[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 47 (Monday, March 13, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13390-13392]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04804]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0660; FRL-9958-80-Region 9]

Approval of California Air Plan; Owens Valley Serious Area Plan
for the 1987 24-Hour PM10 Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted
by the State of California to meet Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'')
requirements applicable to the Owens Valley PM10
nonattainment area (NA). The Owens Valley PM10 NA is
classified as a ``Serious'' nonattainment area for the national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter of ten microns or
less (PM10). The submitted SIP revision is the ``Great Basin
Unified Air Pollution Control District 2016 Owens Valley Planning Area
PM10 State Implementation Plan'' (``2016 PM10
Plan'' or ``Plan''). The State's obligation to submit the 2016
PM10 Plan was triggered by the EPA's 2007 finding that the
Owens Valley PM10 NA had failed to meet its December 31,
2006, deadline to attain the PM10 NAAQS. The CAA requires a
Serious PM10 nonattainment area that fails to meet its
attainment deadline to submit a plan providing for attainment of the
PM10 NAAQS and for an annual reduction in PM10
emissions of not less than five percent until attainment of the
PM10 NAAQS. The EPA is approving the 2016 PM10
Plan because it meets all relevant statutory and regulatory
requirements.

DATES: This rule is effective on April 12, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action, identified
by Docket ID Number EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0660. The index to the docket is
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
at the EPA Region IX office, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,
California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly
available in either location (e.g., confidential business information).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment
during normal business hours with the contact listed below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ginger Vagenas, EPA Region IX, 415-
972-3964<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and the EPA's Response to Comments
III. EPA's Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of Proposed Action

    On December 12, 2016, the EPA proposed to approve the Owens Valley
2016 PM10 Plan, which the State of California submitted on
June 9, 2016, as meeting all relevant statutory and regulatory
requirements under the CAA.\1\ As discussed in our proposed rule, the
Owens Valley PM10 NA is a Serious PM10
nonattainment area that is located in the southern portion of the Owens
Valley in Inyo County, California.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 81 FR 89407.
    \2\ The boundary of the Owens Valley PM10
nonattainment area is defined in 40 CFR 81.305 as Hydrologic Unit
#18090103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    California's obligation to submit the 2016 PM10 Plan was
triggered by the EPA's June 6, 2007 finding that the Owens Valley
PM10 NA had failed to meet its December 31, 2006 deadline to
attain the PM10 NAAQS.\3\ The CAA requires a Serious
PM10 NA that fails to meet its attainment deadline to submit
a plan providing for attainment of the PM10 NAAQS and for an
annual emission reduction in PM10 or PM10
precursors of not less than five percent per year until attainment. Our
December 12, 2016 proposed rule provides the background and rationale
for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 72 FR 31183.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Public Comments and the EPA's Response to Comments

    The EPA provided a 30-day public comment period on our proposed
action. The comment period ended on January 11, 2017. We received two
public comment letters: One from the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe and one
from the Big Pine Paiute Tribe of the Owens Valley. The submitted
comment letters, which we have summarized and responded to below, are
in our docket.
    Comment 1: The Timbisha Shoshone Tribe expressed its support for
our approval of the 2016 PM10 Plan.
    Response 1: The EPA appreciates the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe's
support of our approval.
    Comment 2: The Big Pine Paiute Tribe's (``Tribe'') comment letter
acknowledged the effectiveness of the

dust control measures that have been required under the 2016
PM10 Plan and the progress that has been made in improving
air quality in the Owens Valley over the past 20 years. The Tribe's
comment letter did not raise any objections to our determination that
the Plan meets the CAA requirements or to our approval of the 2016
PM10 Plan. The Tribe articulated a number of concerns
regarding the broader context of the historical events resulting in the
desiccation of the Owens Lake bed, which are discussed in our specific
responses below.
    Response 2: The EPA appreciates the Tribe's acknowledgement of the
effectiveness of the dust control measures and agrees that the air
quality in the Owens Valley has improved significantly over the past 20
years.
    Comment 3: The Tribe considers the EPA's action in this rulemaking
to be too narrow to address all of the environmental and cultural
issues caused by Los Angeles Department of Water and Power's (LADWP)
historic and on-going diversion of water from the Owens Valley. The
Tribe states that the diversion of water from the Owens Lake bed should
be defined as a ``project'' and therefore subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
    Response 3: The EPA understands the Tribe's concern with LADWP's
diversion of water from the Owens Valley. The EPA's role under the CAA,
however, is to review attainment plans to determine their compliance
with the applicable provisions of the Act. If a plan meets those
provisions, the CAA requires that we approve it so that it becomes
enforceable under the Act. Such approval ensures the control measures
adopted by a state will be implemented so that air quality will be
improved and the NAAQS will be attained. The EPA is finalizing our
proposed approval of the 2016 PM10 Plan because it meets the
requirements of the CAA.
    We also recognize the Tribe's comment concerning the scope of the
definition of a ``project'' under CEQA. CEQA is a state law, and the
EPA does not have a role in implementing it.
    Comment 4: The Tribe commented that mitigation measures that have
been implemented on the Owens Lake bed may have resulted in the
disruption or destruction of cultural sites and artifacts. The Tribe
states that ``sites previously regarded as not significant (or
``eligible'' for the national or California register of historic
resources) were undoubtedly destroyed before they were seen in their
true context.'' The Tribe notes that ``relatively recently, the Owens
Lake Cultural Resources Task Force (CRTF) was formed to address
cultural resources affected by the dust control effort and make
recommendations on protection.'' While the Tribe views the formation of
the CRTF as ``too little too late,'' it acknowledges that ``at least it
is now an attempt to protect what remains and to pursue adequate
compensatory mitigation.'' The Tribe recommends continuation of the
CRTF and expansion of its scope beyond the Owens Lake bed. Finally, the
Tribe requests the EPA's participation on the CRTF.
    Response 4: The EPA agrees that the CRTF has a significant role to
play in the preservation of cultural resources. We encourage all
parties to continue these efforts. In consultation with the CRTF, the
EPA will consider the Tribe's invitation to participate.
    Comment 5: The Tribe states that the laws that ``are supposed to
protect the environment and allow for tribal consultation are not
always effective in practice and thus often fail to truly protect the
environment and foster meaningful government to government
consultation.'' The Tribe views the law protecting air quality as
``strong'' but states that the law is ``weaker when it comes to tribal
consultation and protecting cultural resources.'' The Tribe notes that
it appreciated the EPA's consultation teleconference on December 21,
2016, but that the consultation was ``too little too late.'' Finally,
the Tribe notes that ``resources important to tribes (and all people)
should be protected under the public trust doctrine the same as air
quality.''
    Response 5: The EPA acknowledges the Tribe's concerns and
encourages all stakeholders to work together to address the
environmental and cultural issues highlighted by the Tribe. We take our
role in implementing the CAA and our role in fostering timely and
meaningful consultation seriously. We consider our approval of the 2016
PM10 Plan as a critical step in protecting human health and
the environment. We also believe that, given the scope of this action,
consultation was timely and appropriate. We invited the Tribe to
consult with us on December 1, 2016, and consultation was held on
December 21, 2016. In this particular instance, we consulted with the
Tribe regarding our specific proposed action to approve the Owens
Valley PM10 Plan as meeting all requirements of the CAA. We
understand the Tribe's view that because the water diversions and
subsequent impacts began ``decades before the state or the nation had
environmentally protective laws'' in place, consultation is ``too
little, too late.'' As we expressed during our consultation
teleconference, we appreciate the concerns the Tribe explained in
consultation and in its comment letter. We also note that the Tribe
generally supports our approval of the 2016 PM10 Plan and
its effect of improved air quality and attainment of the
PM10 NAAQS.

III. EPA's Final Action

    The EPA is approving the Serious area 2016 PM10 Plan
submitted by the State of California for the Owens Valley
PM10 nonattainment area. Specifically, the EPA is approving
the 2016 PM10 Plan with respect to the following CAA
requirements: Public notice and involvement under section 110(a)(1);
emissions inventories under section 172(c)(3); the control measures in
Rule 433 under section 110(k)(3) as meeting the requirements of
sections 110(a) and 189(b)(1)(B); reasonable further progress and
quantitative milestones under section 189(c); the contingency measure
in Rule 433 under section 172(c)(9); and the demonstration of
attainment under section 189(b)(1)(A). The EPA is also approving the
State's request for an extension of the attainment date to June 6,
2017, pursuant to CAA sections 188 and 179.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this final action merely approves State law as meeting
federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by State law. For that reason, this final action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000). We notified local tribes of our proposed approval and held two
tribal consultations during the comment period.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 12, 2017. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: January 13, 2017.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(483)
introductory text and by adding paragraph (c)(483)(ii) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan--in part.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (483) The following plan was submitted on June 9, 2016, by the
Governor's designee. * * *
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (GBUAPCD).
    (1) ``2016 Owens Valley Planning Area PM10 State
Implementation Plan,'' adopted April 13, 2016, excluding all of the
following: Section 10.1 (``Proposed Rule 433''); Appendix I-1 (``2006
Settlement Agreement''); Appendix II-1 (``2014 Stipulated Judgement'');
Appendices D (``2008 GBUAPCD Board Order No. 080128-01''), E (``2013
GBUAPCD Board Order No. 130916-01''), and F (``GBUAPCD Fugitive Dust
Rules (400, 401, 402)'') of Appendix V-1 (``Owens Valley Planning Area
2016 State Implementation Plan BACM Assessment); Appendix VI-2 (``Owens
Lake Dust Mitigation Program Phase 9/10 Project--Final Environmental
Impact Report (May 2015)''); and Appendix X-1 (``Proposed Rule 433'').

[FR Doc. 2017-04804 Filed 3-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 121 (Friday, June 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29146-29148]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13378]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83456; File No. SR-LCH SA-2018-003]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; LCH SA; Notice of Filing of
Proposed Rule Change Relating to Liquidity Risk Management

June 18, 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 June 4, 2018, Banque Centrale de Compensation, which conducts
business under the name LCH SA (``LCH SA''), filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change (the
``Proposed Rule Change'') described in Items I, II and III below, which
Items have been primarily prepared by LCH SA. 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. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    LCH SA is proposing to amend its Risk Management Procedures (the
``Procedures'') to adopt a Liquidity Risk Modelling Framework (the
``Framework''), which describes the Liquidity Stress Testing framework
by which the Collateral and Liquidity Risk Management department
(``CaLRM'') of LCH Group Holdings Limited (``LCH Group'') assures that
LCH SA has enough cash available to meet any financial obligations,
both expected and unexpected, that may arise over the liquidation
period for each of the clearing services that LCH SA offers.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ LCH SA, a wholly owned subsidiary of LCH Group, manages its
liquidity risk pursuant to, among other policies and procedures, the
Group Liquidity Risk Policy and the Group Liquidity Plan applicable
to each entity within LCH Group.
     In addition to its CDSClear service, LCH SA provides clearing
services in connection with cash equities and derivatives listed for
trading on Euronext (EquityClear), commodity derivatives listed for
trading on Euronext (CommodityClear), and tri-party Repo
transactions (RepoClear).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, LCH SA 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. LCH SA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    LCH SA currently maintains a number of well-developed policies and
procedures designed to manage its

liquidity risk, i.e., the risk that LCH SA will not have enough cash
available, in extreme but plausible circumstances, to settle margin
payments or delivery obligations when they become due, in particular
upon the default of a clearing member. Such policies and procedures
include, among others: (i) The Group Liquidity Risk Policy; (ii) the
Group Liquidity Plan; (iii) the Group Financial Resource Adequacy Plan;
(iv) the Group Collateral Risk Policy; (v) the Group Investment Risk
Policy; and (vi) the LCH SA Collateral Control Framework. As described
below, the proposed Framework would complement these existing policies
and procedures and develop further the Group Liquidity Risk Policy.
    In brief, the Framework: (i) Identifies LCH SA's sources of
liquidity and corresponding liquidity risks; (ii) identifies LCH SA's
liquidity requirements with respect to its members and its
interoperable central counterparty (``CCP''); \4\ (iii) describes the
metrics and limits that LCH SA monitors; and (iv) describes the
scenarios under which these metrics are computed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ LCH SA has an interoperability agreement with Cassa di
Compensazione e Garanzia (``CC&G''), an Italian CCP, pursuant to
which LCH SA's clearing members and CC&G's clearing members are able
to benefit from common clearing services without having to join the
other CCP. Each CCP is a clearing member of the other one with a
particular status when accessing the clearing system of the other
counterparty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Framework first identifies the main sources of
liquidity available to LCH SA, cash and non-cash collateral, and
assigns non-cash collateral to one of three tiers.\5\ Tier 1 assets are
limited to those securities that are deemed to be of sufficient quality
and demand to generate liquidity at little or no loss in the event of a
default of a clearing member or a major market stress. LCH SA is able
to pledge these securities to the Banque de France to generate cash on
the same day. Only Tier 1 assets are included as liquidity resources in
liquidity stress testing.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Securities comprising non-cash collateral are comprised of
the following components: (i) Margin collateral, i.e., non-cash
collateral pledged by clearing members for margin cover; (ii)
Collateral and Liquidity Management (``CaLM'') collateral, i.e.,
direct securities holdings that are part of the CaLM's investment
activities; and (iii) clearing settlement collateral, i.e.,
collateral resulting from the physical settlement of contracts on
behalf of a defaulting clearing member.
    \6\ Tier 2 assets are those securities that have a market and
may be financed but are of lesser quality than Tier 1 assets. Tier 3
assets are deemed to have little or no liquidity value in the event
of a default or major market stress or are deemed to be too illiquid
to be converted in the timeframe that a CCP would require.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Framework then highlights the three principal events
under which LCH SA would require liquidity: (i) The default of one or
more clearing members; (ii) the default of CC&G and (iii) operational
liquidity needs (each defined below).
    The proposed Framework also examines liquidity needs arising from
members' defaults, liquidity needs arising from an interoperating
central counterparty's default (currently CC&G), and the manner in
which operational liquidity requirements are determined. Liquidity
needs arising from members' defaults are those needs arising from
fulfilment of the settlement of the securities of the defaulted
clearing member; posting of variation margin to non-defaulting members
on the positions held by the defaulted clearing member(s); the value of
bonds pledged at the Banque de France; haircuts by the European Central
Bank on securities posted by the defaulting Clearing Member; and
investment losses. Liquidity needs arising from interoperating CCPs'
defaults are those needs arising from the service closure of the
Italian Clearing activity (e.g. reimbursement of the margins and
default funds related to the Italian clearing activity, cash settlement
of the Italian repo positions). Operational liquidity is defined as the
amount of liquidity that LCH SA is required to hold to satisfy
liquidity needs related to the operational management of LCH SA in a
stressed environment that does not lead to a member's default. Such
liquidity requirements arise from a number of factors, including the
need to repay excess cash posted by members, the need to repay margin
when margin requirements are reduced, and the substitution of cash
collateral and European Central Bank eligible securities.
    The proposed Framework next describes the metrics used to determine
LCH SA's liquidity needs that are calculated each day over a five-day
period. Such metrics include: (i) The liquidity coverage ratio; (ii) a
monthly rolling average liquidity buffer; (iii) a daily minimum
liquidity buffer; and (iv) required cash collateral.
    With respect to the liquidity coverage ratio, the proposed
Framework explains how the liquidity coverage ratio is determined for
each of the clearing services that LCH SA offers in a Cover 2 scenario,
i.e., the liquidity risk arising from the default of at least two
clearing group members to which LCH SA has the largest exposures during
the 5 days following default. The Cover 2 amount is computed by
aggregating the liquidity risks related to clearing members within the
same group across all of LCH SA's services. The two largest group
members are chosen according to the liquidity needs related to these
members. The liquidity requirements are generated by three risk
drivers: The settlement risk, market risk and the ECB haircut. For the
CDSClear service, LCH SA determines the liquidity risk by considering
variation margin modelled at member level by applying the most punitive
CDS spread widening stress scenario for both ITraxx Main and CrossOver
(currently the historical scenario considering the 2007 crisis). The
Framework focuses on the principal risks for which LCH SA must assure
that it has sufficient liquidity.
    Finally, the Framework describes the reverse stress test that LCH
SA runs at least quarterly. The reverse stress test is designed to help
determine the limits of the models and of the liquidity risk management
framework by modelling extreme market conditions that go beyond what
are considered plausible market conditions over a 5-day time horizon.
LCH SA stresses seven risk factors independently, and also considers
these risk factors together in two combined reverse stress test
scenarios, the Behavioural and Macro-economic.
2. Statutory Basis
    LCH SA has determined that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent
with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \7\ and regulations
thereunder applicable to it. The Framework implements the provisions of
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,\8\ which require, inter alia, that the
rules of a clearing agency ``assure the safeguarding of securities and
funds that are in its custody or control or for which it is
responsible.'' Further, Regulation 17dA-22(e) requires a clearing
agency to maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to ``measure, monitor, and manage the liquidity
risk that arises in or is borne by the covered clearing agency.'' \9\
Consistent with these provisions, the Framework assures that the
clearing agency maintains sufficient liquid resources to effect the
settlement of payment obligations with a high degree of confidence
under a wide range of foreseeable stress scenarios.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7).
    \10\ The proposed Framework is also consistent with LCH SA's
obligations under the European Markets Infrastructure Regulation
(``EMIR''); Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on OTC derivatives, central
counterparties and trade reporting.
     In particular, EMIR Article 44 provides, in part:
     ``A CCP shall at all times have access to adequate liquidity to
perform its services and activities. . . . A CCP shall measure, on a
daily basis, its potential liquidity needs [taking] into account the
liquidity risk generated by the default of at least the two clearing
members to which it has the largest exposures.''

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

B. Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    LCH SA does not believe the Proposed Rule Change would have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The Proposed Rule Change
does not address any competitive issue or have any impact on the
competition among central counterparties. LCH SA operates an open
access model, and the Proposed Rule Change will have no effect on this
model.

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

    Written comments relating to the Proposed Rule Change have not been
solicited or received. LCH SA will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by LCH SA.

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 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-LCH SA-2018-003 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-LCH SA-2018-003. 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 LCH SA and on LCH SA's website
at http://www.lch.com/asset-classes/cdsclear.
    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-LCH SA-2018-003 and should
be submitted on or before July 12, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-13378 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 192 (Thursday, October 3, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61425-61427]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24158]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70540; File No. SR-CBOE-2013-089]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend CBSX Rule 53.22 Related to CBSX Remote
Market-Maker Appointments

September 27, 2013.
    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 September 17, 2013, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend CBOE Stock Exchange, LLC (``CBSX'')
Rule 53.22 related to CBSX Remote Market-Maker (``RMM'') appointments.
The text of the proposed rule change is provided below.
(additions are italicizeded; deletions are [bracketed])
* * * * *

Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated Rules

* * * * *

Rule 53.22 Appointment of CBSX Remote Market-Makers

    (a) [On a form or forms]In a manner prescribed by CBSX, a
registered CBSX Remote Market-Maker (other than CBSX DPMs and CBSX
LMMs) may [apply for]select an Appointment (having the obligations of
Rule 53.23) in one or more non-option securities traded on CBSX. CBSX
may also appoint a registered CBSX Remote Market-Maker in one or more
non-option securities traded on CBSX. In making such Appointments, CBSX
shall give attention to (1) the preference of registrants; (2) the
maintenance and enhancement of competition among CBSX Remote Market-
Makers in each security; and (3) assuring that financial resources
available to a CBSX Remote Market-Maker enable it to satisfy the
obligations set forth in Rule 53.23 with respect to each security for
which it is appointed. CBSX may arrange two or more securities into
groupings and make Appointments to those groupings rather than to
individual securities. CBSX may suspend or terminate any Appointment of
a CBSX Remote Market-Maker under this Rule and may make additional
Appointments whenever the interests of a fair and orderly market are
best served by such action.
    (b)-(c) No changes.
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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 Exchange 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. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend CBSX Rule 53.22 related to RMM
appointments. A ``CBSX Remote Market-Maker'' or ``RMM'' is a CBSX
Trading Permit Holder that has agreed to fulfill certain market-making
obligations thus qualifying for defined benefits as set forth in the
CBSX Rules.\3\ An RMM is an individual (either a Trading Permit Holder
or nominee of a Trading Permit Holder organization) who is registered
with CBSX for the purpose of making transactions as a dealer-specialist
in the CBSX electronic trading system in accordance with the CBSX
Rules. Registered RMMs are designated as specialists on CBSX for all
purposes under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and
the rules and regulations thereunder. RMMs may only operate in a remote
capacity.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See CBSX Rule 50.3(2).
    \4\ See CBSX Rule 53.20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBSX Rule 53.22 currently provides, among other things, that RMMs
may apply for an appointment (having the obligations of CBSX Rule
53.23) \5\ in one or more non-option securities traded on CBSX on a
form or forms prescribed by CBSX. It further provides that in making
such appointments, CBSX must give

attention to (1) the preference of registrants; (2) the maintenance and
enhancement of competition among RMMs in each security; and (3) whether
the financial resources available to an RMM enable it to satisfy the
obligations set forth in Rule 53.23 with respect to each security in
which it holds an appointment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Under CBSX Rule 53.23, RMMs must, among other things:
     enter into transactions that constitute a course of
dealings reasonably calculated to contribute to the maintenance of a
fair and orderly market;
     not enter into transactions or make bids or offers that
are inconsistent with such a course of dealings;
     with respect to each security for which it holds an
appointment, continuously engage in, to a reasonable degree under
the existing circumstances, in dealings for its own account when
there exists, or it is reasonably anticipated that there will exist,
a lack of price continuity, or a temporary disparity between the
supply of and demand for a particular security;
     compete with other CBSX Market-Makers to improve
markets;
     make markets which, absent changed market conditions,
will be honored for the number of shares entered into the CBSX
electronic trading system;
     engage in trading activity of which at least 75% of its
total dollar amount traded on CBSX is in securities to which it has
an appointment;
     with respect to securities in which an RMM does not
hold an appointment, not engage in transactions for an account in
which it has an interest that are disproportionate in relation to,
or in derogation of, the performance of its obligations with respect
to those securities in which it does hold an appointment;
     satisfy RMM obligations in a security in which it does
not hold an appointment whenever an RMM submits a two-sided quote in
that security; and
     comply with two-sided and minimum size obligations and
pricing obligations for bids and offers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change amends Rule 53.22 to allow RMMs to select
appointments rather than apply for them and to allow CBSX to appoint
RMMs in one or more securities (considering the same factors listed
above). The proposed rule change will enable RMMs to manage their
appointments with more flexibility and in a timelier manner. The
Exchange believes this will provide RMMs with more efficient access to
the securities in which they want to make markets and disseminate
competitive quotations, which will provide additional liquidity and
enhance competition in those securities. CBSX will retain the ability
to appoint RMMs in order to maintain a fair and orderly market.\6\ RMMs
will continue to be subject to the obligations set forth in Rule 53.23
with respect to their appointments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ CBSX also retains the authority under Rule 53.22(a) to
suspend or terminate any RMM appointment if in the interest of a
fair and orderly market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is substantially similar in all material
respects to the rules of other self-regulatory organizations.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, e.g. CBOE Rule 8.3(a)(i) and C2 Options Exchange,
Incorporated Rule 8.2(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange 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 prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \10\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the proposed rule change removes impediments to a
free and open market, because it will enable RMMs to manage their
appointments with more flexibility and in a timelier manner. The
Exchange believes this will provide RMMs with more efficient access to
the securities in which they want to make markets and thus more quickly
begin disseminating competitive quotations in those securities, which
will provide additional liquidity and enhance competition in those
securities. CBSX will still have authority to suspend or terminate any
RMM appointment in the interest of a fair and orderly market, including
if necessary to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices
and protect investors or if an RMM does not satisfy its obligations
with respect to an appointment.
    The proposed rule change does not result in unfair discrimination,
as it applies to all RMMs. The proposed rule change reduces the burden
on RMMs to manage their appointments and thus provide liquidity to
CBSX; however, RMMs must still comply with the obligations set forth in
CBSX Rule 53.23, which will ensure continuous, two-sided quotations in
its appointed securities. CBSX believes it is appropriate to provide
RMMs with the ability to select appointments but not Designated Primary
Market-Makers (``DPMs'') or Lead Market-Makers (``LMMs''). Because DPMs
and LMMs are subject to more stringent obligations, for which they
receive additional benefits, with respect to their appointments than
RMMs, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to continue to approve
DPMs and LMMs after a thorough application process to ensure that they
have sufficient resources and capabilities to satisfy those
obligations.

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 that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because it provides the same
relief to a group of similarly situated market participants--RMMs. The
proposed rule change reduces the burden on RMMs to manage their
appointments and thus provide liquidity to CBSX; however, RMMs must
still comply with the obligations set forth in CBSX Rule 53.23, which
will ensure continuous, two-sided quotations in its appointed
securities. CBSX believes it is appropriate to provide RMMs with the
ability to select appointments but not Designated Primary Market-Makers
(``DPMs'') or Lead Market-Makers (``LMMs''). Because DPMs and LMMs are
subject to more stringent obligations, for which they receive
additional benefits, with respect to their appointments than RMMs, the
Exchange believes it is appropriate to continue to approve DPMs and
LMMs after a thorough application process to ensure that they have
sufficient resources and capabilities to satisfy those obligations.
    The proposed rule change is substantially similar in all material
respects to rules of other self-regulatory organizations. The Exchange
does not believe the proposed rule change will help RMMs to the
detriment of market participants on other exchanges. RMMs are still
subject to the same obligations with respect to its appointments; the
proposed rule change is making the appointment process more efficient
for RMMs.
    CBOE believes that the proposed rule change will relieve any burden
on, or otherwise promote, competition, as it will enable RMMs to manage
their appointments with more flexibility and in a timelier manner. The
Exchange believes this will provide RMMs with more efficient access to
the securities in which they want to make markets and thus more quickly
begin disseminating competitive quotations in those securities, which
will provide additional liquidity and enhance competition in those
securities.

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
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \12\ thereunder.
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the
Commission

may designate, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant
to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \13\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\14\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has
requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange
believes that waiver of the operative delay is appropriate because the
proposed rule change does not present any new, unique or substantive
issues, but rather only changes the manner by which RMMs may obtain
appointments. The Exchange also states that RMMs will continue to be
subject to the same obligations with respect to their appointments.
According to the Exchange, waiver of the operative delay will provide
RMMs with more efficient access to the securities in which they want to
make markets so that RMMs may more quickly begin disseminating
competitive quotations in those securities, which will provide
additional liquidity and enhance competition in those securities. The
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, as
doing so will allow RMMs to manage their appointments in a more
flexible and timely manner. For this reason, the Commission designates
the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id.
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \15\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2013-089 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-2013-089. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such 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-2013-089, and should be
submitted on or before October 24, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-24158 Filed 10-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 3, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66184-66185]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26106]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0581; FRL-100002-61]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Renewal of an
Existing Collection (EPA ICR No. 1632.06 and OMB Control No. 2070-
0133); Comment Request

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this
document announces that EPA is planning to submit an Information
Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The ICR, entitled: Standards for Pesticide Containers and Containment
and identified by EPA ICR No. 1632.06 and OMB Control No. 2070-0133,
represents the renewal of an existing ICR that is scheduled to expire
on October 31, 2020. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and
approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the
proposed information collection that is summarized in this document.
The ICR and accompanying material are available in the docket for
public review and comment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 3, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0581, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carolyn Siu, Field External Affairs
Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What information is EPA particularly interested in?

    Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)),
EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility.
    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of
the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used.
    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected.
    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

II. What information collection activity or ICR does this action apply
to?

    Title: Standards for Pesticide Containers and Containment.
    EPA ICR number: 1632.06.
    OMB control number: 2070-0133.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on October
31, 2020. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), after
appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR
part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or
by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection
instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers
for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The entities affected by the container regulations are
different than the entities affected by the containment regulations, so
this ICR document provides separate discussions of the primary
activities and the related burden estimates for each. Where necessary
to distinguish the discussion of these two primary activities within
each section of this ICR, the Agency has identified the discussion of
the information collection activities associated with the container
design and residue removal requirements with this header:
``Container,'' and the information collection activities related to the
containment structure requirements with this header: ``Containment.''
Where the discussion applies equally to both sets of activities, there
is no distinction.
    Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 7.5
hours per response for container regulations and 4 hours per response
for containment

regulations. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related
materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities
and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by
this ICR are pesticide registrants and businesses who formulate
pesticide products or pesticide formulation intermediates (NAICS code
325320), farm supply wholesales (NAICS code 422910), swimming pool
applicators (NAICS code 561790, 453998 and 235990), and agricultural
(aerial and ground) commercial applicators (NAICS code 115112).
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 23,586.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 169,660 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $8,113,231. This includes an
estimated burden cost of $7,221,656 for container regulations and an
estimated cost of $891,575 for containment regulations for maintenance
and operational costs.

III. Are there changes in the estimates from the last approval?

    There are no changes to the overall estimated burden hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the
ICR currently approved by OMB.

IV. What is the next step in the process for this ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
Federal Register document pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to
announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit
additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or
the approval process, please contact the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Dated: November 27, 2019.
Alexandra Dapolito Dunn,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2019-26106 Filed 12-2-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 114)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 34263-34267]
[DOCID:fr14jn06-14]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0303; FRL-8072-3]

Bacillus mycoides isolate J; Temporary Exemption from the
Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a temporary exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of the microbial pesticide
Bacillus mycoides isolate J on sugar beets when applied/used to control
Cercospora Leaf Spot (Cercospora beticola) in sugar beets. Montana
Microbial Products submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality
Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), requesting the temporary exemption from
tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum
permissible level for residues of Bacillus mycoides isolate J. The
temporary tolerance exemption will expire on December 31, 2007.

DATES: This regulation is effective June 14, 2006. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before August 14, 2006,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES:  EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0303. All documents in the
docket are listed in the index for the docket. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or,

if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in
Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive,
Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne Ball, Biopesticides and Pollution
Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC<PHONE_NUMBER>; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document through the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, you may access this ``Federal Register'' document

electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a

frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the
Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.
 To access the OPPTS Harmonized Guidelines

referenced in this document, go to the guidelines at http://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/home/guidelin.htm
.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any
person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may
also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural
regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for
hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. You must file your objection or
request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the
instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by
EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0303 in the
subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be
in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or
before August 14, 2006.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0303, by one of the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
      Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory
Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
      Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of January 18, 2006 (71 FR 2932-2933) (FRL-
7755-9), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of the
FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide
tolerance petition (PP 5G6983) by Montana Microbial Products, 510 East
Kent Avenue, Missoula MT 59801. The petition requested that 40 CFR part
180 be amended by establishing a temporary exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of Bacillus mycoides isolate J.
This notice included a summary of the petition prepared by the
petitioner Montana Microbial Products. One comment was received in
response to the notice of filing. The commenter objected to an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This commenter
apparently misunderstood the nature of the product which does not
contain a gene-altered substance. EPA concludes that Bacillus mycoides
isolate J is ubiquitous in nature and for purposes of this temporary
tolerance exemption, EPA has determined that it will be safe when used
in agriculture.
    Section 408(c)(2)(a)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of the FFDCA
defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no
harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other
exposures for which there is reliable information.'' This includes
exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does
not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to section 408(c)(2)(B), in
establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in
section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special consideration
to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue
in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue....''
Additionally, section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA requires that the
Agency consider ``available information concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues'' and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the
toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings.

III. Toxicological Profile

    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA, EPA has reviewed
the available scientific data and other relevant information in support
of this action and considered its validity, completeness and
reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA
has also considered available information concerning the variability of
the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers,
including infants and children.

    An Acute Pulmonary Toxicity/Pathogenicity study (OPPTS 885.3150) in
rats which were dosed intratracheally with Bacillus mycoides isolate J
at 1.1 x 108 cfu/animal, was reviewed and found to be
supplemental because a clear pattern of clearance from all organs was
not demonstrated during the study's 35-day length. The test substance,
however, did show a pattern of clearance in some organs. Differential
heat treatment of tissue samples had suggested that most of the
recovered organisms were spores. No treated animals died nor were there
signs in the animals of toxicity or pathogenicity. Given the ubiquitous
nature of this spore forming bacterium which is found on plants, in
soil, water, air and decomposing plant tissue, along with the lack of
mortality of the test animals and the absence of overt signs of
toxicity or pathogenicity in the animals during the course of this
pulmonary study, issuance of the Experimental Use Permit (EUP) can be
justified provided there are instructions for appropriate respiratory
protection for the applicators specified on the product label.
    The Agency has granted the requests for waivers for the studies
Primary Eye Irritation ( OPPTS 870.2400) and Primary Dermal Irritation
(OPPTS 870.2500). The registrant had provided the following rationales
for the requests with which the EPA agrees:
    1. The inert ingredient in the Bacillus mycoides isolate J end
product is on the EPA inert list 4A as safe for food use. The
combination of Bacillus mycoides isolate J spores with this inert would
not be expected to exacerbate primary ocular and dermal irritation or
infection.
    2. Personnel who worked with Bacillus mycoides isolate J for 2 to 7
years showed no eye or dermal exposure effects.
    3. Eye or dermal exposure to Bacillus mycoides isolate J will be
limited by supervision and protective equipment. If eye or dermal
exposure did, however, occur, the spores will rinse out of the eye with
water or wash off the skin with soap and water because spores are
hydrophilic.
    4. Bacillus mycoides isolate J is not recorded as a human pathogen.
Due to the ubiquitous presence of Bacillus mycoides isolate J in
agricultural soils, there has been long term human exposure to Bacillus
mycoides isolate J in crops and to residual Bacillus mycoides isolate J
cells or spores in food crops. No toxicity or pathogenicity of Bacillus
mycoides isolate J in humans had been reported in numerous searched
citations.
    In connection with the requirement for reporting Hypersensitivity
Incidents (OPPTS 885.3400), the Registrant has notified the Agency that
no recorded or reported adverse hypersensitivity reaction to Bacillus
mycoides isolate J has occurred during the period of 2 years in which
the substance has been handled in a laboratory setting.
    As stated above, a pattern of complete clearance from all organs
had not been demonstrated for the acute pulmonary toxicity/
pathogenicity study (OPPTS 885.3150).The requests for waivers on the
following studies are contingent on demonstrating a pattern of
clearance of the test organism in the acute pulmonary toxicity/
pathogenicity study, and thus the requests for waivers were not
granted.
     Acute Oral Toxicity/Pathogenicity (OPPTS 885.3050)
     Acute Dermal Toxicity/Pathogenicity (OPPTS 885.3100)
     Acute Injection Toxicity/Pathogenicity (OPPTS 885.3200)
     Immune Response (OPPTS 885.3550)
    However, as previously stated in this document, the test substance
for the acute pulmonary toxicity/pathogenicity did show a pattern of
clearance in some organs. There was no mortality of the test animals,
nor were there signs in the animals of toxicity or pathogenicity caused
by this ubiquitous spore-forming bacterium. The issuance of the
Experimental Use Permit (EUP) can be justified provided there are
instructions for appropriate respiratory protection for the applicators
specified on the product label. The basis for this conclusion rests not
only on the ubiquitous nature of Bacillus mycoides isolate J, the
absence of mortality, and of overt adverse reactions in the test
animals, but also on the absence of reported or cited incidents of
pathogenicity or toxicity in the course of an extensive literature
search. Therefore, issuance of the Experimental Use Permit (EUP) can be
justified without the requirement for studies based on OPPTS 885.3050,
885.3100, 885.3200 and 885.3550, provided there are instructions for
appropriate respiratory protection for the applicators specified on the
product label.

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    In examining aggregate exposure, section 408 of the FFDCA directs
EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from the
pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures,
including drinking water from ground water or surface water and
exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings
(residential and other indoor uses).

A. Dietary Exposure

    The proposed EUP is not expected to result in increased dietary
exposures of Bacillus mycoides isolate J to the general population. The
quantity of Bacillus mycoides isolate J applied to the beet foliage,
7.5 x 1011 spores/acre per application, is small compared to
the natural background levels of Bacillus mycoides isolate J in
agricultural soils which is reported to typically occur at about
105 spores per gram. Also, the titer of Bacillus mycoides
isolate J applied to the foliage declines from 106 spores/
cm2 to between 100 and 1,000 spores/cm2 over a 2-
week period. Because the ordinary consumer encounters only the sugar
produced from sugar beets, (in which the bacterium is not present), an
increased dietary exposure is not foreseen.
    There is, in addition, minimal to negligible risk that surface
water and, thus, drinking water exposure would occur with the proposed
EUP testing. The proposed test sites are at least one-half mile from
the nearest surface water. When spray drift or accidental application
of Bacillus mycoides isolate J over surface water did occur, the
concentration of Bacillus mycoides isolate J spores in the water had
been found to be very low. For example an acre dose of Bacillus
mycoides isolate J, 7.5 x 1011 spores to 100 square meters
of surface water 1 meter deep, would result in a concentration of 750
spores per cc of water as noted in the EPA ecological risk assessment
for Bacillus mycoides isolate J which is based on data submitted by the
Montana Microbial Products.

B. Other Non-Occupational Exposure

    EPA concludes that dermal or inhalation exposure to the general
population as a result of this EUP is not likely to occur, based on
information submitted in pesticide tolerance petition 5G6983 indicating
that the relevant EUP agricultural sites, which are located in the Red
River Valley of North Dakota and Minnesota and in eastern Montana, and
which will not exceed 956 acres, are not accessible to individuals
other than those conducting this EUP program.

V. Cumulative Effects

    Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D)(v), EPA has considered
available information on the cumulative effects of such residues and
other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity. These
considerations included the cumulative effects on infants and children
of such residues and other substances with a

common method of toxicity. Because there is no indication of mammalian
toxicity or pathogenicity resulting from Bacillus mycoides isolate J,
we conclude that there are no cumulative effects for this bacterium.

VI. Determination of Safety for U.S Population, Infants and Children

    1. U. S. population. The Agency has determined that there is
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U. S. population
from exposure to residues of Bacillus mycoides isolate J in connection
with the testing for the proposed EUP program. This determination
includes all anticipated dietary exposures and other non-occupational
exposures for which there is reliable information. Oral ingestion of
the organism is unlikely because consumers will purchase only the sugar
produced from the sugar beets. This product is not anticipated to
contain any spores or cells derived from the treatment of the foliage
of the sugar beets. Data submitted in a pulmonary toxicity/
pathogenicity study revealed no signs of overt toxicity or
pathogenicity in the test animals. The results of an extensive
literature search, which included numerous citations of the test
organism, yielded no reports of its pathogenicity for mammals. There
will be no access to persons other than participants in the program to
the test sites for the EUP. The participants in the EUP program are
required to wear appropriate respiratory protection.
    2. Infants and children. FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that
EPA shall assess the available information about consumption patterns
among infants and children, special susceptibility of infants and
children to pesticide chemical residues, and the cumulative effects on
infants and children of the residues and other substances with a common
mechanism of toxicity.
    In addition, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) also provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety, also referred to as
margins of exposure (MOEs), for infants and children in the case of
threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and
the completeness of the data base unless EPA determines that a
different MOE will be safe for infants and children.
    In this instance, based on all available information, the Agency
concludes that there is a finding of no toxicity for Bacillus mycoides
isolate J. Thus there are no threshhold effects of concern to infants
and children when the microbial is used as a fungicide. Accordingly,
the Agency concludes that the additional MOE is not necessary to
protect infants and children, and that not adding any additional MOE
will be safe for infants and children.

VII. Other Considerations

A. Endocrine Disruptors

    The pesticidal active ingredient, Bacillus mycoides isolate J is
not known to exert an influence on the endocrine system.

B. Analytical Method(s)

    Analytic methods for Bacillus mycoides isolate J that are
sufficient to justify the issuance of an Experimental Use Permit (EUP)
have been submitted to the Agency.

C. Codex Maximum Residue Level

    No codex maximum residue levels exist for the microbial Bacillus
mycoides isolate J.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a temporary exemption from the
tolerance requirement under section 408(d) of the FFDCA in response to
a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive
Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been exempted from review under
Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001). This final rule does not contain any information
collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose any enforceable duty or
contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). Nor
does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898,
entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994);
or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045,
entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not
involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration
of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA),
Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since
tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a
petition under section 408(d) of the FFDCA, such as the exemption in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply. In addition, the Agency has determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' This final rule directly regulates growers, food
processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action
does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of the FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency
has determined that this rule does not have any ``tribal implications''
as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6,
2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in
the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.''
``Policies that have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive
order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.''
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal
governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the

distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

IX. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. This final
rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 6, 2006.
James Jones,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority : 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Section 180.1269 is added to subpart D to read as follows:

Sec.  180.1269  Bacillus mycoides Isolate J on sugar beets: exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance.

    Bacillus mycoides isolate J is temporarily exempt from the
requirement of a tolerance when used as a fungicide for control of
Cercospora Leaf Spot (Cercospora beticola) on sugar beets. This
temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance expires and is
revoked on December 31, 2007.
[FR Doc. E6-9282 Filed 6-13-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S