[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 72 (Thursday, April 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22273-22276]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07950]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94649; File No. SR-ICEEU-2022-008]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice
of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Amendments to the ICE
Clear Europe Operational Risk Management Policy and Risk Identification
Framework

April 8, 2022.
    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 March 31, 2022, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear Europe'' or
the ``Clearing House'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule changes described in
Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared primarily by
ICE Clear Europe. 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

    The principal purpose of the proposed amendments is for ICE Clear
Europe to (i) modify its Operational Risk Management Policy (the
``Operational Risk Management Policy'') to update the Clearing House's
operational risk management practices, and (ii) adding to the Clearing
House's rule framework the Risk Identification Framework (``Risk
Identification Framework'') which is a document that provides ICE Clear
Europe with a structure to explore, identify and monitor risks. The
updates would also make certain other amendments to remove outdated
provisions and to make certain other non-substantive amendments.

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

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

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

(a) Purpose
    ICE Clear Europe is proposing to amend its Operational Risk
Management Policy to make certain clarifications and enhancements to
(i) ICE Clear Europe's approach to remediating identified control
vulnerabilities and monitoring, (ii) transition to dynamic risk
assessment where each risk would be assessed at least annually via a
rolling review process, and (iii) the operational risk review process
by linking it with the Enterprise Risk Register (described further
below), as well as descriptive updates to the Enterprise Risk Register.
The appendices to the Operational Risk Management Policy would also be
updated to provide certain additional descriptive detail relating to
current practices, including titles and impact guidelines and guidance
charts in Appendix C. Various other typographical, clarificatory and
stylistic improvements would also be made.
    ICE Clear Europe is also proposing to add to the Clearing House's
set of rules the Risk Identification Framework which would provide the
Board with a structure to assist it in exploring, identifying and
monitoring risks, as described below.
I. Operational Risk Management Policy
    The overall description of operational risk management contained in
Section 3 would be clarified to include management as well as
identification, management [sic], monitoring and reporting of risk. The
same section would also provide that risks would be documented within
the Enterprise Risk Register.
    Section 3.1 (previously titled ``Risk Identification'') would be
deleted in its entirety and replaced with a new section titled
``Enterprise Risk Register''. The section would describe the Enterprise
Risk Register (attached to the policy as Appendix A, and also referred
to as the Risk Register Dashboard) which would serve as an inventory of
the material risks faced by the Clearing House, incorporating the Risk
Taxonomy (as discussed below). The section would also describe the
purpose of the Enterprise Risk Register, which would be to strengthen
the businesses' understanding of their risks and allow them to
demonstrate to the relevant risk committees and the Board that the
risks are managed. The section would also describe the responsibilities
with respect to the Enterprise Register, including that the Risk Owners
would be responsible for updating and

maintaining their assigned risks in the Enterprise Risk Register, as
well as discuss the responsibilities of the Risk Oversight Department
(``ROD''), the Executive Risk Committee (``ERC'') and the Board Risk
Committee (``BRC''). The section would also describe the register (as
attached as Appendix A to the policy) which would be a dynamically
updated living statement of the Clearing House's risks that form part
of the ERC and BRC standing agenda. Each risk would be assessed at
least annually through a rolling review process.
    Section 3.2 (Risk Assessment) would be updated to describe the
following five components for facilitating the effective management of
enterprise risk: (1) Risk Identification, (2) Level 3 Risk
Assessment,\3\ (3) Risk Management, (4) Risk Monitoring and (5) Risk
Reporting, as described further below. Stylistic and formatting updates
would be made to this section to clarify that the five aforementioned
components fall under the umbrella of risk assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The risk level (Level 1, 2 or 3) represents a hierarchy of
risks with Level 3 being the level at which risks are assessed by
the relevant Risk Owners. Level 1 and 2 risks are aggregated from
Level 3 risk ratings and are listed in the Enterprise Risk Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Firstly, a new subsection 3.2.1 (Risk Identification) would be
added and would describe risk identification as the process by which
each department identifies risks which should be documented within the
Risk Taxonomy and the Enterprise Risk Register. The Risk Taxonomy is
the list of risks that the Clearing House is exposed to which is
reviewed annually for completeness; those risks (and the related
control assessment of those risks) are reflected in the Enterprise Risk
Register. The amendments would also add that the risk identification
could be performed more frequently than annually as part of a dynamic
update.
    The substance of previous Section 3.3 (Risk Response) would be
replaced by new subsections 3.2.2, 3.2.3 and 3.2.3, as described
herein. However, the ownership and nature of the Clearing House's risk
responses would be substantively unchanged. New subsection 3.2.2.
(Control Assessment) would provide descriptions of the Clearing House's
risk assessment policies and processes, including the roles of Risk
Owners. Risk Owners would be required to assess the expected level of
mitigation that each control is expected to provide (High/Medium/Low--
more information would be provided in Appendix D), as well as the
effectiveness of each control (Satisfactory/Needs Improvement/
Unsatisfactory). Key controls would be considered for control
monitoring to further review effectiveness of controls. The amendments
provide that the control assessment process should be performed at
least once a year or more frequently as part of a dynamic control
assessment. Dynamic control assessments would be performed to reflect
material risk changes. Enterprise Risk Management (``ERM'') would be
responsible for providing review and challenge of the Risk Owners
control assessment. The `Worst-of Principle' would be applied to Level
1 and 2 ratings, where the parent overall control rating would adopt
the `worst-of' overall control rating of the level below.
    The subsection describing the Clearing House's risk assessment
processes (now Section 3.2.3) would be updated to provide the role of
inherent and residual risk assessments (attached as Appendix C to the
policy). In the absence of mitigating controls risks identified are
assessed by Risk Owners on an Inherent Risk basis and a Residual Risk
basis (taking into consideration mitigating controls) at Level 3. To
determine the Residual Risk, Risk Owners would take account of key risk
data points.
    The risk assessment process would be performed at least once a year
through a rolling review process or more frequently as part of a
dynamic risk assessments which are performed to reflect material risk
changes. ERM would be responsible for providing review and challenge of
the Risk Owners risk assessment. The `Worst-of Principle' would be
applied to Level 1 and 2 ratings, where the Parent Overall Control
Rating would adopt the `worst-of' rating of the level below across both
inherent and residual risk.
    New subsection 3.2.4 (Risk Management) would describe the Clearing
House's risk management policies. Residual risks above agreed
thresholds would require remediation actions to address the control
vulnerability and reduce the level of residual risk to an acceptable
level. Such thresholds refer to the Board-approved risk appetite
metrics which are currently set as Medium (see Appendix B for Risk
Assessment Ratings Grid). Any Risks assessed by the Risk Owners as High
or Very High would require remediation actions, which will depend on
the particular circumstances and risks involved. Proposed remediations
would be escalated to senior management and applicable risk committees
or Board. In certain circumstances, risk acceptance may be deemed
appropriate dependent upon the Clearing House's risk appetite and Board
approval. Recommendations would be assigned a priority rating and
remediation timeline as a function of the expected level of risk
mitigation and the control effective rating (attached as Appendix E).
Remediation recommendations would be entered in the Issue Problems and
Threat workflow unless already formally tracked.
    The section describing risk monitoring (now subsection 3.2.5) would
be updated to provide that in order to ensure that controls identified
during the assessment are operating effectively and performing in line
with the assessed control ratings; the Clearing House would perform
periodic control monitoring on controls considered as ``Key'' which
would be ``High'' mitigating controls mapped against ``Very High'' or
``High'' Inherent Risks. ERM would coordinate with the First, Second
and Third Lines to develop control monitoring plans for key controls
(described further in Appendix D).
    Additionally, a new paragraph would be added providing that to
ensure that key controls identified during the assessment are operating
effectively, the Clearing House would perform control monitoring, and
include a description of such processes. Control monitoring would be
performed by either the First Line (Clearing Risk Team), the Second
Line (Risk Oversight Department), the Clearing House's internal audit
team or independent third parties. The results would be reviewed by the
Chief Risk Officer and presented to the senior management team and
other governance committees as appropriate.
    The amendments would provide that Risk Owners would monitor
operational risks on an on-going rather than a daily basis. They would
also clarify that the Risk Oversight Department (``ROD'') would monitor
risks daily or monthly (rather than only daily) and would monitor
operational incidents raised by the Risk Owners.
    The section describing risk reporting (now subsection 3.2.6) would
be revised to include a new paragraph that describes the approval
process for the Enterprise Risk Register as being approved monthly at
each ERC and reported to each BRC and Board meeting. Stylistic changes
would also be made to this section to replace certain terms with their
acronym in order to aid with readability. Additionally, information
regarding the roles of the Board, ERC and other groups that has been
moved to other sections the document would be deleted from this section
in order to avoid superfluousness.
    Section 4.3 (Oversight of the Policy) would be updated to provide
that the

document would be subject to the oversight of the ROD (and not also the
Audit Committee).
    Descriptive titles would be added to the appendices in order to aid
with readability. Additionally, a table would be added to Appendix C
that would describe the meaning of certain impact guidelines (severe/
major/moderate/minor/incidental), the numerical score assigned to such
guidelines, and the guidance applied with respect to the risk posed to
such impact. A description would be added to Appendix G--Risk
Mitigation to provide that the methodology to determine ICE Clear
Europe's residual risk involves assessing the impact of ICE Clear
Europe's control landscape on its inherent risks as shows by the matrix
set out in the appendix.
II. Risk Identification Framework
    The amendments would include the formal adoption of the Risk
Identification Framework that are intended to formalize certain
practices relating to the identification of risks. Section 1
(Introduction) of the Risk Identification Framework would provide an
overarching description of the document and its purpose. The purpose of
the Risk Identification Framework is to provide the Board with a
structure to explore, identify and monitor risks as well as ensure that
risk tolerance is articulated and documented, with responsibilities and
accountabilities clearly assigned, as described further below. This
framework would also support the Board in risk avoidance, mitigation or
acceptance.
    Section 2 (Components of the Risk Identification Framework) would
describe the four components of the Risk Identification Framework: Risk
Taxonomy, which provides a single universal risk structure, terminology
and hierarchy; Enterprise Risk Register, which serves as an inventory
of the material risks faced by the Clearing House; Risk Assessment,
which requires risk owners to rate inherent risk, overall control
rating and residual risk for each level 3 risk; and Emerging Risk
Assessment, which facilitates ongoing identification, discussion and
mitigation of emerging risks as Board and executive level. The
subsections that follow would provide further descriptions of each
component and the responsibilities and frequency relating to review of
each.
    Section 3 (Review and Governance) would describe the documentation
ownership and governance processes in respect of the Risk
Identification Framework. The document would be owned by the Chief Risk
Officer, any material changes to the document would require Executive
Risk Committee and Board Approval. The Executive Risk Committee and
Board would review the Risk Identification Framework annually.
    The appendices referenced throughout the document would follow and
would include appendices providing for a risk register dashboard,
rating guidance impact and likelihood and emerging business risks.
(b) Statutory Basis
    ICE Clear Europe believes that the proposed amendments to the
Operational Risk Management Policy and the adoption of the Risk
Identification Framework are consistent with the requirements of
Section 17A of the Act \4\ and the regulations thereunder applicable to
it. In particular, Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \5\ requires, among
other things, that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to
promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivative agreements,
contracts, and transactions, the safeguarding of securities and funds
in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is
responsible, and the protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes to the Operational Risk Management Policy and
the adoption of the Risk Identification Framework are designed to
strengthen ICE Clear Europe's tools to manage the risk of losses
resulting from operational errors or failures. The amendments and
adoption would update and clarify the processes, controls and
escalations with respect to the testing and reviewing of the Clearing
House's operations as well as outline the responsibilities of the
Clearing House's committees, management and the Board in relation to
each document. Through better managing risks in operational failure
scenarios providing the policies and framework to identify, manage and
monitor such risks, the proposed amendments to the Operational Risk
Management Policy and the adoption of the Risk Identification Framework
would promote the stability of the Clearing House and the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of cleared contracts. The enhanced
risk management is therefore also generally consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest in the safe operation
of the Clearing House. (ICE Clear Europe would not expect the
amendments to affect the safeguarding of securities and funds in ICE
Clear Europe's custody or control or for which it is responsible.)
Accordingly, the amendments satisfy the requirements of Section
17A(b)(3)(F).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendments to the Operational Risk Management Policy and the
adoption of the Risk Identification Framework are also consistent with
relevant provisions of Rule 17Ad-22.\7\ Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(i) provides
that ``[e]ach covered clearing agency shall establish, implement,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonable
designed to, as applicable [. . .] identify, measure, monitor and
manage the range of risks that arise in or are borne by the covered
clearing agency''.\8\ As set forth above, the amendments to the
Operational Risk Management Policy are intended to clarify and enhance
the Clearing House's policies and practices that address operational
and other risks, including with respect to the ongoing review,
categorization and assessment of risks faced by the Clearing House. The
adoption of the Risk Identification Framework would assist the Board in
evaluation of risks and consequently facilitate risk avoidance,
mitigation or acceptance by the Clearing House. The amendments would
thus strengthen the management of operational risks and risk management
more generally. In ICE Clear Europe's view, the amendments are
therefore consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(i).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(3)(i).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(3)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2) provides that ``[e]ach covered clearing agency
shall establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonable designed to, as applicable [. . .] provide for
governance arrangements that are clear and transparent'' \10\ and
``[s]pecify clear and direct lines of responsibility''.\11\ The
amendments to the Operational Risk Management Policy and the adoption
of the Risk Identification Framework each would clarify or provide the
responsibilities of the Clearing House's committees, management and the
Board in relation to each such document. In ICE Clear Europe's view,
the amendments are therefore consistent with the requirements of Rule
17Ad-22(e)(2).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(i).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(v).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendments are also consistent with Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(17)(i),

which provides that ``[e]ach covered clearing agency shall establish,
implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonable designed to, as applicable [. . .] manage the clearing
agency's operational risks by identifying the plausible sources of
operational risk, both internal and external, and mitigating their
impact through the use of appropriate systems, policies, procedures,
and controls''.\13\ The amendments to the Operational Risk Management
Policy facilitate ongoing identification of operational risks and
better mitigate their impact through improved procedures and controls
resulting from more detailed governance and review processes with
respect to risk identification, assessment, management, monitoring and
reporting. In ICE Clear Europe's view, the amendments are therefore
consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(17)(i).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(17)(i).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(17)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed amendments would
have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The amendments
are being adopted to update and clarify the Clearing House's
Operational Risk Management Policy and to adopt the Risk Identification
Framework, all of which relate to the Clearing House's internal
processes for operational risk management. ICE Clear Europe does not
believe the amendments and adoption would affect the costs of clearing,
the ability of market participants to access clearing, or the market
for clearing services generally. Therefore, ICE Clear Europe does not
believe the proposed rule change imposes any burden on competition that
is inappropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments relating to the proposed amendments have not been
solicited or received by ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear Europe will notify
the Commission of any written comments received with respect to the
proposed rule change and adoption.

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-ICEEU-2022-008 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2022-008. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Europe and on ICE
Clear Europe's website at https://www.theice.com/clear-europe/regulation. All comments received will be posted without change.
Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2022-008 and should be
submitted on or before May 5, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-07950 Filed 4-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 66545]
[FR Doc No: 2021-25543]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: PR22-5-000.
    Applicants: Eagle Ford Midstream, LP.
    Description: Submits tariff filing per 284.123(b)(2)+(g): Petition
for NGPA Section 311 Rate Approval to be effective 11/12/2021.
    Filed Date: 11/12/2021.
    Accession Number: 20211112-5214.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/3/21.
    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/11/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-324-000.
    Applicants: Trailblazer Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: TPC 2021-11-16 Negotiated Rate
Agreement to be effective 11/17/2021.
    Filed Date: 11/16/21.
    Accession Number: 20211116-5096.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/29/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-325-000.
    Applicants: Williams Energy Resources LLC, Sequent Energy
Management, L.P.
    Description: Joint Petition for Temporary Waivers of Capacity
Release Regulations, et al. of Sequent Energy Management, LP, et al.
    Filed Date: 11/16/21.
    Accession Number: 20211116-5196.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/29/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-326-000.
    Applicants: Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Tracker Filing November
2021 to be effective 1/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 11/17/21.
    Accession Number: 20211117-5043.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/29/21.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 17, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-25543 Filed 11-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 92 (Friday, May 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22054-22055]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10004]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL18-134-000]

Longview Power, LLC; Notice of Institution of Section 206
Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

    On May 3, 2018, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL18-
134-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16
U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into whether Longview
Power, LLC's reactive supply and voltage control service rates may be
unjust and unreasonable. Longview Power, LLC, 163 FERC ]61,088 (2018).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL18-134-000, established
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication
of this notice in the Federal Register.
    Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL18-134-
000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as
appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214, within 21
days of the date of issuance of the order.

    Dated: May 4, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-10004 Filed 5-10-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13275-13279]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04889]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 51, 52, and 97

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491; FRL-9943-36-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS40

Rulemaking To Affirm Interim Amendments to Dates in Federal
Implementation Plans Addressing Interstate Transport of Ozone and Fine
Particulate Matter

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is affirming and
making permanent certain amendments previously made on an interim basis
to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) provisions implementing the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). The purpose of the interim
amendments was to correctly reflect CSAPR's compliance deadlines as
revised by the effect of the action of the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit or Court)
granting the EPA's motion to lift the previous stay of CSAPR and delay
(toll) its deadlines by three years. Consistent with the Court's order,
the interim amendments corrected the CFR text to indicate that CSAPR's
Phase 1 emissions budgets apply in 2015 and 2016 and that CSAPR's Phase
2 emissions budgets and assurance provisions apply in 2017 and beyond.
The interim amendments similarly corrected dates in the CFR text
related to specific activities required or permitted under CSAPR by
regulated sources, the EPA, and states, as well as dates related to the
sunsetting of obligations arising under the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR) upon its replacement by CSAPR. In this action, following
consideration of comments received on the interim amendments, the EPA
is affirming the interim amendments and making them permanent without
change. This action is independent of a separate currently pending EPA
proposal to update CSAPR to address the 2008 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for ozone.

DATES: The effective date of this action is May 13, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The EPA is including this action in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0491, which is also the docket for the original CSAPR
rulemaking and other related rulemakings. 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, 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 either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air and Radiation Docket, William Jefferson Clinton
Building West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC.
The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
Air and Radiation Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Risley, Clean Air Markets
Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, MC 6204M, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Electronic copies of this document can be accessed through the EPA Web
site at: http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Regulated Entities. Entities regulated by CSAPR are fossil fuel-
fired boilers and stationary combustion turbines that serve generators
producing electricity for sale, including combined cycle units and
units operating as part of systems that cogenerate electricity and
other useful energy output. Regulated categories and entities include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Examples of potentially
            Category              NAICS * code     regulated industries
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................          221112  Fossil fuel electric
                                                  power generation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated. This table
lists the types of entities of which the EPA is now aware that could
potentially be regulated. Other types of entities not listed in the
table could also be regulated. To determine whether your facility is
regulated by CSAPR, you should carefully examine the applicability
provisions in 40 CFR 97.404, 97.504, 97.604, and 97.704. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of CSAPR to a particular entity,
consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
    Judicial Review. Judicial review of this rule is available only by
filing a petition for review in the D.C. Circuit on or before May 13,
2016. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial
review of EPA final action under the CAA that is ``nationally
applicable'' or that the Administrator determines is of ``nationwide
scope or effect'' is available only in the D.C. Circuit. Because the
interim amendments that are being affirmed and made permanent in this
rule apply to sources in 28 states, this rule is ``nationally
applicable'' within the meaning of section 307(b)(1). For the same
reason, the Administrator determines that this rule is of ``nationwide
scope or effect'' for purposes of section 307(b)(1). CAA section
307(b)(1) also provides that filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this rule does not affect the finality of the rule
for the purposes of judicial review, does not extend the time within
which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and does not
postpone the effectiveness of the rule. Under CAA section 307(b)(2),
the requirements established by this rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce these requirements.
    Outline. The following outline is provided to aid in locating
information in this preamble.

I. Background on CSAPR and the Interim Amendments
II. Consideration of Comments and Affirmation of Amendments
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, and
Executive

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. Background on CSAPR and the Interim Amendments

    In this section, the EPA summarizes the rulemaking and litigation
history leading to the interim amendments and the content of the
amendments.
    The EPA issued the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)\1\ in
July 2011 to address CAA requirements concerning interstate transport
of air pollution and to replace the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR),
which the D.C. Circuit had remanded to the EPA for replacement. As
subsequently amended, CSAPR requires 28 states to limit their state-
wide emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and/or nitrogen
oxides (NOX) in order to reduce or eliminate the states'
unlawful contributions to fine particulate matter and/or ground-level
ozone pollution in other states. The emissions limitations are defined
in terms of maximum state-wide ``budgets'' for emissions of annual
SO2, annual NOX, and/or ozone-season
NOX by each state's large electricity generating units
(EGUs). The emissions budgets are implemented in two phases of
generally increasing stringency, with the Phase 1 budgets originally
scheduled to apply to emissions in 2012 and 2013 and the Phase 2
budgets originally scheduled to apply to emissions in 2014 and later
years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Federal Implementation Plans; Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals, 76 FR
48208 (August 8, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the mechanism for achieving compliance with the emissions
limitations, CSAPR establishes federal implementation plans (FIPs) that
require large EGUs in each affected state to participate in one or more
new emissions trading programs that supersede the existing CAIR
emissions trading programs. Interstate trading of CSAPR's emission
allowances is permitted, but the rule includes ``assurance provisions''
designed to ensure that individual states' emissions in each Phase 2
compliance period do not exceed the states' respective emissions
budgets for that period by more than specified ``variability limits.''
    CSAPR allows states to elect to revise their state implementation
plans (SIPs) to modify or replace the FIPs while continuing to rely on
the rule's trading programs for compliance with the emissions
limitations, and establishes certain requirements and deadlines related
to those optional SIP revisions. The rule also contains provisions that
sunset CAIR-related obligations on a schedule coordinated with the
implementation of CSAPR compliance requirements.
    Certain industry and state and local government petitioners
challenged CSAPR in the D.C. Circuit and filed motions seeking a stay
of the rule pending judicial review. On December 30, 2011, the Court
granted a stay of the rule, ordering the EPA to continue administering
CAIR on an interim basis.\2\ In a subsequent decision on the merits,
the Court vacated CSAPR based on a subset of petitioners' claims, but
on April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed that decision and
remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit for further proceedings.\3\
Throughout the initial round of D.C. Circuit proceedings and the
ensuing Supreme Court proceedings, the stay remained in place and the
EPA continued to implement CAIR. Following the Supreme Court decision,
in order to allow CSAPR to replace CAIR in an equitable and orderly
manner while further D.C. Circuit proceedings were held to resolve
petitioners' remaining claims, the EPA filed a motion asking the D.C.
Circuit to lift the stay and to toll by three years all CSAPR
compliance deadlines that had not passed as of the date of the stay
order.\4\ On October 23, 2014, the Court granted the EPA's motion.\5\
The Court later issued a decision denying most of petitioners'
remaining claims while remanding certain state budgets to the EPA for
reconsideration.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Order, Document #1350421, EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v.
EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir. issued Dec. 30, 2011).
    \3\ EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584
(2014), reversing 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
    \4\ Respondents' Motion to Lift the Stay Entered on December 30,
2011, Document #1499505, EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No.
11-1302 (D.C. Cir. filed June 26, 2014); see also Reply in Further
Support of Motion to Lift Stay, Document #1508914, EME Homer City
Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir. filed August 22,
2014). Both documents are available in the docket.
    \5\ Order, Document #1518738, EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v.
EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir. issued Oct. 23, 2014).
    \6\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C.
Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the order lifting the stay, the EPA made ministerial
amendments to the dates in the CSAPR regulatory text in 40 CFR parts
51, 52, and 97 to clarify how the EPA would implement the rule
consistent with the D.C. Circuit's order granting the EPA's motion to
lift the stay and toll the rule's deadlines. Generally, the amendments
tolled all dates and years in the then-current regulatory text that had
not passed as of December 30, 2011 (the date of the stay order) by
three calendar years. The purpose of the ministerial amendments was to
restore parties and the rule to the status that would have existed but
for the stay, albeit three years later; preserve the rule's internal
consistency; render moot questions as to whether the Court's order
might not have tolled some of the individual dates being amended; and
provide clarity to stakeholders and the public, thereby permitting
orderly implementation of the rule. Implementation of Phase 1 of CSAPR
began on January 1, 2015, consistent with the D.C. Circuit's order and
with the amended deadlines in the CSAPR regulatory text.
    The ministerial amendments were described in detail in a December
2014 Federal Register document.\7\ The most fundamental amendments made
clear that, consistent with the Court's order, compliance with CSAPR's
Phase 1 emissions budgets is now required in 2015 and 2016 (instead of
2012 and 2013) and compliance with the rule's Phase 2 emissions budgets
and assurance provisions is now required in 2017 and beyond (instead of
2014 and beyond).\8\ Other amendments tolled specific deadlines for
sources to certify monitoring systems and to start reporting emissions,
for the EPA to allocate and record emission allowances, and for states
to take optional steps to modify or replace their CSAPR FIPs through
SIP revisions. Dates were also tolled in the regulatory provisions that
sunsetted CAIR-related obligations upon the replacement of CAIR by
CSAPR, and a new deadline was set for removal of CAIR NOX
allowances from allowance tracking system accounts. No regulatory text
was amended other than dates, and no

substantive changes to CSAPR were made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Rulemaking to Amend Dates in Federal Implementation Plans
Addressing Interstate Transport of Ozone and Fine Particulate
Matter, 79 FR 71663 (Dec. 3, 2014).
    \8\ The EPA also administratively converted the 2012-vintage and
2013-vintage CSAPR emission allowances previously recorded in
tracking system accounts into 2015-vintage and 2016-vintage
allowances, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The December 2014 Federal Register document publishing the
ministerial amendments also described the administrative process that
the EPA is following with respect to the amendments. After the D.C.
Circuit's October 23, 2014 order granting the EPA's motion to lift the
stay and toll CSAPR's deadlines, insufficient time remained before the
January 1, 2015 start of implementation for the EPA to complete notice-
and-comment rulemaking to amend the CSAPR regulations in the CFR so as
to reflect the new implementation schedule. In order to facilitate
orderly implementation of CSAPR, the EPA therefore amended the CSAPR
regulations in the CFR using rulemaking procedures authorized in
section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.)
under which agencies may, upon finding good cause, issue rules without
prior notice or opportunity for public comment and make rules effective
immediately upon Federal Register publication. However, the EPA also
implemented the amendments on an interim basis only and provided notice
and an opportunity for comment on the content of the amendments. The
December 2014 document stated that the EPA would issue a final rule
confirming the interim amendments or making any further amendments that
might be necessary following consideration of any comments received.
    The scope of comment requested in the December 2014 Federal
Register document regarding the interim amendments was tailored to the
narrow character of the amendments. Specifically, the EPA requested
comment on ``whether, in order to be consistent with the Court's order
tolling CSAPR deadlines by three years, the provisions of this interim
rule should become permanent or, alternatively, whether any date or
year in the regulatory text amended by the interim final rule should
either be restored to the date or year as it appeared in the regulatory
text prior to promulgation of the interim final rule or should be
changed to a date or year different from the date or year set in the
interim final rule.'' 79 FR at 71670 (emphasis added). The document
further expressly stated that ``[t]he EPA is not reopening for comment
any provisions of CSAPR other than the dates and years amended in the
interim final rule for consistency with the Court's order tolling CSAPR
deadlines by three years.'' Id.

II. Consideration of Comments and Affirmation of Amendments

    In this section, the EPA summarizes and responds to the comments
received on the interim amendments and, following consideration of the
comments, takes action to affirm the interim amendments and make them
permanent.
    The EPA received three comments on the interim amendments. None of
the comments addresses the topic on which comment was sought, namely
whether the interim amendments correctly tolled the deadlines in the
CSAPR regulations by three years consistent with the D.C. Circuit's
order granting the EPA's request to lift the stay. Instead, the
comments raise issues outside the scope of the interim amendments and
the request for comment.
    The first commenter expresses general opposition to any tolling of
the original CSAPR deadlines, stating that the industry could meet the
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season budgets without tolling and that
tolling could lead to an increase in transported air pollution.
Although related to the CSAPR deadlines and tolling, a comment
generally opposing any tolling of the deadlines is outside the scope of
comment requested and is clearly inconsistent with the D.C. Circuit's
order granting the EPA's motion to lift the stay and toll CSAPR's
deadlines. The commenter's remaining comments are unrelated to the
CSAPR compliance deadlines or tolling. For example, the commenter
states that the EPA should promulgate an additional rulemaking to
address newer, more stringent ozone standards and in particular to
address NOX emissions on days of high electricity demand.
The commenter also advocates that the EPA not allow compliance with
CSAPR to be deemed to satisfy regulatory requirements to install best
available retrofit technology (BART) or reasonably available control
technology (RACT). Finally, the commenter states that the EPA should
provide guidance on title V permitting and on replacement of a CSAPR
FIP with an equally or more stringent SIP revision that would not
include participation in CSAPR.
    The second commenter states that the CSAPR deadlines should be
tolled by four rather than three years in order to provide affected
units with additional time to install controls and generally to enable
affected units to avoid the need to undertake compliance activities
while litigation regarding CSAPR continues. As the EPA explained in the
motion to lift the stay and toll the deadlines for three years,
immediate lifting of the stay was necessary to prevent further delay in
implementation of CSAPR and its important health benefits. See
Respondent's Motion, supra note 4, at 9-13. Tolling the CSAPR deadlines
by four years instead of three would have exacerbated the
implementation delay and frustrated this important public purpose.
Further, as also explained in the motion, tolling the deadlines by
three years restored parties and the rule to the status that would have
existed but for the stay, albeit three years later, and available data
showed that compliance was readily achievable on the schedule that the
EPA proposed in the motion. Id. at 13-16. Emissions data reported over
the first year of CSAPR implementation bear out the EPA's expectations
regarding the feasibility of compliance and confirm the reasonableness
of not delaying the deadlines beyond three years.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See reported 2015 emissions data at EPA Air Markets Program
Data Web site, http://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to these considerations, we also note that this
comment, like the other comments received, is outside the scope of
comment requested, even after taking account of the commenter's
argument that the comment is in scope. The commenter asserts that this
comment is on point, focusing on the phrase in the December 2014
Federal Register document asking whether any date ``should be changed
to a date or year different from the date or year set in the'' interim
amendments. However, the commenter takes that phrase out of context and
thereby misconstrues the scope of comment requested. As already noted,
the phrase cited by the commenter was qualified in the December 2014
Federal Register document by a preceding phrase making clear that the
context of the request was whether a change to a particular date or
year would improve the amendments' consistency with the D.C. Circuit's
court's order granting the EPA's motion to lift the stay and toll
CSAPR's deadlines by three years. Similarly, the following sentence in
the December 2014 Federal Register notice stated that ``[t]he EPA is
not reopening for comment any provisions of CSAPR other than the dates
and years amended in the interim final rule for consistency with the
Court's order tolling CSAPR deadlines by three years.'' Thus,
notwithstanding the commenter's assertion to the contrary, the comment
is outside the scope of comment requested and is clearly inconsistent
with the D.C. Circuit's order granting the EPA's motion to lift the
stay and toll CSAPR's deadlines by three years.

    The third commenter states that when tolling the CSAPR compliance
deadlines, the EPA should also revise the unit-level allocations of
allowances issued to affected units in the commenter's state for the
first five program years for one of the CSAPR trading programs. When
establishing the current unit-level allowance allocations, the EPA
considered the annual emission limits imposed on certain units by
consent decrees and generally capped the annual allocations to those
units at those annual limits. See 77 FR 10324, 10329-30 (February 21,
2012). However, the annual allocations were based on the consent decree
annual limits (as then known) for what would have been CSAPR's first
five program years before tolling--i.e., 2012 through 2016--rather than
the consent decree annual limits for CSAPR's first five program years
after tolling--i.e., 2015 through 2019. Some of the commenter's units
are subject to 2015-2019 consent decree annual limits lower than the
2012-2016 consent decree annual limits that the EPA considered when
establishing the annual allocations for those units for the first five
program years, with the consequence that, after tolling, the units'
annual allocations will exceed their annual emission limits and the
excess allowances will be subject to surrender under the terms of the
consent decree.\10\ However, notwithstanding the fact that the
commenter seeks to have the EPA repeat the same general allocation
procedure that the EPA followed in previous rulemakings when
establishing CSAPR's current unit-level allowance allocations, this
comment is outside the scope of comment requested. The EPA's motion to
the D.C. Circuit sought only to lift the stay and toll CSAPR's
deadlines, and the order granting the motion cannot be construed as
authorizing changes beyond that narrow scope. Consistent with the D.C.
Circuit's order, the interim amendments were limited to changing dates
in the CFR as necessary to reflect the authorized tolling of CSAPR's
deadlines, and the scope of comment requested was limited to whether
the interim amendments correctly reflected tolling of the deadlines by
three years. Revising the unit-level allocations established in
previous rulemakings would require new notice-and-comment rulemaking
beyond the scope of the EPA's motion, the D.C. Circuit's order, and the
interim amendments, and comments seeking such new rulemaking are
outside the scope of comment requested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ CSAPR allows states to submit SIP revisions to replace the
EPA's default allowance allocations with state-determined
allocations for any program year after 2015, and the state in which
the commenter's units are located has submitted two SIP revisions
with state-determined allocations that if approved would address the
commenter's concern for program year 2016 and for program years 2017
through 2019, respectively. The EPA has already approved the SIP
revision addressing program year 2016. 80 FR 50789 (Aug. 21, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Having considered the comments received on the interim amendments,
the EPA has determined to affirm the amendments and make them permanent
without change. The EPA's authority to take this action is provided by
CAA sections 110 and 301 (42 U.S.C. 7410 and 7601).

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the Paperwork Reduction Act. OMB has previously approved the
information collection activities contained in the existing regulations
and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0667. This action simply
affirms and makes permanent a previous interim action tolling the
deadlines of CSAPR by three years, including the deadlines for the
rule's information collection requirements.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. This action will not impose any requirements on small
entities because it does not change existing regulatory requirements.
This action simply affirms and makes permanent a previous interim
action tolling the deadlines of CSAPR by three years.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector. This action simply affirms and makes permanent a
previous interim action tolling the deadlines of CSAPR by three years.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will 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. This
action simply affirms and makes permanent a previous interim action
tolling the deadlines of CSAPR by three years.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This action simply affirms and makes permanent a
previous interim action tolling the deadlines of CSAPR by three years.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. Consistent
with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribes, the EPA consulted with tribal officials while developing CSAPR.
A summary of that consultation is provided in the preamble for CSAPR,
76 FR 48208, 48346 (August 8, 2011).

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it simply affirms and makes permanent a
previous interim action tolling the deadlines of the CSAPR FIPs
implementing previously promulgated health or safety-based federal
standards.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income,
or indigenous populations. This action simply affirms and makes
permanent a previous interim action tolling the deadlines of CSAPR by
three years. Consistent with Executive Order 12898 and the EPA's
environmental justice policies, the EPA considered effects on low-
income, minority, and indigenous populations while developing CSAPR.
The process and results of that consideration are described in the
preamble for CSAPR, 76 FR 48208, 48347-52 (August 8, 2011).

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 51

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

40 CFR Part 97

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Electric power plants, Nitrogen oxides,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.
    Accordingly, the interim rule amending 40 CFR parts 51, 52, and 97
which was published at 79 FR 71663 on December 3, 2014, is adopted as a
final rule without change.

    Dated: February 26, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-04889 Filed 3-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 6, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8431-8433]
[FR Doc No: C1-2012-31243]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 172

[Docket Nos. PHMSA-2012-0027 (HM-215L)]
RIN 2137-AE87

Hazardous Materials: Harmonization with International Standards
(RRR)

Correction

    In rule document 2012-31243 appearing on pages 988 through 1100 in
the issue of Monday, January 7, 2013, make the following correction:

Sec.  172.101  [Corrected]

    On page 1051, the table should read in part as follows:
* * * * *

G        Chlorosilanes,          6.1  UN3362......  II........  6.1,8,3...  T14, TP2, TP7,     None........  206......  243........  Forbidden.....  30 L..........  C........  40, 125
          toxic,                                                             TP13, TP27.
          corrosive,
          flammable, n.o.s.
G        Chlorosilanes,          6.1  UN3361......  II........  6.1, 8....  T14, TP2, TP7,     None........  206......  243........  Forbidden.....  30 L..........  C........  40
          toxic,                                                             TP13, TP27.
          corrosive, n.o.s.

                                                                                * * * * * * *
G        Components,            1.2B  UN0382......  II........  1.2B......  101..............  None........  62.......  None.......  Forbidden.....  Forbidden.....  05.......  25
          explosive train,
          n.o.s.
G        Components,            1.4B  UN0383......  II........  1.4B......  101..............  None........  62.......  None.......  Forbidden.....  75 kg.........  05.......  25
          explosive train,
          n.o.s.
G        Components,            1.4S  UN0384......  II........  1.4S......  101..............  None........  62.......  None.......  25 kg.........  100 kg........  01.......  25
          explosive train,
          n.o.s.
G        Components,            1.1B  UN0461......  II........  1.1B......  101..............  None........  62.......  None.......  Forbidden.....  Forbidden.....  05.......  25
          explosive train,
          n.o.s.

                                                                                * * * * * * *
G        Contrivances,          1.2L  UN0248......  II........  1.2L......  .................  None........  62.......  None.......  Forbidden.....  Forbidden.....  05.......  25, 14E, 15E,
          water-activated,                                                                                17E
          with burster,
          expelling charge
          or propelling
          charge.
G        Contrivances,          1.3L  UN0249......  II........  1.3L......  .................  None........  62.......  None.......  Forbidden.....  Forbidden.....  05.......  25, 14E, 15E,
          water-activated,                                                                                17E
          with burster,
          expelling charge
          or propelling
          charge.

                                                                                * * * * * * *
A W      Copra............       4.2  UN1363......  III.......  4.2.......  IB8, IP3, IP7....  None........  213......  241........  Forbidden.....  Forbidden.....  A........  13, 25, 119
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. C1-2012-31243 Filed 2-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 34 (Monday, February 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8723-8724]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03549]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-N-3655]

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

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

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

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by March
23, 2016.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0658.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Recordkeeping Requirements for Microbiological Testing and Corrective
Measures for Bottled Water--21 CFR 129.35(a)(3)(i), 129.80(g), and
129.80(h)--OMB Control Number 0910-0658--Extension

    The bottled water regulations in parts 129 and 165 (21 CFR parts
129 and 165) require that if any coliform organisms are detected in
weekly total coliform testing of finished bottled water, followup
testing must be conducted to determine whether any of the coliform
organisms are Escherichia coli. The adulteration provision of the
bottled water standard (Sec.  165.110(d)) provides that a finished
product that tests positive for E. coli will be deemed adulterated
under section 402(a)(3) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 342(a)(3)). In addition, the current good manufacturing practice
(CGMP) regulations for bottled water in part 129 require that source
water from other than a public water system (PWS) be tested at least
weekly for total coliform. If any coliform organisms are detected in
the source water, the bottled water manufacturers are required to
determine whether any of the coliform organisms are E. coli. Source
water found to contain E. coli is not considered water of a safe,
sanitary quality and would be unsuitable for bottled water production.
Before a bottler may use source water from a source that has tested
positive for E. coli, a bottler must take appropriate measures to
rectify or otherwise eliminate the cause of the contamination. A source
previously found to contain E. coli will be considered negative for E.
coli after five samples collected over a 24-hour period from the same
sampling site are tested and found to be E. coli negative.
    Description of Respondents: The respondents to this information
collection are domestic and foreign bottled water manufacturers that
sell bottled water in the United States.
    In the Federal Register of October 19, 2015 (80 FR 63228) FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received.
    We estimate the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                               Table 1--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of       Total
    21 CFR Section; Activity         Number of      records per      annual       Average burden per      Total
                                   recordkeepers   recordkeeper     records         recordkeeping         hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   129.35(a)(3)(i), Sec.                 319               6        1,914  0.08 (5 minutes)              153
 129.80(h); Bottlers subject to
 source water and finished
 product testing.
Sec.   129.80(g), Sec.                        95               3          285  0.08 (5 minutes)               23
 129.80(h); Bottlers testing
 finished product only.
Sec.   129.35(a)(3)(i), Sec.                   3               5           15  0.08 (5 minutes)                1
 129.80(h); Bottlers conducting
 secondary testing of source
 water.
Sec.   129.35(a)(3)(i), Sec.                   3               3            9  0.25 (15 minutes)               2
 129.80(h); Bottlers rectifying
 contamination.
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Burden.........  ..............  ..............  ...........  .......................       179
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    The current CGMP regulations already reflect the time and
associated recordkeeping costs for those bottlers that are required to
conduct microbiological testing of their source water, as well as total
coliform testing of their finished bottled water products. We therefore
conclude that any additional burden and costs in recordkeeping based on
followup testing that is required if any coliform organisms detected in
the source water test positive for E.coli are negligible. We estimate
that the labor burden of keeping records of each test is about 5
minutes per test. We also require followup testing of source water and
finished bottled water products for E. coli when total coliform
positives occur. We expect that 319 bottlers that use sources other
than PWSs may find a total coliform positive sample about three times
per year in source testing and about three times in finished product
testing, for a total of 153 hours of recordkeeping. In addition to the
319 bottlers, about 95 bottlers that use PWSs

may find a total coliform positive sample about three times per year in
finished product testing, for a total of 23 hours of recordkeeping.
Upon finding a total coliform sample, bottlers will then have to
conduct a followup test for E. coli.
    We expect that recordkeeping for the followup test for E. coli will
also take about 5 minutes per test. As shown in table 1 of this
document, we expect that three bottlers per year will have to carry out
the additional E. coli testing, with a burden of 1 hour. These bottlers
will also have to keep records about rectifying the source
contamination, for a burden of 2 hours. For all expected total coliform
testing, E. coli testing, and source rectification, we estimate a total
burden of 179 hours. We base our estimate on our experience with the
current CGMP regulations.

    Dated: February 16, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-03549 Filed 2-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


Mark. Riechers@ mercmarine. com Sent by: Mark. Riechers@ mercmarine. com Received Date: 08/ 03/ 2005 09: 09 AM Transmission Date: 08/ 03/ 2005 09: 09: 24 AM To Michael Samulski/ AA/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Glenn Passavant/ AA/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Alan Stout/ AA/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc Subject Fw: Over 500 Hp Engines Glenn, Mike, Alan,

The attached email covers some of the discussions I've had with Jeff Lowry at CARB regarding the over 500 Hp engines. I believe he discussed the default value with you and said that you were planning on setting it at 30 g/ kW hr. The other issues are useful life and emissions warranty which need to be modified, as these are highly stressed, short lifetime engines.

If we can agree to these items, then the only other real issue, for these engines, is how the Averaging and Trading is handled for companies that need it. Jeff has indicated that CARB wants to be in alignment with EPA on this issue.

Best Regards,

Mark Mark R. Riechers Regulatory Development Manager Mercury Marine W6250 Pioneer Road P. O. Box 1939 Fond du Lac, WI 54936 USA 920 924 1831 920 251 1113 cell mark_ riechers@ mercmarine. com  Forwarded by Mark Riechers/ FDL/ Mercury on 08/ 03/ 2005 07: 49 AM  Jeff Lowry < jlowry@ arb. ca. gov> 07/ 27/ 2005 05: 12 PM To Mark. Riechers@ mercmarine. com cc growland@ arb. ca. gov Subject Re: Over 500 Hp Engines Thanks,

Most of these requests seem reasonable to me although I'll need to review the warranty provisions to see what we can allow. I'll pass this on to my management. Thanks.

 Original Message  From: Mark. Riechers@ mercmarine. com To: jlowry@ arb. ca. gov Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 12: 14 PM Subject: Over 500 Hp Engines Jeff,

Per our discussion today, here are our proposed changes, for over 500 Hp engines, in the SI Marine Engine Rule:

Default Emissions Value:

You and EPA have suggested 30 g/ kW hr HC + NOx. We concur. We do want the option of testing, and using actual values, if desired ( harmonizes with EPA approach).

Useful Life:

Under 650 Hp Engines  75 hours Reason: These engines have stock blocks, but High Performance Heads. Some have Superchargers. Primary durability issue is the Heads.

Over 650 Hp Engines  50 hours Reason: These are Racing Blocks and Heads, and are extremely highly stressed engines. They run large, or multiple Superchargers. Recommended interval for rebuilding heads is 50 hours.

Emissions Warranty:

Under 650 Hp Engines  1 year ( We also request that you consider allowing us to either use hours or time. If hours we proposes 75 hours  useful life).

Over 650 Hp Engines  Minimum 90 days, but must match engine warranty. In our case the 850 Hp has a 6 month warranty and the 1075 Hp has a 90 day warranty. ( We also request that you consider allowing us to either use hours or time. If hours we proposes 50 hours  useful life).

OBD M:

Per our discussion, the references for relief on implementation need to be changed from 2007 to 2008 to preserve the amount of relief time available.

Please feel free to call me to discuss this, or any other issues. I look forward to working with you towards resolving all of the open issues.

Best Regards,

Mark Mark R. Riechers Regulatory Development Manager Mercury Marine W6250 Pioneer Road P. O. Box 1939 Fond du Lac, WI 54936 USA 920 924 1831 920 251 1113 cell mark_ riechers@ mercmarine. com