MEMORANDUM

DATE:	April 24, 2019

SUBJECT:	Technology Review for Surface Coating Operations in the Metal Can Category

FROM:	Eastern Research Group, Inc.

TO:		Paula Hirtz, OAQPS/SPPD/MMG

1.0	INTRODUCTION

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish technology-based national emission standards to control hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for listed source categories. These technology-based standards are often referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards. The Metal Can NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK) regulates HAP emissions from facilities that are major sources and are engaged in the surface coating of metal cans. The rule requires the use of MACT to reduce HAP emissions from the following operations: mixing; coating; curing; conveying coatings, thinners and cleaning materials; and waste storage and handling. The Surface Coating of Metal Can NESHAP, hereafter referred to as the Metal Can NESHAP, regulates HAP emissions from facilities that are major sources of HAP and are engaged in the surface coating of metal cans. The final NESHAP was promulgated on November 13, 2003 (68 FR 64432). Technical corrections and clarifying amendments were proposed and promulgated on January 6, 2006 (71 FR 1378).

Pursuant to 40 CFR 63.3481, the NESHAP requires the use of MACT to reduce HAP emissions from the surface coating of metal cans and ends (including decorative tins) and metal crowns and closures. It includes 4 subcategories: 1) one- and two-piece draw and iron can body coating, 2) sheet coating, 3) three-piece can body assembly coating, and 4) end coating. Facilities conducting can coating operations are subject to the NESHAP if they are a major source and use 1,500 gallons per year or more of coatings.

Section 112 also contains provisions requiring the EPA to periodically revisit these standards. Specifically, section 112(d)(6) states:

      REVIEW AND REVISION.  -  The Administrator shall review and revise as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies), emissions standards promulgated under this section no less often than every 8 years.

To comply with this CAA requirement, the EPA conducted a technology review for the Metal Can NESHAP for major sources. This memorandum addresses the technology review for all metal can surface coating operations and subcategories.

For the purposes of this technology review, the EPA considers a "development" in practices, processes, and control technologies to be:

 Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was not identified and considered during MACT standard development;
 Any improvements in add-on control technology or other equipment (that was identified and considered during MACT standard development) that could result in additional emission reduction;
 Any work practice or operational procedure that was not identified and considered during development of the original MACT standard;
 Any process change or pollution prevention alternative that could be broadly applied to the industry that was not identified and considered during MACT standard development; and
 Any significant changes in the cost (including cost effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA considered during the development of the original MACT standards).

Section 2 of this memorandum presents a summary of the sources of data that were used to conduct the technology review and Section 3 presents the can coating process description, the existing level of MACT control and control measures identified for the technology review for metal can surface coating operations.

2.0	SOURCES OF AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY INFORMATION

To identify any developments in practices, processes, or control technologies that could be applicable to surface coating operations in the metal can industry, we consulted the following sources of data: RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse, regulatory actions promulgated for other surface coating NESHAP subsequent to the metal can surface coating NESHAP, regional and state regulations, operating permits, site visits, and information from individual facilities and the industry trade association. .

2.1	RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse Database

Under the EPA's New Source Review (NSR) program, if a company is planning to build a new plant or modify an existing plant such that their criteria air pollution emissions will increase by a certain amount, then the company must obtain an NSR permit. The NSR permit is a construction permit which generally requires the company to minimize these emissions by changing the process to prevent air pollution and/or installing air pollution control equipment.

The terms "RACT," "BACT," and "LAER" are acronyms for different program requirements relevant to the NSR program.  RACT, or Reasonably Available Control Technology, is required on existing sources in areas that are not meeting national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) (non-attainment areas). BACT, or Best Available Control Technology, is required on new or modified major sources in areas meeting NAAQS (attainment areas). LAER, or Lowest Achievable Emission Rate, is required on new or modified major sources in non-attainment areas.

BACT and LAER (and sometimes RACT) are determined on a case-by-case basis, usually by state or local permitting agencies. The EPA established the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse, or RBLC, to provide a central database of air pollution technology information (including past BACT and LAER decisions contained in NSR permits) to promote the sharing of information among permitting agencies and to aid in future case-by-case determinations. However, the RBLC is not limited to sources subject to RACT, BACT, and LAER requirements. It can include noteworthy pollution prevention and control technology decisions and information on cost effectiveness.

The RBLC contains over 5,000 air pollution control permit determinations that can help identify appropriate technologies to mitigate most air pollutant emission streams. It was designed to help permit applicants and reviewers make pollution prevention and control technology decisions for stationary air pollution sources, and includes data submitted by several U.S. territories and all 50 states on over 200 different air pollutants and 1,000 industrial processes.

The RBLC provides several options for searching the permit database on-line to locate control technologies that are applicable to a specific source category. On August 16, 2016, we conducted a search of the RBLC to locate any potential advances in control technologies employed by sources in the metal can surface coating category, with permits dating back to 1990.  The search results included the following data fields:

::	RBLC ID
::	Facility Name, and State
::	Permit Date
::	Process name
::	Throughput
::	Pollutant
::	Control technology
::	Percent efficiency of control

The search (which used a start date of January 1, 2000) provided only four metal can facilities, which all had permit dates of 2006 or later. All four of the results contained information about the add-on controls. Of these facilities, two reported the use of regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTOs), one reported the use of an induction heater and catalytic oxidation and one reported the use of thermal oxidation. The results of the search are consistent with current Metal Can NESHAP requirements and are presented in Table 1 for the metal can source category.

Table 1. Practices, Processes and Control Technologies Identified for Metal Can Coating Operations in the October 21, 2016, Query of the RBLC Database
                                    RBLCID
                                 (Permit Date)

                                 Facility Name

                                     State

                                 Process Name

                                   Pollutant
                                Control Method
                       VOC Emission Reduction (%) [(a)]
                                    FL-0353
                                  (11/10/15)
                          Metal Container Corporation
                                      FL
                         Aluminum Bottle Coating Line
                                      VOC
                            Capture system with RTO
                                      69%
(73% capture and 95% DRE)
                                    TX-0586
                                  (09/02/10)
                   Ball Metal Beverage Container Corporation
                                      TX
                           Can Manufacturing Line #3
                                      VOC
                               Thermal oxidation
                                     78.4%
(80% capture and 98% DRE)
                                    CO-0065
                                  (10/11/06)
                        Rocky Mountain Metal Container
                                      CO
                                 C24 Can Line
                                      VOC
                                      RTO
                                      76%
(not specified, but assumed to be 80% capture and 95% DRE)

                                    TN-0158
                                  (06/28/06)
                                Sonoco-Phoenix
                                      TN
                             Can End Manufacturing
                                      VOC
                   Induction heater and catalytic oxidation
                                      72%
(not specified, but assumed to be 80% capture and 90% DRE)
[(a)] These reductions are permit limits which specify a minimum overall control efficiency based on separate
     capture efficiency and destruction/removal efficiency (DRE), and do not reflect actual performance.

Developments identified in the regulatory actions listed in Table 1 above are discussed in Section 3 (Technology Review for Surface Coating Operations).

2.2	Subsequent Regulatory Actions

Regulatory actions promulgated subsequent to the 2003 Metal Can NESHAP were identified for sources similar to metal can coating sources. These regulatory actions, listed in Table 2, were reviewed for any developments in practices, processes and control technologies that might apply to metal can coating.

Table 2. Subsequent Regulatory Actions for Sources Similar to Metal Can Coating Operations
                                 MACT Standard
                                    Subpart
                                 Promulgation
                                     Date
           Practices, Processes, and Control Technologies Evaluated
           Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products
                                     MMMM
                                   1/2/2004
Emission limit as mass HAP per volume solids used. Controls include low-HAP coatings, ultraviolet (UV) curable electron beam (EB) curable coatings, powder coatings, add-on controls.
                 Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products
                                     PPPP
                                   4/19/2004
Emission limit as mass HAP per mass solids used. Controls include low-HAP coatings, UV and EB curable coatings, add-on controls.
             Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks
                                     IIII
                                   4/26/2004
Emission limit as mass HAP per volume solids deposited. Develop and implement a work practice plan to minimize organic HAP. Controls include low-HAP coatings, high efficiency application methods, and add-on controls.
                      Technology Review of MACT Standard
                                    Subpart
                                 Promulgation
                                     Date
  Practices, Processes, and Control Technologies Identified as Developments
                                 Magnetic Tape
                                      EE
                                   4/07/2006
                                No developments
                            Printing and Publishing
                                      KK
                                   4/21/2011
          Permanent total enclosures installed on controlled presses
                         Shipbuilding and Ship Repair
                                      II
                                  11/21/2011
 Concentrator/RTO installed on spray booths to achieve 95% control efficiency.
                         Wood Furniture Manufacturing
                                      JJ
                                  11/21/2011
RTO; Lower VOC coating limits based on California regional rules, more efficient spray guns.
                 Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities
                                      GG
                                   12/7/2015
                                No developments

2.3 Review of Major Source Can Coating Facility Operating Permits

Using a collection of data sources, including the EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO), the 2011 National Emission Inventory (NEI) NEI version 2 database, and facility operating permits. A total of 5 facilities in 5 states were identified as major sources with metal coil coating operations. Review of the state operating permits that were available on-line revealed that 3 of the 5 facilities use add-on controls and 2 of the 5 facilities use the compliant material option or the emission rate without add-on controls (averaging) option to meet the NESHAP emission limits. Table 3 summarizes the compliance options and controls used by the 5 major source facilities.

Table 3. Summary of the compliance options and controls used by major source facilities subject to subpart KKKK
                                   Facility
                               Permit Conditions

                        Subpart KKKK Compliance Option
                     Control Device Destruction Efficiency

Rocky Mountain Metal Container (Miller-Coors), Golden CO
Not specified in permit; however, the technical support document for the 2006 permit indicates that non-UV cured coating operations are vented to an RTO; UV-cured coating operations are not vented to the RTO.
Compliant Material or Emission Rate without Add-on Control, and Add-on Control
                                 Not specified
BWAY Packaging, Homerville, GA
Not specified in permit; however, the facility has RTOs on the lithographic printing and coating lines which are subject to both KKKK and MMMM; no controls on the can line subject to only KKKK.
Compliant Material or Emission Rate without Add-on Control
                                      N/A
BWAY Corp, Chicago, IL
Lithography lines use the control efficiency/outlet concentration option as long as consent decree is in effect.

Add-on Control Option
Thermal Oxidizer (Line 1) Catalytic Oxidizer (Lines 2, 3, and 4): 95% or 20 ppmv THC per 63.3491(d)

Ball Metal Beverage Container Corporation, Findlay, OH

Can lines 1 and 2 (2-Piece aluminum beverage cans) and can line 3 (2-piece steel food cans) use the compliant material option or emission rate without add-on controls option.
Compliant Material or Emission Rate without Add-on Control
                                      N/A
Ball Metal Food Container Corp, Weirton, WV
Compliance options used as of permit renewal issuance date (9/11/2012):

Sheet Coaters and Ovens, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4: control efficiency/outlet concentration option.
End Liners MD-1, MD-5, MD-3, MD-4, and MD-2: compliant materials option.
LTG-1 [Sheetcoating] Coater and Oven: control efficiency/outlet concentration option.
Sheet coaters C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8, C-9, and C-10: control efficiency/outlet concentration option.
Planeta Press [Sheetcoating]: emission rate without add-on controls option.
Press-Coater-Oven [Sheetcoating] Lines PC-3, PC-4, PC-5, PC-6, and PC-7: Emission rate with add-on control options.

Compliant Material, Emission Rate without Add-on Control, and Add-on Control
Control efficiency/outlet concentration option: thermal oxidizer: 95% or 20 ppmv THC per 63.3491(d)

2.4 Site Visits

The EPA conducted one site visit to the Ball Metal Beverage Container Corporation located in Findlay, Ohio, to support this technology review.  The site visit report is available for review in the Metal Cans docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0684).

2.5 Industry Information

We gathered industry background information from a variety of sources to support the can coating technology review including the Can Manufacturers Institute (CMI) and the American Coatings Association's Industry Market Analysis, 9th edition (2014-2019). The CMI is the industry's trade association.

Industry Background

The ACA market analysis of the can coating industry is concentrated in Chapter 17 titled "Metal Container and Closure Finishes," and includes food and beverage cans, metal drums and pails, metal collapsible tubes, and closures for bottles, jars and cans. The market analysis looks at several different metal container segments. The beer and beverage container segment accounts for approximately 51 percent of the metal container coating market by volume, according to the market analysis. The food and general packaging segment accounts for approximately 33 percent (27 percent food and 6 percent general). General packaging includes aerosol and other non-food cans. Coatings for closures accounts for 4 percent of the volume. (It also includes coatings for pail and drum coatings, which account for 11 percent of metal container coating volume, and metal tube containers, which account for 1 percent, but these are not part of the can coating source category).

The analysis notes that the demand for metal cans has declined while the population and economy have grown because of a shift to rigid and flexible plastic packaging, such as plastic soda bottles and plastic food pouches and containers. The market analysis reports that the amount of coating used per can has stabilized, after a slight downward trend since 2010, based on testing which showed that going to lower film weights per can would not provide sufficient performance. Can coating operations are not subject to trade influences, except in the case of crowns, closures and seals, according to the market analysis. These items can be produced outside the U.S. and imported. For beer and beverage containers, alternatives to metal cans exist in the form of glass and plastic bottles. The market analysis notes that reduced consumption of soft drinks in metal cans was offset by an increased use of metal cans over bottles for craft beers. The market analysis also notes the emergence of metal "bottle cans" but these are a small segment of the market and are more expensive to produce than standard metal cans.

Coating Chemistry Background

A variety of coating chemistries are used in the can coating market. The 1977 control techniques guidelines document (CTG) for "Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources  -  Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks" (EPA-450/2-77-008) and the 1983 new source performance standard (NSPS) for two-piece beverage can surface coating (40 CFR 60, subpart WW) provided the incentive to develop alternatives to conventional solvent borne can coating formulations. These alternatives included higher solids coatings, waterborne coatings and ultraviolet (UV) and electron beam (EB) cured coatings for some can coating applications. Interior coatings used for cans that contain food or beverages are subject to regulation by the US Food and Drug Administration (US FDA), as well as internal approval by the food and beverage manufacturers. Each coating alternative is discussed in more detail below.

Powder Coatings
The market analysis covers the use of coil coatings for metal containers and closures but does not include the use of powder coatings because powder coating applications are not common for metal container coatings. The market analysis states that a small, and declining, amount of powder is used, principally for side seams in 3-piece cans.

Ultraviolet (UV) and Electron Beam (EB) Curable Coatings
The market analysis reports that other available technologies include UV- or EB-curable coating systems and estimate that about 4 percent of can coatings were based on these technologies and does not expect growth. UV-curable coatings are used on aerosol can exteriors and on exterior rim coatings. Some EB-curable coatings can now be used on certain can interiors because they do not contain the photo-initiator compounds that were potentially harmful if released into the content of the cans. Until recently UV-curable coatings were not approved by the FDA for use in interior coatings due to this reason. The market analysis reports that future growth is still limited by significant capital cost (especially UV equipment), and there are only certain parts of a container that can be coated with energy-cured systems, because of a variety of regulations, taste considerations and functional performance issues.

High Solids Coatings
The market analysis does not discuss the use of high solids coatings, but the information we gathered during the 2002 MACT development showed that high-solids coatings were used for sheet applied interior coating for 3-piece cans containing certain food and non-food products, interior side seam stripes for 3-piece cans, end seal compounds, and exterior side seam stripe coatings. Some conventional solvent borne coatings were still in use for 3-piece can exterior sheet coating, where high abrasion resistance is required or when the metal is subsequently subjected to fabrication. Conventional solvent-borne inks and interior coatings were also in use at that time, and contained VOC, but no HAP.

Waterborne Coatings
The market analysis reports that in the food can and general packaging segments, three-piece cans will continue to be replaced by two-piece cans which results in the decreased use of side-seam coatings and increased use of waterborne coatings on can bodies. The growth in 2 piece can construction is expected to result in increased consumption of waterborne coatings. Closures will continue to use pre-coated coil stock and the predominant coatings will continue to be solvent-based epoxy and epoxy-phenolic coatings. Waterborne coating application processes are generally not fast enough for can coating line speeds.

Coatings containing Bis-phenol A
The market analysis states that the primary technology change in the metal can surface coating category is the development and potential future application of coatings that have no intentionally added bis-phenol A (BPA) for both beverage and food cans, referred to as BPA-NI coatings. These coatings are under development to replace current BPA-containing coatings but had not been adopted at the time the market analysis was prepared. The market analysis reports that the major can coatings producers are currently devoting much of their research and development efforts to develop BPA-NI systems for new applications and to improve the BPA-NI systems that already exist. However, the market analysis reports that a complete shift to these coatings is not expected unless driven by US FDA regulation or consumer opinion.

The market analysis reports that there are numerous acceptable BPA-NI formulations available, but they are not widely used. They are currently used for niche applications, such as for foods specifically labeled as "organic." Coating formulators are spending the majority of their time working on improving these products, even though most are not yet in commerce. Both the US FDA and the European Food Safety Authority have determined that currently used coatings are acceptable with respect to BPA at current levels. Only France has mandated the use of BPA-NI coatings.

The market analysis predicts that any pressure to use BPA-NI coatings may lead to a shift to polyester and acrylic coatings and away from epoxy acrylics, epoxy phenolics, and epoxies, which all contain BPA, but this shift will be slow and will not be for all industry segments, especially the segments that use the most coatings. However, interior coatings for cans that contain food or beverages are subject to regulation by the FDA, as well as internal approval by the food or beverage manufacturers. This process can take as long as 5 years for interior coatings, according to the market analysis, and would slow the shift to new types of coatings. The market analysis also notes that because can manufacturing plants run at very high speeds, the can coatings must meet stringent performance requirements during application, as well as after the cans are manufactured and put into use.

The market analysis did not reveal whether the BPA-NI coatings formulations would be considered compliant materials but it predicts that coating consumption could increase if there is a shift to BPA-NI coatings because of the use of increased film thickness to achieve the same performance as currently used coatings. The thicker films, with an equivalent performance to coatings currently in use would not necessitate new coating application technologies. The CMI stated that new BPA-NI formulations should not require a new application technology.

3.0	TECHNOLOGY REVIEW FOR SURFACE COATING OPERATIONS

The HAP emissions from the metal can category occur from coating application lines, drying and curing ovens, mixing and thinning areas, and cleaning of equipment. The exterior base coat for two and three-piece cans is applied in a lithographic/printing (i.e., roll) application process. Inside and repair spray coating using high efficiency airless spray equipment are a minor portion of the can coating operations. As indicated by the name, repair spray coatings are used to cover breaks in the coating that are caused during the formation of the score in easy-open ends or to provide, after the manufacturing process, an additional protective layer for corrosion resistance.

As defined in the Metal Can NESHAP, a coating is a material that is applied to a substrate for decorative, protective or functional purposes. Such materials include, but are not limited to, paints, sealants, caulks, inks, adhesives, and maskants. The primary HAP emitted from metal can surface coating operations included glycol ethers, xylenes, hexane and methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK). Chemical reactions that commonly occur during metal can coating and curing operations may create compounds commonly referred to as "cure volatiles" or "cure HAP" and may include formaldehyde and methanol.

Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (EGBE) and methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) were also used as solvents in these coatings, but both compounds were removed from the HAP list. EGBE was delisted in November 2004 and MEK was delisted in December of 2005. The delisting of these HAP had a major impact on the list of major sources, pursuant to 40 CFR 63.3483(b), because the compliance date for existing metal can surface coating sources was November 13, 2006, after the EGBE and MEK delisting dates.

3.1	Summary of Existing MACT Level of Control

The Metal Can NESHAP standard applies to: 1) all coating operations; 2) all storage containers and mixing vessels in which coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials are stored or mixed; 3) all manual and automated equipment and containers used for conveying coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials; and 4) all storage containers and all manual and automated equipment and containers used for conveying waste materials generated by a coating operation.

Table 4 lists the organic HAP content limits required by the 2003 Metal Can NESHAP (subpart KKKK) for each can coating subcategory. Alternatively, a capture and control system can be used to control emissions. The capture and control system must achieve an overall control efficiency of 97 percent for a new or reconstructed source and 95 percent for an existing source or limit the emissions of total HAP to 20 ppm by volume dry (ppmvd) at the control device outlet and use a permanent total enclosure.

Table 4. Summary of Emission Limits in Subpart KKKK
       If you apply surface coatings to metal cans or metal can parts in
                             this subcategory ...
                            Then for all coatings
                               of this type ...
New and reconstructed sources must meet the following organic HAP emission limit in kg HAP/liter solids (lbs HAP/gal solids):[a] b
Existing sources must meet the following organic HAP emission limit in kg HAP/liter solids (lbs HAP/gal solids):[a] b
1. One and two-piece draw and iron can body coating
a. Two-piece beverage cans -- all coatings
                                  0.04 (0.31)
                                  0.07 (0.59)

b. Two-piece food cans -- all coatings
                                  0.06 (0.50)
                                  0.06 (0.51)

c. One-piece aerosol cans -- all coatings
                                  0.08 (0.65)
                                  0.12 (0.99)
2. Sheet coating
Sheet coating
                                  0.02 (0.17)
                                  0.03 (0.26)
3. Three-piece can assembly
a. Inside spray
                                  0.12 (1.03)
                                  0.29 (2.43)

b. Aseptic side seam stripes on food cans
                                 1.48 (12.37)
                                 1.94 (16.16)

c. Non-aseptic side seam stripes on food cans
                                  0.72 (5.96)
                                  0.79 (6.57)

d. Side seam stripes on general line nonfood cans
                                  1.18 (9.84)
                                  1.18 (9.84)

e. Side seam stripes on aerosol cans
                                 1.46 (12.14)
                                 1.46 (12.14)
4. End coating
a. Aseptic end seal compounds
                                  0.06 (0.54)
                                  0.06 (0.54)

b. Non-aseptic end seal compounds
                                  0.00 (0.00)
                                  0.00 (0.00)

c. Repair spray coatings
                                  0.64 (5.34)
                                 2.06 (17.17)

There are four options for complying with the emission limits, and the testing and initial compliance requirements vary accordingly.

 Option 1 - Compliant Material Option.
 Demonstrate that the organic HAP content of each coating meets the applicable emission limits and that you use no organic-HAP containing thinners.
 Option 2 - Emission Rate without Add-on Controls.
 Demonstrate that the total mass of organic HAP in all coatings and thinners in each coating type segment divided by the total volume of coating solids in that coating type segment meets the applicable emission limit.
 Option 3 - Emission Rate with Add-on Controls.
 Determine both the efficiency of the capture system and the emissions reduction efficiency of the control device. If you use a solvent recovery system, you may determine the overall control efficiency using a liquid-liquid material balance instead of conducting an initial performance test.
 Option 4 - Control Efficiency/Outlet Concentration.
 Option 3 plus, for add-on control systems, you are required to install control device parameter monitoring system (CPMS) equipment to be used to demonstrate compliance. Using the data collected with the CPMS, you must calculate and record the average values of each operating parameter according to the specified averaging times.

In addition, if an affected source uses the emission rate with add-on controls option, subpart KKKK requires the development and implementation of a work practice plan that minimizes organic HAP emissions from the storage, mixing and conveying of coating, thinners and cleaning materials used in, and the waste materials generated by, the coating operation.

3.2	Identified Control Measures for Surface Coating Operations

The practices, processes, and control technologies evaluated for rules promulgated subsequent to metal can (the area source rules and NESHAP listed in Table 2 above) are discussed in the following sections. We evaluated these emission reduction techniques to determine if they could potentially apply to metal can coating.

3.2.1	Add-On Control Technology or Other Equipment Not Identified and Considered During MACT Development

Inorganic HAP Emissions

Inorganic HAP emissions were considered in the development of the Metal Can NESHAP and the EPA determined that no controls were needed because the coatings used that may contain inorganic HAP were not spray applied. Instead, these coatings were roll applied through direct contact (similar to lithographic printing) with the surface to which they were being applied and the inorganic HAP became part of the cured coating.

Two subsequent area source rules, Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations Area Source Rule (40 CFR 63 subpart HHHHHH) and Nine Metal Fabrication and Finishing Source Categories Area Source Rule (40 CFR 63 subpart XXXXXX), included requirements to control inorganic HAP emissions. These standards require confining all coating operations to a spray booth fitted with high efficiency filters, use of high transfer efficiency spray guns, and training and certification of spray equipment operator to optimize transfer efficiency.

We concluded that the controls for inorganic HAP emissions that were identified and required by these two area source NESHAP do not represent a development in practice, process or control technology that is applicable to metal can surface coating operations because the controls apply only to spray-applied coatings.

Organic HAP Emissions

The Metal Can NESHAP requires the use of add-on control technologies as an option to meet the emission limits above including an emission capture system, i.e., permanent total enclosure (PTE) used in conjunction with a thermal oxidizer, catalytic thermal oxidizer, regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO), activated carbon adsorber, or a concentrator combined with an RTO.

Subsequent technology reviews conducted as a part of the RTR process identified the following developments for the NESHAP identified in Table 1 above:

Printing and Publishing NESHAP (40 CFR 63 subpart KK): The technology review examined the option of retrofitting PTE onto those controlled presses that do not already have PTE. PTE improves the capture efficiency of solvent HAP from inks and delivers the additional captured solvent HAP to a control device. EPA estimated the cost-effectiveness of this retrofit to be over $50,000 per additional ton of HAP controlled, and therefore determined that the cost of this option would be disproportionate to the emission reduction that would be achieved. Thus, the EPA did not propose revising the existing printing and publishing MACT standards pursuant to section 112(d)(6) of the CAA to require a PTE. The use of a PTE was identified and considered during the Metal Can NESHAP development and is a control option for facilities choosing the emission rate with add-on control compliance option. Therefore, the controls for organic HAP emissions that were identified and required by the Printing and Publishing NESHAP do not represent developments in control technology or processes that are applicable to metal can surface coating operations.

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair NESHAP (40 CFR 63 subpart II): The technology review identified an add-on control device, a concentrator/RTO, that was recently installed (2009) at one shipbuilding and ship repair facility in California. The control device consisted of rotary concentrators followed by RTOs on five large, custom-built spray booths to control volatile organic emissions from the coating operations. The system is capable of achieving 95 percent control efficiency for the volatile organic HAP (VOHAP) emissions captured by the spray booths (which are estimated to capture 90 percent of the VOHAP emissions). However, the EPA concluded the use of this technology would only be practical and affordable at certain facilities building new ships and would not be affordable for facilities performing ship repair. The EPA estimated the cost-effectiveness of the concentrator/RTO system to be $305,000 per ton of VOHAP when used in ship building and repair. Given the significant differences between surface coating operations at ship building and repair facilities (includes spray application) and at can coating facilities (roll application), the results of the technology review for the Ship Building and Repair NESHAP are not applicable to the Metal Can surface coating operations.

Wood Furniture Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR 63 subpart JJ): The technology review identified the use of a RTO on a spray booth as a development for the coating of flat panels using an automated high-speed coating process. The technology review identified one facility using this control and fewer than five facilities that could install this technology. The technology review concluded that this technology was not cost effective for the facilities that were not currently using it.

In conclusion, the use of PTEs and RTOs was identified and considered during development of the Metal Can NESHAP as technologies capable of achieving an overall control efficiency of 95 percent and greater and is required, if needed, to meet the emission limits for new and existing sources. No new practices, processes or control technologies were identified in the Printing and Publishing, Shipbuilding or the Wood Furniture NESHAPs that were not considered during the Metal Can NESHAP development.

3.2.2	Improvements in Add-On Control Technology or Other Equipment for Organic HAP Emissions That Was Identified and Considered During MACT Development

The BACT determinations in the RBLC database that were made subsequent to promulgation of the Metal Can NESHAP specify the use of add-on controls, including PTE capture systems with a RTO and induction heater and catalytic oxidation. All of these control technologies were in use by the can coating industry during development of the Metal Can NESHAP and were already considered in the development of the Metal Can NESHAP.

The technology review conducted for the Wood Furniture NESHAP identified the use of more efficient spray guns as a development and revised the requirements to prohibit the use of conventional spray guns. Air assisted airless spraying was added as a more efficient coating application technology. This development is not applicable to can coating because the primary coating operations are performed using non-spray application methods, such as lithographic printing and other types of direct transfer coating application, or they already use airless spray equipment for the inside spray, side seam spray, and repair coating operations.

In conclusion, no improvements in add-on control technology or other equipment for organic HAP emissions were identified that were not already identified and considered during Metal Can NESHAP development

3.2.3	Work Practices and Procedures Not Identified and Considered During MACT Development

The current MACT standards require that, if a facility uses add-on controls to comply with the emission limitations, the facility must develop and implement a work practice plan to minimize organic HAP emissions from the storage, mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used in, and waste materials generated by, those coating operations. These work practices include the following:

 All organic-HAP-containing coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials must be stored in closed containers.
 Spills of organic-HAP-containing coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials must be minimized.
 Organic-HAP-containing coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials must be conveyed from one location to another in closed containers or pipes.
 Mixing vessels which contain organic-HAP-containing coatings and other materials must be closed except when adding to, removing, or mixing the contents.
 Emissions of organic HAP must be minimized during cleaning of storage, mixing, and conveying equipment.

If a facility is not using add-on controls and is using either the compliant material option or the emission rate without add on controls option, the facility does not need to comply with work practice standards. Under the compliant material option, the materials covered by the work practices would be either non-HAP, or would already be compliant with numerical HAP content limits. Under the emission rate option, HAP emitted from spills or from containers would be counted against the facility in the compliance calculations, so facilities must already minimize these losses to maintain compliance.

In conclusion, no additional work practices or procedures were identified that were not already identified and considered during MACT development.

3.2.4	Any process change or pollution prevention alternative that could be broadly applied that was not identified and considered during MACT development.

Pollution prevention measures that are currently used by the industry and were considered during MACT development include product reformulations for coatings, including waterborne, higher solids, powder, and UV-curable finishes. Powder coatings are not currently applicable to the metal can coating process. Waterborne and higher solids coatings with lower HAP and VOC content were considered in the development of the proposed and final standards, and are reflected in the HAP emission limitations in the final rule.

The development and use of BPA-NI, UV and EB coatings were discussed above in Section 2.3 in the context of the information provided in the American Coatings Association's market analysis. The EPA has not identified any developments in coating technology or other process changes or pollution prevention alternatives in the information reviewed that would represent a development relative to the coating technologies on which the final rule is based.

3.2.5 Any significant changes in the cost (including cost effectiveness) of applying controls
         (including controls the EPA considered during the development of the original MACT
          standards).

As discussed above, a 97-percent (for a new or reconstructed source) and a 95-percent (for an existing source) overall control efficiency was determined to be the MACT floor for can coating sources. Most facilities had installed oxidizers to control emissions of VOC per NSPS (40 CFR Part 60 subpart WW) requirements prior to MACT development (see Table 4 for a more comprehensive breakdown of exiting controls). When developing the Metal Can NESHAP, the EPA estimated a cost effectiveness of approximately $8,300 to remove each ton of HAP.

The information collected for this technology review has confirmed that the 5 major source facilities continue to comply with the NESHAP emission limits by using a combination of compliance options, including low- or no-HAP coatings and add-on capture and control systems. The EPA did not identify any developments in processes, practices or control technologies for the metal can source category as a result of this technology review. Therefore, we did not re-evaluate the cost (or cost-effectiveness) of applying additional add-on controls.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 97 (Monday, May 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29426-29427]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11991]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection:
Representatives of the Administrator

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The collection of information is for the purpose of
obtaining essential information concerning the applicant's professional
and personal qualifications. The FAA uses the information provided to
screen and select designees who act as representatives of the FAA
Administrator in performing various

certification and examination functions under Title VI of Federal
Aviation Act.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by July 19, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0033.
    Title: Representatives of the Administrator.
    Form Numbers: FAA forms 8110-14, 8110-28, 8710-6, 8710-10.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: Title 49, United States Code, Section 44702 authorizes
the appointment of appropriately qualified persons to be
representatives of the Administrator to allow those persons to examine,
test and certify other persons for the purpose of issuing them pilot
and instructor certificates. The collection of information is for the
purpose of obtaining essential information concerning the applicant's
professional and personal qualifications. The FAA uses the information
provided to screen and select designees who act as representatives of
the FAA Administrator in performing various certification and
examination functions under Title VI of Federal Aviation Act.
    Respondents: Approximately 5,015 applicants annually.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 1.5 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 7,098 hours.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Kathy
DePaepe, Room 126B, Federal Aviation Administration, AES-200, 6500 S.
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 15, 2013.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2013-11991 Filed 5-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 141 (Monday, July 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34891-34896]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15644]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83651; File Nos. SR-ICEEU-2017-016 and SR-ICEEU-2017-
017]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Changes Related to the ICE Clear Europe
Recovery and Wind-Down Plans

July 17, 2018.

I. Introduction

    On December 29, 2017, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear
Europe'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange
Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ proposed rule changes related
to its Recovery Plan and Wind-Down Plan. The proposed rule changes were
published for comment in the Federal Register on January 19, 2018.\3\
On February 27, 2018, the Commission designated a longer period for
Commission action on the proposed rule changes.\4\ On April 17, 2018,
the Commission instituted proceedings

under Section 19(b)(2)(B) \5\ of the Exchange Act to determine whether
to approve or disapprove the proposed rule changes.\6\ The Commission
did not receive comments regarding the proposed rule changes. For the
reasons discussed below, the Commission is approving the proposed rule
changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Exchange Act Release No. 82496 (Jan. 12, 2018), 83 FR 2855
(Jan. 19, 2018) (SR-ICEEU-2017-016) (``Recovery Plan Notice'');
Exchange Act Release No. 82497 (Jan. 12, 2018), 83 FR 2847 (Jan. 19,
2018) (SR-ICEEU-2017-017) (``Wind-Down Plan Notice'').
    \4\ Exchange Act Release No. 82786 (Feb. 27, 2018), 83 FR 9345
(Mar. 5, 2018) (SR-ICEEU-2017-016); Exchange Act Release No. 82782
(Feb. 27, 2018), 83 FR 9351 (Mar. 5, 2018) (SR-ICEEU-2017-017).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \6\ Exchange Act Release No. 83055 (Apr. 17, 2018), 83 FR 17575
(Apr. 20, 2018) (SR-ICEEU-2017-016 and SR-ICEEU-2017-017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Changes

    As a ``covered clearing agency,'' \7\ ICE Clear Europe is required
to, among other things, ``establish, implement, maintain and enforce
written policies and procedures reasonably designed to . . . maintain a
sound risk management framework for comprehensively managing legal,
credit, liquidity, operational, general business, investment, custody,
and other risks that arise in or are borne by the covered clearing
agency, which . . . includes plans for the recovery and orderly wind-
down of the covered clearing agency necessitated by credit losses,
liquidity shortfalls, losses from general business risk, or any other
losses.'' \8\ The Commission has previously clarified that it believes
that such recovery and wind-down plans are ``rules'' within the meaning
of Exchange Act Section 19(b) and Rule 19b-4 thereunder because such
plans would constitute changes to a stated policy, practice, or
interpretation of a covered clearing agency.\9\ Accordingly, a covered
clearing agency, such as ICE Clear Europe, is required to file its
plans for recovery and orderly wind-down with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The term ``covered clearing agency'' is defined in Rule
17Ad-22(a)(5), 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(a)(5).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii).
    \9\ Standards for Covered Clearing Agencies, Exchange Act
Release No. 78961 (Sep. 28, 2016), 81 FR 70786, 70809 (Oct. 13,
2016) (``CCA Standards Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Recovery Plan (ICEEU-2017-016) \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The description of the Recovery Plan is substantially
excerpted from the Recovery Plan Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICE Clear Europe's Recovery Plan, among other things, (a)
identifies the critical services that ICE Clear Europe provides, (b)
outlines a number of stress scenarios that may result in significant
losses, a liquidity shortfall, suspension or failure of its critical
services and related functions and systems, and damage to other market
infrastructures, and (c) describes the recovery tools, mechanisms, and
options that ICE Clear Europe may use to address a stress scenario and
continue to provide its critical services.\11\ The Recovery Plan also
addresses the roles and responsibility of the ICE Clear Europe Board of
Directors (``Board''), management, and other personnel, including with
respect to development, review and approval, testing and maintenance,
and liaison with relevant regulatory authorities. Notably, the Recovery
Plan is based on, and intended to be consistent with, ICE Clear
Europe's Clearing Rules (``Rules''), Procedures, and existing risk
management frameworks, policies, and procedures.\12\ The elements of
the Recovery Plan are described in further detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In the Recovery Plan, ICE Clear Europe refers to its
recovery tools, mechanisms, and options as ``Recovery Options.'' The
Commission has generally referred to these items as ``recovery
tools.'' See CCA Standards Adopting Release, 81 FR at 70810. For the
purposes of this Order, the term ``recovery tools'' is used to refer
to Recovery Options.
    \12\ Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the
meanings specified in the Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Critical Services and Functions. ICE Clear Europe determined that
its futures and options (``F&O'') and credit default swap (``CDS'')
product category clearing services, as well as its related treasury and
banking services, are critical services.\13\ The Recovery Plan
describes the methodology used by ICE Clear Europe to assess the
criticality of services for the purpose of recovery planning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Commission's analysis of the Recovery Plan is limited
to the CDS clearing services provided by ICE Clear Europe, as the
F&O clearing services are outside the Commission's jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICE Clear Europe also identified its ``front-end business
functions'' (i.e., those that are essential to the provision of its
critical services) and the functions that support these critical
services, including information technology services. Specifically, the
Recovery Plan identifies the particular information technology systems
and services used by ICE Clear Europe in providing its clearing
services, including trade management systems, risk systems, and
delivery systems. It also identifies the locations from which these
services are provided and the party that provides the services, in
cases where the services are provided by an affiliate or other third
party. The Recovery Plan also identifies other key service providers on
which ICE Clear Europe relies, including custodians, Concentration
Banks, other approved payment banks, investment managers, and delivery
services providers. Notably, the Recovery Plan considers the key
services provided by ICE affiliates in support of ICE Clear Europe's
clearing activities, including information technology and risk
management services.
    Stress Scenarios. The Recovery Plan analyzes different stress
scenarios that may affect ICE Clear Europe's ability to continue to
provide its critical services. The two categories of stress scenarios
in the Recovery Plan are default losses and non-default losses. ICE
Clear Europe considers default losses to be losses suffered by ICE
Clear Europe as a result of the default of one or more Clearing
Members, and it considers non-default losses to be losses suffered by
ICE Clear Europe from identified general business and operational risk
events, investment losses, system outages, or world-wide or regional
political or macroeconomic events. In both categories, ICE Clear Europe
considers the effect of such losses on liquidity and the resulting risk
of contagion.
    ICE Clear Europe uses a risk-based approach to analyzing its
scenarios, which consists of different impact categories and severity
levels. The Recovery Plan contemplates that the range of responses to a
loss scenario, including the potential recovery tools used, will depend
on the severity level. A low severity loss event would involve limited
or no use of recovery tools, while a severe loss scenario would require
use of all available recovery tools.
    Recovery Tools. The Recovery Plan identifies the likely recovery
tools that ICE Clear Europe may implement depending upon the severity
of the impact of the scenario at issue. The Recovery Plan is intended
to be flexible and provide structure and guidance to management. It is
not designed to be prescriptive, recognizing that the actions to be
taken by ICE Clear Europe may vary depending on the circumstances which
lead to the implementation of the Recovery Plan. The Recovery Plan
outlines the situations and sequence in which each of the recovery
tools is likely to be used, recognizing that ICE Clear Europe has
discretion as to the particular actions to take in any particular loss
scenarios. The Recovery Plan specifies the expected bases for using
particular recovery tools. In general, ICE Clear Europe expects that
the use of recovery tools will be in extreme circumstances where losses
exceed its prefunded resources.
    The Recovery Plan considers a non-exhaustive list of available
recovery tools in terms of a number of factors, including the speed
with which each tool can be implemented, the impact of each tool on ICE
Clear Europe, the impact of each tool on Clearing Members and their
customers, and the effect of each tool on other market infrastructures.
In general, for default

losses arising in CDS clearing, the relevant recovery tools include,
consistent with the Rules, (i) power of assessment, (ii) Default
Auctions, (iii) forced allocation, and (iv) porting of client
positions. The power of assessment would permit ICE Clear Europe to
charge non-defaulting CDS Clearing Members up to one times the amount
of their Guaranty Fund Contributions at the end of the waterfall of
financial resources for a CDS Clearing Member Default.\14\ A Default
Auction would take place in accordance with the CDS Default Auction
Procedures to remove a defaulting CDS Clearing Member's positions and
with the goal of regaining a matched book.\15\ To the extent the CDS
Contracts of a defaulting CDS Clearing Member are not terminated,
transferred, or closed out, ICE Clear Europe has the discretion to
force allocation of those contracts by requiring the entry into new CDS
Contracts between ICE Clear Europe and non-defaulting CDS Clearing
Members.\16\ For a CDS Clearing Member with client-related positions,
ICE Clear Europe may transfer or port those positions to a non-
defaulting CDS Clearing Member.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See ICE Clear Europe Rules 908(c); 910.
    \15\ ICE Clear Europe Rules related to clearing member default
generally discuss Default Auctions. See generally ICE Clear Europe
Rules, Part 9.
    \16\ See ICE Clear Europe Rule 905(c).
    \17\ See ICE Clear Europe Rule 904.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For non-default losses, recovery tools include (i) emergency
liquidity facilities, (ii) investment loss allocation to Clearing
Members, and (iii) service closure. With respect to investment loss
allocation, pursuant to its Rules, ICE Clear Europe generally would be
responsible for the first $90 million in investment losses, and any
further investment losses would be mutualized among Clearing
Members.\18\ With respect to service closure, because ICE Clear Europe
provides separate clearing services for two product categories, it
considers the closure of one service, and continuation of the other, as
a possible recovery scenario.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See ICE Clear Europe Rule 919; see also Exchange Act
Release 72551 (Jul. 8, 2014), 79 FR 40805 (Jul. 14, 2014) (SR-ICEEU-
2014-06).
    \19\ By contrast, as described in the Wind-Down Plan Notice, ICE
Clear Europe considers that a wind-down would result in the transfer
or termination of both clearing services. See Wind-Down Plan Notice,
83 FR at 2847.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Recovery Plan specifies the decision-making process for the use
of the recovery tools separately for default and non-default loss
scenarios. In most cases, under the Rules and Procedures, the ICE Clear
Europe President and Managing Director (``President''), pursuant to
authority delegated by the Board, is responsible for such decisions. In
the case of default events, the decision making would consider the
advice of the Default Management Committee. In practice, the President,
where appropriate and time permitting, would be expected to consult
with the Board or with individual Board members before taking
significant actions. The President may also call an emergency Board
meeting or make Board members aware of the current position. The
President will report decisions to the Board at the next formal Board
meeting. If the President is absent, the ICE Clear Europe Chief
Operating Officer will act in the President's place.
    The Recovery Plan also identifies early warning indicators and
tools intended to notify ICE Clear Europe management that use of
recovery tools may be required, and where possible, avoid the need for
such actions. Such potential early warning indications of a potential
loss scenario include repeated non-compliance by a Clearing Member with
membership or other requirements, actions taken by regulators or other
governmental authorities with respect to a Clearing Member, certain
quantitative factors, restructuring, and similar events. The Recovery
Plan also identifies particular means of monitoring for potential loss
scenarios following such indications. The tools to potentially avoid
the need for such actions include liquidity forecasting and monitoring,
use of a conservative approach to counterparty credit analyses and
establishment of margin and Guaranty Fund requirements, use of
comprehensives risk metrics to monitor Clearing Member financial
performance, back-testing and stress testing, and other assessments.
    Governance. The President is ultimately responsible for the
Recovery Plan. The Recovery Plan was prepared with the active
involvement of the management of ICE Clear Europe, and the Board has
reviewed and approved the Recovery Plan. The ICE Clear Europe Head of
Regulation is responsible for facilitating the overall production,
implementation, and maintenance of the Recovery Plan. The ICE Clear
Europe Board Audit Committee, Chief Risk Officer, Chief Operating
Officer, and Executive Risk Committee also have roles in the
implementation of the Recovery Plan.
    Relevant business units are responsible for ensuring that the
Recovery Plan remains up-to-date and reviewed in accordance with
internal review and governance control arrangements. On an annual
basis, the ICE Clear Europe Head of Regulation will revise the Recovery
Plan. Material changes to the Recovery Plan must be reviewed by ICE
Clear Europe management and be subject to appropriate governance. The
Recovery Plan is subject to annual review by the Board Audit Committee
and the Board. The scenarios and actions that support the Recovery Plan
are subject to Board approval annually.
    Ad hoc reviews of the Recovery Plan may be commissioned if the
business materially changes, such as the introduction of a new service.
Material changes to the Recovery Plan or the scenarios, including those
brought about by market events, are subject to Board approval,
following their review and discussion by the Board Audit Committee.
Deviations from the Recovery Plan are required to be reported to the
Board.

B. Wind-Down Plan (ICEEU-2017-017) \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The description of the Wind-Down Plan is substantially
excerpted from the Wind-Down Plan Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICE Clear Europe's Wind-Down Plan is intended to address scenarios
in which ICE Clear Europe determines to wind-down, in an orderly
fashion, its clearing services. The Wind-Down Plan is based on, and
intended to be consistent with, the Rules and Procedures, as well as
its existing risk management frameworks, policies, and procedures.
    The Wind-Down Plan addresses three particular categories of
scenarios in which wind-down may occur. First, in a non-insolvency
scenario, the Board would voluntarily decide to wind-down the clearing
business. For example, the Board may determine that ICE Clear Europe's
business model has become unviable. Second, in an insolvency scenario
not linked to a Clearing Member default, ICE Clear Europe would be
wound down as a result of a severe loss unrelated to Clearing Member
default that could not be addressed through the Recovery Plan or other
means that permit continued operations. Third, in an insolvency
scenario linked to a Clearing Member default, ICE Clear Europe would be
wound down as a result of losses from the default of one or more
Clearing Members that could not be addressed through the Recovery Plan
or other means that permit continued operation, in accordance with
relevant default rules.
    The Wind-Down Plan identifies a variety of options for wind-down,
depending on the scenario involved. In the case of an insolvency of ICE
Clear

Europe as a result of non-default losses, the Wind-Down Plan
contemplates that all open contracts will be terminated and net sums
calculated to be payable to or from each Clearing Member for each
account category.
    For a voluntary wind-down or a wind-down following a Clearing
Member default, the Wind-Down Plan contemplates that, for each product
category, ICE Clear Europe will either transfer clearing to another
clearing house or terminate clearing.\21\ The ability to transfer
clearing will depend on whether the relevant market and market
participants desire, and are able, to continue trading and clearing of
the relevant product through another clearing house, and on whether
another clearing house can be found to take the product. Following the
transfer and/or termination of clearing, ICE Clear Europe will wind-
down the remaining aspects of its business and contractual
relationships.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ ICE Clear Europe can take different actions with respect to
its two product categories, and in the event of a transfer, F&O
clearing need not be transferred to the same clearing house as CDS
clearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once there is a possibility of wind-down, or the Board has agreed
in principle to a wind-down, a Wind-Down Planning Committee, including
senior management, would be established. The committee would be tasked
with exploring with Clearing Members, exchanges, alternative clearing
houses, and regulators the relevant approaches to wind-down, with a
goal of minimizing adverse impact on Clearing Members. The Wind-Down
Plan outlines a number of considerations for both termination and
transfer options that the committee should consider. The committee
would report to the Board. This consultation process is designed to
reflect the fact that, in a wind-down situation, the Wind-Down Plan
would likely be affected by numerous additional considerations and
could require adjustment and modification to match specific
circumstances.
    Any decision to wind-down is expected to be considered over a
period of months. Such a decision would involve consultation with
members, potential alternative clearing houses, exchanges, and
regulators, and it would require Board approval. The Wind-Down Plan
contemplates that a specific execution plan will be developed for any
wind-down, based on the relevant situation.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange 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 Exchange Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to such organization.\22\ For the reasons given
below, the Commission finds that the proposed rule changes are
consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act \23\ and Rules
17Ad-22(e)(2), 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii), and 17Ad-22(e)(15)(i)-(ii)
thereunder.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2); (e)(3)(ii); (e)(15)(i)-(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act requires, among other
things, that the rules of ICE Clear Europe 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 ICE Clear Europe or for
which it is responsible, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the Recovery Plan would identify the steps that
ICE Clear Europe could take in recovery and the governance framework
applicable to taking such steps. It would analyze the anticipated
impact of the recovery tools, the incentives created by such tools, and
the risks associated with using such tools. The Recovery Plan would
also explain how the tools used in the plan are transparent,
measurable, manageable, and controllable. The Commission believes that
by identifying the steps ICE Clear Europe could take and the tools it
would use to bring about recovery in the face of losses, the Recovery
Plan would increase the likelihood that recovery would be orderly,
efficient, and successful. By increasing the likelihood of an orderly,
efficient, and successful recovery, the Commission believes that the
Recovery Plan would enhance ICE Clear Europe's ability to maintain the
continuity of its critical services (including its clearance of CDS
transactions) during, through, and following periods of extreme stress
giving rise to the need for recovery, thereby promoting the prompt and
accurate settlement of CDS transactions. The Commission also believes
that the Recovery Plan would help assure the safeguarding of securities
or funds in the custody or control of ICE Clear Europe by reducing the
likelihood of a disorderly or unsuccessful recovery that could disrupt
access to such securities or funds. For the same reason, the Commission
believes the Recovery Plan would be consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest.
    Similarly, the Commission believes that the Wind-Down Plan would
enhance ICE Clear Europe's ability to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions and to safeguard
securities and funds in its control by establishing a plan to
effectuate an orderly wind-down. Specifically, the Wind-Down Plan's
governance process and notice provisions would facilitate the orderly
close-out of positions and potential transfer of positions to other
clearing houses, which the Commission believes would enhance ICE Clear
Europe's ability to maintain and continue the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of CDS transactions by assuring that such
transactions are closed-out and transferred to other clearing houses in
an orderly and transparent manner. Moreover, by specifying in advance
the steps ICE Clear Europe would take in a wind-down, the Wind-Down
Plan would help assure an efficient and orderly wind-down of ICE Clear
Europe. The Commission believes that this, in turn, would help assure
the safeguarding of securities or funds in the custody or control of
ICE Clear Europe by reducing the likelihood of an inefficient or
disorderly wind-down, which could disrupt access to such securities or
funds.
    Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule changes
would promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions, assure the safeguarding of securities and
funds in ICE Clear Europe's custody and control, and, in general,
protect investors and the public interest, consistent with the Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2) requires that ICE Clear Europe establish,
implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to provide for governance arrangements that are
clear and transparent and support the public interest requirements in
Section 17A of the Exchange Act

applicable to clearing agencies, and the objectives of owners and
participants.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Recovery Plan would identify clear lines of responsibility for
its preparation and final approval. The Recovery Plan would also
provide specificity and a sound process for receiving input from
various parties at ICE Clear Europe. The Commission believes that these
lines of control and the transparency about the implementation and
preparation of the Recovery Plan will contribute to establishing,
implementing, maintaining, and enforcing clear and transparent
governance arrangements that support the public interest requirements
in Section 17A of the Exchange Act applicable to clearing agencies, and
the objectives of owners and participants.
    The Wind-Down Plan similarly would identify clear lines of
responsibility for the invocation, monitoring, and approval of the
Wind-Down Plan and, ultimately, a wind-down. It would enhance
transparency as well by providing for communication to and consultation
with Clearing Members and other users of ICE Clear Europe's services.
The Commission believes that this aspect of the Wind-Down Plan would
represent clear and transparent governance arrangements.
    Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule changes
would establish clear and transport governance arrangements for the
Recovery Plan and the Wind-Down Plan, consistent with Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(2).\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii) requires that ICE Clear Europe establish,
implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to maintain a sound risk management framework for
comprehensively managing legal, credit, liquidity, operational, general
business, investment, custody, and other risks that arise in or are
borne by ICE Clear Europe, which includes plans for the recovery and
orderly wind-down of ICE Clear Europe necessitated by credit losses,
liquidity shortfalls, losses from general business risk, or any other
losses.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The information the Recovery Plan would provide about the steps
that ICE Clear Europe would take, and the tools it would use, to
effectuate a recovery of ICE Clear Europe would enhance ICE Clear
Europe's ability to recover from credit losses, liquidity shortfalls,
general business risk losses, or other losses, consistent with Rule
17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii).\30\ Specifically, the Recovery Plan information
would enable ICE Clear Europe to prepare in advance for and practice
the use of such tools, which the Commission believes would enhance ICE
Clear Europe's ability to use such tools effectively to carry-out a
successful recovery. In addition, by establishing a single source of
information about, and steps needed to effectuate, a recovery of ICE
Clear Europe, the Recovery Plan would allow ICE Clear Europe personnel
to effectuate a recovery in a consistent and coordinated fashion, which
could thereby increase the likelihood of a successful recovery.
Moreover, the Commission believes that by identifying and assessing
available recovery tools, the Recovery Plan would enhance ICE Clear
Europe's ability to use such tools effectively to bring about a
recovery by identifying in advance which tools may be most effective
for different situations or needs, consistent with Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(3)(ii).\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii).
    \31\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, in providing detailed information about the governance
requirements related to triggering and implementing the Wind-Down Plan,
as noted above, the Wind-Down Plan would enhance ICE Clear Europe's
ability to effectuate an orderly wind-down, consistent with Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(3)(ii).\32\ Specifically, by setting out in advance the steps ICE
Clear Europe would take to trigger and effectuate a wind-down, the
Wind-Down Plan would enable ICE Clear Europe to prepare in advance for
and practice the steps needed to effectuate a wind-down, which the
Commission believes would enhance ICE Clear Europe's ability to use the
Wind-Down Plan effectively to carry-out an orderly wind-down. In
addition, by establishing a single source of information about, and
steps needed to effectuate, a wind-down of ICE Clear Europe, the Wind-
Down Plan would allow ICE Clear Europe personnel to effectuate a wind-
down in a consistent and coordinated fashion, and would thereby
increase the likelihood of an orderly wind-down. Finally, the Wind-Down
Plan would identify the legal basis for ICE Clear Europe's actions with
respect to a potential wind-down, including relevant Rule citations,
which the Commission believes would further facilitate a well-reasoned,
legal, and orderly wind-down process by providing ICE Clear Europe with
a single source of information and steps needed for a wind-down,
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii).\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii).
    \33\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule changes
would be plans for the orderly recovery and wind-down of ICE Clear
Europe, consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii).\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Rules 17Ad-22(e)(15)(i)-(ii) require ICE Clear Europe to establish,
implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to identify, monitor, and manage its general
business risk and hold sufficient liquid net assets funded by equity to
cover potential general business losses so that ICE Clear Europe can
continue operations and services as a going concern if those losses
materialize, including by (i) determining the amount of liquid net
assets funded by equity based upon its general business risk profile
and the length of time required to achieve a recovery or orderly wind-
down, as appropriate, of its critical operations and services if such
action is taken and (ii) holding liquid net assets funded by equity
equal to the greater of either (x) six months of ICE Clear Europe's
current operating expenses, or (y) the amount determined by the board
of directors to be sufficient to ensure a recovery or orderly wind-down
of critical operations and services.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(15)(i)-(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Recovery Plan would include quantitative information to
demonstrate how ICE Clear Europe would determine the amount of equity
capital that would be at least sufficient to cover the costs of a
recovery of its critical clearing services under the Recovery Plan, and
ICE Clear Europe stated in the Recovery Plan Notice that it holds that
amount of equity capital.\36\ Similarly, the Wind-Down Plan
contemplates that any wind-down could be completed within six months
and discusses how ICE Clear Europe would be able to meet its liquidity
requirements during a wind-down. Further, in the Wind-Down Plan Notice,
ICE Clear Europe states that it holds equity capital at least
sufficient to cover the costs of a wind-down of its clearing services
under the Wind-Down Plan during that six-month period.\37\ Based on
these determinations and its review of the underlying information and
analysis in the plans, the Commission finds that the plans would

indicate the potential cost and length of recovery, as well as the
ability to effectuate a wind-down within six months of the decision at
a lower cost than the amount of its liquid resources, consistent with
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(i)-(ii).\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Recovery Plan Notice, 83 FR at 2858.
    \37\ See Wind-Down Plan Notice, 83 FR at 2849.
    \38\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(15)(i)-(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule changes
would determine the length of time required to achieve a recovery or
orderly wind-down of ICE Clear Europe and the associated costs and
would further ensure that ICE Clear Europe holds liquid net assets
greater than these costs, consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(i)-
(ii).\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(15)(i)-(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule changes are consistent with the requirements of the
Exchange Act, and in particular, Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange
Act \40\ and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2), 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii), 17Ad-22(e)(15)(i)-
(ii) thereunder.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \41\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2); (e)(3)(ii); (e)(15)(i)-(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act that the proposed rule change (SR-ICEEU-2017-016) be, and
hereby is, approved.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impacts on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act that the proposed rule change (SR-ICEEU-2017-017) be, and
hereby is, approved.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 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.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15644 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 10 (Friday, January 14, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2372-2373]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00337]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0465; Airspace Docket No. 20-ANM-59]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Modification of Class E Airspace; Rifle Garfield County
Airport, CO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify the Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Rifle Garfield County
Airport, Rifle, CO. This action would ensure the safety and management
of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 28, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
1-800-647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2021-0465; Airspace Docket No. 20-ANM-59, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. FAA Order JO 7400.2 is also available for inspection at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of FAA Order JO 7400.11F at NARA, email
[email protected] or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nathan A. Chaffman, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200
S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority,
as it would modify the Class E airspace at Rifle Garfield County
Airport, Rifle, CO, to support IFR operations at the airport.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2021-0465;
Airspace Docket No. 20-ANM-59''. The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://

www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA
98198.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective
September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F
lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service
routes, and reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by modifying
the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
at Rifle Garfield County Airport, Rifle, CO. This airspace is designed
to contain IFR departures to 1,200 feet above the surface and IFR
arrivals descending below 1,500 feet above the surface. The FAA is
proposing a modification to the RNAV (GPS) Y Runway 8 approach into the
airport; to ensure containment of the procedure, additional airspace
should be added west of the airport. The additional airspace would be
4.8 miles wide and would extend from the 11-mile radius of the airport
to 11.9 miles west of the airport.
    Class E5 airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial, and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ANM CO E5 Rifle, CO [Amended]

Rifle Garfield County Airport, Rifle, CO
    (Lat. 39[deg]31'36'' N, long. 107[deg]43'41'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 5.5-mile radius of the airport from the 336[deg] bearing
from the airport clockwise to the 065[deg] bearing from the airport,
and within an 11-mile radius of the airport from the 065[deg]
bearing from the airport clockwise to the 336[deg] bearing from the
airport, and within 2.4 miles each side of the 257[deg] bearing from
the airport, extending from the 11-mile radius to 11.9 miles west of
the airport.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on January 5, 2022.
B.G. Chew,
Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2022-00337 Filed 1-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 13, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 197)]
[Notices]
[Page 59746]
[DOCID:fr13oc05-90]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP05-696-000]

Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Tariff Filing

October 5, 2005.

    Take notice that on September 30, 2005, Transwestern Pipeline
Company, LLC (Transwestern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, Second Revised Sheet No. 5B.03, to
become effective November 1, 2005.
    Transwestern states that the tariff sheet is being filed to set up
new TCR II Reservation Surcharges that Transwestern proposes to put
into effect on November 1, 2005.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-5635 Filed 10-12-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 240)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 75629]
[DOCID:fr12de08-22]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 158 and 161

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0110; FRL-8358-2]
RIN 2070-2070-AD30

Data Requirements for Antimicrobial Pesticides; Extension of
Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA issued a proposed rule in the Federal Register of October
8, 2008 proposing data requirements for antimicrobial pesticides. EPA
received two requests to extend the comment period on the proposed
rule. Today's document extends the comment period for 90 days, from
January 6, 2009 to April 6, 2009.

DATES: Comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-
HQ-OPP-2008-0110 must be received on or before April 6, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions as provided under ADDRESSES
in the Federal Register document of October 8, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathryn Boyle, Field and External
Affairs Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; mailcode 7506P; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
703.305.5884; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Two requests for an extension of the comment
period on the proposed rule were submitted by the American Chemistry
Council, Biocides Panel and the Consumer Specialty Products
Association. Both of these requests are in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0110,
accessible via http://www.regulations.gov. Today's document extends the
public comment period established in the Federal Register of October 8,
2008 (73 FR 59382)(FRL-8358-2) for the proposed rule entitled ``Data
Requirements for Antimicrobial Pesticides.'' EPA is extending the
comment period, which was set to end on January 6, 2009, to April 6,
2009.
    To submit comments, or access the public docket, please follow the
detailed instructions as provided under ADDRESSES in the October 8,
2008 Federal Register document. If you have questions, consult the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 158 and 161

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

    Dated: December 5, 2008.
James B. Gulliford,
Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic
Substances.

[FR Doc. E8-29477 Filed 12-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S