[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 120 (Thursday, June 21, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28886-28890]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13300]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83451; File Nos. SR-LCH SA-2017-012 and SR-LCH SA-2017-
013]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; LCH SA; Order Approving Proposed
Rule Changes Related to LCH SA's Recovery and Wind Down Plans

June 15, 2018.

I. Introduction

    On November 30, 2017, Banque Centrale de Compensation, which
conducts business under the name LCH SA (``LCH SA''), 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 (LCH SA-2017-012)
to adopt a recovery plan (the ``RP''). The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on December 19, 2017.\3\
On December 7, 2017, LCH SA filed with the Commission a proposed rule
change (LCH SA-2017-013) to adopt a wind down plan (``WDP'').\4\ The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on December 19, 2017.\5\ On January 23, 2018, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act,\6\ the Commission designated a longer period for
Commission action on both proposed rule changes.\7\ On March 19, 2018
the Commission instituted proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the
Act \8\ to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule
changes.\9\ To date, the Commission has not received any comments on
the proposed rule changes. For the reasons discussed below, the
Commission is approving the proposed rule changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-82316 (Dec. 13,
2017), 82 FR 60246 (Dec. 19, 2017) (SR-LCH-SA-2017-012) (``Notice
012'').
    \4\ Capitalized terms used in this order but not defined herein
have the same meanings specified in LCH SA's rules.
    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-82317 (Dec. 13,
2017), 82 FR 60238 (Dec. 19, 2017) (SR-LCH SA-2017-013) (``Notice
013'').
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-82570 (Jan. 23,
2018), 83 FR 4088 (Jan. 29, 2018) (SR-LCH-SA-2017-012) and
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-82571 (Jan. 23, 2018), 83 FR
4081 (Jan. 29, 2018) (SR-LCH SA-2017-013).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \9\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-82901 (March 19,
2018), 83 FR 12833 (March 23, 2018) (SR-LCH SA-2017-012; SR-LCH SA-
2017-013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Changes 10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The descriptions of the proposed rule changes are
substantially excerpted from Notice 012 and Notice 013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a ``covered clearing agency,'' \11\ LCH SA is required to, among
other things, ``establish, implement, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to . . . maintain a sound
risk management framework for comprehensively managing legal, credit,
liquidity, operational, general business, investment, custody, and
other risks that arise in or are borne by the covered clearing agency,
which . . . includes plans for the recovery and orderly wind-down of
the covered clearing agency necessitated by credit losses, liquidity
shortfalls, losses from general business risk, or any other losses.''
\12\ The Commission has previously clarified that it believes that such
recovery and wind-down plans are ``rules'' within the meaning of
Exchange Act Section 19(b) and Rule 19b-4 because such plans would
constitute changes to a stated policy, practice or interpretation of a
covered clearing agency.\13\ Accordingly, a covered clearing agency,
such as LCH SA, must file its RP and WDP with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The term ``covered clearing agency'' is defined in SEC Rule
17Ad-22(a)(5), 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(a)(5).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii).
    \13\ Standards for Covered Clearing Agencies, Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 34-78961 (Sep. 28, 2016), 81 FR 70786,
70809 (Oct. 13, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. The RP (LCH SA-2017-012)

    LCH SA's RP seeks to maintain the continuity of critical services
in times of extreme stress and to facilitate the recovery of LCH SA
from such stress. In particular, the RP describes (i) the scenarios and
triggers for initiating recovery measures; (ii) various recovery tools
used in such recovery; and (iii) the governance framework for managing
the RP. Each of those aspects of the RP are discussed in more detail
below.
    The scenarios that could necessitate the implementation of the RP
include the default of one or more clearing members, liquidity
shortfalls as a result of the default of an investment counterparty of
LCH SA or any other investment losses resulting from changes in the
market value on the investments, a loss resulting from an event which
impacts the critical services provided by LCH SA (e.g., failure in the
provision of service by a third party), loss of critical contracts with
exchanges, or the operational or financial failure of a financial
market infrastructure such as an allied clearing house or trade
repository.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Notice 012, 82 FR at 60247.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The default management process is used to re-establish a matched
book and return to business as usual and therefore LCH SA considers it
to be a recovery tool.\15\ When pre-funded resources, such as
defaulter's margin, defaulter's default fund contributions, LCH SA's
capital, and non-defaulters' default fund contributions, are no longer
available to meet obligations due to member and non-member losses, the
RP lists various measures and tools that LCH SA can use to return to
business as usual.\16\ The RP is organized to discuss each tool
according to the nature of the loss the tool is designed to address
(e.g., clearing member default losses, liquidity shortfalls,
operational, business, and investment risks). The RP also discusses the
sequence in which these tools would be used and the relative strength
of each.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id.
    \16\ Id. at 60249.
    \17\ Id. at 60249-60250.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When pre-funded resources have been exhausted after a clearing
member default, LCH SA can call a default fund assessment up to a cap,
request voluntary payments from all non-defaulting members, and
effectuate service closure.\18\ In the event such tools are
unavailable, certain other business-as-usual tools, such as default
fund additional margin, may enable LCH SA to collect additional
resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id. at 60249.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the event of a liquidity shortfall, LCH SA may use its central
bank credit line to deposit securities received on behalf of defaulting
clearing members and obtain liquidity.\19\ Other potential tools to
manage a liquidity stress situation include limits with respect to
illiquid collateral, the application of increased haircuts on certain
types of collateral to incentivize the use of more liquid collateral,
and specific liquidity margins.\20\ LCH SA also could defer funding for
the settlement platform for a limited period of time, but views this as
a tool of last resort.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id.
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For most investment, business, and operational losses, LCH SA can
allocate

its capital surplus against losses.\22\ Further down the list of
preferable recovery tools for non-clearing member defaults are the
abilities to raise capital or utilize insurance meant to cover a
specific operational risk event.\23\ For any disruption or loss of a
key third-party service provider, LCH SA would be able to exercise
several contractual rights and maintains exit plans that are intended
to safeguard the continuity of services.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id.
    \23\ See Notice 012, 82 FR at 60249.
    \24\ Id. at 60250.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RP discusses the governance surrounding its creation,
invocation, and operation.\25\ LCH SA relies upon its existing
governance forums for both the creation and on-going monitoring and
operation of the RP. Specifically, the LCH SA Management Committee is
responsible for the preparation of the RP and the monitoring and
implementation of the recovery tools set forth in the RP.\26\ The LCH
SA Risk Committee reviews and makes a recommendation to the Board,
which ultimately has the power to approve the RP.\27\ However, before
submission to the LCH SA Risk Committee, the RP is reviewed and
validated by the Executive Risk Committee of LCH SA's parent company,
LCH Group.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id.
    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Id.
    \28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Default Management Group is responsible for the management of
clearing member defaults while all critical decisions are escalated and
submitted to the LCH SA Default Crisis Management Team (``DCMT'').\29\
The triggering of recovery measures is subject to discussion in the
DCMT and approval by the LCH SA CEO.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Id.
    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The management of non-clearing member events will vary based on the
nature of the event.\31\ For example, investment losses and liquidity
shortfalls are managed by the departments responsible for controlling
such risks within the parameters set by the Board.\32\ Similarly,
operational risks are managed by each business line in accordance with
the operational risk policy approved by the Board.\33\ Business risk is
managed by individual business lines, with a second line challenge
performed by the risk and finance departments to verify if sufficient
capital buffers are available for the applicable business risks.\34\
Matters are escalated to the Management Committee when the RP is
triggered and the LCH SA Board will approve implementation of the
RP.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Id.
    \32\ Id.
    \33\ Id.
    \34\ Id.
    \35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The WDP (LCH SA-2017-013)

    In the event a recovery is not successful, LCH SA would invoke its
WDP to wind down its operations to full service closure in an orderly
manner, thereby minimizing the disruption to clearing members, market
participants, and the broader financial system. The WDP would be
triggered after a determination by the LCH SA Board that all the
recovery tools have been exhausted and have failed to return LCH SA to
business as usual.\36\ A voluntary wind-down not precipitated by these
extreme events is not considered under the WDP.\37\ The WDP would set
forth clear mechanisms for the transfer of LCH SA's membership and
business, and would be designed to facilitate continued access to
critical services and to minimize market impact.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Notice 013, 82 FR at 60239.
    \37\ Id.
    \38\ Id. at 60239-60240.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The decision to wind down would be taken by the Board and
ultimately the LCH SA shareholders, upon advice of the Executive Risk
Committee and Local Management Committee (``LMC'').\39\ The LMC or DCMT
would monitor the implementation of the WDP.\40\ LCH SA would consult
with all relevant regulatory authorities before making a decision to
wind down and, unless all clearing services have already been closed,
the French Autorit[eacute] de Contr[ocirc]le Prudentiel et de
Resolution (``ACPR'') would have to approve such a decision.\41\ LCH SA
would also keep relevant regulatory authorities regularly informed of
the plan's implementation.\42\ If LCH SA was in resolution at the time,
the relevant regulatory authority governing the resolution of LCH SA
would need to make the decision to wind-down.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Id. at 60239.
    \40\ Id.
    \41\ Id.
    \42\ Id.
    \43\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The WDP assumes that LCH SA's businesses would be wound down until
full closure, including the closure of all its business lines at the
same time.\44\ This is a worst case assumption, however, and the WDP
acknowledges that it is likely that in the phases preceding the
decision to wind-down, some business lines will have been closed,
transferred, or scaled down.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Id.
    \45\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The WDP provides that LCH SA would publish written notice to the
clearing members that a wind-down event has occurred and potential
dates by which transactions will no longer be accepted for
clearing.\46\ In a non-default situation or in a situation where the
corresponding business line is still active, LCH SA would attempt to
give clearing members the maximum time necessary to clear transactions
in the normal course, close-out positions, and switch to another
central counterparty.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Id. at 60239-60240.
    \47\ Id. at 60240
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In line with the RP, the WDP describes the functions of LCH SA and
distinguishes critical functions that LCH SA provides to the market
(all of LCH SA's clearing functions are considered critical); services
that are critical to the support of LCH SA's critical functions (such
as IT, risk, operations, and collateral and risk management); and non-
critical support functions (such as finance, legal, and human
resources). The WDP then provides detail about the closure of these
functions. For instance, the treasury function would close once all
clearing services have ceased and monies are paid by LCH SA and its
members.\48\ Further, once the WDP is implemented, LCH SA would deposit
remaining cash in central bank accounts or invest the cash in
instruments with maturities no longer than same-day repos.\49\ LCH SA
would keep active any other supporting operational, information
technology, or risk functions until all positions are closed.\50\
Finally, the WDP describes the closure of LCH SA's clearing services
and provides citations to the various clearing services' rule book
provisions giving a legal basis for the actions taken to effectuate the
WDP.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Id. at 60240.
    \49\ Id.
    \50\ Id.
    \51\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The WDP further notes that LCH SA's contractual agreements with
third-party service providers, such as information technology or venue
providers, contain wind-down provisions that permit LCH SA to exit the
agreements under particular conditions.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Separately from the WDP, but in line with the processes and
timeline described in the WDP, LCH SA calculates the costs required for
a wind down. These costs encompass staff salaries, indemnities for
staff departure,

costs to be paid to suppliers during notice periods, and all
foreseeable costs that would be due in the event of a wind-down.\53\
Based on these calculations, the WDP concludes that these costs would
be less than the capital LCH SA holds under EU regulations (capital
equal to the operating expenses for a six (6) month period) and that
LCH SA would be in a position to close the company within six months of
the decision to wind-down.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Id.
    \54\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a
proposed rule change of a self-regulatory 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.\55\ For the reasons given below, the Commission finds
that the proposed rule changes are consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
of the Act \56\ and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i), (iii), and (v), 17Ad-
22(e)(3)(ii), and 17Ad-22(e)(15)(i)-(ii) thereunder.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \56\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \57\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(i), (iii), and (v); (e)(3)(ii);
(e)(15)(i)-(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency With Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of LCH SA be designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent
applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions, as well
as to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the
custody or control of LCH SA or for which it is responsible, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the RP would specify the steps that LCH would
take in recovery and the governance framework applicable to taking such
steps. It would analyze the anticipated impact of the recovery tools,
the incentives created by such tools, and the risks associated with
using such tools. It would also explain how the tools used in the plan
are transparent, measurable, manageable, and controllable. The
Commission believes that by specifying the steps LCH SA would take and
the tools it would use to bring about recovery in the face of losses,
the RP would increase the likelihood that recovery would be orderly,
efficient, and successful. In increasing the likelihood that recovery
of LCH SA would be orderly, efficient, and successful, the Commission
believes that the RP would enhance LCH SA's ability to maintain the
continuity of its critical services (including clearance and settlement
services) during, through, and following periods of extreme stress
giving rise to the need for recovery, thereby promoting the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of CDS transactions. The Commission
also believes that the RP would help assure the safeguarding of
securities or funds in the custody or control of LCH SA by reducing the
likelihood of a disorderly or unsuccessful recovery, which could
otherwise disrupt access to such securities or funds. For the same
reason, the Commission also believes the RP would be consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest.
    Similarly, the Commission believes that the WDP would enhance LCH
SA's ability to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions and to safeguard securities and
funds in its control by establishing a plan to effectuate an orderly
wind down. Specifically, the WDP's governance process and notice
provisions would facilitate the orderly close-out of positions and
potential transfer of positions to other central counter parties.
Therefore, the Commission believes that these provisions would enhance
LCH SA's ability to maintain and continue the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of CDS transactions by assuring that such
transactions are closed-out and transferred to other central
counterparties in an orderly and transparent manner. Moreover, by
specifying in advance the steps LCH SA would take in a wind down, the
WDP would assure an efficient and orderly wind down of LCH SA. The
Commission believes that this, in turn, would assure the safeguarding
of securities or funds in the custody or control of LCH SA by reducing
the likelihood of an inefficient or disorderly wind down, which could
disrupt access to such securities or funds. Finally, the Commission
believes that the WDP's requirement that LCH SA deposit remaining cash
in central bank accounts and limit investment options to short term
highly-liquid instruments would further enhance LCH SA's ability to
safeguard funds in its control by reducing the risk of liquidity
constraints and investment losses during a wind down.
    Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule changes
would promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions, assure the safeguarding of securities and
funds in LCH SA's custody and control, and, in general, protect
investors and the public interest, consistent with the Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency With Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i), (iii), and (v)

    Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i), (iii), and (v) require that LCH SA
establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to provide for governance arrangements
that are clear and transparent, that support the public interest
requirements in Section 17A of the Act applicable to clearing agencies,
and the objectives of owners and participants, and that specify clear
and direct lines of responsibility.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(i), (iii), and (v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RP would identify clear lines of responsibility for its
preparation and final approval, the monitoring of its use, and the
functioning of the recovery tools. The RP would also specify the
process LCH SA would take to receive input from various parties at LCH
SA, including management committees and the Board. Further, the RP
would enhance transparency by including member representatives in the
review of the RP. The Commission believes that these lines of control
and input from various LCH SA stakeholders can contribute to
establishing, implementing, maintain and enforcing clear and
transparent governance arrangements that support the public interest
requirements in Section 17A of the Act applicable to clearing agencies,
and the objectives of owners and participants.
    The WDP similarly would identify clear lines of responsibility for
the invocation, monitoring, and approval of the WDP, and ultimately, a
wind down. It would enhance transparency by requiring final approval by
the LCH SA shareholders and providing for communication to clearing
members and other users of LCH SA's services. The Commission believes
that both of these features of the WDP would represent clear and
transparent governance arrangements.
    Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule changes
would establish clear and transport governance arrangements for the RP
and WDP,

consistent with Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i), (iii), and (v).\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(i), (iii), and (v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii)

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii) requires that LCH SA establish, implement,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to maintain a sound risk management framework for
comprehensively managing legal, credit, liquidity, operational, general
business, investment, custody, and other risks that arise in or are
borne by LCH SA, which includes plans for the recovery and orderly
wind-down of LCH SA necessitated by credit losses, liquidity
shortfalls, losses from general business risk, or any other losses.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the information the RP would provide
about the steps that LCH SA would take, and the tools it would use, to
effectuate a recovery of LCH SA would enhance LCH SA's ability to
recover from credit losses, liquidity shortfalls, general business risk
losses, or other losses, consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii).\63\
Specifically, the information from the RP would enable LCH SA to
prepare in advance for the use of such tools and practice the use of
such tools, which would in turn enhance LCH SA's ability to use such
tools effectively to carry out a successful recovery. In addition, by
establishing a single source of information about, and steps needed to
effectuate, a recovery of LCH SA, the RP would allow LCH SA personnel
to effectuate a recovery in a consistent and coordinated fashion, and
would thereby increase the likelihood of a successful recovery.
Moreover, by identifying and assessing available recovery tools, the
Commission believes that the RP would enhance LCH SA's ability to use
such tools effectively to bring about a recovery by identifying in
advance which tools may be most effective for different situations or
needs, consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii).\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Id.
    \64\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, in providing detailed information about the governance
requirements related to triggering and implementing the WDP discussed
in more detail above, the Commission believes that the WDP would
enhance LCH SA's ability to effectuate an orderly wind-down, consistent
with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii).\65\ Specifically, by setting out in
advance the steps LCH SA would take to trigger and effectuate a wind-
down, the WDP would enable LCH SA to prepare in advance for a wind-
down, and practice the steps needed to effectuate a wind-down, which
the Commission believes would enhance LCH SA's ability to use the WDP
effectively to carry-out an orderly wind-down. In addition, by
establishing a single source of information about, and steps needed to
effectuate, a wind-down of LCH SA, the Commission believes the WDP
would allow LCH SA personnel to effectuate a wind-down in a consistent
and coordinated fashion, and would thereby increase the likelihood of
an orderly wind-down. Finally, the WDP would identify the legal basis
for LCH's actions with respect to a potential wind-down, including
relevant citations to provisions of the rule books of its various
clearing services and contractual agreements, which the Commission
believes would further facilitate a well-reasoned, legal, and orderly
wind-down process by providing LCH SA with a single source of
information and steps needed for a wind-down, consistent with Rule
17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii).\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Id.
    \66\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule changes
would be plans for the orderly recovery and wind down of LCH SA,
consistent Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii).\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Consistency With Rules 17Ad-22(e)(15)(i)-(ii)

    Rules 17Ad-22(e)(15)(i)-(ii) require LCH SA to establish,
implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to identify, monitor, and manage its general
business risk and hold sufficient liquid net assets funded by equity to
cover potential general business losses so that LCH SA can continue
operations and services as a going concern if those losses materialize,
including by (i) determining the amount of liquid net assets funded by
equity based upon its general business risk profile and the length of
time required to achieve a recovery or orderly wind-down, as
appropriate, of its critical operations and services if such action is
taken and (ii) holding liquid net assets funded by equity equal to the
greater of either (x) six months of the LCH SA's current operating
expenses, or (y) the amount determined by the board of directors to be
sufficient to ensure a recovery or orderly wind-down of critical
operations and services.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(15)(i)-(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    LCH SA's RP would include a quantitative assessment of the
situations that could necessitate a recovery and related recovery
tools. This quantitative assessment would consider the potential impact
to LCH SA's liquid net assets funded by equity, including its surplus
capital. It would also include an assessment of the time to implement
the various recovery tools. Thus, the Commission finds that the RP
would indicate the potential cost and length of recovery, consistent
with Rules 17Ad-22(e)(15)(i)-(ii).\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(15)(i)-(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, LCH SA's WDP would calculate costs related to a wind
down. These costs would include staffing, technological, facilities,
legal, and other resources necessary during the actual wind-down
period. Further, the WDP concludes, based on recently audited amounts,
that LCH SA would hold highly liquid resources corresponding to six
months of operating expenses and that this amount would exceed the
estimated costs of conducting a wind-down. The WDP also concludes that
the length of time it would take LCH SA to wind-down and close clearing
services would be six months from the decision to wind-down. Thus, the
Commission finds that the WDP would indicate LCH SA's ability to
effectuate a wind down within six months of the decision to wind-down
at a lower cost than the amount of its liquid resources, consistent
with Rules 17Ad-22(e)(15)(i)-(ii).\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(15)(i)-(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule changes
would determine the length of time required to achieve a recovery or
orderly wind-down of LCH SA and the associated costs and would further
ensure that LCH SA holds liquid net assets greater than these costs,
consistent with Rules 17Ad-22(e)(15)(i)-(ii).\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(15)(i)-(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule changes are consistent with the requirements of the Act,
and in particular, Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \72\ and Rules 17Ad-
22(e)(2)(i), (iii), and (v), 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii), 17Ad-22(e)(15)(i)-(ii)
thereunder.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \73\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(i), (iii), and (v); (e)(3)(ii);
(e)(15)(i)-(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
that the proposed rule change (SR-LCH SA-

2017-012) be, and hereby is, approved.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impacts on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
that the proposed rule change (SR-LCH SA-2017-013) be, and hereby is,
approved.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impacts on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-13300 Filed 6-20-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 66 (Friday, April 7, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16926-16927]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06887]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0328; FRL-9960-78-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Emissions Statements Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
revisions to the emissions statements rule in the Indiana State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions extend Indiana's emissions
statements regulations to Lawrenceburg Township, Dearborn County, in
order to comply with Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for the 2008
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These revisions
also include minor formatting changes. The Indiana Department of
Environmental Management (IDEM) submitted these revisions to EPA on
November 18, 2016. EPA proposed to approve them on December 27, 2016,
and received one public comment in response, which expressed support
for EPA's action.

DATES: This final rule is effective on May 8, 2017.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0328. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 either
through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend
that you telephone Eric Svingen, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 353-
4489 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Svingen, Environmental Engineer,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. What comments did we receive on the proposed rule?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    In this rule, EPA takes final action on the submission from IDEM,
dated November 18, 2016, requesting that EPA approve revisions to 326
IAC 2-6 (``Emission Reporting'') into Indiana's SIP. Specifically, IDEM
has requested that EPA approve into the SIP a change to the
applicability section at 326 IAC 2-6-1 that extends the emissions
statements rule to Lawrenceburg Township, Dearborn County. The revised
rule also contains minor formatting changes that clarify references to
related rules.
    IDEM made this submission to satisfy requirements under Section
182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA, which mandates that each state submit a
revision to its SIP to require that the owners or operators of
applicable stationary sources of nitrogen oxides (NOX) or
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in ozone nonattainment areas provide
annual emissions statements. This requirement applies in all ozone
nonattainment areas to any source emitting at least 25 tons per year of
VOCs or NOX. On May 21, 2012, EPA designated the portion of
Dearborn County that is within Lawrenceburg Township as a nonattainment
area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (77 FR 30088). IDEM's submission
addresses Indiana's obligation under Section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA to
submit a SIP revision applying emissions statements requirements to
Lawrenceburg Township. The background for today's action is discussed
in more detail in EPA's proposal, dated December 27, 2016 (81 FR
95080).

II. What comments did we receive on the proposed rule?

    EPA provided a 30-day review and comment period for the December
27, 2016, proposed rule. The comment period ended on January 26, 2017.
We received one comment on the proposed rule, which expressed support
for these revisions. The commenter wrote that this rule ''strengthens
policy that seeks to protect and maintain air quality under standards
that are stringent and necessary for [maintaining] the health of the
citizenry.''

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving into Indiana's SIP the revisions to 326 IAC 2-6-1
submitted to EPA on November 18, 2016.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Indiana
Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for
inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by
reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final
rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by
the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP
compilation.\1\ EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available through www.regulations.gov, and/or at
the EPA Region 5 Office (please contact the person identified in the
For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more
information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
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 action:

     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     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 CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable 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 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).
    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 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 6, 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 17, 2017.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 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.

0
2. In Sec.  52.770, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry for ``2-6-1'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Indiana Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Indiana
   Indiana citation               Subject            effective date       EPA approval date          Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Article 2. Permit Review Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Rule 6. Emission Reporting
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-6-1................  Applicability...............      11/20/2016  4/7/2017, [insert Federal    ..............
                                                                      Register citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-06887 Filed 4-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

	[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0175; FRL-         ]

	Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the Reading 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment
Area to Attainment and Approval of the Area’s Maintenance Plan and
2002 Base-Year Inventory

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Final rule.

SUMMARY:  EPA is approving a redesignation request and State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.  The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
(PADEP) is requesting that the Reading, Berks County, Pennsylvania ozone
nonattainment area (Reading Area) be redesignated as attainment for the
8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).  In
conjunction with its redesignation request, the PADEP submitted SIP
revisions consisting of a maintenance plan for the Reading Area that
provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least
10 years after redesignation.  EPA is approving the 8-hour maintenance
plan.  PADEP also submitted a 2002 base-year inventory for the Reading
Area which EPA is approving.  In addition, EPA is approving the adequacy
determination for the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) that are
identified in the Reading Area maintenance plan for purposes of
transportation conformity, and is approving those MVEBs.  EPA is
approving the redesignation request, and the maintenance plan, and the
2002 base-year emissions inventory as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP
in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE:  This final rule is effective on [insert date 15 days
from date of publication].

ADDRESSES:  EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0175.  All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov website.  Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.  Copies of the State
submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Christopher Cripps,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by e-mail at   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I.  Background

On May 30, 2007 (72 FR 29901), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  The NPR proposed
approval of Pennsylvania’s redesignation request, a SIP revision that
establishes a maintenance plan for the Reading Area that provides for
continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years
after redesignation, and a 2002 base-year emissions inventory.  The
formal SIP revisions were submitted by PADEP on January 25, 2007.  Other
specific requirements of Pennsylvania’s redesignation request and SIP
revision for the maintenance plan, and the rationale for EPA’s
proposed actions are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here.

On December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacated EPA’s Phase 1 Implementation Rule for the
8-hour Ozone Standard (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004).  South Coast Air
Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C.Cir. 2006).  On June
8, 2007, in South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, Docket No.
04-1201, in response to several petitions for rehearing, the D.C.
Circuit clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with regard to
those parts of the rule that had been successfully challenged.
Therefore, the Phase 1 Rule provisions related to classifications for
areas currently classified under subpart 2 of Title I, part D of the Act
as 8-hour nonattainment areas, the 8-hour attainment dates, and the
timing for emissions reductions needed for attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS remain effective.  The June 8 decision left intact the
Court’s rejection of EPA’s reasons for implementing the 8-hour
standard in certain nonattainment areas under subpart 1 in lieu of
subpart 2.  By limiting the vacatur, the Court let stand EPA’s
revocation of the 1-hour standard and those anti-backsliding provisions
of the Phase 1 Rule that had not been successfully challenged.  The June
8, 2007 decision reaffirmed the December 22, 2006 decision that EPA had
improperly failed to retain four measures required for 1-hour
nonattainment areas under the anti-backsliding provisions of the
regulations:  (1) nonattainment area nonattainment New Source Review
(NSR) requirements based on an area’s 1-hour nonattainment
classification; (2) Section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour severe or
extreme nonattainment areas; and (3) measures to be implemented pursuant
to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act, on the contingency of an
area not making reasonable further progress toward attainment of the
1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain that NAAQS.  In addition the June
8, 2007 decision clarified that the Court’s reference to conformity
requirements for anti-backsliding purposes was limited to requiring the
continued use of 1-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets until 8-hour
budgets were available for 8-hour conformity determinations, which is
already required under EPA’s conformity regulations.  The Court thus
clarified that 1-hour conformity determinations are not required for
anti-backsliding purposes.

For the reasons set forth in the May 30, 2007 (72 FR 29901) proposed
rulemaking, EPA does not believe that the Court’s rulings alter any
requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to preclude
redesignation, and do not prevent EPA from finalizing this
redesignation.  EPA believes that the Court’s December 22, 2006 and
June 8, 2007 decisions impose no impediment to moving forward with the
redesignation of this Area to attainment, because even in light of the
Court’s decisions, redesignation is appropriate under the relevant
redesignation provisions of the Act and longstanding policies regarding
redesignation requests.

With respect to the requirement for transportation conformity under the
1-hour standard, the Court in its June 8, 2007 decision clarified that
for those areas with 1-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets in their
1-hour maintenance plans, anti-backsliding requires only that those
1-hour budgets must be used for 8-hour conformity determinations until
replaced by 8-hour budgets.  To meet this requirement, conformity
determinations in such areas must continue to comply with the applicable
requirements of EPA’s conformity regulations at 40 CFR Part 93.  As
discussed elsewhere in this document, EPA is approving 8-hour MVEBs for
the Reading Area.  Approval of the 8-hour MVEBs means that the 1-hour
budgets no longer apply under anti-backsliding.  The court clarified
that 1-hour conformity determinations are not required for
anti-backsliding purposes.

II.  Comments and EPA’s Responses

EPA received one comment.  The comment did not object to the proposed
approvals of the redesignation request, maintenance plan or the 2002
base year inventory.  The comment merely pointed out that EPA’s notice
had incorrectly identified the metropolitan planning organization (MPO)
with jurisdiction over the Reading Area.  EPA acknowledges that, as the
commenter notes, we mistakenly identified the MPO as the “Northern
Tier RPO” in the notice.  The MPO, however, is identified correctly in
the maintenance plan for the Reading Area (Berks County).  The reference
to the “Northern Tier RPO” on page 29911 of the May 30, 2007 notice
therefore should have been to Reading Metropolitan Planning Organization
(“Berks County MPO”).

III.  Effective Date

EPA finds that there is good cause for this redesignation to attainment,
and SIP revisions to become effective fifteen days after publication
because a more delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the nature
of a redesignation to attainment which relieves the area from certain
Clean Air Act requirements that would other wise apply to it.  The
effective date for this redesignation is authorized under both 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may become effective
less than 30 days after publication if the rule “grants or recognizes
an exemption or relieves a restriction'' and section 553(d)(3), which
allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication “as
otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with
the rule.”

IV.  Final Actions

EPA is approving the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s redesignation
request, maintenance plan, and the 2002 base-year emissions inventory
because the requirements for approval have been satisfied.  EPA has
evaluated Pennsylvania’s redesignation request that was submitted on
January 25, 2007, and determined that it meets the redesignation
criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act.  EPA
believes that the redesignation request and monitoring data demonstrate
that the Reading Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard.  The final
approval of this redesignation request will change the designation of
the Reading Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone
standard.  EPA is approving the maintenance plan for the Reading Area
submitted on January 25, 2007 as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP.
EPA is also approving the MVEBs submitted by PADEP in conjunction with
its redesignation request.  In addition, EPA is approving the 2002
base-year emissions inventory submitted by PADEP on January 25, 2007, as
a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP.  In this final rulemaking, EPA is
notifying the public that we have found that the MVEBs for nitrogen
oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions in the
Reading Area for the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan are adequate and
approved for conformity purposes.  As a result of our finding, the
Reading Area must use the MVEBs from the submitted 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan for future conformity determinations.  The adequate and
approved MVEBs are provided in the following table:

Adequate and Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Tons Per Day
(TPD)

Budget Year	NOx	VOC

2009	22.3	14.3

2018	9.0	7.8

V.  Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

General Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action
is not a "significant regulatory action" and therefore is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget.  For this reason, this
action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use" (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).  This action merely approves state law
as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.  Redesignation of an area to
attainment under section 107(d)(3)(e) of the Clean Air Act does not
impose any new requirements on small entities.  Redesignation is an
action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not
impose any new regulatory requirements on sources.  Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).  Because this rule
approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).  This rule also does not have tribal
implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one
or more Indian tribes, 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 by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Because this action  affects the status of a geographical area or allows
the state to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements and
because this action does not impose any new requirements on sources,
this action also does not have Federalism implications because it does
not 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, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).  This
action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal requirement,
and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act.  This rule also is
not subject to Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks( (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA(s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.  In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to
use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS.  It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act.  Redesignation is an
action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not
impose any new requirements on sources.  Thus, the requirements of
section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of
1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.  This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

B.  Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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 the rule in the Federal Register.  This rule is not a
(major rule( as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

C.  Petitions for Judicial Review

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 [insert date 60 days from date of
publication of this document in the Federal Register].  Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule 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, approving the redesignation of the Reading
Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the associated
maintenance plan, the 2002 base-year emissions inventory, and the MVEBs
identified in the maintenance plan, may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements.  (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,Volatile organic
compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

Air Pollution Control, National Parks, Wilderness Areas.

                                     /s/

__________________
_______________________________

Dated: August 9, 2007           				William T. Wisniewski, Acting
                          						Regional Administrator,

                                  					Region III.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

Part 52 – [AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart NN-Pennsylvania

2.  In §52.2020, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding an
entry for the 8-hour Ozone  Maintenance Plan and the 2002 Base Year
Emissions Inventory for the Reading, Pennsylvania Area at the end of the
table to read as follows:

§ 52.2020	Identification of plan.

*	*	*	*	*

(e) ***

     (1) * * *

Name of non-regulatory SIP revision	Applicable

Geographic area	State submittal

Date	EPA approval

date	Additional

explanation

*           *               *            *               *           *
          *

8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory
Reading Area (Berks County)	1/25/2007	[Insert Federal Register
publication date] [Insert page number where the document begins]

PART 81- [AMENDED]

The authority citation for Part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

In §81.339, the table entitled “Pennsylvania- Ozone (8-Hour
Standard)” is amended by revising the entry for the Reading, PA Area
to read as follows:

§81.339                    Pennsylvania

*          *          *          *          *

Pennsylvania – Ozone (8-Hour Standard)

Designated Area	Designationa	Category/Classification

	Date1	Type	Date1	Type

*           *           *           *           *           *
*

Reading, PA:

Berks County	[Insert date 15 days from date of publication]	Attainment

*           *           *           *           *           *
*

aIncludes Indian County located in each county or area, except otherwise
noted.

1This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.

*           *           *           *           *

 PAGE

 PAGE   2

 PAGE  10


[Federal Register: December 21, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 244)]
[Notices]
[Page 75807-75808]
[DOCID:fr21de05-48]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0314; FRL-7748-3]

Notice of Filing of a Pesticide Petition for Amendment to a
Regulation for Residues of Copper Sulfate Pentahydrate in or on Various
Food and Feed Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide
petition proposing the amendment of a regulation for residues of the
antimicrobial and/or fungicide copper sulfate pentahydrate in or on
various food and feed commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 20, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0314 and pesticide petition (PP) number
4E6934, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch
(PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001.
     Hand Delivery: Public Information and Records Integrity
Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1801
S. Bell St., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2005-0314. The docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
docket facility is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2005-0314. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available on-line
at http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov

or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access''

system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be captured automatically

and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit
the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/docket.htm/
.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulation.gov
 index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is

restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Public Information and

Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall
2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. The docket facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the docket facility is (703) 305-
5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marshall Swindell, Antimicrobials
Division (7510C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; 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 Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the

information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify this document by docket ID number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is printing a summary of a pesticide petition received under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, proposing the amendment of a regulation in 40 CFR
180.1021(c) for residues of the antimicrobial and/or fungicide copper
sulfate pentahydrate in or on various food and feed commodities. EPA
has determined that the pesticide petition contains data or information
regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however,
EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at
this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide
petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the
pesticide petition.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition prepared by
the petitioner is available on EPA's Electronic Docket at http://www.regulations.gov/.
 To locate this information on the home page of

EPA's Electronic Docket, select ``Quick Search'' and type the OPP
docket ID number ``EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0314'' in the search field. Once the
search has located the docket, clicking on the ``Docket ID'' will bring
up a list of all documents in the docket for the pesticide including
the petition summary.

Amendment to an Existing Tolerance

    PP 5F6982. ArchAngel, LLC, 636 Hampshire St., Suite 208, Quincy, IL
62301, proposes to amend the exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance in 40 CFR 180.1021(c) for residues of the antimicrobial and/
or fungicide copper sulfate pentahydrate when applied as a fungicide to
growing crops or to raw agricultural commodities after harvest and for
residues in or on meat, fat and meat by-products of cattle, sheep,
hogs, goats, horses, poultry, milk and eggs when applied as a
bactericide/fungicide to animal premises and bedding. Because this
petition is a request for an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance, an analytical method is not required at this time.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: December 14, 2005.
Frank Sanders,
Director, Antimicrobials Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E5-7640 Filed 12-20-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S