[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67651-67654]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21700]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R02-OAR-2021-0871; FRL-11226-02-R2]

Air Plan Approval; New Jersey; Redesignation of the Warren County
1971 Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of
the Area's Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On November 15, 2021, the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP) submitted a request for the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to approve the redesignation of
the New Jersey portion of the Northeast Pennsylvania-Upper Delaware
Valley Interstate Air Quality Control Region (Warren County, New
Jersey) from nonattainment to attainment for the 1971 Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In
conjunction with its redesignation request, NJDEP submitted a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision containing a limited maintenance
plan and its associated contingency measures for the Warren County 1971
SO2 Nonattainment Area (Warren County SO2 NAA) to
ensure

that attainment of the SO2 NAAQS will continue to be
maintained. The EPA is taking final action to approve the requested SIP
revision and to redesignate the Warren County SO2 NAA from
nonattainment to attainment for the 1971 SO2 NAAQS.

DATES: This final rule is effective on October 2, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2021-0871. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Controlled
Unclassified Information (CUI) (formally referred to as 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 electronically through https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Fradkin, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, New York, New York
10007-1866, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for this action?
II. Environmental Justice Considerations
III. What comments were received in response to the EPA's proposed
action?
IV. What action is the EPA taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this action?

    On August 14, 2023, the EPA proposed to redesignate the Warren
County SO2 NAA to attainment for the 3-hour, 24-hour, and
annual 1971 SO2 NAAQS, based on the demonstrated compliance
with the requirements of the redesignation criteria provided under CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E). The EPA also proposed to approve the limited
maintenance plan as a revision to the New Jersey SIP. NJDEP submitted
the redesignation request and SIP revision on November 15, 2021.
    The specific details of New Jersey's redesignation request and SIP
revision, and the rationale for the EPA's approval action are explained
in the EPA's proposed rulemaking and are not restated in this final
action. For this detailed information, the reader is referred to the
EPA's August 14, 2023, proposed rulemaking (88 FR 54983).

II. Environmental Justice Considerations

    NJDEP provided a supplement to its SIP submission on March 16,
2023, which described New Jersey's programs and initiatives addressing
the needs of communities with Environmental Justice (EJ) concerns.
    The EPA performed an EJ analysis for the Warren County
SO2 NAA for the purpose of providing additional context and
information about this rulemaking to the public and not as a basis for
the action.
    On August 14, 2023, we proposed to find that action would not have
or lead to disproportionately high or adverse human health or
environmental effects on communities with EJ concerns. For the specific
details regarding the EPA's evaluation of EJ considerations, the reader
is referred to the August 14, 2023, proposed rulemaking (88 FR 54983,
54994-54995).

III. What comments were received in response to the EPA's proposed
action?

    The EPA provided a 30-day review and comment period for the August
14, 2023, proposed rule. The comment period ended on September 13,
2023. The EPA received no comments on the proposed action.

IV. What action is the EPA taking?

    The EPA has evaluated New Jersey's redesignation request and
determined that it meets the redesignation criteria provided under CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E) and is consistent with Agency regulations and
policy. The EPA is approving New Jersey's request to redesignate the
Warren County SO2 NAA to attainment for the 3-hour, 24-hour,
and annual 1971 SO2 NAAQS. Additionally, the EPA is
approving the maintenance plan for the Warren County SO2 NAA
pursuant to section 175A of the CAA.
    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA), the EPA finds there is good cause for this action to become
effective immediately upon publication. The immediate effective date
for this action is authorized under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). Section
553(d)(1) of the APA provides that final rules shall not become
effective until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register
``except . . . a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an
exemption or relieves a restriction.'' The purpose of this provision is
to ``give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior
before the final rule takes effect.'' Omnipoint Corp. v. Fed. Commc'n
Comm'n, 78 F.3d 620, 630 (D.C. Cir. 1996); see also United States v.
Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099, 1104 (8th Cir. 1977) (quoting legislative
history). However, when the agency grants or recognizes an exemption or
relieves a restriction, affected parties do not need a reasonable time
to adjust because the effect is not adverse. The EPA has determined
that this rule relieves a restriction because this rule relieves
sources in the area of Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR)
permitting requirements; instead, upon the effective date of this
action, sources will be subject to less restrictive Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting requirements. For this
reason, the EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) for this
action to become effective on the date of publication of this action.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this 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 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
     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 subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a State program;
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and

     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act.
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and it 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).
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean
that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    NJDEP evaluated EJ considerations as part of its SIP submittal even
though the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit
nor require an evaluation. The EPA's evaluation of the NJDEP's
environmental justice considerations is described above in the section
titled, ``Environmental Justice Considerations.'' The analysis was done
for the purpose of providing additional context and information about
this rulemaking to the public, not as a basis of the action. The EPA is
taking action under the CAA on reasoning independent of the NJDEP's
evaluation of environmental justice. Due to the nature of this action,
it is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality
of the affected area.
    This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 1, 2023. 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

40 CFR Part 52

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

 40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

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

Lisa Garcia,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 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.

Subpart FF--New Jersey

0
2. In Sec.  52.1570, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding
the entry for ``1971 Sulfur Dioxide Redesignation Request and
Maintenance Plan for the Warren County Area'', at the end of the table
to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1570  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                      EPA-Approved New Jersey Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Applicable
                                  geographic or       New Jersey
          SIP element             nonattainment     submittal date       EPA approval date         Explanation
                                       area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
1971 Sulfur Dioxide             New Jersey         November 15,      October 2, 2023, [insert    Full
 Redesignation Request and       portion of the     2021.             Federal Register           approval.
 Maintenance Plan for the        Northeast                            citation].
 Warren County Area.             Pennsylvania-
                                 Upper Delaware
                                 Valley
                                 Interstate Air
                                 Quality Control
                                 Region (Warren
                                 County, New
                                 Jersey).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
4. In Sec.  81.331 the table entitled ``New Jersey--1971 Sulfur Dioxide
NAAQS'' is amended by revising the entries under ``Northeast
Pennsylvania-Upper Delaware Valley Interstate AQCR'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  81.331  New Jersey.

                                      New Jersey--1971 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Does not meet     Does not meet                     Better than
               Designated area                    primary          secondary        Cannot be        national
                                                 standards         standards       classified       standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Northeast Pennsylvania-Upper Delaware Valley
 Interstate AQCR:
    The Township of Harmony.................  ...............  ................  ..............               X
    The Township of White...................  ...............  ................  ..............               X
    The Township of Oxford..................  ...............  ................  ..............               X
    The Township of Belvidere...............  ...............  ................  ..............               X
    Portions of Liberty Township............  ...............  ................  ..............               X
    Portions of Mansfield Township..........  ...............  ................  ..............               X
    Remainder of AQCR.......................  ...............  ................  ..............               X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-21700 Filed 9-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 17, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68989-68992]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27092]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87720; File No. SR-LCH SA-2019-008]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; LCH SA; Order Approving Rule
Change Relating to the Updated 2018 Version of the Recovery Plan

December 11, 2019.

I. Introduction

    On October 8, 2019, 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 (``the ``Proposed Rule Change'')
to adopt an updated recovery plan (the ``RP''). The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on October 29,
2019.\3\ The Commission has not received any comments on the proposed
rule change. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is
approving the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-87388 (October 23,
2019), 84 FR 57897 (October 29, 2019) (SR-LCH SA-2018-008)
(``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The purpose of LCH SA's RP is to maintain the continuity of
critical services in times of extreme stress and to facilitate its
recovery.\4\ Generally, the RP identifies if and to what level LCH SA's
services are critical for the market

and what internal or external services/systems are critical for the
continuity of LCH SA's activity; outlines the scenarios under which
recovery of the LCH SA might be necessary; defines the early warning
indicators and triggers for initiating the recovery measures; defines
the governance framework to trigger these recovery measures; and
identifies the available recovery tools to manage crisis situations and
to restore business as usual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The description herein is substantially excerpted from the
Notice, 84 FR 57897.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Significant scenarios that could prevent LCH SA from providing its
critical services discussed in the RP include the default of one or
multiple clearing members; liquidity shortfalls as result of a clearing
member or allied clearing house default; default of an investment
counterparty of LCH SA or any other investment losses resulting from
changes in the market value on the investments; losses resulting from
an operational risk event; failure of a critical IT service provider;
and failure of financial market infrastructures such as an allied
clearing house, CSD, or Trades Repository.
    The proposed rule change intends to incorporate the following main
changes from the updated 2018 version of the RP: (1) Inclusion of
details on handling of the recovery from a cyber-risk scenario, (2)
inclusion of fraud as an operational risk, (3) inclusion of tools for
non-Euro transactions and collateral, (4) implementation of CC&G
rulebook changes related to service closure, (5) inclusion of a
comprehensive list of LCH SA's critical service providers, (6)
inclusion of details regarding the monitoring of capital related tools,
and (7) inclusion of details for managing the failure of LCH Ltd as a
service provider.

A. Recovery From a Cyber-Risk Scenario

    Under the proposed rule change, the RP would include more details
on the management of a cyber-risk scenario with the addition of the
Cyber Crisis Management Plan as a new recovery tool. The Cyber Crisis
Management Plan would define ``cyber-crisis'' and provide a framework
of procedures describing and specifying how LCH SA would respond to a
potential breach of a system, service or network indicating possible
problems with information security policy or a failure of controls. The
RP further defines cyber-risks as a single or a series of unwanted or
unexpected information security events that have a significant
probability of compromising business operations and threatening
information security taking the form of unauthorized scans or probes,
malicious code, denial of service, or attempts to gain access. The
framework and procedures would be activated in event that LCH SA
detected a cyber incident that could potentially cause a significant
impact on LCH SA business objectives.

B. Fraud Risk

    In addition to losses resulting from a clearing member default
scenarios, the RP covers losses resulting from a non-default
operational risk event. While the current version of the RP addresses
operational risks such as failure of third party service providers or
cyber risks, the proposed rule change would include as an operational
risk losses resulting from a fraud which impacts the critical services
provided by LCH SA. As is the case with other operational risks, the RP
would specify that business lines and operational risk departments have
the responsibility to identify potential fraud and to put into place
relevant controls to monitor for fraud risk.

C. Non-Euro Recovery Tools

    Currently, the RP includes various tools to deal with liquidity
needs resulting from default losses or other events giving rise to
liquidity constrains, including deferral of settlement for fixed income
and cash equity as well as collateral limits. The RP would now specify
that to bolster its recovery tools, LCH SA can use several new tools to
meet liquidity needs, including using non-Euro collateral to raise
liquidity, transforming liquidity received in non-Euro currencies into
Euro through bi-lateral repo transactions with the ``FXmarkets''
recovery tool, receiving liquidity directly in Euro from Gilt or USD
securities, and performing payments in an alternate currency than the
original obligation.

D. CC&G Rulebook Changes

    The current version of the RP provides as a recovery tool the
closure of the interoperability link on Italian debt, which is
triggered when CC&G is declared in default or CC&G has performed a
service closure. Upon triggering this tool, LCH SA will proceed with
closing out all outstanding contracts. Further, uncovered losses from
the cash settlement and close out after a CC&G default will be covered
by deposited collateral of CC&G and the application of a haircut on
outgoing payments to clearing members. In order to cover a potential
cash shortfall in case of a CC&G default, LCH SA is proposing that the
RP would state that in the event of a closure of CC&G, LCH SA will not
be obliged to perform payment to clearing members until it receives
deposited collateral from the CC&G estate, which addresses LCH SA's
potential inability to retrieve the deposited collateral with CC&G.

E. Critical Service Providers

    The current RP in general describes critical services such as those
provided by LCH Ltd and other entities providing technological
services. The RP describes LCH SA's approach to the maintaining
continuity of services to LCH SA, including contractual rights. In this
rule proposal, the RP would describe that LCH SA will implement a new
framework to manage critical service providers. The framework would
identify the various types of critical service providers and include a
new list of such providers in an annex to the RP. This would layout the
overall landscape of providers and facilitate LCH SA's ability to
monitor for potential financial or operational failure of a critical
service provider and plan to replace service providers or otherwise
sustain any disruption caused by their failure.

F. Monitoring of Capital Related Tools

    The quantitative assessment section of the recovery plan would
include more details on the monitoring of capital related recovery
tools like surplus capital, variable payments and dividend payments in
order to help ensure their adequacy to cover the identified scenarios.
This additional detail would list each tool and describe their
efficiency as recovery tools. The RP currently notes that LCH SA will
monitor that surplus/buffers capital is adequate to cover both default
and non-default losses. The proposed rule would revise the RP to
describe the stress scenarios and associated indicators as well as the
capital coverage tools available in each case. In addition to the
capital requirements and available headroom, the RP would note that LCH
SA follows indicators such as the Liquidity Coverage Ratio, the
aggregate credit risk and market risk exposure on its investment
portfolio, operational risk and business risks indicators. The RP would
indicate that the capital and buffers are monitored in order to allow
LCH SA to always be in a situation to replenish the skin in the game
within one month if the CCP was to face multiple defaults.
    In addition to surplus capital, the RP would indicate that the LCH
Board may decide to withhold Dividend payment and Variable bonus
payment to be used as additional buffers.

G. LCH Ltd Exit Plan

    In response to French regulatory recommendations, the RP would
provide information related to the dependency between LCH SA and LCH

Ltd. LCH Ltd provides IT services to LCH SA and an approach on how LCH
SA will manage a potential wind down of LCH Ltd would be included in
the RP. The RP would include scenarios and mitigating actions in case
of failure of LCH Ltd as a service provider. For example, LCH SA will
take steps to replicate the exact information technology services
provided by LCH Ltd.

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.\5\ For the reasons given below, the Commission finds that
the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act \6\ and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2) and (3) thereunder.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2) and (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the updates to the RP reflected in this proposed
rule change would add more details on the management of a cyber-
scenario and the Cyber Crisis Management Plan has been added as a new
recovery tool. By providing a framework of procedures for allowing LCH
SA to respond to or prevent cyber incidents, the Commission believes
that LCH SA will improve its ability to cope with, prevent, and plan
for disruptions to its clearing services by responding quickly to such
things as software malfunctions or cyber breaches. Further, the
Commission believes that LCH SA will be in a position to prioritize
incidents and activate the relevant response teams and plans.
    Similarly, by updating the RP to account for the failure of
entities such as linked CCPs and critical service providers as
described above, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change
provides LCH SA the ability to timely and efficiently plan for,
monitor, and respond to failures or disruptions of these other parties.
Specifically, the RP would note that LCH SA has implemented the rules
relating to CC&G service closure related to a potential loss on
investment of the cash collateral with CC&G. LCH SA may not immediately
be able to retrieve the deposited collateral with CC&G if it is
insolvent and has to wait for the relevant payment of the estate.
However, the RP would clarify that LCH SA is only obliged to perform
payment to clearing members if and when it has received the relevant
funds from the CC&G estate. The Commission believes that these changes
strengthen LCH SA's ability to recover from the liquidity and credit
challenges that could arise from CC&G's closure. This in turn enhances
LCH SA's financial position and ultimately its ability to continue to
provide prompt and accurate clearance and settlement. Likewise, the RP
would include scenarios and mitigating actions in case of the failure
of LCH Ltd as a service provider and include a list of other critical
service providers. The Commission believes that these proposed changes
enhance LCH SA's management of important relationships by including
details of these services and the steps that it can take to replace or
otherwise respond to disrupted services. The Commission believes that
this in turn promotes LCH SA's ability to continue to promptly and
accurately clear transactions.
    Additionally, as noted above, the RP would include more details on
the monitoring of capital related recovery tools like surplus capital,
variable payments and dividend payments. For example, the RP would note
that LCH SA will monitor that ``surplus/buffers capital'' is adequate
to cover both default and non-default losses. By including within the
RP the scenarios, indicators, and capital coverage tools available in
each case, the Commission believes that LCH SA will enhance its ability
to preserve the requisite financial resources and hence its ability to
continue to promptly and accurately clear transactions and safeguard
securities and funds in its custody and control.
    Further, the proposed rule change would provide that LCH SA can use
several new tools to meet liquidity needs, including using non-Euro
collateral to raise liquidity, transforming liquidity received in non-
Euro currencies through bi-lateral repo transactions with the
``FXmarkets'' recovery tool, receiving liquidity directly in Euro from
Gilt or USD securities, and performing payments in an alternate
currency than the original obligation. The Commission believes that
this enhances LCH SA's ability to resolve a specific currency liquidity
shortfall resulting from a management of a defaulting clearing member
and thereby maintains its financial strength and ultimately its ability
to promptly and accurately clear transactions.
    Overall, the Commission believes that with the additional detail
described above, the updated RP would continue to strengthen the
purpose of the RP as originally adopted of maintaining the continuity
LCH SA's critical services by reducing the likelihood of a disorderly
or unsuccessful recovery through planning for various disruptive
scenarios. Therefore, for the reasons stated above the Commission finds
that the proposed rule change 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.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2) requires that a covered clearing agency
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to, as applicable, provide for
governance arrangements that are clear and transparent and clearly
prioritize the safety and efficiency of the covered clearing agency, to
support the public interest requirements in Section 17A of the Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, more details on the management of a cyber-scenario
and the Cyber Crisis Management Plan have been added as a new recovery
tool. The purpose of this document is to provide a framework of
procedures allowing LCH SA to respond to cyber incidents and crises.
The RP would contain details about the procedures utilized to identify
incidents, notification of hierarchy, and for notifying and activating
the Crisis Management Team. The Commission believes that proposed
details regarding the cyber scenario will enhance LCH SA's governance
procedures as they relate to cyber crisis by setting forth a clear
process for detecting and notifying required

management as well as activation of a specific plan for managing cyber
crisis.
    Therefore, for the above reasons the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2).

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

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3) requires that a covered clearing agency
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to, as applicable, 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 must include 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.
    Overall, the Commission believes that the rule proposal enhances
LCH SA's ability to manage legal, credit, liquidity, operational,
general business, investment, and other risks that arise in or are
borne by the covered clearing agency in the recovery context. As noted
above, the rule proposal updates the RP to address operational,
liquidity, and investment risks. Specifically, the RP would include
fraud as an operational risk and incorporate it into its system for the
monitoring and management of losses. The Commission believes that with
this addition, the RP is more attentive to fraud as an operational
risk. Additionally, the Commission believes that the inclusion of non-
Euro recovery tools described above will enhance LCH SA's ability to
cope with liquidity challenges by giving it additional ways to access
and meet liquidity needs. The Commission also believes that by
implementing the rules relating to CC&G service closure discussed
above, LCH SA has resolved a potential liquidity risk relating to a
CC&G default.
    Further, the Commission believes that the proposed changes to the
RP related to LCH Ltd. and other critical service providers strengthen
LCH SA's ability to maintain the continuity of critical services in
times of extreme stress and to facilitate the recovery of LCH SA. For
instance, the Commission believes that the list of critical service
providers and scope of each service enhances LCH SA's ability to
identify those services which could impact the continuity of LCH SA's
operations and the LCH Ltd exit plan strengthens LCH SA's ability to
manage a potential wind down of LCH Ltd. and replicate or replace the
services provided by LCH Ltd. on short notice.
    Additionally, because the quantitative assessment section of the
RP, as described above, now includes more details on the monitoring of
capital related recovery tools, the Commission believes that LCH SA's
ability to monitor and sustain its capital requirements under various
scenarios has been strengthened.
    Therefore, for the above reasons the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3).

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act,
and in particular, Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \11\ and Rules 17Ad-
22(e)(2) and (3) thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2) and (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
that the proposed rule change (SR-LCH SA-2019-008) be, and hereby is,
approved.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 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.\14\

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

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-27092 Filed 12-16-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 4, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 835-837]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31662]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC17-1-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities; Comment Request for
Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on
Commission Service Delivery

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Comment request.

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

SUMMARY: As part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the
process to seek feedback from the public on service delivery, the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the Commission or FERC) is
coordinating the development of the following proposed Generic
Information Collection Request (ICR): FERC-153, ``Generic Clearance for
the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Commission Service Delivery''
for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).\1\ This notice
announces that FERC intends to submit this collection to OMB for
approval and solicits comments on specific aspects for the proposed
information collection. Previously, the Commission previously published
a 60-day notice in the Federal Register on October 12, 2016 and
received no comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by February 3,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017.

ADDRESSES: Comments filed with OMB, identified by the Docket No. IC17-
1-000, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. The Desk Officer may also be
reached via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in
Docket No. IC17-1-000, by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact

FERC Online Support by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone
at:<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by fax at
(202) 273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that FERC intends to
submit this collection to OMB for approval and solicits comments on
specific aspects for the proposed information collection. Previously,
the Commission previously published a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register (81 FR 70402, 10/12/2016) and received no comments.
    Title: FERC-153, Generic Clearance for the Collection of
Qualitative Feedback on Commission Service Delivery.
    OMB Control No.: To be determined.
    Type of Request: New generic information collection.
    Abstract: The proposed information collection provides a means to
garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient,
timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to
improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback, we mean data that
provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not
statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be
generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide
insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences, and
expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus
attention on areas where communication, training or changes in
operations might improve delivery of products or services. This
collection will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable
communications between FERC and its customers and stakeholders. It will
also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of
program management.
    The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: Timeliness,
appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of
service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery.
Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or
maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this
information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and
stakeholders on the Commission's services will be unavailable.
    The Commission will only submit a collection for approval under
this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
     The collections are voluntary;
     The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on
considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or
burden hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents
and the Federal Government;
     The collections are non-controversial and do not raise
issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
     The collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions
from respondents who have experience with the program or may have
experience with the program in the near future;
     Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected
only to the extent necessary and is not retained;
     Information gathered is intended to be used only
internally for general service improvement and program management
purposes and is not intended for release outside of the Commission (if
released, the Commission must indicate the qualitative nature of the
information);
     Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of
substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
     Information gathered will yield qualitative information;
the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically
reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the
population of study.
    Feedback collected under this generic clearance provides useful
information, but it does not yield data that can be generalized to the
overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative
information will not be used for quantitative information collections
that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as
monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such
data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target
population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame,
the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the
precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed
sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing
potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any
testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding
the study.
    As a general matter, this information collection will not result in
any new system of records containing privacy information and will not
ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and
attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly
considered private.
    This information collection is subject to the PRA. The Commission
generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and
the public is generally not required to respond to an information
collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any
other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to
penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information which
does not display a valid OMB Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320. OMB
authorization for an information collection cannot be for more than
three years without renewal.
    Type of Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals and households;
Businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit organizations; State,
Local, or Tribal government.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \2\ The Commission estimates the annual
public reporting burden and cost for the information collection as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For
further explanation of what is included in the information
collection burden, refer to 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.

                                                      Estimated Annual Burden for Generic Clearance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of                       Average burden
                                                                        Number of      responses per   Total number of    minutes per      Total burden
                                                                       respondents       respondent       responses         response          hours
                                                                                (1)              (2)   (1) * (2) = (3)             (4)   (3) * (4) = (5)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generic Clearance..................................................          15,000                1           15,000                6        \3\ 1,500
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 1,500 hours = 90,000 minutes.

    Dated: December 23, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-31662 Filed 1-3-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P