[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 81 (Tuesday, April 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23532-23533]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09840]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14201-001]

Bison Peak Pumped Storage, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On January 2, 2015, the Bison Peak Pumped Storage, LLC., filed an
application for a successive preliminary permit, pursuant to section
4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility
of the Bison Peak Pumped Storage Project (Bison Peak Project or
project) to be located in the Tehachapi Mountains south of Tehachapi,
Kern County, California. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if
issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license
application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not
authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities
or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the
owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would be a closed-loop pumped storage project
with an upper reservoir and the applicant has proposed three
alternatives for the placement of a lower reservoir, termed ``West,''
``South,'' and ``East''. Water for the initial fill of each of the
alternatives would be obtained from local water agency infrastructure
via a route that would be identified during studies.
    A ring dam of varying heights and a perimeter of 6,000 feet would
form the project's upper reservoir. The upper reservoir would have a
total storage capacity of 4,196 acre-feet and a surface area of 45.4
acres at an elevation of 7,800 feet mean sea level (msl) and a concrete
lined intake/tailrace facility. The upper reservoir would be connected
to one of the three proposed lower reservoir alternatives as described
below.
    The West lower reservoir alternative would consist of the
following: (1) The upper reservoir; (2) a 43-acre lower reservoir at
5,380 feet msl created by a dam with a crest height of 250 feet, crest
length of 1,435 feet, and a storage capacity of 5,347 acre-feet; (3)
four 10-foot diameter, 5,890-foot-long penstocks from the concrete
lined intake/tailrace facility at the upper reservoir; (4) an
underground powerhouse with four 250-megawatt (MW) reversible pump-
turbines; (5) an intake/tailrace facility; and (6) appurtenant
facilities. The estimated annual generation of the Bison Peak Pumped
Storage Project West lower reservoir alternative would be about 2,190
gigawatt-hours.
    The South lower reservoir alternative proposal would consist of the
following: (1) The upper reservoir; (2) a 41.8-acre lower reservoir at
4,875 feet msl created by a dam with a crest height of 260 feet, crest
length of up to 1,285 feet, and a storage capacity of 4,616 acre-feet;
(3) four 10-foot diameter, 9,420-foot-long penstocks from the concrete
lined intake/tailrace facility at the upper reservoir to; (4) an
underground powerhouse with four 250-megawatt (MW) reversible pump-
turbines; (5) an intake/tailrace facility; and (6) appurtenant
facilities. The estimated annual generation of the Bison Peak Pumped
Storage Project South lower reservoir alternative would be about 2,190
gigawatt-hours.
    The East lower reservoir alternative would consist of the
following: (1) The upper reservoir; (2) a 47-acre lower reservoir at
5,800 feet msl created by a dam with a crest height of 320 feet, crest
length of 1,150 feet, and a storage capacity of 5,724 acre-feet; (3)
three 12-foot diameter, 5,890-foot-long penstocks from the concrete
lined intake/tailrace facility at the upper reservoir to; (4) an
underground powerhouse with three 250-megawatt (MW) reversible pump-
turbines; (5) an intake/tailrace facility; and (6) appurtenant
facilities. The estimated annual generation of the Bison Peak Pumped
Storage Project East lower reservoir alternative would be about 1,642
gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mario Lucchese, Bison Peak Pumped Storage, LLC.
9795 Cabrini Dr., Ste. 206, Burbank, CA 91504; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Matt Buhyoff; phone:<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.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866)

208-3676 (toll free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic
filing, please send a paper copy to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-
14201-001.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14201) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: April 14, 2015.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-09840 Filed 4-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 6, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54393-54394]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19281]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0750]

Safety Zone; Military Ocean Terminal Concord Safety Zone, Suisun
Bay, Military Ocean Terminal Concord, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Notification of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone in the navigable
waters of Suisun Bay, off Concord, CA, in support of explosive on-
loading to Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO) from September 5,
2022, through September 8, 2022. This safety zone is necessary to
protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential
explosion within the explosive arc. The safety zone is open to all
persons and vessels for transitory use, but vessel operators desiring
to anchor or otherwise loiter within the safety zone must obtain the
permission of the Captain of the Port San Francisco or a designated
representative. All persons and vessels operating within the safety
zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of
the Port San Francisco or a designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1198 will be enforced from 12:01
a.m. on September 5, 2022, until 11:59 p.m. on September 8, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notification of enforcement, call or email Lieutenant William Harris,
Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, Waterways Management Division, 415-
399-7443, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
in 33 CFR 165.1198 for the Military Ocean Terminal Concord, CA (MOTCO)
regulated area from 12:01 a.m. on September 5, 2022, until 11:59 p.m.
on September 8, 2022, or as announced via marine local broadcasts. This
safety zone is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment from potential explosion within the explosive arc. The
regulation for this safety zone, Sec.  165.1198, specifies the location
of the safety zone which encompasses the navigable waters in the area
between 500 yards of MOTCO Pier 2 in position 38[deg]03'30'' N,
122[deg]01'14'' W and 3,000 yards of the pier. During the enforcement
periods, as reflected in Sec.  165.1198(d), if you are the operator of
a vessel in the regulated area you must comply with the instructions of
the COTP or the designated on-scene patrol personnel. Vessel operators
desiring to anchor or otherwise loiter within the safety zone must
contact Sector San Francisco Vessel Traffic Service at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
VHF Channel 14 to obtain permission.
    In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal
Register, the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this
enforcement period via marine information broadcasts.

    Dated: August 31, 2022.
Taylor Q. Lam,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2022-19281 Filed 9-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 107 (Monday, June 4, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25635-25638]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11758]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010; FRL-9977-80--Region 8]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Davenport and Flagstaff
Smelters Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 is issuing
a Notice of Intent to Delete Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters Superfund
Site (Site) located in Sandy City, Salt Lake County, Utah, from the
National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this
proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the
State of Utah, through the Utah Department of Environmental Quality
(UDEQ), have determined that all appropriate response actions under
CERCLA, other than operation and maintenance and five-year reviews
(FYR), have been completed. However,

this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

DATES: Comments must be received by July 5, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2003-0010 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions
for submitting comments Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
     Email: [email protected].
     Mail: Erna Waterman, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. EPA,
Region 8, Mail Code 8EPR-SR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129
     Hand delivery: U.S. EPA, Region 8 1595 Wynkoop Street
(EPR-SR), Denver, CO 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2003-0010. The http://www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous
access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: Utah
Department of Environmental Quality, 168 North 1950 West, Salt Lake
City, UT 84116; Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>); Hours: M-Th: 9 a.m.-9 p.m.; Fri-
Sat: 9:00 a.m.-5:30 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erna Waterman, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, EPR-SR,
Denver, CO 80202,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 8 announces its intent to delete the remaining portions
of Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters Superfund Site from the National
Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comment on this proposed
action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP),
which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of
1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that
appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the
environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions
financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in
40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain
eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if future conditions
warrant such actions.
    EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this Site for
thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal
Register.
    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using
for this action. Section IV discusses the Davenport and Flagstaff
Smelters Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion
criteria.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in
consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have
been met:
    i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
    iii. the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore,
the taking of remedial measures in not appropriate.
    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-
year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions
where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a
site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted
from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued
protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available
that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant
release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be
restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:
    (1) EPA consulted with the State before developing this Notice of
Intent to Delete.
    (2) EPA has provided the State 30 working days for review of this
notice prior to publication of it today.
    (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has
determined that no further response is appropriate;

    (4) The State of Utah, through the UDEQ, has concurred with
deletion of the Site from the NPL.
    (5) Concurrently with the publication of this Notice of Intent to
Delete in the Federal Register, a notice is being published in a major
local newspaper, Deseret News. The newspaper notice announces the 30-
day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the
Site from the NPL.
    (6) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed
deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for
public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories
identified above.
    If comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on
this document, EPA will evaluate and respond appropriately to the
comments before making a final decision to delete. If necessary, EPA
will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public
comments received. After the public comment period, if EPA determines
it is still appropriate to delete the Site, the Regional Administrator
will publish a final Notice of Deletion in the Federal Register. Public
notices, public submissions and copies of the Responsiveness Summary,
if prepared, will be made available to interested parties and in the
Site information repositories listed above.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from
the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for
informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the
NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should
future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Site Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the
Site from the NPL.

Site Background and History

    The 106-acre Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters Superfund Site
(UTD988075719) is located 15 miles southeast of Salt Lake City at the
mouth of Little Cottonwood Canyon. Constructed in the 1870s, the
Davenport and the Flagstaff smelters treated ores from mines near Alta,
Utah. Lead smelting was the dominant industrial activity at the Site.
Lead and arsenic were the primary products associated with ore
processing. At times copper, gold, silver, and other metals were also
produced at the Site. Ore processing and disposal of waste products
have resulted in contamination at the Site.
    The EPA proposed the Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters Superfund
Site on the National Priorities List (NPL) in January 2000 and
finalized listing of the Site on April 30, 2003 (68 FR 23077). The EPA
proposed the Site to the NPL based on studies conducted between 1992
and 2003 due to soil and sediments contaminated with lead and arsenic.
Lead levels greater than 200,000 mg/kg were detected in an
investigation conducted in 2000.
    The Site is divided into three operable units. Operable Unit 1
(OU1) is the southern 28 acres of the Site. It is the location of the
former Davenport Smelter and current location of residential
properties. Operable Unit 2 (OU2) is the middle and western part of the
Site, and is comprised of 29 acres of commercial and undeveloped land.
Operable Unit 3 (OU3) is the northern 49 acres of the Site. The
location of the former Flagstaff Smelter, which was once agricultural
land, is now mostly residential. Wastes were present on the Site for
many years and, in some locations, groundwater was in direct contact
with visible slag without appreciable impact on groundwater.
Concentrations of contaminants of concern (COCs) in groundwater are
generally below federal maximum contamination limits (MCLs).
    Because portions of OU1 was deleted from the NPL on August 20, 2004
under a Partial Deletion (69 FR 51583), the remaining portions of OU1,
OU2 and OU3 are the focus of this deletion.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    The former smelters were the suspected source of waste within OU1,
OU2 and OU3. Analysis of sample data confirmed that soil contamination
was caused by deliberate use of waste as fill and environmental factors
transporting smelter waste. The 1999 Baseline Human Health Risk
Assessment identified arsenic and lead as contaminants of concern. This
Risk Assessment established the action levels of 600 mg/kg for lead and
126 mg/kg for arsenic for surface soils. EPA completed a Focused
Feasibility Study (FS) in December 2001.

Selected Remedy

    Prior to the signing of the Record on Decision (ROD) in 2009, a
removal action in OU1 was conducted. While the majority of OU2 land was
undeveloped, there were three residences and a restaurant within OU2.
EPA issued a ROD for OU2 dated September 16, 2009, an Explanation of
Significant Differences (ESD) dated July, 2012 and an ESD for OU1/OU3,
dated November 11, 2015. These decision documents defined the remedy as
follows:
     Soils on properties with principal threat wastes (wastes
that fail TCLP and/or is a characteristic hazardous waste) required
stabilization and disposal in a RCRA Subtitle C Hazardous Waste
Landfill.
     Excavation of a minimum of 18 inches of soil of all
properties was recommended for remediation of all residential
properties that had soil lead levels which exceeded the established
action levels of 600 mg/kg for lead and 126 mg/kg for arsenic.
     Hand excavation would be conducted around affected areas
of native vegetation.
     Institutional Controls (ICs) to make sure the remedy is
protective.
     Off-Site disposal of contaminated soils and backfill with
clean soil.
     Due to physical restrictions presented by topography and
existing utility structures, and to preserve mature vegetation to
enhance the overall remedy performance, contamination at concentrations
greater than action levels could be left in place.
     If removal of contaminated soils was not feasible due to
steep slopes and existing structures, these soils remained after
construction activities were completed if they did not pose a threat to
human health.
    The Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs), as amended, were to prevent
unacceptable exposure risks to current and future human populations
presented by contact, ingestion, or inhalation of smelter materials,
associated contaminated materials, or COCs derived from the smelter
wastes.

Response Actions

    In 2004, an OU1 removal action addressed 26 residential properties.
Remediation work for OU2 and OU3 was conducted in two removal actions.
The contractor mobilized in August 2011. The pre-final inspection of
the removal action was on November 16, 2011 and the final inspection on
May 29, 2012. The OU2 Construction Completion Report was signed on
September 24, 2012. Little Cottonwood Canyon Partners conducted a non-
time critical removal action at OU3 under an agreement with the EPA and
under oversight of the UDEQ. This action allowed for redevelopment of
the agricultural land for residential use. Remediation work for OU3
began on April 26, 2006; the final inspection was

conducted on September 6, 2006. The Final Close Out Report for OU3 is
dated September 7, 2006. Site-wide, approximately a total of 137,000
tons were excavated and placed beneath an engineered soil and clay cap
on-site. UDEQ was the lead agency for the remediation as defined in a
cooperative agreement between EPA and UDEQ.

Operation and Maintenance

    The Operations and Maintenance Plan consists of the following
activities: inspection/observation during redevelopment construction;
review of development construction plans and specification for
conformance with cover requirements; storm water management and
irrigation restrictions; and temporary stockpile and covering of soil
and slag. Maintaining appropriate soil cover and drainage is a required
operation and maintenance IC. The State is responsible for enforcing
the cap and soil ICs.
    The 2009 OU2 ROD required the establishment of ICs to prevent
exposure to contaminated materials and to require State review of
future changes to land use. ICs that support limited commercial and
residential re-use were adopted by the City of Sandy. In addition, ICs
for groundwater and surface water were established by the State to
prohibit use as drinking water.

Five-Year Review

    Statutory Five-Year Reviews (FYR) of the Site are required because
hazardous substances remain on-Site above levels which allow for
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. Two FYRs were conducted, in
2012 and 2017. Both FYRs found the remedy at the Site to be protective.
The 2017 FYR identified an issue of needing to clarify roles of local
authorities with respect to ICs. The issue was resolved by ensuring
Salt Lake County would monitor and enforce ICs. The next five-year
review is scheduled to be completed by September 2022.

Community Involvement

    Major community involvement activities included establishing a
local presence by meeting with local property owners and concerned
citizens. Outreach efforts included community interviews, fact sheets,
letters, flyers, door-to-door visits, public meetings, neighborhood
meetings, public comment periods and website updates. The most recent
interviews were conducted in the spring 2017 for the FYR. The EPA's
Community Involvement criteria associated with 40 CFR 300.425(e)(4)
require EPA to conduct interviews and/or gather community input.
    Today, approximately seventy percent of the Site has been fully
developed for residential and commercial land-use. The successful
revitalization of this Site is sustainable, provides valuable reuse,
and elevates the quality of life with revitalization for years to come.

Determination that the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion

    The implemented Site-wide remedy achieves the RAOs specified in the
September 2009 OU2 ROD and the April 25, 2005 OU1/OU3 ESD for all
pathways of exposure. No further Superfund responses are needed to
protect human health and the environment at the Site.
    The NCP (40 CFR 300.425(e)) states that a site may be deleted from
the NPL when no further response action is appropriate. EPA, in
consultation with the State of Utah, has determined that all required
response actions have been implemented and no further response action
is appropriate.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626,
77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3
CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp.,
p. 193.

    Dated: May 21, 2018.
Douglas H. Benevento,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2018-11758 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 26, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38223-38226]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15145]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0007; FRL-9826-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Designation of
Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; California; South Coast Air
Basin; Approval of PM10 Maintenance Plan and Redesignation
to Attainment for the PM10 Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving, as a revision to the California State
implementation plan (SIP), the State's request to redesignate the Los
Angeles-South Coast Air Basin (South Coast) to attainment for the 24-
hour particulate matter of ten microns or less (PM10)
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). EPA is also approving
the PM10 maintenance plan and the associated PM10
motor vehicle emissions budgets for use in transportation conformity
determinations necessary for the South Coast PM10 area.
Finally, EPA is approving the attainment year emissions inventory. EPA
is taking these actions because the SIP revision meets the

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA guidance for such plans
and motor vehicle emissions budgets.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on July 26, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may inspect the supporting information for this action,
identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0007, by one of the
following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking portal, http://www.regulations.gov, please
follow the online instructions; or,
    2. Visit our regional office at, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., voluminous
records, large maps, copyrighted material), and some may not be
publicly available in either location (e.g., Confidential Business
Information). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed
directly below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4192<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Proposed Action
II. Public Comment and EPA Response
III. EPA's Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of Proposed Action

    On April 8, 2013 (78 FR 20868), based on EPA's review of the Final
PM10 Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the South Coast Air
Basin (December 2009) (``2009 South Coast PM10 Redesignation
Request and Maintenance Plan'') submitted by California, air quality
monitoring data, and other relevant materials, EPA proposed to approve
the State of California's request to redesignate the South Coast
PM10 nonattainment area to attainment of the PM10
NAAQS, pursuant to CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A. The background
for today's actions is discussed in detail in EPA's April 8, 2013
proposed rulemaking and technical support document (TSD).
    We based our conclusion that the area had attained the standard on
our determination that the three years of complete, quality-assured
data for the period 2008-2010 showed that the South Coast
PM10 nonattainment area had attained the PM10
NAAQS.
    We also determined based on more recent data that the area
continues to attain the NAAQS based on certified, quality-assured 2012
data. Data for 2013 have not been submitted to EPA's Air Quality System
(AQS) and are not required to be submitted until June 30, 2013.
    Our proposed approval of the redesignation request was based on
EPA's finding that the area meets all other CAA redesignation
requirements under section 107(d)(3)(E) and the CAA maintenance plan
requirements under section 175A.
    EPA proposed to approve the State's maintenance plan, which
includes SIP-approved control measures for fugitive dust, open burning
and wood burning devices, cement manufacturing, aggregate and related
operations, and paved and unpaved roads, among others. Implementation
of these control measures has resulted in attainment of the
PM10 NAAQS in the South Coast nonattainment area and the
continued implementation of these control measures is expected to
provide for maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS into the future.
We also proposed to approve the motor vehicle emissions budgets
associated with the plan because the plan demonstrated that these
emissions levels, when considered with emissions from all other
sources, were consistent with maintenance of the NAAQS.
    Finally, EPA proposed to approve the attainment year emissions
inventory submitted with the maintenance plan as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3).

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA provided for a 30-day public comment period on our proposed
action. The comment period ended on May 8, 2013. We received one
comment letter from the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD or District) on May 8, 2013.\1\ We respond to that comment
here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See letter, Elaine Chang, DrPH, Deputy Executive Officer,
South Coast Air Quality Management District, to Wienke Tax, US
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, dated May 8, 2013, in
the docket for today's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: SCAQMD strongly supports EPA's proposed action. The
District also commented that it submitted, through CARB, exceptional
events packages requesting exclusion of monitoring data from multiple
sites in the SCAQMD network from October 21, 2007 and July 5, 2007
under EPA's Exceptional Events Rule (72 FR 28612, May 22, 2007). The
exceptional events requests were submitted to EPA by CARB on October
23, 2009 and December 22, 2009, respectively. The letter also requested
EPA to acknowledge the requests if EPA did not evaluate these requests
before taking final action on this proposal.
    Response: EPA received two exceptional events requests from CARB
for South Coast monitoring data from 2007 on October 23, 2009 and
December 22, 2009. EPA is not taking any action on the exceptional
events requests cited in the District's comment letter. It is not
necessary for EPA to process those requests because this final action
is based on monitored data occurring after the time of those requests.
Therefore, whether we granted or denied the exceptional events requests
concerning data from 2007, it would not have any bearing on our action
today.

III. EPA's Final Action

    Based on our review of the 2009 South Coast PM10
Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan submitted by the State, air
quality monitoring data, and other relevant materials, EPA finds that
the State has addressed all the necessary requirements for
redesignation of the South Coast air basin to attainment of the
PM10 NAAQS, pursuant to CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A.
    First, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), we are approving CARB's
request, which accompanied the submittal of the maintenance plan, to
redesignate the South Coast PM10 nonattainment area to
attainment for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. We are doing so based
on our conclusion that the area has met the five criteria for
redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). Our conclusion is based
on our determination that the area has attained the 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS; that relevant portions of the California SIP are
fully approved; that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent
and enforceable reductions in emissions; that California has met all
requirements applicable to the South Coast PM10
nonattainment area with respect to section 110 and part D of the CAA;
and that we are approving the South Coast PM10 maintenance
plan as part of today's action.
    Second, in connection with the 2009 South Coast PM10
Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan, EPA is finding that the
maintenance demonstration showing how the area will continue to attain
the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS for at least 10 years beyond
redesignation (i.e., through 2030) and

the associated motor vehicle emissions budgets meet applicable CAA
requirements for maintenance plans and transportation conformity
requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e). We are also approving the 2010
emissions inventory as meeting the applicable requirements for
emissions inventories in CAA sections 175A and 172.
    With today's action, we are finalizing our approval of the motor
vehicle emissions budgets. After the effective date of today's final
rule, the approved budgets must be used in any future regional
emissions analysis for PM10 conducted by the local
metropolitan planning organization, the Southern California Association
of Governments, and the Federal Highway Administration.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by State law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40
CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the
Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For these reasons,
these actions:
     Are not ``significant regulatory actions'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the final action does not apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Nonetheless, in
accordance with EPA's 2011 Policy on Consultation and Coordination with
Tribes, EPA has notified Tribes located within the South Coast
PM10 nonattainment area of this action.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 26, 2013. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: June 12, 2013.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.

    Part 52, Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(426) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (426) The following plan was submitted on April 28, 2010, by the
Governor's Designee.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) South Coast Air Quality Management District.
    (1) Final PM10 Redesignation Request and Maintenance
Plan for the South Coast Air Basin (December 2009) (2009 South Coast
PM10 Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan), adopted
January 8, 2010.
    (2) SCAQMD Board Resolution 10-1, dated January 8, 2010, adopting
the 2009 South Coast PM10 Redesignation Request and
Maintenance Plan.
    (B) State of California Air Resources Board.
    (1) CARB Resolution 10-21, dated March 25, 2010, adopting the 2009
South Coast PM10 Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan.

PART 81--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart C--[Amended]

0
4. Section 81.305 is amended in the table for ``California-PM-10'' by
revising the entry under Riverside, Los Angeles, Orange, and San
Bernardino Counties for the ``South Coast Air Basin'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  81.305  California.

* * * * *

                                                California--PM-10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Designation                        Classification
            Designated area            -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Date                 Type                 Date            Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Riverside, Los Angeles, Orange, and     ..............  ........................  ..............  ..............
 San Bernardino Counties.
    South Coast Air Basin.............         7/26/13  Attainment..............  ..............  ..............

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-15145 Filed 6-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 140 (Thursday, July 21, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47466-47469]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17200]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78347; File No. SR-FICC-2016-003]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Describe the Blackout
Period Exposure Charge That May Be Imposed on GCF Repo Participants

July 15, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 12, 2016, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the clearing agency. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change would amend the Government Securities
Division (``GSD'') Rulebook (the ``GSD Rules'') \3\ to include a margin
charge increase (the ``Blackout Period Exposure Charge'' as further
described below) that may be imposed on Netting Members that
participate in the GCF Repo[supreg] service (``GCF Repo
Participants''). The charge would be imposed at the beginning of each
month for GCF Repo Participants whose portfolios experience backtesting
deficiencies attributable to such Participants' use of mortgage-backed
securities (``MBS'') as collateral for GCF Repo Transactions. The
charge is designed to mitigate FICC's exposure resulting from potential
decreases in the collateral value of MBS pools that occur during the
monthly Blackout Period (as defined and discussed below). The proposed
rule change would amend GSD Rule 1 (Definitions) to add certain defined
terms and would amend Section 1b of GSD Rule 4 (Clearing Fund and Loss
Allocations) to include the Blackout Period Exposure Charge and the
manner in which FICC determines and imposes such charge. FICC is filing
this proposed rule change in order to provide transparency in the GSD
Rules with respect to this existing charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The GSD Rules are available at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures. Capitalized terms used herein and not
otherwise defined shall have the meaning assigned to such terms in
the GSD Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The proposed rule change provides transparency in the GSD Rules
with respect to the Blackout Period Exposure Charge, which FICC may
temporarily impose on a GCF Repo Participant as part of such GCF Repo
Participant's Required Fund Deposit. FICC imposes the Blackout Period
Exposure Charge where FICC determines, based on prior backtesting
deficiencies of such GCF Repo Participant's Required Fund Deposit, that
the GCF Repo Participant may experience a deficiency due to reductions
in the notional value of the MBS used by such GCF Repo Participant to
collateralize its GCF Repo trading activity that occur during the
monthly Blackout Period. Because this reduction in notional value that
occurs during the Blackout Period is not reflected on GCF Clearing
Agent Banks' collateral reports to FICC until after the Blackout Period
ends, the value of GCF Repo Participants' collateral may be overstated
during this period, creating an exposure for FICC that may not be
covered by such Participants' Required Fund Deposits. The Blackout
Period Exposure Charge is designed to mitigate that risk to FICC.

(i) Background
A. GCF Repo Service and the Required Fund Deposit
    The GCF Repo service enables GCF Repo Participants to trade general
collateral repurchase agreements based on rate, term and underlying
product throughout the day, without requiring intraday, trade-for-trade
settlement on a delivery-versus-payment basis. On each trading day, GCF
Repo Participants must allocate appropriate collateral to FICC's
account at the GCF Repo Participant's GCF Clearing Agent Bank to cover
their repurchase obligations.\4\ FICC accepts MBS as eligible
securities for such collateral allocations.\5\ Additionally, FICC
collects Required Fund Deposits from all Netting Members (including GCF
Repo Participants) to protect FICC against losses in the event of a
Netting Member's default.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ GSD Rule 20 Section 3.
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Required Fund Deposit serves as each Netting Member's margin.
The objective of the Required Fund Deposit is to mitigate potential
losses to FICC associated with liquidation of the Netting Member's
portfolio in the event that FICC ceases to act for a Netting Member
(hereinafter referred to as a ``default''). FICC determines Required
Fund Deposit amounts using a risk-based margin methodology that is
intended to capture market price risk. The methodology uses historical
market moves to project or forecast the potential gains or losses on
the liquidation of a defaulting Netting Member's portfolio, assuming
that a portfolio would take three days to liquidate or hedge in normal
market conditions. The projected liquidation gains or losses are used
to determine the Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit, which is
calculated to cover projected liquidation losses at a 99 percent
confidence level. The aggregate of all Netting Members' Required Fund
Deposits constitutes FICC's Clearing Fund, which FICC would be able to
access should a defaulting Netting Member's own Required Fund Deposit
be insufficient to satisfy losses to FICC caused by the liquidation of
that Netting Member's portfolio.
    FICC employs daily backtesting to determine the adequacy of each
Netting Member's Required Fund Deposit. FICC compares the Required Fund
Deposit \6\ for each Netting Member with the simulated liquidation
gains/losses using the actual positions in the Netting Member's
portfolio, including the actual allocated collateral of GCF Repo
Participants, and the actual historical security returns. FICC
investigates the cause(s) of any deficiencies. As a part of this
process, FICC pays particular attention to Netting Members with
backtesting deficiencies that bring the results for that Netting Member
below the 99 percent confidence target (i.e., greater than two
deficiency days in a rolling twelve-month period) to determine if there
is an identifiable cause of repeat deficiencies. FICC also evaluates
whether multiple Netting Members may experience deficiencies for the
same underlying reason.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For backtesting comparisons, FICC uses the Required Fund
Deposit amount, without regard to the actual collateral posted by
the Netting Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. MBS and the Blackout Period
    While there can be multiple factors that contribute to a
deficiency, FICC has identified that GCF Repo Participants that pledge
substantial amounts of MBS collateral in respect of their GCF Repo
Transactions may experience backtesting deficiencies due to an
overvaluation of MBS collateral that can occur during the Blackout
Period (as further described below).
    FICC only accepts MBS that are issued and guaranteed by U.S.
government-sponsored entities (``GSEs''). Because MBS are composed of
pools of mortgages as to which the principal balances are reduced over
time through scheduled and unscheduled payments by mortgagors, MBS
notional values also reduce over time. Investors in MBS issued by the
GSEs are informed of the amount of this reduction in value on a monthly
basis when the GSEs release new ``Pool Factors'' for their MBS at the
beginning of every month.\7\ The period between the last business day
of the prior month (the ``Record Date'') and the date on which the GSE
releases its new Pool Factors (the ``Factor Date'') is known as the
``Blackout Period.'' \8\ During the Blackout Period, MBS values may be
overstated because of uncertainty concerning the remaining principal
balances of the MBS and thus the amount guaranteed by the issuing GSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Pool Factors are stated as a percentage amount of the
initial aggregate face value of the security that remains unpaid on
the underlying mortgage pool. For example, if the face amount of a
mortgage-backed security were $100,000 and the stated pool factor
were 0.4587, the remaining principal balance in the security to be
paid to the investor would be $45,870.
    \8\ The Factor Date is typically the fourth or fifth business
day of each calendar month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC has identified that GCF Repo Participants may experience
backtesting deficiencies during the Blackout Period if they allocate
substantial amounts of MBS collateral to cover their repurchase
obligations. Such deficiencies occur because the value of MBS
collateral allocated to cover GCF Repo Participants' repurchase
obligations may be overstated on the collateral reports delivered to
FICC by the GCF Clearing Agent Banks, which rely on the prior month's
Pool Factors to value MBS collateral pledged by GCF Repo Participants.
The Blackout Period Exposure Charge is designed to mitigate the risk
posed to FICC by such deficiencies by temporarily increasing such GCF
Repo Participants' Required Fund Deposits.
C. Calculation of the Blackout Period Exposure Charge
    The objective of the Blackout Period Exposure Charge is to increase
Required Fund Deposits for GCF Repo Participants that are likely to
experience backtesting deficiencies on the basis described above by an
amount sufficient to maintain such GCF Repo Participants' backtesting
coverage above the 99 percent confidence threshold. Because the size of
the backtesting deficiencies caused by this issue varies among impacted
GCF Repo Participants, FICC must assess a Blackout Period Exposure
Charge that is specific to each impacted GCF Repo Participant. To do
so, FICC examines each impacted GCF Repo Participant's historical
backtesting deficiencies to identify the two largest deficiencies that
have occurred during the 12-month look-back period. FICC then employs
an amount equal to the midpoint between the two largest historical
deficiencies for such member as the presumptive Blackout Period
Exposure Charge amount, subject to adjustment as further described
below. Although an increase equal to the third largest historical
deficiency would suffice to bring the GCF Repo Participant's
historically-observed backtesting coverage above the 99 percent target
\9\ if deficiencies due to Blackout Period exposures were the only
deficiencies experienced, such an approach would fail to take into
account potential changes in such GCF Repo Participant's MBS collateral
pledges or other factors that could contribute to deficiencies during
this period. Consequently, FICC has determined to use the midpoint
between the two largest historical deficiencies as an amount that is
(i) particular to the GCF Repo Participant and its use of MBS
collateral and (ii) generally provides a reasonable buffer above the
historically observed minimum increase necessary

to achieve 99 percent coverage. The resulting Blackout Period Exposure
Charge is added to the VaR Charge for such GCF Repo Participant
determined pursuant to FICC's risk-based margining methodology. The
Blackout Period Exposure Charge is only imposed during the Blackout
Period, until the GCF Repo Participant's GCF Clearing Agent Bank
updates the Pool Factors it uses to value MBS collateral.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Each deficiency reduces backtesting coverage by 0.4 percent
(1 exception/250 observation days). Accordingly, an increase equal
to the third largest deficiency would bring backtesting coverage up
to 99.2 percent.
    \10\ The GCF Clearing Agent Banks typically have a one-day lag
in updating their databases with the most recent Pool Factor
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This charge is applicable only to those GCF Repo Participants that
have two or more backtesting deficiencies that occurred during the
Blackout Period and whose overall 12-month trailing backtesting
coverage falls below the 99 percent coverage target.
    Although the midpoint between the two largest historical Blackout
Period deficiencies for a GCF Repo Participant will be used as the
Blackout Period Exposure Charge in most cases, under the proposed rule
FICC retains discretion to adjust the charge amount based upon other
circumstances that may be relevant for assessing whether an impacted
GCF Repo Participant is likely to experience future Blackout Period
backtesting deficiencies and the estimated size of such deficiencies.
Examples of relevant circumstances include material differences in the
two largest deficiencies, variability in a GCF Repo Participant's use
of MBS for collateral allocation, and variability in the magnitude of
Pool Factor changes for certain categories of MBS. Based on FICC's
assessment of the impact of these circumstances on the likelihood of,
and estimated size of, future Blackout Period deficiencies for a GCF
Repo Participant, FICC may, in its discretion, adjust the Blackout
Period Exposure Charge for such Participant to an amount that FICC
determines to be more appropriate for maintaining such GCF Repo
Participant's backtesting results above the 99 percent coverage
threshold (including a reasonable buffer).
D. Communication With GCF Repo Participants and Imposition of the
Charge
    If FICC determines that a Blackout Period Exposure Charge should
apply to a GCF Repo Participant who was not assessed a Blackout Period
Exposure Charge during the immediately preceding month or that the
Blackout Period Exposure Charge applied to a GCF Repo Participant
during the previous month should be increased, FICC will notify the
Participant on or around the 25th calendar day of the month. This
notification permits the Participant to avoid or decrease the charge by
notifying FICC in writing of its intent to remove or reduce its use of
MBS in collateral allocations during the Blackout Period. If such
Participant elects not to adjust its portfolio (or fails to do so
despite such notification to FICC), then FICC will impose a Blackout
Period Exposure Charge as determined above.
    FICC imposes the Blackout Period Exposure Charge as an increase to
each impacted GCF Repo Participant's Required Fund Deposit. The charge
is imposed only during the Blackout Period: It is applied as of the
morning Clearing Fund call on the Record Date through and including the
intraday Clearing Fund call on the Factor Date, or until the Pool
Factors have been updated to reflect the current month's Pool Factors
in the GCF Clearing Agent Bank's collateral reports. Thereafter the
charge is removed because updated MBS valuations are incorporated into
FICC's risk-based margining methodology for the remainder of the month,
alleviating the risk of potentially overvalued MBS collateral that
occurs during Blackout Period. This process is repeated monthly.
    If changes in an impacted GCF Repo Participant's MBS collateral
pledges over time materially reduce the Blackout Period Exposure Charge
calculated pursuant to the procedures described above, FICC may in its
discretion reduce the Blackout Period Exposure Charge and would so
notify the Participant. If an impacted GCF Repo Participant's trailing
12-month backtesting coverage exceeds 99 percent (without taking into
account historically-imposed Blackout Period Exposure Charges), the
Blackout Period Exposure Charge would be removed.
2. Statutory Basis
    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) \11\ of the Act, requires, in part, that the
rules of a clearing agency be designed to assure the safeguarding of
securities and funds that are within the custody or control of the
clearing agency. Rule 17Ad-22(b)(1) under the Act requires a clearing
agency to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies
and procedures reasonably designed to measure its credit exposures to
its participants at least once a day and limit its exposures to
potential losses from defaults by its participants under normal market
conditions, so that the operations of the clearing agency would not be
disrupted and non-defaulting participants would not be exposed to
losses that they cannot anticipate or control.\12\ Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2)
under the Act requires a clearing agency to maintain and enforce
written policies and procedures reasonably designed to use margin
requirements to limit its credit exposures to participants under normal
market conditions.\13\ FICC's Blackout Period Exposure Charge is
calculated and imposed to cover credit exposures estimated by FICC
based on a GCF Repo Participant's trailing 12-month backtesting results
with the goal of maintaining such Participant's Required Fund Deposit
above the 99 percent coverage threshold. This management of FICC's
credit exposures to GCF Repo Participants is consistent with Rule 17Ad-
22(b)(1) under the Act. Further, when it is imposed, the charge is a
component of the applicable GCF Repo Participant's Required Fund
Deposit, or margin, and is intended to maintain coverage of FICC's
credit exposures to such GCF Repo Participant at a confidence level of
at least 99 percent. This limits FICC's exposures to GCF Repo
Participants under normal market conditions. It therefore is also
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2) under the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(1).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By incorporating the Blackout Period Exposure Charge into the GSD
Rules, the proposed change addresses an exposure that could subject
FICC to potential losses under normal market conditions due to
potentially overstated values of MBS pledged as collateral for GCF Repo
Transactions in the event that a GCF Repo Participant defaults during
the Blackout Period. Therefore, FICC believes the proposed rule change
enhances the safeguarding of securities and funds that are in the
custody or control of FICC, consistent with Section 17(b)(3)(F) of the
Act.

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

    FICC does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate.\14\ The
proposed charge is necessary for FICC to limit its exposure to
potential losses from defaults by its participants, and it is imposed
on GCF Repo Participants on an individualized basis in an amount
reasonably calculated to maintain their Required Fund Deposits above
FICC's 99 percent coverage threshold. The charge only applies to GCF
Repo Participants that use MBS collateral pledges in an amount that
generates Blackout Period backtesting deficiencies specific to such GCF
Repo Participants.

FICC employs reasonable methods to calculate and impose an
individualized charge in an amount designed to maintain each impacted
GCF Repo Participant's future backtesting coverage above the 99 percent
coverage threshold, including a reasonable buffer. Additionally, prior
to imposing the Blackout Period Exposure Charge, FICC notifies each
impacted GCF Repo Participant and provides it the opportunity to adjust
its use of MBS collateral pledges in order to avoid having the charge
applied to its Required Fund Deposit or to reduce the amount of such
charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FICC has not received any written comments relating to this
proposal. FICC will notify the Commission of any written comments
received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change, and Timing for
Commission Action

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FICC-2016-003 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2016-003. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of FICC and on
DTCC's Web site (http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx).
    All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2016-003 and
should be submitted on or before August 11, 2016.

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

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-17200 Filed 7-20-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P