Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Notices 46843 

Corresponding changes were 

implemented throughout the Agreement 

State Program Policy Statement. 

D. Use of the Terms ‘‘relinquish’’ 

Authority Versus ‘‘discontinue’’ 

Authority 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

the use of the word ‘‘relinquish’’—in the 

context of the NRC’s regulatory 

authority when entering into an 

agreement—is not accurate and 

recommended changing ‘‘relinquish’’ to 

‘‘discontinue’’ throughout the policy 

statement so the wording is consistent 

with Section 274b. of the AEA. 

Response: All instances of the word 

‘‘relinquish’’ have either been deleted or 

replaced with the word ‘‘discontinue’’ 

throughout the Agreement State 

Program Policy Statement. 

E. Use of the Terms ‘‘shall,’’ ‘‘will,’’ or 

‘‘must’’ Versus ‘‘should’’ 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

suggest that ‘‘shall,’’ ‘‘will,’’ or ‘‘must’’ 

should replace ‘‘should’’ or vice versa in 

various sections throughout the 

Agreement State Program Policy 

Statement. 

Response: Corresponding changes 

were implemented throughout the 

Agreement State Program Policy 

Statement, as appropriate, for 

consistency with language used in 

Section 274b. of the AEA or other 

sections of the policy statement. 

F. Add ‘‘significant’’ to ‘‘cross 

jurisdictional’’ 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggest that the term ‘‘significant’’ 

should be added before ‘‘cross 

jurisdictional’’ for Compatibility 

Category B program elements. 

Response: The NRC/Agreement State 

working group for the revision of the 

‘‘Policy Statement on Adequacy and 

Compatibility of Agreement State 

Programs’’ carefully considered the use 

of the term ‘‘significant’’ and concluded 

that the term was ambiguous and should 

not be included as part of the 

description of Compatibility Category B. 

The term ‘‘cross jurisdictional program 

elements’’ was chosen to make the 

description of Compatibility Category B 

concise and well-defined. No change 

was made to the Agreement State 

Program Policy Statement as a result of 

these comments. 

G. Deletion of Principles of Good 

Regulation 

Comment: A number of commenters 

recommended the deletion of Section 

D.1.i, ‘‘Principles of Good Regulation,’’ 

of the policy statement. 

Response: The Principles of Good 

Regulation were initially adopted by the 

Commission in 1991 to serve as a guide 

to NRC decisionmaking and employee 

conduct. In 1997, they were included in 

the ‘‘Policy Statement on Adequacy and 

Compatibility of Agreement State 

Programs’’ and the ‘‘Statement of 

Principles and Policy for the Agreement 

State Program’’ and were recognized as 

part of a common culture that the NRC 

and Agreement States share as coregulators. These principles have served 

as a foundation for good regulation in 

the NMP and are included in the 

Agreement State Program Policy 

Statement to indicate their importance 

and that they should continue to form 

the basic building blocks for good 

regulation in the NMP into the future. 

No change was made to the 

Agreement State Program Policy 

Statement as a result of these comments. 

H. Category Health and Safety 

Comment: A number of commenters 

noted that Category Health and Safety 

(H&S) was removed from the policy 

statement and recommended that 

Category H&S be included. 

Response: In the proposed policy 

statement, Category H&S was removed 

from Section E.2. ‘‘Compatibility.’’ This 

section of the policy describes the 

program elements required for 

compatibility. Program elements 

required for H&S are not required for 

compatibility. Section E.1. ‘‘Adequacy’’ 

of the proposed policy statement was 

made implicit for Category H&S by 

indicating that an adequate program 

includes those program elements 

necessary to maintain an acceptable 

level of protection of public health and 

safety. Because Category H&S is one of 

six categories (A, B, C, D, NRC, and 

H&S) that forms the basis for evaluating 

and classifying NRC program elements, 

a corresponding edit was implemented 

in Section E.1. ‘‘Adequacy’’ of the 

policy statement. 

III. Procedural Requirements 

Congressional Review Act Statement 

This final Agreement State Program 

Policy Statement is a rule as defined in 

the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 

801–808). However, the Office of 

Management and Budget has not found 

it to be a major rule as defined in the 

Congressional Review Act. 

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 

This Policy Statement contains 

voluntary guidance for information 

collections subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). These information collections 

are mandatory for states seeking to 

assume or maintain independent 

regulatory authority under Section 274 

of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 

amended. These information collections 

were approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), under 

control number 3150–0183. The 

estimated annual burden for new 

Agreement State applications is 2,750 

hours, to maintain Agreement State 

status is 7,600 hours, and to participate 

in IMPEP reviews is 36 hours. Send 

comments regarding this information 

collection to the Information Services 

Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, or by email to 

Infocollects.Resource@nrc.gov, and to 

the Desk Officer, Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB–10202, 

(3150–0183) Office of Management and 

Budget, Washington, DC 20503. 

Public Protection Notification 

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, 

and a person is not required to respond 

to, a collection of information unless the 

document requesting or requiring the 

collection displays a currently valid 

OMB control number. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day 

of October 2017. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary for the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21542 Filed 10–5–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2017–0001] 

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice 

DATES: Weeks of October 9, 16, 23, 30, 

November 6, 13, 2017. 

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference 

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

STATUS: Public and Closed. 

Week of October 9, 2017 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of October 9, 2017. 

Week of October 16, 2017—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of October 16, 2017. 

Week of October 23, 2017—Tentative 

Tuesday, October 24, 2017 

10:00 a.m. Strategic Programmatic 

Overview of the Operating Reactors 

Business Line (Public) (Contact: 

Trent Wertz: 301–415–1568) 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
46844 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Notices 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81486 

(August 25, 2017), 82 FR 41454 (August 31, 2017) 

(SR–ICC–2017–012) (‘‘Notice’’). 

4Notice, 82 FR at 41455. 

5Notice, 82 FR at 41455–56. 

6Notice, 82 FR at 41455. 

7 Id. 

8 Id. 

9 Id. 

10 Id. 

11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C). 

12 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(F). 

This meeting will be webcast live at 

the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov/. 

Week of October 30, 2017—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of October 30, 2017. 

Week of November 6, 2017—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of November 6, 2017. 

Week of November 13, 2017—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of November 13, 2017. 

* * * * * 

The schedule for Commission 

meetings is subject to change on short 

notice. For more information or to verify 

the status of meetings, contact Denise 

McGovern at 301–415–0681 or via email 

at Denise.McGovern@nrc.gov. 

* * * * * 

The NRC Commission Meeting 

Schedule can be found on the Internet 

at: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/ 

public-meetings/schedule.html. 

* * * * * 

The NRC provides reasonable 

accommodation to individuals with 

disabilities where appropriate. If you 

need a reasonable accommodation to 

participate in these public meetings, or 

need this meeting notice or the 

transcript or other information from the 

public meetings in another format (e.g., 

braille, large print), please notify 

Kimberly Meyer, NRC Disability 

Program Manager, at 301–287–0739, by 

videophone at 240–428–3217, or by 

email at Kimberly.Meyer-Chambers@

nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for 

reasonable accommodation will be 

made on a case-by-case basis. 

* * * * * 

Members of the public may request to 

receive this information electronically. 

If you would like to be added to the 

distribution, please contact the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Office of the 

Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301– 

415–1969), or email 

Brenda.Akstulewicz@nrc.gov or 

Patricia.Jimenez@nrc.gov. 

Dated: October 4, 2017. 

Denise L. McGovern, 

Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21755 Filed 10–4–17; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–81797; File No. SR–ICC– 

2017–012] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE 

Clear Credit LLC; Order Approving 

Proposed Rule Change Relating to 

ICC’s Liquidity Risk Management 

Framework and ICC’s Stress Testing 

Framework 

October 2, 2017. 

I. Introduction 

On August 22, 2017, ICE Clear Credit 

LLC (‘‘ICC’’) filed with the Securities 

and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to section 

19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act 

of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 

thereunder,2 a proposed rule change 

(SR–ICC–2017–012) to amend the ICC 

Liquidity Risk Management Framework 

and the ICC Stress Testing Framework. 

The proposed rule change was 

published for comment in the Federal 

Register on August 31, 2017.3 The 

Commission received no comment 

letters regarding the proposed change. 

For the reasons discussed below, the 

Commission is approving the proposed 

rule change. 

II. Description of the Proposed Rule 

Change 

In connection with clearing Single 

Name (‘‘SN’’) credit default swaps 

(‘‘CDS’’) referencing ICC Clearing 

Participants (‘‘CPs’’), ICC has proposed 

changes to its Stress Testing Framework 

and Liquidity Risk Management 

Framework, which ICC believes will 

enhance its stress testing and liquidity 

stress testing practices. The proposed 

rule change would expand the stress test 

scenarios that ICC considers to be 

extreme but plausible by incorporating 

additional losses related to the expected 

loss given default of all names not 

explicitly assumed to enter a state of 

default in a CP’s portfolio.4 The 

proposed change would similarly 

amend the stress scenarios described in 

ICC’s Liquidity Risk Management 

Framework, which ICC stated is 

necessary to ensure consistency across 

its documents.5 The proposed change 

would also incorporate an enhanced 

analysis of profits and losses (‘‘P/L’’) 

arising out of General Wrong-Way Risk 

(‘‘GWWR’’) generated by SNs in the 

Banking and Sovereign sectors.6

Further, the proposed change would 

clarify ICC’s current view that certain 

GWWR and contagion stress scenarios 

are extreme, but not plausible, and that 

such scenarios would be reviewed for 

informational purposes only.7

The proposed change would enhance 

ICC’s guaranty fund sizing process by 

adding a new sensitivity analysis. This 

new analysis would contemplate the 

default of three CP SNs and two non-CP 

SNs. This analysis would be in addition 

to the current sizing approach, which 

contemplates the default of two CP SNs 

and three non-CP SNs. While not 

immediately requiring the collection of 

additional resources, ICC stated that the 

proposed change could provide a 

potential remedy where deficiencies are 

identified in ICC’s current sizing 

methodology.8

ICC also proposes to add an interest 

rate sensitivity analysis in order to 

comply with CFTC Regulation 17 CFR 

39.36. The proposed interest rate 

sensitivity analysis would shock the 

Euro and USD interest rate curves up 

and down to see which scenario would 

lead to further erosion of ICC’s guaranty 

fund. ICC stated that this analysis would 

have no impact on its guaranty fund 

sizing methodology.9

The proposed change also includes 

amendments to ICC’s approach to 

Specific Wrong-Way Risk (‘‘SWWR’’) 

P/L to expand the SWWR P/L to 

incorporate losses arising in connection 

with defaulting CP specific exposures, 

and also adds a description of ICC’s 

current client stress testing practices. 

ICC stated that these changes were 

proposed for consistency with specific 

CFTC regulations.10

III. Discussion and Commission 

Findings 

Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act 11

directs the Commission to approve a 

proposed rule change of a selfregulatory organization if it finds that 

such proposed rule change is consistent 

with the requirements of the Act and the 

rules and regulations thereunder 

applicable to such organization. 

Section 17A(b)(3)(F) 12 of the Act 

requires, inter alia, that the rules of a 

clearing agency be designed to assure 

the safeguarding of securities and funds 

which are in the custody or control of 

the clearing agency, or for which it is 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES