validator, and may decide to alternate 

validators if outputs deteriorate and 

requirements specified in the validation 

guidelines become less likely to be met. 

(b) Statutory Basis 

ICE Clear Europe believes that the 

changes described herein are consistent 

with the requirements of Section 17A of 

the Act 6 and the regulations thereunder 

applicable to it. Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of 

the Act 7 in particular requires, among 

other things, that the rules of the 

clearing agency be designed to promote 

the prompt and accurate clearance and 

settlement of securities transactions 

and, to the extent applicable, derivative 

agreements, contracts and transactions, 

to assure the safeguarding of securities 

and funds in the custody or control of 

the clearing agency or for which it is 

responsible, and, in general, protect 

investors and the public interest. The 

proposed amendments adopt the MRGF, 

which will be applicable to all models 

used by the Clearing House and is 

intended to set an overall framework 

for, and generally facilitate, the ongoing 

development, review and validation of 

such models (and changes thereto) 

throughout their life cycle. The MRGF 

will also assist the Clearing House in 

managing the risks from its use of 

models. In ICE Clear Europe’s view, the 

amendments will enhance the overall 

risk management of the Clearing House, 

and thereby promote the prompt and 

accurate clearance of transactions and 

further the public interest in sound 

operation of clearing agencies, within 

the meaning of Section 17A(b)(3)(F).8

The amendments are not intended to 

effect, and are consistent with, the 

Clearing House’s existing provisions 

relating to the safeguarding of funds and 

securities in the custody or control of 

the Clearing House or for which it is 

responsible, within the meaning of that 

section. 

ICE Clear Europe also believes that 

the amendments are consistent with 

specific requirements of Rule 17Ad–22.9

Rule 17Ad–22(b)(4) 10 requires clearing 

agencies to perform an annual model 

validation, including a performance 

evaluation, of their margin models and 

the related parameters and assumptions. 

Rules 17Ad–22(e)(4)(vii) 11 and 17Ad– 

22(e)(6)(vii),12 also require clearing 

agencies to have policies and 

procedures in place to ensure the 

performance of a model validation of 

their credit risk models, margin system, 

and related models not less than 

annually. In compliance with these 

requirements, the MRGF provides for 

periodic re-validation and assessment of 

models, consistent with the timing 

required under these and other 

applicable regulations. 

In addition, Rule 17Ad–22(e)(2) 13

requires clearing agencies to establish 

reasonably designed policies and 

procedures to provide for governance 

arrangements that are clear and 

transparent and specify clear and direct 

lines of responsibility. To facilitate 

compliance with this requirement, the 

MRGF sets out clear responsibilities of 

various Clearing House personnel and 

committees with respect to the 

development, validation and ongoing 

review of all models used by the 

Clearing House. 

Rule 17Ad–22(e)(3)(i) 14 requires 

clearing agencies to have reasonably 

designed policies and procedures that, 

at a minimum, include risk management 

policies, procedures, and systems 

designed to identify, measure, monitor, 

and manage the range of risks that arise 

in or are borne by a clearing agency. The 

MRGF is intended to facilitate 

compliance with this requirement as it 

covers all models used by the Clearing 

House, and provides for evaluations and 

validations by second line personnel 

and procedures for ongoing review, 

amendment and retirement of models, 

to ensure models remain appropriate to 

manage the range of risks borne by the 

Clearing House. 


khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 249 / Monday, December 31, 2018 / Notices 67813 

15 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

1. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

ICE Clear Europe does not believe the 

proposed rule changes would have any 

impact, or impose any burden, on 

competition not necessary or 

appropriate in furtherance of the 

purpose of the Act. The MRGF, which 

will apply to all product categories, 

implements internal procedures 

intended to strengthen oversight of 

models, and is not intended to affect 

directly Clearing Members or market 

participants, or the markets for cleared 

products. As a result, ICE Clear Europe 

does not believe the amendments will 

materially affect the cost of, or access to, 

clearing. To the extent the framework 

results in changes to risk and other 

models that do have an impact on 

margin levels or otherwise affect the 

cost of clearing, ICE Clear Europe 

believes such changes will be 

appropriate in furtherance of the risk 

management of the Clearing House. 

Therefore, ICE Clear Europe does not 

believe the proposed rule changes 

impose any burden on competition that 

is inappropriate in furtherance of the 

purposes of the Act. 

(B) Clearing Agency’s Statement on 

Burden on Competition 

ICE Clear Europe does not believe the 

proposed rule changes would have any 

impact, or impose any burden, on 

competition not necessary or 

appropriate in furtherance of the 

purpose of the Act. The MRGF, which 

will apply to all product categories, 

implements internal procedures 

intended to strengthen oversight of 

models, and is not intended to affect 

directly Clearing Members or market 

participants, or the markets for cleared 

products. As a result, ICE Clear Europe 

does not believe the amendments will 

materially affect the cost of, or access to, 

clearing. To the extent the framework 

results in changes to risk and other 

models that do have an impact on 

margin levels or otherwise affect the 

cost of clearing, ICE Clear Europe 

believes such changes will be 

appropriate in furtherance of the risk 

management of the Clearing House. 

Therefore, ICE Clear Europe does not 

believe the proposed rule changes 

impose any burden on competition that 

is inappropriate in furtherance of the 

purposes of the Act. 

(C) Clearing Agency’s Statement on 

Comments on the Proposed Rule 

Change Received From Members, 

Participants or Others 

Written comments relating to the 

proposed amendments have not been 

solicited or received by ICE Clear 

Europe. ICE Clear Europe will notify the 

Commission of any written comments 

received with respect to the proposed 

rule change. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

Within 45 days of the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register or within such longer period 

up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may 

designate if it finds such longer period 

to be appropriate and publishes its 

reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which 

the self-regulatory organization 

consents, the Commission will: 

(A) By order approve or disapprove 

the proposed rule change or 

(B) institute proceedings to determine 

whether the proposed rule change 

should be disapproved. 

The proposal shall not take effect 

until all regulatory actions required 

with respect to the proposal are 

completed. 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Act. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s internet 

comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml) or 

• Send an email to rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– 

ICEEU–2018–024 on the subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Secretary, Securities and Exchange 

Commission, 100 F Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–ICEEU–2018–024. 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 Europe and on ICE 

Clear Europe’s website at https://

www.theice.com/clear-europe/ 

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–ICEEU– 

2018–024 and should be submitted on 

or before January 22, 2019. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.15

Brent J. Fields, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–28391 Filed 12–28–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

Allowance for Private Purchase of an 

Outer Burial Receptacle in Lieu of a 

Government-Furnished Graveliner for 

a Grave in a VA National Cemetery 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) is updating the monetary 

allowance payable for qualifying 

interments that occur during calendar 

year 2019, which applies toward the 

private purchase of an outer burial 

receptacle (or ‘‘graveliner’’) for use in a 

VA national cemetery. The allowance is 

equal to the average cost of Governmentfurnished graveliners less any 

administrative costs to VA. The purpose 

of this Notice is to notify interested 

parties of the average cost of 

Government-furnished graveliners, 

administrative costs that relate to 

processing and paying the allowance 

and the amount of the allowance 

payable for qualifying interments that 

occur during calendar year 2019. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William Carter, Chief of Budget 

Execution Division, National Cemetery 

Administration, Department of Veterans 


khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES