[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 8, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 53484]
[FR Doc No: C1-2023-15215]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R05-SFUND-2023-0369; FRL-11170-01-R5]

Proposed Prospective Purchaser Agreement for the Delphi 1
Anderson Site in Anderson, Indiana

    In notice document 2023-15215 beginning on page 46155 in the issue
of Wednesday, July 19, 2023, make the following corrections:
    1. On page 46155, in the third column, in the third line, ``[EPA-
R05-INSERT; FRL-INSERT-Region 5]'' should read ``[EPA-R05-SFUND-2023-
0369; FRL-11170-01-R5]''.
    2. On page 46156, in the first column, in the twenty-third line,
under ADDRESSES, ``[EPA-R05-INSERT; FRL-INSERT-Region 5]'' should read
``[EPA-R05-SFUND-2023-0369; FRL-11170-01-R5]''.
    3. On page 46156, in the first column, in the eleventh line from
the bottom, ``[EPA-R05-INSERT; FRL-INSERT-Region 5]'' should read
``[EPA-R05-SFUND-2023-0369; FRL-11170-01-R5]''.

[FR Doc. C1-2023-15215 Filed 8-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 0099-10-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 118 (Friday, June 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 35387]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15144]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4223-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2015-0002]

Texas; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Texas (FEMA-4223-DR), dated May 29, 2015, and related
determinations.

DATES: Effective June 9, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include the following areas
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the
event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of
May 29, 2015.

    Angelina, Archer, Atascosa, Baylor, Bowie, Burleson, Cass,
Cherokee, Clay, Comal, Comanche, Fannin, Fayette, Garza, Gillespie,
Grayson, Harrison, Hood, Houston, Jasper, Kaufman, Kendall, Lamar,
Lee, Liberty, Lynn, Madison, Nacogdoches, Newton, Polk, Refugio,
Sabine, San Jacinto, Tyler, Uvalde, Walker, Wharton, Wilson, and
Zavala Counties for Public Assistance.
    Bastrop, Blanco, Caldwell, Denton, Henderson, Johnson, Milam,
Montague, Rusk, Travis, Williamson and Wise Counties for Public
Assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2015-15144 Filed 6-18-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: February 11, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 27)]
[Notices]
[Page 6864-6865]
[DOCID:fr11fe09-30]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13320-000]

Mississippi L&D 25 Hydro, LLC; Notice of Preliminary
Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions
To Intervene and Competing Applications

February 4, 2009.
    On November 3, 2008, Mississippi L&D 25 Hydro, LLC filed
an application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act
(FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Mississippi River Lock
& Dam 25 Project to be located in Lincoln County, Missouri and Calhoun
County, Illinois. The proposed project would utilize the existing U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Lock and Dam 25 on the Mississippi River.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) A powerhouse containing
4 turbine/generator units with a total installed capacity of 80.4 MW;
(2) a 6.8 mile long, 34.5 kV transmission line and; (3) appurtenant
facilities. The proposed project would have an annual production of 403
GWh which would be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Brent L. Smith, P.O. Box 535, Rigby, Idaho
83442;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Steven Sachs<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
    Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions

on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to
be filed electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file,
an original and eight copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    For more information on how to submit these types of filings please
go to the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the Commission's Web site at http:/
/www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13320) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-2873 Filed 2-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


SF 83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NESHAP for Primary Copper Smelters ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQ) ( Renewal)

1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Title of the Information Collection NESHAP for Primary Copper Smelters ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQ) ( Renewal)

1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP), for Primary Copper Smelters were proposed on April 20, 1998, and June 26, 2000, respectively. This standard applies to each new and existing affected source found at a primary copper smelter. New facilities include those that commenced construction, or reconstruction after the date of the proposal. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQ. The effected sources are each copper concentrate dryer, each smelting furnace, each slag cleaning vessel, each copper converter department, and the entire group of fugitive emission sources.

In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/ operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all affected facilities subject to NESHAP.

Owners and operators of a primary copper smelter are subject to the regulation only if it is a major source of hazardous air pollutant ( HAP) emitting or has the potential to emit any single HAP at the rate of 10 tons or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more per year. In addition, respondents are required to submit an annual performance test report for each control device, along with a semiannual compliance report. These notifications, records and reports are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all sources subject to this subpart.

Owners and operators subject to the rule are required to prepare and maintain on site two site specific operating plans: 1) startup, shutdown, malfunction plan, and 2) a fugitive dust control plan. These plans will not require approval by the EPA but will be required to be maintained at the smelter site. Respondents subject to the provisions of this part will maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least five years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records. Each record will be on the site for at least two years after the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, report or record, and off site for the remaining three years. All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In the 2 event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) regional office.

Approximately three respondents are currently subject to the regulation, and it is estimated that no additional new respondents will become subject to the regulation in the next three years. The average annual cost to industry over the next three years of this Information Collection Request ( ICR) is estimated at $ 556,848.

The office of Management and Budget ( OMB) approved the current Information Collection Request ( ICR) without any " Terms of Clearance."

2. Need for and Use of the Collection 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection The EPA is charged under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, to establish standards of performance for each category or subcategory of major sources and area sources of hazardous air pollutants. These standards are applicable to new or existing sources of hazardous air pollutants and shall require the maximum degree of emission reduction. In addition, Section 114( a) states that the Administrator may require any owner/ operator subject to any requirement of this Act to:

( A) Establish and maintain such records; ( B) make such reports; ( C) install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use such audit procedures, or methods; ( D) sample such emissions ( in accordance with such procedures or methods, at such locations, at such intervals, during such periods, and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe); ( E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is impractical; ( F) submit compliance certifications in accordance with Section 114( a)( 3); and ( G) provide such other information as the Administrator may reasonably require.

In the Administrator's judgment, hazardous air pollutant ( HAP) emissions from primary copper smelters cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Therefore, the NESHAP were promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQ.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the standard ensure compliance with the applicable regulations which were promulgated in accordance with the Clean Air Act. The collected information is also used for targeting inspections and as evidence in legal proceedings. 3 Performance tests are required in order to determine an affected facility's initial capability to comply with the emission standards. Continuous emission monitors are used to ensure compliance with the standards at all times. During the performance test a record of the operating parameters under which compliance was achieved may be recorded and used to determine compliance in place of a continuous emission monitor.

The notifications required in the standards are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the requirements of the regulations. The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to check if the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated and/ or leaks are being detected and repaired and the standard is being met. The performance test may also be observed.

The required semiannual report is used to determine periods of excess emissions, identify problems at the facility, verify operation/ maintenance procedures and for compliance determinations.

3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria The requested recordkeeping and reporting are required under 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQ.

3( a) Nonduplication If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is sent directly to the appropriate EPA regional office. Otherwise, the information is sent directly to the delegated state or local agency. If a state or local agency has adopted its own similar standards to implement the Federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the state or local agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the Federal standards. Therefore, no duplication exists.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR was published in the Federal Register ( FR 69 FR 55430) on September 14, 2004. No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

3( c) Consultations For this information collection, we referenced the most recent ICR, consulted with the preparer of the active ICR, and used several different resources to obtain the most recent data available for primary copper smelters. We accessed the most recent data ( January 6, 2005) available on the Air Facility System ( AFS) databases as maintained by the Office of Compliance. We reviewed information available from the United States Census Bureau, and other websites 4 covering primary copper smelters. We consulted with the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Information Transfer, the Program Integration Division, United States Geological Survey, Daniel L. Edelstein, ( 703) 648 4978, and Phelps Dodge Corporation, Mr. Wayne Leipold, ( 928) 473 7149.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the standards. Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping is useful technique to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are applied and emission limitations are met. If the information required by these standards was collected less frequently, the likelihood of detecting poor operation and maintenance of control equipment and noncompliance would decrease.

3( e) General Guidelines None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

These standards require the respondents to maintain all records, including reports and notifications for at least five years. This is consistent with the General Provisions as applied to the standards. EPA believes that the five year record's retention requirement is consistent the Part 70 permit program and the five year statute of limitations on which the permit program is based. Also, the retention of records for five years would allow EPA to establish the compliance history of a source and any pattern of compliance for purposes of determining the appropriate level of enforcement action. Historically, EPA has found that the most flagrant violators frequently have violations extending beyond the five years. EPA would be prevented from pursuing the worst violators due to the destruction or nonexistence of records if records were retained for less than five years.

3( f) Confidentiality Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, part 2, subpart B  Confidentiality of Business Information ( see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

3( g) Sensitive Questions None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive questions. 5 4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are primary copper smelters. The SIC code for the respondents affected by the standards is United States Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) 3331 which corresponds to the North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS) 331411 for Primary Smelting and Refining of Copper.

4( b) Information Requested None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

( i) Data Items All data in this ICR that are recorded and/ or reported are required by NESHAP for Primary Copper Smelters ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQ).

A source must make the following reports:

Notification Reports Standard Citation by Section Initial notification 63.1454( a) and 63.9( b)

Notification of performance test 63.1454( d), 63.7, and 63.9( e)

Notification of compliance status 63.1454( e) and 63.9( h)

Reports Performance test reports 63.1454( a) and 63.10( d)

Semiannual summary reports 63.1454( b) and 63.10( e)

A source must keep the following records:

Recordkeeping Records of startup, shutdown, and malfunctions 63.1456( a)( 2), 63.1454( c) and 63.10( b)( 2) 6 Recordkeeping Records of air pollution control equipment maintenance, malfunctions, and corrective actions 63.1456( c), 63.1454( c) and 63.10( b)( 1)

Records of performance tests and other supporting documentation used to demonstrate compliance with relevant standards under the rule 63.1456( a)( 5), 63.1454( c) and 63.10( b)( 2)

Records of monthly capture system visual inspection 63.1454( c) and 63.10( b)( 2)

Records of converter capture system operating parameter monitoring system performance, calibration, and maintenance 63.1454( c) and 63.10( b)( 2)

Records of control device operating parameter monitoring system performance, calibration, and maintenance 63.1454( c) and 63.10( b)( 2)

Records of control device or converter capture system operating parameter deviations 63.1454( c) and 63.10( b)( 2)

Copy of site specific air pollution equipment startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan 63.1450( c) and 63.6( e)( 3)

Copy of site specific smelter fugitive dust control plan 63.1448( a)

Electronic Reporting At the present, respondents are using monitoring equipment that automatically records parameter data, e. g., temperature, pressure drop, leaks and spills of mercury, etc. Although personnel at the affected facility must evaluate the data, this internal automation has significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and recordkeeping at the plant site.

Also, regulatory agencies in cooperation with the respondents, continue to create reporting systems to transmit data electronically. However, electronic reporting systems are still not widely used. At this time, it is estimated that approximately 10 percent of the respondents use electronic reporting.

( ii) Respondent Activities Respondent Activities Read instructions.

Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate continuous monitoring system ( CMS) for opacity. 7 Respondent Activities Perform initial performance test, Reference Methods 1, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, 17, 29 test, and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Write the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of processing and maintaining information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of disclosing and providing information.

Adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements.

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

Currently, sources are using automated monitoring equipment that provides parameter data. Although personnel at the sources still need to evaluate the data, this type of monitoring equipment has significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and recordkeeping.

5. The Information Collected: Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 5( a) Agency Activities EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required information.

Agency Activities Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Review notifications and reports, including performance test reports, and excess emissions reports, required to be submitted by industry.

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the Air Facility System ( AFS). 8 5( b) Collection Methodology and Management Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might inspect the source to determine whether the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated. Performance test reports are used by the Agency to discern a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standard. Data and records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs. The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.

Information contained in the reports is entered into the AFS which is operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Compliance. AFS is EPA's database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance data for approximately 125,000 industrial and government owned facilities. EPA uses the AFS for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by local and state regulatory agencies, EPA regional offices and EPA headquarters. EPA and its delegated Authorities can edit, store, retrieve and analyze the data.

The records required by this regulation must be retained by the owner/ operator for five years.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility A majority of the respondents are large entities ( e. g., large businesses). However, the impact on small entities ( i. e., small businesses) was taken into consideration during the development of the regulation. Due to technical considerations involving the process operations and the types of control equipment employed, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are the same for both small and large entities. The Agency considers these requirements the minimum needed to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce them further for small entities. To the extent that larger businesses can use economies of scale to reduce their burden, the overall burden will be reduced.

5( d) Collection Schedule The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown in Table 1: Annual Industry Burden for NESHAP for Primary Copper Smelters ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQ).

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection Table 1 documents the computation of individual burdens for the recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry for the subpart included in this ICR. The individual burdens are expressed under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Where appropriate, specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified. Responses to this information collection are mandatory. 9 The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be 8,837 ( Total Labor Hours from Table 1). These hours are based on Agency studies and background documents from the development of the regulation, Agency knowledge and experience with the NESHAP program, the previously approved ICR, and any comments received.

6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs ( i) Estimating Labor Costs This ICR uses the following labor rates:

Managerial $ 95.32 ($ 45.39 + 110%) Technical $ 64.60 ($ 30.76 + 110%) Clerical $ 40.09 ($ 19.09 + 110%)

These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, December 2003, " Table 10. Private industry, by occupational and industry group." The rates are from column 1, " Total compensation." The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

( ii) Estimating Capital/ Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs The type of industry costs associated with the information collection activities in the subject standard are both labor costs which are addressed elsewhere in this ICR and the costs associated with continuous monitoring. The capital/ startup costs are one time costs when a facility becomes subject to the regulation. The annual operation and maintenance costs are the ongoing costs to maintain the monitors and other costs such as photocopying and postage.

( iii) Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs ( A) Continuous Monitoring Device ( B) Capital/ Startup Cost for One Respondent ( C) Number of New Respondents ( D) Total Capital/ Startup Cost ( B X C) ( E) Annual O& M Costs for One Respondent ( F) Number of Respondents with O& M ( G) Total O& M ( E X F)

Monitoring Control Device $ 2,800 0 $ 0 $ 1,540 3 $ 4,620 10 Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs ( A) Continuous Monitoring Device ( B) Capital/ Startup Cost for One Respondent ( C) Number of New Respondents ( D) Total Capital/ Startup Cost ( B X C) ( E) Annual O& M Costs for One Respondent ( F) Number of Respondents with O& M ( G) Total O& M ( E X F)

Monitoring Converter Hood $ 10,800 0 $ 0 $ 1,200 3 $ 3,600 Total $ 0 $ 8,220 The total capital/ startup costs for this ICR are $ 0. This is the total of column D in the above table. These costs are shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( a), Total annualized capital/ startup costs.

The total operation and maintenance ( O& M) costs for this ICR are $ 8,220. This is the total of column G. These costs are shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( b), Total annual costs ( O& M).

The total respondent costs in block 14 have been calculated as the addition of the capital/ startup costs, and the annual operation and maintenance costs. The average annual cost for capital/ startup and operation and maintenance costs to industry over the next three years of the ICR are estimated to be $ 8,000 ( rounded). This cost is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( c), Total annualized cost requested. The numbers in block 14 of the OMB 83 I form are rounded to show the cost in thousands of dollars.

6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost The only costs to the Agency are those costs associated with analysis of the reported information. EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program includes activities such as the examination of records maintained by the respondents, periodic inspection of sources of emissions, and the publication and distribution of collected information.

The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is estimated to be $ 4,369.

This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate as follows:

Managerial $ 54.66 ( GS 13, Step 5, $ 34.16 x 1.6) Technical $ 40.56 ( GS 12, Step 1, $ 25.35 x 1.6) Clerical $ 21.95 ( GS 6, Step 3, $ 13.72 x 1.6) 11 These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management ( OPM) " 2004 General Schedule" which excludes locality rates of pay. Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 2: Average Annual EPA Burden  NESHAP for Primary Copper Smelters ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQ).

6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs Based on our research for this ICR, approximately three existing sources are currently subject to the standard. It is estimated that no additional sources will become subject to the standard in the next three years.

Number of respondents is calculated using the following table which addresses the three years covered by this ICR.

Number of Respondents Respondents That Submit Reports Respondents That Do Not Submit Any Reports Year ( A) Number of New Respondents ( B) Number of Existing Respondents ( C) Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records but Do Not Submit Reports ( D) Number of Existing Respondents That Are Also New Respondents ( E) Number of Respondents ( E= A+ B+ C D)

1 0 3 0 0 3 2 0 3 0 0 3 3 0 3 0 0 3 Average 0 3 0 0 3 To avoid double counting respondents, column D is subtracted. As shown above, the average Number of Respondents over the three year period of this ICR is three. This number appears on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( a), Number of respondents.

The total number of annual responses per year is calculated using the following table:

Total Annual Responses ( A)

Information Collection Activity ( B) Number of Respondents ( C) Number of Responses ( D) Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit Reports ( E) Total Annual Responses E=( BxC)+ D Initial notification 3 1 N/ A 3 Notification of performance test 3 5.5 N/ A 16.5 12 Total Annual Responses Initial compliance determination 3 1 N/ A 3 Performance test reports 3 5.5 N/ A 16.5 Summary reports 3 2 N/ A 6 Total 45 The number of Total Annual Responses is 45. This number is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( b), Total annual responses.

The Total Hours Requested is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( c). The total annual labor costs are $ 556,848. The annual labor costs are not shown on the OMB 83 I form. Details regarding these estimates may be found in Table 1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost, NESHAP for Primary Copper Smelters ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQ), attached.

6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours Burden Hours and Cost Tables The detailed bottom line burden hours and cost calculations for the respondents and the Agency are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively, and summarized below.

( i) Respondent Tally The Total Hours Requested is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( c). The total annual labor costs are $ 556,848. The annual labor costs are not shown on the OMB 83 I form. Details regarding these estimates may be found in Table 1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost, NESHAP for Primary Copper Smelters ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQ), attached. Furthermore, the annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 196 hours per response.

The total annual capital/ startup and O& M costs to the regulated entity are $ 8,000. This number is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( c), Total annualized cost requested. The cost calculations are detailed in Section 6( b)( iii), Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs.

( ii) The Agency Tally The average annual Agency burden and cost over the next three years is estimated to be 55 labor hours at a cost of $ 2,185. See Table 2. Annual Agency Burden and Cost, NESHAP for Primary Copper Smelters ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQ). 13 6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden The adjustment decrease in burden from the most recently approved ICR is due to a decrease in the number of sources. Our data indicates that there are approximately three sources subject to the rule, as compared to the active ICR that shows six sources. There are no new facilities expected to be constructed in the next three years. The decline in the number of sources was partially due to corporate mergers, coupled with power disruptions and high energy costs which resulted in a loss of production and plant closure.

The annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden is reduced from $ 98,000 to $ 8,000. In the initial rule related ICR, respondents were required to install monitoring equipment. For this ICR, all of the monitoring equipment has been installed and only O& M costs remain.

6( g) Burden Statement The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 196 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Numbers for EPA's regulations are listed at 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number OECA 2004 0039, which is available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D. C. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center is ( 202) 566 1752. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the system, select " search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to 14 the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D. C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number OECA 2004 0039 and OMB Control Number 2060 0476 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting this information. 15 Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost  NESHAP for Primary Copper Smelters ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQ)

Burden item ( A) Technical Personhours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C) Technical Personhours per respondent per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management person hours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H)

Total Cost per year a 1. Applications N/ A 2. Survey and Studies N/ A 3. Reporting requirements A. Read Instructions 16 1 16 0 0 0 0 $ 0 B. Required Activities Conduct control device performance test 120 4.5 540 3b 1,620 81 162 $ 118,867.50 Conduct converter building performance test 240 1 240 3b 720 36 72 $ 52,830.00 C. Create information Included in 3B and 4E D. Gather existing information Included in 3B and 4E E. Write report Initial notification 8 1 8 3b 24 1.2 2.4 $ 1,761.00 Notification of performance test 2 5.5 11 3b 33 1.65 3.3 $ 2,421.38 Initial compliance determination 40 1 40 3b 120 6 12 $ 8,805.00 Performance test reports c 80 5.5 440 3b 1,320 66 132 $ 96,855.00 Summary report d 40 2 80 3b 240 12 24 $ 17,590.00 16 Burden item ( A) Technical Personhours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C) Technical Personhours per respondent per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management person hours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H)

Total Cost per year a 4. Recordkeeping Requirements A. Read instructions 40 1 40 0 0 0 0 $ 0 B. Plan activities 100 1 100 0 0 0 0 $ 0 C. Implement activities i. Prepare startup, shutdown,

malfunction plan 80 1 80 0 0 0 0 $ 0 ii. Copper concentrate dryer Monitor control device parameters 0.5 365f 182.5 3b 547.5 0 0 $ 35,368.50 iii. Smelting vessel Inspect tapping hood system 4 12e 48 3b 144 0 0 $ 9,302.40 Monitor control device parameters 0.5 365f 182.5 3b 547.5 0 0 $ 35,368.50 iv. Slag cleaning vessel Inspect tapping hood system 4 12e 48 1g 48 0 0 $ 3,100.80 Monitor control device parameters 0.5 365f 182.5 1g 182.5 0 0 $ 11,789.50 v. Batch copper converters Inspect converter hood system 4 12 e 48 3b 144 0 0 $ 9,302.40 17 Burden item ( A) Technical Personhours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C) Technical Personhours per respondent per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management person hours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H)

Total Cost per year a Monitor hood system ventilation parameters 0.5 365f 182.5 3b 547.5 0 0 $ 35,368.50 Monitor control device parameters 0.5 365f 182.5 3b 547.5 0 0 $ 35,368.50 vi. Prepare fugitive dust control plan 100 1 100 0 0 0 0 $ 0 D. Develop record system 100 1 100 0 0 0 0 $ 0 E. Time to enter information h 1 365 365 3b 1,095 0 0 $ 70,737.00 F. Time to train personnel i 100 1 100 3b 300 15 30 $ 22,012.50 Subtotal Labor Burden 8,180.5 218.85 437.7 $ 566,848.48 TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST ( rounded) 8,837 $ 556,848 Assumptions:

a This ICR uses the following labor rates: $ 95.32 per hour for Executive, Administrative, and Managerial labor; $ 64.60 per hour for Technical labor, and $ 40.09 per hour for Clerical labor. These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, December 2003, " Table 10. Private industry, by occupational and industry group." The rates are from column 1, " Total compensation." The rates have been increased by 110% to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

b We have assumed that there are three existing sources, and that no additional new sources will become subject to the rule over the next three years.

c We have assumed that it will take eighty hours to complete a performance test report.

d Summary reports are required to be submitted semiannually.

e Inspections of all hood systems are done on a monthly basis.

f Recordkeeping requirements are required daily on all monitor control device parameter.

g We have assumed that one of the three existing sources will be equipped with a slag cleaning vessel.

h Respondents are required to record information on a daily basis. 18 i We have estimated that it will take one hundred hours to train personnel. 19 Table 2: Average Annual EPA Burden  NESHAP for Primary Copper Smelters ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQ)

Burden item ( A) Technical Person Hours Per Occurrenc e ( B) Number of Occurrence s Per Year ( C) Technical Person Hours Per Plant Per Year ( C= AxB) ( D) Plants Per Year ( E) Technical Hours Per Year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management Hours Per Year ( F= 0.05xE) ( G) Clerical Hours Per Year ( G= 0.1xE) ( H) Total Cost,

Per Yeara Activity Report review a. Initial notification 4 1 4 0b 0 0 0 $ 0 b. Performance test notification 4 1 4 0 0 0 0 $ 0 c. Initial compliance determination 8 1 8 0 0 0 0 $ 0 d. Performance test reports 8 1 8 0 0 0 0 $ 0 e. Semiannual summary report c 8 2 16 3b 48 2.4 4.8 $ 2,185.42 TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST ( ROUNDED 55 $ 2,185 Assumptions:

a This cost is based on the following hourly labor rates times a 1.6 benefits multiplication factor to account for government overhead expenses: $ 54.66 for Managerial ( GS 13, Step 5, $ 34.16 x 1.6), $ 40.56 for Technical ( GS 12, Step 1, $ 25.35 x 1.6) and $ 21.95 Clerical ( GS 6, Step 3, $ 13.72 x 1.6). These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management ( OPM) " 2004 General Schedule" which excludes locality rates of pay.

b We have assumed that there are three existing sources, and that no additional new sources will become subject to the rule over the next three years.

c Summary reports are required to be submitted on a semiannually basis.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 133 (Thursday, July 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32399-32402]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14671]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81105; File Nos. SR-DTC-2017-003, SR-NSCC-2017-004, SR-
FICC-2017-007]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
National Securities Clearing Corporation; Fixed Income Clearing
Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Changes, as Modified by
Amendments No. 1, To Adopt the Clearing Agency Policy on Capital
Requirements and the Clearing Agency Capital Replenishment Plan

July 7, 2017.

I. Introduction

    On April 6, 2017, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC''), National
Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC''), and Fixed Income Clearing
Corporation (``FICC,'' each a ``Clearing Agency,'' and collectively,
the ``Clearing Agencies''), filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') proposed rule changes SR-DTC-2017-003, SR-
NSCC-2017-004, and SR-FICC-2017-007, respectively, pursuant to Section
19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule
19b-4 thereunder.\2\ On April 13, 2017, the Clearing Agencies each
filed Amendment No. 1 to their respective proposed rule changes.
Amendments No. 1 made technical corrections to each Exhibit 5 of the
proposed rule change filings. The proposed rule changes, as modified by
Amendments No. 1 (hereinafter, ``Proposed Rule Changes''), were
published for comment in the Federal Register on April 25, 2017.\3\ The
Commission did not receive any comment letters on the Proposed Rule
Changes. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission approves the
Proposed Rule Changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80491 (April 19, 2017),
82 FR 19127 (April 25, 2017) (SR-DTC-2017-003, SR-NSCC-2017-004, SR-
FICC-2017-007) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Changes

    The Proposed Rule Changes are proposals by the Clearing Agencies to
adopt the Clearing Agency Policy on Capital Requirements (``Policy'')
and the Clearing Agency Capital Replenishment Plan (``Plan''), as
described below.

A. Overview of the Policy

    The Policy is designed to provide the Clearing Agencies with a
framework for holding sufficient liquid net assets (``LNA'') funded by
equity to cover potential general business losses, as required under
applicable regulatory standards.\4\ Pursuant to the Policy, the
Clearing Agencies would hold LNA funded by equity in amounts designed
to satisfy each Clearing Agency's General Business Risk Capital
Requirement and Credit Risk Capital Requirement, as described below.
The sum of a Clearing Agency's General Business Risk Capital
Requirement and Credit Risk Capital Requirement constitutes its Total
Capital Requirement. In addition to the Total Capital Requirement, the
Policy would provide for the maintenance of an additional,
discretionary amount of LNA funded by equity (i.e., a ``Buffer''), also
described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Notice, 82 FR at 19127; see also 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Policy would describe how the Treasury group of The Depository
Trust & Clearing Corporation (``Treasury'') \5\ would monitor and
manage the LNA funded by equity to satisfy the Total Capital
Requirement at all times.\6\ More specifically, each Clearing Agency
would manage its LNA funded by equity in a number of ways, including
(i) taking steps to maintain an appropriate and sustainable level of
profitability; (ii) maintaining the Buffer in addition to the Total
Capital Requirement; (iii) taking steps to increase the amount of LNA
funded by equity when necessary; and (iv) maintaining a viable plan for
the replenishment of equity through the Plan.\7\ The Policy would
further provide that DTCC would maintain insurance policies that cover
certain potential Clearing Agency losses.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (``DTCC'') is
the parent company of the Clearing Agencies. DTCC operates on a
shared services model with respect to the Clearing Agencies. Most
corporate functions are established and managed on an enterprise-
wide basis pursuant to intercompany agreements under which it is
generally DTCC that provides a relevant service to a Clearing
Agency.
    \6\ Notice, 82 FR 19128.
    \7\ Notice, 82 FR 19128-19129.
    \8\ Notice, 82 FR 19129.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. General Business Risk Capital Requirement
    According to the Policy, each Clearing Agency would calculate the
General Business Risk Capital Requirement by first calculating three
separate amounts related to general business risk. Specifically, each
Clearing Agency would calculate an amount based on (i) the Clearing
Agency's general business risk profile (``Risk-Based Capital
Requirement''); \9\ (ii) the time estimated

to execute a recovery or orderly wind-down of the critical operations
of the Clearing Agency (``Recovery/Wind-down Capital Requirement'');
\10\ and (iii) an analysis of the Clearing Agency's estimated operating
expenses for a six-month period (``Operating Expense Capital
Requirement'').\11\ The Clearing Agencies would calculate each of these
three amounts annually.\12\ The greatest amount would constitute each
Clearing Agency's General Business Risk Capital Requirement.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Each Clearing Agency would calculate its Risk-Based Capital
Requirement by identifying the general business risk profile of that
Clearing Agency through (i) analysis of business performance, key
performance indicators, and market environment; and (ii) comparison
of financial performance versus the Clearing Agency's budget.
Notice, 82 FR 19128. Under the Policy, business risks that make up a
Clearing Agency's general business risk profile would include, for
example, the risk that revenues decline or expenses grow, the
operational risks of deficiencies in its systems or disruptions to
processing from internal or external events, or investment risk of
loss of financial resources. Id. Treasury would then calculate the
amount necessary to cover those potential general business losses so
the Clearing Agency can continue operations and services if the
losses materialize. Id. The sum of these amounts would constitute
that Clearing Agency's Risk-Based Capital Requirement. Id.
    \10\ Each Clearing Agency would determine its Recovery/Wind-down
Capital Requirement as the amount that each Clearing Agency's Board
of Directors (``Board'') deems sufficient to ensure a recovery or
orderly wind-down of critical operations and services of the
Clearing Agency. Notice, 82 FR 19128. On an annual basis, and in
order to assist each Board in making its determination, Treasury
would calculate the greater of (i) the estimated amount sufficient
to ensure a recovery of critical operations and services of the
Clearing Agency; and (ii) the estimated amount sufficient to ensure
an orderly wind-down of critical operations and services of the
Clearing Agency. Id. Under the Policy, the Treasury would make these
calculations in consultation with and reference to the plans
maintained by the Clearing Agencies that are developed by the
Clearing Agencies in compliance with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii) under
the Act. Id.; see also 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(3). The Commission
granted the Clearing Agencies a temporary exemption from compliance
with the recovery and wind-down plan requirements of Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(3)(ii). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80378 (April
5, 2017) (S7-03-14). Until such time as the Clearing Agencies have
recovery and wind-down plans that are approved by their Boards in
anticipation of compliance with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii), the
Recovery/Wind-down Capital Requirement of each Clearing Agency would
be assumed to be zero. Notice, 82 FR 19129. The General Business
Risk Capital Requirement would therefore be the greater of the Risk-
Based Capital Requirement and the Operating Expense Capital
Requirement.
    \11\ Notice, 82 FR 19128.
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Treasury would annually determine the Operating Expense
Capital Requirement of each Clearing Agency by calculating the
greater of (i) six times the average monthly operating expense for
that Clearing Agency, over the prior twelve-month period, and (ii) a
prospective operating expense estimate based on forecasted expense
data. Notice, 82 FR 19129.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Policy would require the Clearing Agencies to hold an amount of
LNA funded by equity to meet the General Business Risk Capital
Requirement in cash and cash equivalents, which are highly liquid
securities or bank deposits.\14\ The Policy also would require each
Clearing Agency to hold such amount in addition to the resources held
by each Clearing Agency to cover certain credit and liquidity risks, as
required under applicable regulatory standards.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id.
    \15\ Notice, 82 FR 19128; see also 17 CFR 240.17Ad-
22(e)(15)(ii)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Credit Risk Capital Requirement
    As a second component of the Total Capital Requirement, the Policy
would provide that each Clearing Agency maintain a Credit Risk Capital
Requirement, in accordance with each Clearing Agency's respective
rules.\16\ Specifically, the rules of each Clearing Agency provide, in
part, that in the event of a participant \17\ default, NSCC will apply
at least 25 percent of its retained earnings, each division of FICC
will apply up to 25 percent of its retained earnings, and DTC may apply
its retained earnings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See DTC Rule 4, GSD Rule 4, MBSD Rule 4, and NSCC Rule 3
and Addendum E, available at http://dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures. Notice, 82 FR 19128.
    \17\ FICC and NSCC refer to their participants as ``Members,''
while DTC refers to its participants as ``Participants.'' These
terms are defined in the rules of each of the Clearing Agencies.
Supra note 16. In this filing ``participant'' or ``participants''
refers to both the Members of FICC and NSCC and the Participants of
DTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Credit Risk Capital Requirement is different than the general
business risk regulatory requirement. Whereas the latter is designed to
address general business risks, pursuant to Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15) under
the Act,\18\ the Credit Risk Capital Requirement is designed to help
address potential losses due to a participant default that were not
covered through margin requirements, which is not required by that
rule.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(15).
    \19\ Notice, 82 FR 19128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Buffer
    In addition to calculating and maintaining the Total Capital
Requirement, the Clearing Agencies would each calculate and maintain a
Buffer (i.e., a discretionary amount of additional LNA funded by
equity).\20\ The Buffer would generally equal approximately four to six
months of operating expenses for the respective Clearing Agency based
on various factors, including historical fluctuations of LNA funded by
equity and estimates of potential losses from general business
risk.\21\ Treasury would reassess the Buffer periodically.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id.
    \21\ Id.
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Overview of the Plan

    The Plan is designed to provide a viable mechanism for raising
additional LNA funded by equity should a Clearing Agency's equity fall
close to or below the amount required by the Total Capital
Requirement.\23\ The Plan would do so by establishing (i) roles and
responsibilities for implementation of the Plan; (ii) circumstances
triggering implementation of the Plan; (iii) guiding principles for
implementation and execution of the Plan; and (iv) a description of the
tools for replenishment.\24\ The Plan would provide for annual review
and approval by the respective Board of each Clearing Agency (or such
committees as may be delegated authority by the respective Board).\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Notice, 82 FR 19129.
    \24\ Id.
    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Roles and Responsibilities
    Pursuant to the Plan, Treasury would be responsible for identify
the triggering events for replenishing the LNA funded by equity. The
Plan would outline the steps Treasury would take, including identifying
the required equity, analyzing that Clearing Agency's financial
outlook, and selecting the appropriate replenishment tools.\26\ The
Board of the affected Clearing Agency would be responsible for
approving the proposal for implementation of the Plan, once triggered,
and reviewing a report on the replenishment of the Plan.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Triggers
    Under the Plan, the circumstances that could trigger the Plan would
be (i) when equity held by a Clearing Agency is at or below the
Clearing Agency's Total Capital Requirement, plus the equivalent of one
month of operating expenses of that Clearing Agency, as determined
pursuant to the Policy; or (ii) the Board of a Clearing Agency
determines that the Plan should be implemented.\28\ The Plan would
identify certain risks that, if realized, may cause these triggers to
occur, including, for example, unexpected declines in revenue,
disruptions to systems or processes that lead to large losses, or
investment risks.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Id.
    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Guiding Principles
    The Plan would set forth a number of guiding principles. For
example, the Plan would provide that Treasury should have the necessary
flexibility

and discretion, as appropriate, to implement the Plan, including the
ability to determine, based on appropriate analysis, the sequence and
combination of replenishment tools to be used.\30\ Similarly, the Plan
would provide that the prioritization of replenishment tools should be
based on each tool's capacity, at the time the Plan is implemented, to
return the affected Clearing Agency's LNA funded by equity to an
appropriate level, in the shortest possible timeframe.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Id.
    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Replenishment Tools
    The Plan would identify the replenishment tools that may be
utilized when the Plan is triggered, as well as the estimated timeframe
for using each tool. Specifically, the Plan would provide for two types
of replenishment tools: (i) Bridge financing, which would provide
immediate financing but would be considered only an initial step in
implementation of the Plan; and (ii) capital replenishment, which would
provide the affected Clearing Agency with the required additional
equity.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Plan, the replenishment tools could be effectuated
by either DTCC or by a Clearing Agency directly.\33\ Actions that may
be taken by DTCC to provide needed equity to the affected Clearing
Agency, in the form of bridge financing or a capital replenishment,
include (i) contributing existing prefunded resources to the affected
Clearing Agency; (ii) borrowing under an existing line of credit to
which DTCC is a party; (iii) making a claim for insurance proceeds,
when applicable; (iv) authorizing, issuing, and selling shares of
common stock of DTCC to certain DTCC shareholders, pursuant to the
terms and restrictions set forth in the DTCC Certificate of
Incorporation and the DTCC Fourth Amended and Restated Shareholders
Agreement; \34\ (v) issuing or selling preferred stock by DTCC; or (vi)
selling or divesting of assets or businesses.\35\ Actions that may be
taken by each Clearing Agency to raise the needed equity include
increasing fees for services, when appropriate, or decreasing
expenses.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Id.
    \34\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74142 (January 27,
2015), 80 FR 5188 (January 30, 2015); (SR-FICC-2014-810; SR-NSCC-
2014-811; SR-DTC-2014-812).
    \35\ Notice, 82 FR 19129-19130.
    \36\ Notice, 82 FR 19130.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a
proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that
such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Act and rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such
organization.\37\ After carefully considering the Proposed Rule
Changes, the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Changes are
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Clearing Agencies.
Specifically, the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Changes are
consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \38\ and Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(15) under the Act.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \39\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency With Section 17A(b)(3)(F)

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the rules
of the Clearing Agencies be designed to assure the safeguarding of
securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the
Clearing Agencies or for which they are responsible.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the Policy and the Plan are designed to provide
a framework to help each Clearing Agency monitor, identify, and manage
their respective general business risks. In addition, the Policy and
the Plan, together, would require each of the Clearing Agencies to
prepare, calculate, and maintain sufficient LNA funded by equity to
cover the General Business Risk Capital Requirement, Credit Risk
Capital Requirement, and the Buffer.
    As detailed above, the Policy would provide that, in order to cover
potential general business losses, the General Business Risk Capital
Requirement would be calculated and maintained as the larger of (i) an
amount calculated based on the Clearing Agency's general business risk
profile; (ii) an amount based on the time estimated to execute a
recovery or orderly wind-down of the critical operations of the
Clearing Agency; and (iii) an amount based on an analysis of the
Clearing Agency's estimated operating expenses for a six-month period.
The Policy would further require the Clearing Agencies to maintain the
Credit Risk Capital Requirement to help address potential losses due to
a participant default that were not covered through margin
requirements, and the Buffer. The Policy would provide that the
available LNA funded by equity would be continuously monitored and
managed to ensure satisfaction of the Total Capital Requirement.
Meanwhile, the Plan would provide a mechanism for raising additional
LNA funded by equity should a Clearing Agency's equity fall close to or
below the amount required by the Total Capital Requirement. Under such
a framework, the Clearing Agencies could be better positioned to
withstand stress caused by a general business loss or a participant
default, and be better positioned to continue their critical operations
and services, which helps to promote the prompt and accurate clearance
and settlement of securities transactions.
    Furthermore, as described above, by setting aside and maintaining
the Total Capital Requirement for each Clearing Agency to absorb
potential losses due to general business risk and a participant
default, the Policy and the Plan are designed to help reduce the
possibility of the Clearing Agencies' failure, mitigate the risk of
financial loss contagion caused by the Clearing Agencies' failure,
which could help further assure the safeguarding of securities and
funds which are in the custody or control of the Clearing Agencies, or
for which they are responsible. Accordingly, the Commission believes
that the Proposed Rule Changes are consistent with the requirements of
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15) under the Act requires the Clearing Agencies to
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to identify, monitor, and manage their
respective general business risk and hold sufficient liquid net assets
funded by equity to cover potential general business losses so that the
Clearing Agencies can continue operations and services as a going
concern if those losses materialize, including by satisfying Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(15)(i) through (iii).\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(i) under the Act requires the Clearing Agencies
to determine the amount of LNA 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.\43\ In addition, Rule

17Ad-22(e)(15)(ii) requires, in part, that the Clearing Agencies hold
LNA funded by equity equal to the greater of either (i) six months of
the covered clearing agency's current operating expenses, or (ii) the
amount determined by the board of directors to be sufficient to ensure
a recovery or orderly wind-down of critical operations and services of
the covered clearing agency.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(15)(i).
    \44\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(15)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, pursuant to the Policy, each Clearing Agency
would be required to calculate and maintain their respective Total
Capital Requirement. The Total Capital Requirement would be calculated
by summing each Clearing Agency's respective General Business Risk
Capital Requirement and Credit Risk Capital Requirement, and would be
satisfied by LNA funded by equity. Specifically, as detailed above, the
Policy would provide that the General Business Risk Capital Requirement
would be calculated as the larger of (i) an amount calculated based on
the Clearing Agency's general business risk profile, defined as its
Risk-Based Capital Requirement; (ii) an amount based on the time
estimated to execute a recovery or orderly wind-down of the critical
operations of the Clearing Agency, defined as its Recovery/Wind-down
Capital Requirement; and (iii) an amount based on an analysis of the
Clearing Agency's estimated operating expenses for a six-month period,
defined as its Operating Expense Capital Requirement.
    By requiring each Clearing Agency to calculate its General Business
Risk Capital Requirement as the larger amount of the Risk-Based Capital
Requirement, the Recovery/Wind-down Capital Requirement, and the
Operating Expense Capital Requirement, and by requiring the General
Business Risk Capital Requirement with LNA funded by equity, the
Commission believes that the Policy is consistent with Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(15)(i) and (ii) under the Act.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(15)(i), (ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(ii) under the Act further requires, in part,
that the LNA funded by equity held by the Clearing Agencies pursuant to
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(ii) shall be (A) in addition to resources held to
cover participant defaults or other credits and liquidity risks; and
(B) of high quality and sufficiently liquid to allow the Clearing
Agencies to meet their current and projected operating expenses under a
range of scenarios, including in adverse market conditions.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(15)(ii)(A), (B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the Policy would identify the General Business
Risk Capital Requirement of each Clearing Agency as a separate
component of each Clearing Agency's Total Capital Requirement, and
would provide that LNA funded by equity as General Business Risk
Capital Requirement be in addition to (i) LNA funded by equity held as
that Clearing Agency's Credit Risk Capital Requirement; (ii) resources
held by that Clearing Agency in compliance with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)
under the Act for credit risk (which resources are also held in
addition to that Clearing Agency's Credit Risk Capital Requirement);
\47\ and (iii) resources held by that Clearing Agency in compliance
with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7) under the Act for liquidity risk.\48\
Additionally, the Policy would provide that the Clearing Agencies must
meet their Total Capital Requirement by holding LNA funded by equity in
cash, highly liquid securities, or bank deposits, to comply with Rule
17Ad-22(e)(15)(ii)(B). Moreover, the Policy would provide that the
available LNA funded by equity would be continuously monitored and
managed to ensure satisfaction of the Total Capital Requirement.
Therefore, the Commission believes that adoption of the Policy is
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(ii)(A) and (B) under the Act.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4).
    \48\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7).
    \49\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(15)(ii)(A), (B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(iii) requires the Clearing Agencies to maintain
a viable plan, approved by their Boards, and updated at least annually,
for raising additional equity should the LNA funded by equity fall
close to or below the amount required.\50\ As described above, the Plan
would designate to Treasury the responsibilities of monitoring the
sufficiency of each Clearing Agency's LNA funded by equity and the
triggering events for implementation of the Plan. The Plan also would
provide tools to raise additional LNA funded by equity, in the event
that such capital drops near or below the Total Capital Requirement. In
addition, the Plan would provide that the respective Boards of the
Clearing Agencies, or such committees as may be delegated authority by
the respective Boards, would review and approve the Plan annually.
Therefore, the Commission believes that adoption of the Plan is
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(iii) under the Act.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(15)(iii).
    \51\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
Proposed Rule Changes are consistent with the requirements of the Act
and in particular with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) \52\
and the rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that proposed rule changes SR-DTC-2017-003, SR-NSCC-2017-004, and SR-
FICC-2017-007 be, and hereby are, approved.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ In approving the Proposed Rule Changes, the Commission
considered the proposals' impact 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.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-14671 Filed 7-12-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 34 (Wednesday, February 20, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5019-5020]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02689]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0040; Airspace Docket No. 19-AGL-5]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Hamilton, OH

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Butler County Regional
Airport-Hogan Field, Hamilton, OH. The FAA is proposing this action as
the result of an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the
Richmond VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) navigation aid, which provided
navigation information for the instrument procedures at this airport,
as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program. Airspace
redesign is necessary for the safety and management of instrument
flight rules (IFR) operations at this airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 8, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone
(202) 366-9826, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2019-0040; Airspace Docket No. 19-AGL-5, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except federal holidays.
    FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://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. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11C at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; 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 amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Butler County Regional Airport-Hogan Field, Hamilton,
OH, to support IFR operations at this 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. Commenters 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-2019-0040;
Airspace Docket No. 19-AGL-5.'' 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 http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page athttp://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 Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective
September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C 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 Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.5-mile radius
(reduced from a 6.9-mile radius) of Butler County Regional Airport-
Hogan Field, Hamilton, OH.
    This action is necessary due to an airspace review caused by the
decommissioning of the Richmond VOR, which provided navigation
information for the instrument procedures at these airports, as part of
the VOR MON Program.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018, which

is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

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 7400.11C,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and
effective September 15, 2018, is amended as follows:

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

* * * * *

AGL OH E5 Hamilton, OH [Amended]

Butler County Regional Airport-Hogan Field, OH
    (Lat. 39[deg]21'50'' N, long. 84[deg]31'19'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Butler County Regional Airport-Hogan
Field.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 11, 2019.
John Witucki,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2019-02689 Filed 2-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P