[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 247 (Monday, December 27, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 81366-81369]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32453]

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

Part IV

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 98

Call for Information: Information on Inputs to Emission Equations Under
the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 /
Proposed Rules

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 98

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0964; FRL-9242-8]

Call for Information: Information on Inputs to Emission Equations
Under the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Call for Information.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is publishing this call for information and public comment
to solicit certain additional information pertaining to reporting of
inputs to emission equations under the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Rule. In response to EPA's July 7, 2010 proposed
confidentiality determinations for data required under the reporting
rule, EPA received several comments that warrant in-depth evaluation of
potential harm to businesses from possible public availability of some
of this data. The information and comment solicited by this notice will
assist EPA as we consider a long-term approach that will balance data
quality and transparency with the reporting businesses' need to protect
sensitive business information.

DATES: Information and comments must be received on or before February
25, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your information and comments, identified by Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0964 by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0964 (and/or RIN number) in the subject line of the
message.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center
(EPA/DC), Mailcode 2822T, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2010-0964, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004.
     Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading
Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20004. 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 information and comments to Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0964. EPA's policy is that all information and comments
received will be included in the public docket without change and may
be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver
information identified as CBI to only the mail or hand/courier delivery
address listed above, attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0964.
The http://www.regulations.gov Web site 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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 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 hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Docket, EPA/
DC, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carole Cook, Climate Change Division,
Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207J), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic pre-publication copy of this call for information will
also be available through the WWW. Following the Administrator's
signature, a copy of this action will be posted on EPA's greenhouse gas
reporting rule Web site at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and
abbreviations are used in this document.

CAA Clean Air Act
CBI confidential business information
CEMS continuous emission monitoring system(s)
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
GHG greenhouse gas
NGO nongovernmental organization
U.S. United States

    Organization of this Document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Background
II. What is this action?
III. What specific information is EPA seeking?
    A. Specific information identifying how public availability of
any inputs to emission equations data elements would cause harm to
any reporter
IV. What should I consider as I prepare my information and comments
to EPA?
    A. Submitting CBI
    B. Tips for Preparing Your Information and Comments

I. Background

    On October 30, 2009, EPA published the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas
(GHG) Reporting Rule for collecting information regarding GHGs from a
broad range of industry sectors (74 FR 56260). Under 40 CFR part 98 of
the GHG Reporting Rule (hereinafter referred to as ``Part 98'') and its
subsequent amendments, EPA will collect data from certain facilities
and suppliers above specified thresholds. The data to be reported
consists of GHG emissions information as well as other data, including
information necessary to characterize, quantify, and verify the
reported emissions. In the preamble to Part 98, we stated, ``Through a
notice and comment process, we will establish those data elements that
are `emissions data' and therefore [under CAA section

114(c)] will not be afforded the protections of CBI. As part of that
exercise, in response to requests provided in comments, we may identify
classes of information that are not emissions data, and are CBI'' (74
FR 56287, October 30, 2009).
    On July 7, 2010, EPA proposed confidentiality determinations for
Part 98 data elements and proposed amending EPA's regulation for
handling confidential business information to add specific procedures
for the treatment of Part 98 data (75 FR 39094; hereinafter referred to
as the ``July 7, 2010 CBI proposal''). The July 7, 2010 CBI proposal
proposed confidentiality statuses for the data elements for subparts
included in the 2009 final Part 98 rule (see 74 FR 56260, October 30,
2009), four subparts finalized in July 2010 (see 75 FR 39736, July 12,
2010), and seven new subparts that had been proposed but not yet
finalized as of July 2010 (see 75 FR 18576, 75 FR 18608, and 75 FR
18652, April 12, 2010). The July 7, 2010 CBI proposal also covered
proposed changes to the reporting requirements for some of the 2009
final Part 98 subparts. These changes were proposed in two separate
rulemakings (see 75 FR 18455, April, 12, 2010; and 75 FR 33950, June
15, 2010).
    On August 11, 2010, EPA published a proposed amendment to Part 98
to change the description of some reported data elements and require
reporting of some new data elements (75 FR 48744; hereinafter referred
to as the ``August 11, 2010 revisions proposal''). EPA concurrently
issued a supplemental CBI proposal that proposed confidentiality
determinations for the new and revised data elements included in the
August 11, 2010 revisions notice (75 FR 43889, July 27, 2010;
hereinafter referred to as the ``July 27, 2010 supplemental CBI
proposal.)''
    As described in detail in the CBI proposals identified above, EPA
grouped Part 98 data into 22 data categories (11 direct emitter data
categories and 11 supplier data categories), with each of the
categories containing data elements that are similar in type or
characteristics. EPA then proposed confidentiality determinations for
each category, with a few exceptions that are not relevant to today's
action. Consistent with EPA's long-standing interpretation, EPA
proposed that data elements in the inputs to emission equations data
category meet the definition of emission data under 40 CFR
2.301(a)(2)(i) and therefore, under CAA section 114(c), could not be
held as confidential once they were reported to EPA.
    EPA received numerous public comments on the July 7, 2010 CBI
proposal and the July 27, 2010 supplemental CBI proposal. Though we are
still in the process of considering these comments, we plan to complete
our consideration of these comments and issue final confidentiality
determinations for the Part 98 data elements that are not inputs to
emission equations, which constitute approximately 75 percent of the
data elements, in a separate final action.
    However, EPA received comments that raise concerns regarding the
public availability of data in the inputs to emission equations
category. Almost all commenters from industry wrote that some or all
inputs to emission equations (which include product compositions, raw
materials used, fuel types and quantities, production volumes, and
other process-specific information) are considered trade secrets or
otherwise sensitive business information, and that making that
information publicly available would cause them serious competitive
harm. Some commenters expressed concern that public disclosure of
production volumes and process-specific information could give
competitors insight into sensitive operational limits and process
capabilities. The commenters explained that, combined with other
publicly available information, this information could give competitors
details concerning business positions or vulnerabilities that could be
used to a reporter's disadvantage. Some commenters stated that
disclosure of the type, composition, and relative proportions of raw
materials used would reveal the specific formula used to manufacture
their products. Others expressed concern that product composition data
reveal information about their products' performance characteristics.
Some stated that public availability of information about the types and
quantities of fuels consumed would reveal sensitive details about
individual production processes' energy usage and could be used to
estimate relative production costs.
    Several Part 98 reporters commented that, had they known that EPA
would later propose that inputs to emission equations qualify as
emission data that must be made available to the public under CAA
section 114(c), they would have commented more critically and more
extensively on Part 98 equations when they were proposed in 2009 and
might have suggested or agreed to alternatives such as third-party
audits or installation of continuous emission monitoring systems
(CEMS). Several reporters wrote that they would have installed CEMS or
otherwise changed their compliance approaches. Commenters further noted
that, for some subparts, Part 98 allows monitoring emissions with CEMS
as an alternative to calculation with emission equations but that, by
the time EPA proposed CBI determinations in July 2010, reporters no
longer could install CEMS for 2010. As a result, commenters stated,
these reporters were locked into using the emission equations for 2010
reporting if that was the methodology they chose. They argued that
public availability of potentially sensitive inputs for calculation of
2010 emissions should not be based on a reporter's decision not to
install CEMS for 2010 when this decision was made prior to and without
knowledge of the July 7, 2010 CBI proposal.
    EPA has reviewed these comments and has concluded that some of the
concerns warrant more extensive evaluation of potential harm from the
public availability of inputs to equations. To assist EPA in this
evaluation, EPA is issuing this notice to call for certain additional
information that the Agency has determined is necessary or helpful in
order to evaluate and take action on the concerns described above.
    To allow EPA time to complete our evaluation and take appropriate
actions before collecting inputs to equations, EPA is proposing in a
separate notice to defer to March 31, 2014 the deadline for reporting
inputs to equations. EPA is also concurrently promulgating an interim
final rule that defers the reporting deadline for inputs to equations
to August 31, 2011. This short-term deferral allows EPA time to
complete the notice and comment rulemaking for the longer deferral
while avoiding possible public availability of inputs to equations
before EPA can evaluate and take appropriate actions regarding inputs
to equations.

II. What is this action?

    EPA is soliciting information and viewpoints from interested
parties on how, specifically, public availability of inputs to emission
equations in Part 98 could cause competitive harm. We are also
interested in information on additional approaches to calculating GHG
emissions that do not use data elements that may be considered
sensitive and on additional approaches to verifying reported GHG
emission data if any inputs to emission equations are not reported to
EPA. In addition, we are soliciting information on whether any of the
inputs to emission equations data elements are already published or
publicly available elsewhere,

discernable from publicly available information or otherwise not
sensitive. The specific information requested is listed in Section III
of this call for information.
    This call for information is a critical part of EPA's consideration
of treatment of inputs. If reporters have serious concerns about inputs
to equations information becoming publicly available, it is crucial
that they respond in a detailed fashion to this call for information.
The specific information received will help EPA to develop a sound,
long-term approach that balances data quality and transparency with the
need to protect sensitive business information. When EPA receives the
additional requested information, we will be able to fully evaluate
which inputs to equations, if any, could result in serious business
harms if made available to the public. For such cases, if any, EPA
would evaluate whether emissions can be calculated or verified using
additional methodologies, consistent with the transparency and accuracy
goals of Part 98. Should EPA identify any such additional
methodologies, EPA may propose to amend Part 98 to allow these
additional emission measurement or calculation approaches. If
additional approaches to calculate or verify emissions are viable, EPA
may decide that it is not necessary to collect certain highly sensitive
inputs and propose to amend Part 98 accordingly.
    As stated in the July 7, 2010 CBI proposal preamble, EPA is
committed to transparency in the GHG Reporting Program. We consider
transparency important because it promotes public confidence in the
data and enables the public, industry, NGOs, and other stakeholders to
better understand the sources of GHG emissions and the factors that
affect the quantities of GHGs emitted. Any approach we adopt will be
based on a well-balanced consideration of both the importance of
protecting certain highly sensitive data elements and our commitment to
the GHG Reporting Program's transparency and accuracy. Should EPA
decide that it is necessary to amend Part 98 as a result of this
evaluation, we would promulgate any such amendment through a notice and
comment process.

III. What specific information is EPA seeking?

    Although a few commenters on the July 7, 2010 CBI proposal
identified specific data elements and provided supporting rationale
regarding how the public availability of individual data elements would
cause harm to their competitive positions, many provided only general
statements that inputs to emission equations can be sensitive and
should be held confidential. Other commenters noted that inputs to
emission equations that reporters allege to be sensitive may already be
publicly available, but did not identify specific data elements and
where they are published. To enable us to better understand and
evaluate stakeholder concerns and assertions, EPA requests from
interested parties information and views on the following topics and
questions:

     Specific information identifying how public
availability of any inputs to emission equations data elements would
cause harm to any reporter.

--The identity of specific data elements used as inputs to emission
equations that you consider sensitive business information that
would cause competitive harm if disclosed. To better assist us in
identifying the data element, include the rule citation for each
data element you identify.

--For each data element identified in the above bullet, you should
provide a specific explanation of how disclosure of the data would
cause competitive harm. Describe the measures currently taken to
keep the data confidential. If your concern is that competitors
could use a particular input to discern sensitive information,
specifically describe the pathway by which this could occur and
explain how the discerned information would negatively affect your
competitive position. Discuss how this data element may differ from
similar data that is already publicly available. Describe any unique
process or aspect of your facility that would be revealed if the
particular data element you consider sensitive were made publicly
available. If the data element you identify would cause harm only
when used in combination with other publicly available data, then
describe the other data, identify the public source(s) of this data,
and explain how the combination of data could be used to cause
competitive harm. Please be as specific as possible in your
responses and include all information necessary to evaluate your
assertions.

     Which, if any, data that are inputs to emission
equations are already publicly available, discernable from other
publicly available data, or otherwise not sensitive for any
reporter.

--In your response, please identify the manner and location in which
each specific data element you identify is available or not
sensitive, including a citation. If the data are physically
published, such as in a book, industry trade publication, or Federal
agency publication, provide the title, volume number (if
applicable), author(s), publisher, publication date, and ISBN or
other identifier. For data published on a Web site, provide the
address of the Web site and identify the Web site publisher and
content author.

     Additional calculation or measurement approaches for a
particular subpart that would comparably measure or calculate GHG
emissions but would not use data elements that you consider to be
sensitive as inputs to emission equations.

--Please provide full equations and describe your suggested
calculation and/or measurement approach in detail. Describe the
parameters used as inputs and explain how each input parameter could
be measured. Indicate whether the measurement devices needed already
exist or whether new measuring equipment would have to be installed
and the time required for such installation. Compare the accuracy
and cost of your proposed approach with those of the existing Part
98 approaches and describe any unique or unusual facility-specific
situations in which your recommended approach would not provide
accurate estimates of GHG emissions.

     Verification approaches that could be used to verify
emission figures and that would not require reporting to EPA the
specific data elements you consider sensitive.

--Under the existing Part 98 rule, EPA will use the inputs to
emissions equations to verify reported GHG emissions. EPA solicits
suggestions for additional approaches for verifying the GHG
emissions for facilities that use the existing Part 98 emission
equations. In addition, we seek suggestions for verifying, without
reporting to EPA, sensitive inputs to emissions equations. Identify
any additional parameters that could be used for verification and
the particular subpart that would be affected and explain how they
would be used. Describe any particular situations in which your
suggested approach should or should not be used.

    EPA strongly urges any parties concerned about the public
availability of inputs to equations to submit in detail the information
requested above. If EPA is to seriously consider potentially revising
the requirements of Part 98, the agency must have robust data on which
to base those revisions. Conclusory or unsubstantiated statements will
not suffice.
    Please note that we are not requesting additional comment on EPA's
proposed determination in the CBI proposals described above that inputs
to emission equations constitute emission data. EPA received comment on
that proposed determination during the public comment period for the
CBI proposals and will respond to those comments in a future action.

IV. What should I consider as I prepare my information and comments to
EPA?

A. Submitting CBI

    Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to
be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA,
mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI

and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version
of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the
comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information marked as CBI
will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
    If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming
CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. Tips for Preparing Your Information and Comments

    When submitting information and comments, remember to:
    Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (e.g., subject heading, Federal Register date and page
number).
    Follow directions. EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a CFR part or section number.
    Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
    If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived
at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
    Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest
alternatives.
    Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    Make sure to submit your information and comments by the comment
period deadline identified in the preceding section titled DATES. To
ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number
assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your
response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register
citation.
    To expedite review of your comments by Agency staff, you are
encouraged to send a separate copy of your comments, in addition to the
copy you submit to the official docket, to Carole Cook, U.S. EPA,
Office of Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change Division, Mail Code
6207-J, Washington, DC 20460, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: December 17, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-32453 Filed 12-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12898-12899]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04825]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0161; Airspace Docket No. 22-AGL-12]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Owatonna, MN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend the Class E airspace at
Owatonna, MN. The FAA is proposing this action as the result of an
airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Owatonna Outer
Marker (OM) and Owatonna non-directional beacon (NDB). The name and
geographical coordinates of the airport would also be updated to
coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 22, 2022.

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-2022-0161/Airspace Docket No. 22-AGL-12, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://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 JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is also available for inspection at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of FAA Order JO 7400.11F at NARA, email
[email protected] or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Shelby, 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 the Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Owatonna Degner
Regional Airport, Owatonna, MN, to support instrument flight rule
operations at this airport; and removing the Halfway VOR/DME from the
header and legal description including associated extension, which are
no longer required.

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-2022-0161/
Airspace Docket No. 22-AGL-12.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the 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 JO 7400.11F, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective
September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F
lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service
routes, and reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by amending the
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to
within 6.6-mile (decreased from a 6.7-mile) radius of Owatonna Degner
Regional Airport, Owatonna, MN; and removing the Halfway VOR/DME
associated with the airspace in the legal description as it is no
longer required; and updating the name (previously Owatonna Municipal
Airport) and geographic coordinates of Owatonna Degner Regional Airport
to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
    This action is the result of an airspace review due to the
decommissioning of the Owatonna NDB and the Owatonna OM, which provided
guidance to the instrument procedures at this airport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR 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 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.

71.1   [Amended]

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

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

* * * * *

AGL MN E5 Owatonna, MN [Amended]

Owatonna Degner Regional Airport, MN
    (Lat. 44[deg]07'23'' N, long. 93[deg]15'32'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of Owatonna Degner Regional Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 2, 2022.
Martin A. Skinner,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2022-04825 Filed 3-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 224 (Monday, November 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 71963]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29927]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[ Project No., P-14250-000]

KC Hydro LLC of New Hampshire; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On August 8, 2011, KC Hydro LLC of New Hampshire, filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the
Weare Horace Lake Dam Hydropower Project (project) to be located on the
Piscataquog River, near the Town of Weare, Hillsborough County, New
Hampshire. 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 consist of: (1) The existing 340-foot-
long, 34-foot-high, concrete gravity Weare Reservoir Dam equipped with
a 157-foot-long ogee spillway, a 25-foot-long stoplog section with 5
sets of stoplog bays; (2) a new 100-foot-long, 36-inch-diameter steel
penstock; (3) an existing 323-acre impoundment with a normal maximum
pool elevation of 655.49 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum; (4) a
new powerhouse containing two submersible or tubular turbine-generators
with a total installed capacity of 150 kilowatts; (5) a new 125-foot-
long tailrace; (6) a new 400-foot-long, 4.16-kilovolt transmission
line; and (7) appurtenant facilities. The project would have an
estimated average annual energy generation of 600 megawatt-hours, which
would be sold to Public Service of New Hampshire.
    Applicant Contact: Ms. Kelly Sackheim, Principal, KC Hydro LLC of
New Hampshire, 5096 Cocoa Palm Way, Fair Oaks, California 95628; phone:
(301) 401-5978.
    FERC Contact: Michael Watts; 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. 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 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>or toll free at 1-(866) 208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    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-14250-000) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: November 10, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-29927 Filed 11-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 113)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 33018-33024]
[DOCID:fr11jn08-14]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0535; FRL-8366-4]

Bifenthrin; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of the
insecticide bifenthrin (2-methyl [1,1'-biphenyl]-3-yl) methyl-3-(2-
chloro-3,3,3,-trifluoro-1-propenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate
in or on food commodities bushberry subgroup 13-07B; and leafy petioles
subgroup 4B. The Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4)
requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA). In addition, this action revises previously established
time-limited tolerances for residues of bifenthrin in or on
orchardgrass, forage and orchardgrass, hay in response to the approval
of a specific exemption under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizing the use of this
insecticide on orchardgrass in the State of Oregon to control western
orchardgrass billbug. Residue data have been submitted indicating the
need to increase the tolerances from their original level. This
regulation establishes maximum permissible levels of residues of
bifenthrin in these food/feed commodities. The time-limited tolerances
expire and are revoked on December 31, 2009.

DATES: This regulation is effective June 11, 2008. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before August 11, 2008,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0535. To access the
electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced
Search,'' then ``Docket Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where
indicated and select the ``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on
the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access
available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the
docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or,
if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in
Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr.,
Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sidney Jackson, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document through the electronic docket at http://
www.regulations.gov, you may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a
frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at
40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR
site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, any person may file an objection to
any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those
objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this
regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part
178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID
number EPA-HQ-

OPP-2007-0535. in the subject line on the first page of your
submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or
delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or
before August 11, 2008.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0535, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Petition for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of August 1, 2007 (72 FR 42074) (FRL-8140-
4), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
7E7227) by IR-4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ
08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.442 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide bifenthrin (2-
methyl [1,1'-biphenyl]-3-yl)methyl-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3,-trifluoro-1-
propenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate in or on food commodities
bushberry subgroup 13-B and juneberry; lingonberry; salal; aronia
berry; blueberry, lowbush; buffalo currant; Chilean guava; European
barberry; highbush cranberry; honeysuckle; jostaberry; native currant;
sea buckthorn at 2.0 ppm; and leafy petioles subgroup 4-B at 3.0 ppm.
That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by FMC
Corporation, the registrant, which is available to the public in the
docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in
response to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
corrected the commodity definition and utilized established new crop
groups/subgroups outlined in the final rule for Pesticide Tolerance
Crop Grouping Program dated December 7, 2007 (72 FR 69150) (FRL-8343-
1). The new commodity definition, Bushberry subgroup 13-07B, includes
all proposed commodities as well as additional related commodities.
Therefore, a separate tolerance for each commodity is not needed. Based
on supporting data, EPA also revised the proposed tolerance level from
2.0 to 1.8 ppm. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit
IV.C.
    EPA is also revising previously established time-limited tolerances
for residues of the insecticide bifenthrin in or on orchardgrass,
forage at 2.5 ppm and orchardgrass, hay at 4.5 ppm. These tolerances
expire and are revoked on December 31, 2009. The Agency is establishing
these time-limited tolerances in response to a specific emergency
exemption request under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (``FIFRA''), 7 U.S.C. 136p, on behalf of
the Oregon Department of Agriculture for the emergency use of
bifenthrin on ochardgrass grown for seed, to control the orchardgrass
billbug.
    Oregon produces nearly all of the nation's orchardgrass seed, which
is primarily used as a high protein pasture grass. The key pest of
orchardgrass in Oregon is the orchardgrass billbug, which lays eggs
into the stem where they hatch and are hard to control by insecticides.
The effect of drought conditions in fields serves to magnify damage and
loss associated with this pest. Significant yield losses, and
subsequently economic losses, are expected without adequate control.
EPA has authorized under FIFRA section 18 the use of bifenthrin on
orchardgrass for control of orchardgrass billbug in Oregon. After
having reviewed the submission, EPA concurs that emergency conditions
exist for this State.
    As part of its assessment of the emergency exemption request, EPA
assessed the potential risks presented by the residues of bifenthrin in
or on orchardgrass, forage and orchardgrass, hay. In doing so, EPA
considered the safety standard in section 408(b)(2) of the FFDCA, and
EPA decided that the necessary time-limited tolerances under section
408(1)(6) of the FFDCA would be consistent with the safety standard and
with FIFRA section 18. Consistent with the need to move quickly on the
emergency exemption in order to address the urgent non-routine
situation and to ensure that the resulting food is safe and lawful, EPA
is revising these time-limited tolerances without notice and
opportunity for public comment as provided in section 408 (1) (6) of
the FFDCA. Although, these time-limited tolerances expire and are
revoked on December 31, 2009, under section 408 (1) (5) of the FFDCA,
residues of the pesticide not in excess of the amounts specified in the
tolerances remaining in or on orchardgrass, forage and hay after that
date will not be unlawful, provided the pesticide is applied in a
manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and the residues do not exceed
levels that were authorized by these time-limited tolerances at the
time of application. EPA will take action to revoke these time-limited
tolerances earlier if any experience with, scientific data, or other
relevant information on this pesticide indicates that the residues are
not safe.
    Because these time-limited tolerances are being approved under
emergency conditions, EPA has not made any decisions about whether
bifenthrin meets EPA's registration requirements for use on
orchardgrass, forage and hay, or whether a permanent tolerance for
these uses would be appropriate. Under this circumstance, EPA does not
believe that the time-limited tolerance serves as a basis for
registration of bifenthrin by a State for special local needs under
FIFRA section 24(c). Nor does the time-limited tolerance serve as the
basis for any State other than Oregon to use this pesticide on these
commodities under section 18 of FIFRA without following all provisions
of EPA's regulations implementing FIFRA section 18 as identified in 40
CFR part 166.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide

chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue....'' These provisions were added to the FFDCA by the Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996.
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for
tolerances for residues of insecticide bifenthrin (2-methyl [1,1'-
biphenyl]-3-yl)methyl-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3,-trifluoro-1-propenyl)-2,2-
dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate in or on food commodities bushberry
subgroup 13-07B at 1.8 ppm; leafy petioles subgroup 4-B at 3.0 ppm as
well as the time-limited tolerance for residues of bifenthrin in or on
orchardgrass, forage at 2.5 ppm and orchardgrass, hay at 4.5 ppm. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing
tolerances follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the adverse effects caused by bifenthrin as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://
www.regulations.gov in document entitled ``Human Health Risk
Assessment'' in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0535-0004.

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, a toxicological point of departure (POD) is
identified as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk
assessment. The POD may be defined as the highest dose at which no
adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) in the toxicology study
identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if a
NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of
concern are identified (the LOAEL) or a Benchmark Dose (BMD) approach
is sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs)
are used in conjunction with the POD to take into account uncertainties
inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and
in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population
as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic
dietary risks by comparing aggregate food and water exposure to the
pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic
population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. Aggregate short-, intermediate-
, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing food, water, and
residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the margin of exposure
(MOE) called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
This latter value is referred to as the Level of Concern (LOC).
    For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of
exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates
risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect
greater than that expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for bifenthrin used for
human risk assessment can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the
Bifenthrin Human Health Risk Assessment in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2007-0535-0004.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to bifenthrin, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing bifenthrin tolerances in (40 CFR
180.442). EPA assessed dietary exposures from bifenthrin in food as
follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption
information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by
Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA conducted a
highly-refined, acute probabilistic dietary exposure and risk
assessment for all registered and pending food uses. Anticipated
residues (ARs) were developed based on the latest USDA's Pesticide Data
Program (PDP) monitoring data 1998-2005, Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) data, or field trial data for bifenthrin. ARs were further
refined using the latest percent crop-treated (PCT) data and processing
factors where appropriate. For new uses and uses that have been
registered less than five years 100 PCT was assumed.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 CSFII. As to residue levels in food, a refined chronic dietary
exposure assessment was conducted for all the registered and pending
food uses of bifenthrin using single point estimates of anticipated
bifenthrin residues, including PCT for registered food/feed
commodities. For new uses and uses that have been registered less than
5 years, 100 PCT was assumed.
    iii. Cancer. There was no conclusive evidence of carcinogenic
potential of bifenthrin in the rat. A mouse oncogenicity study provided
some evidence for carcinogenic potential in this species. In the mouse
oncogenicity study, high-dose (81.3 mg/kg/day) males showed a highly
significant increased incidence of urinary bladder tumors. Other
findings in the mouse study included a dose-related trend of increased
combined incidences of adenoma and adenocarcinoma of the liver (males
only), and increased incidences of bronchioalveolar adenomas and
adenocarcinomas of the lung in females at some, but not all dose levels
relative to their controls. The EPA has characterized bifenthrin as
Category C (possible human carcinogen) primarily on the basis of a
mouse study. For the purpose of risk characterization, the reference-
dose (RfD) approach should be used for quantification of human cancer
risk.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. Section 408(b)(2)(E)
of the FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on
the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the
actual levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If
EPA relies on such information, EPA must pursuant to section 408(f)(1)
of the FFDCA require that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance
is established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the
levels in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the

present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by
section 408(b)(2)(E) of the FFDCA and authorized under section
408(f)(1) of the FFDCA. Data will be required to be submitted no later
than 5 years from the date of issuance of this tolerance.
    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data
on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary
risk only if:
    a. The data used are reliable and provide a valid basis to show
what percentage of the food derived from such crop is likely to contain
the pesticide residue.
    b. The exposure estimate does not underestimate exposure for any
significant subpopulation group.
     c. Data are available on pesticide use and food consumption in a
particular area, the exposure estimate does not understate exposure for
the population in such areas.
In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any
estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate
of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require
registrants to submit data on PCT.
    The Agency used PCT information for chronic dietary exposure as
follows:
    Raspberries 70%; honeydew melon 55%; hops 35%; alfalfa 1%;
blackberries 20%; cantaloupes 20%; sweet corn 20%; cabbage 15%;
artichokes 10%; broccoli 1%; cauliflower 5%; corn 1%; cucumbers 5%;
grapes 1%; canola/rapeseed 5%; lettuce 1%; peas, green 5%; carrots 5%;
peppers 5%;pumpkins 15%; dry beans/peas 1%; tomatoes 5%; watermelons
5%; onions 1%; peanuts 1%; pecans 1%; potatoes 1%; soybean 1%; squash
5%; sweet potatoes 35%; beans, green 30%; strawberries 15%; cotton 1%;
and lettuce 1%.
    In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States
Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service
(USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use
Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6 years.
EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The average
PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining available
public and private market survey data for that use, averaging across
all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for those
situations in which the average PCT is less than one. In those cases,
1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the maximum PCT. EPA
uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The maximum PCT
figure is the highest observed maximum value reported within the recent
6 years of available public and private market survey data for the
existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%.
     The Agency believes that the conditions listed in Unit
III.C.1.iv.a., b., and c. have been met. With respect to Condition a.,
PCT estimates are derived from Federal and private market survey data,
which are reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably
certain that the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an
underestimation. As to Conditions b. and c., regional consumption
information and consumption information for significant subpopulations
is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating
the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional
groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment
process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency
to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to
residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than
the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does
not have available information on the regional consumption of food to
which bifenthrin may be applied in a particular area.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency lacks
sufficient monitoring data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure
analysis and risk assessment for bifenthrin in drinking water. Because
the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data for drinking
water concentrations, the Agency used screening level water exposure
models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for
bifenthrin in drinking water. These simulation models take into account
data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of
bifenthrin. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models
used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://
www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and
Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the
estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of bifenthrin for acute
and chronic exposure were calculated based on a maximum application
rate of 0.5 pound(lb) active ingredient(ai)/acre(A)/season. For both
acute and chronic exposures, the EDWC in surface water was estimated as
0.0140 ppb. The EDWC for both acute and chronic exposures is estimated
to be 0.0030 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute and chronic dietary
risk assessments, the water concentration value of 0.0140 ppb (based on
the maximum applied rate to lettuce at 0.5 lb a.i./A/season) was used
to assess the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Bifenthrin is currently registered for the following residential
non-dietary sites: Indoor and outdoor residential non-dietary sites.
Adults are potentially exposed to bifenthrin residues during
residential application of bifenthrin. Both adults and children are
potentially exposed to bifenthrin residues after application (post-
application) of bifenthrin products in residential settings. Exposure
estimates were generated for residential handlers and individuals
potential post-application contact with lawn, soil, and treated indoor
surfaces using the EPA's Draft Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for
Residential Exposure Assessment, and dissipation data from a turf
transferable residue (TTR) study. Short-term and intermediate-term
dermal and inhalation exposures for adults, and short-term and
intermediate-term dermal and incidental oral exposures for children are
anticipated. These estimates are considered conservative, but
appropriate, since the study data were generated at maximum application
rates.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
     Bifenthrin is a member of the pyrethroid class of pesticides. EPA
is not currently following a cumulative risk approach based on a common
mechanism of toxicity for the pyrethroids. Although all pyrethroids
alter nerve function by modifying the normal biochemistry and
physiology of nerve membrane sodium channels, available data show that
there are multiple types of sodium channels and

it is currently unknown whether the pyrethroids as a class have similar
effects on all channels or whether modifications of different types of
sodium channels would have a cumulative effect. Nor do we have a clear
understanding of effects on key downstream neuronal function, e.g.,
nerve excitability, or how these key events interact to produce their
compound specific patterns of neurotoxicity. Without such
understanding, there is no basis to make a common mechanism of toxicity
finding. There is ongoing research by the EPA's Office of Research and
Development and pyrethroid registrants to evaluate the differential
biochemical and physiological actions of pyrethroids in mammals. When
available, the Agency will evaluate results of this research and make a
determination of common mechanism as a basis for assessing cumulative
risk. For information regarding EPA's procedures for cumulating effects
from substances found to have a common mechanism on EPA's website at
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(c) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety
factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. EPA concluded there is not a
concern for prenatal and/or postnatal toxicity resulting from exposure
to bifenthrin. There was no quantitative or qualitative evidence of
increased susceptibility of rat or rabbit fetuses to in utero exposure
to bifenthrin in developmental toxicity studies and no quantitative or
qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility of neonates (as
compared to adults) to bifenthrin in a 2-generation reproduction study
in rats. Additionally, there was no quantitative or qualitative
evidence of increased susceptibility of neonates (as compared to
adults) to bifenthrin in a developmental neurotoxicity study. There are
no concerns or residual uncertainties for prenatal and/or postnatal
toxicity following exposure to bifenthrin.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for bifenthrin is complete.
    ii. A DNT study with bifenthrin is available. This study does not
show any evidence of increased susceptibility of offspring following
exposure to bifenthrin. This study did not impact endpoints selected by
the Agency for various exposure scenarios.
    iii. There is no evidence that bifenthrin results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
     iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on anticipated residues and percent crop treated. These assumptions are
based on reliable data and will not underestimate the exposure and
risk. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and
surface water modeling used to assess exposure to bifenthrin in
drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess
postapplication exposure of children as well as incidental oral
exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the
exposure and risks posed by bifenthrin.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the aPAD and cPAD.
The aPAD and cPAD represent the highest safe exposures, taking into
account all appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the aPAD and cPAD by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the MOE called for
by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to bifenthrin will occupy 25% of the aPAD for all infants (<1 year old)
the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Therefore, EPA
does not expect the aggregate exposure to exceed 100% of the aPAD.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
bifenthrin from food and water will utilize 55% of the cPAD for
children 3-5 years old the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. Based on the use pattern, chronic residential exposure to
residues of bifenthrin is not expected. Therefore, EPA does not expect
the aggregate exposure to exceed 100% of the cPAD.
    3. Short- and Intermediate-term risks. Short-term and intermediate-
term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential
exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a
background exposure level).
    Bifenthrin is currently registered for uses that could result in
short-term and intermediate-term residential exposure and the Agency
has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure
through food and water and short-term and intermediate-term exposures
to bifenthrin.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term and intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded food, water,
and residential exposures aggregated result in aggregate MOEs of 220
for the U.S. general population, 270 for all infants < 1 year old, and
180 for children 3-5 years old, the subpopulation at greatest exposure.
These aggregate MOEs do not exceed the Agency's LOC for aggregate
exposure to food, water and residential uses. Therefore, EPA does not
expect short and intermediate-term aggregate exposures to exceed the
Agency's LOC.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. The Agency considers
the chronic aggregate risk assessment, making use of the cPAD, to be
protective of any aggregate cancer risk. See Unit III.C.iii.
    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to bifenthrin residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography (GC)/electron-
capture detection (ECD)) are available to enforce the tolerance
expression. The limit of quantitation (LOQ) for these

methods is 0.05 ppm. The method may be requested from: Chief,
Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes
Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    There are no Codex, Canadian, or Mexican MRLs for bifenthrin in or
on the proposed commodities.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Based on evaluation of available data supporting this petition, the
Agency revised the registrant's proposed tolerances for Bushberry,
subgroup 13B, including proposed individual berries tolerance, from 2.0
to 1.8 ppm and applied the corrected commodity definition, Bushberry
subgroup 13-07B. Separate tolerances for new commodities listed in crop
subgroup 13-07B are not required as outlined in the Pesticide Tolerance
Crop Grouping Program Final Rule published in the Federal Register of
December 7, 2007 (72 FR 69150) (FRL-8340-6).
    The Agency determined that adequate data are available to support
establishing a tolerance for the bushberry subgroup 13-07B. IR-4
petitioned for a tolerance for bushberry subgroup 13B as well as an
individual tolerance on juneberry; lingonberry; salal; aronia berry;
blueberry, lowbush; buffalo currant; Chilean guava; European barberry;
highbush cranberry; honeysuckle; jostaberry; native currant; sea
buckthorn (PP 7E7227). EPA has expanded and revised berries group 13.
Changes to crop group 13 (berries) included adding new commodities,
revising existing subgroups and creating new subgroups (including a
bushberry subgroup 13-07B consisting of the commodities requested in PP
7E7227 and cultivars, varieties, and/or hybrids of these).
    EPA indicated in the December 7, 2007 final rule as well as the
earlier May 23, 2007 proposed rule (72 FR 28920) that, for existing
petitions for which a Notice of Filing had been published, the Agency
would attempt to conform these petitions to the rule. Therefore,
consistent with this rule, EPA is establishing tolerances on Bushberry
subgroup 13-07B. Bushberry subgroup 13-07B consists of the berries for
which tolerances were requested in PP 7E7227, as well as, additional
commodities not included in the original tolerance petition.
    EPA concludes it is reasonable to revise the petitioned-for
tolerances so that they agree with the recent crop grouping revisions
because:
    i. Although the subgroup includes several new commodities, these
commodities were proposed as individual tolerances and are closely
related minor crops which contribute little to overall dietary or
aggregate exposure and risk;
    ii. Bifenthrin exposure from these added commodities was considered
when EPA conducted the dietary and aggregate risk assessments
supporting this action; and
    iii. the representative commodities for the revised subgroup have
not changed.
     Bushberry subgroup 13-07B. The field trials with bifenthrin on
blueberries, representative crop, are adequate. An adequate number of
trials were conducted reflecting the proposed use patterns in the
appropriate geographic regions, and the appropriate commodities were
collected at the proposed ``pre'' harvest intervals (PHIs). Samples
were analyzed using adequate and appropriate analytical methods.
Tolerance levels for residues in or on bushberry (subgroup 13-07B) were
determined using the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
maximum residue levels (MRL)/Tolerance Harmonization Spreadsheet.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of the
insecticide bifenthrin (2-methyl [1, 1'-biphenyl]-3-yl)methyl-3-(2-
chloro-3,3,3,-trifluoro-1-propenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate
in or on food commodities bushberry subgroup 13-07B at 1.8 ppm; and
leafy petioles subgroup 4B at 3.0 ppm. In addition, this regulation
revises the time-limited tolerances for residues of bifenthrin in or on
orchardgrass, forage at 2.5 ppm and orchardgrass, hay at 4.5 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information
collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special
considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule 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 this final rule in the
Federal Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by
5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: May 28, 2008.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Section 180.442 is amended by alphabetically adding the following
commodities to the table in paragraph (a) and by revising paragraph (b)
to read as follows:

Sec. 180.442  Bifenthrin; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. (1) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Bushberry subgroup 13-07B............................                1.8
                                * * * * *
Leafy petioles subgroup 4B...........................                3.0
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. A time-limited tolerance is
established for the residues of the insecticide bifenthrin ((2-methyl
[1,1'-biphenyl]-3-yl)methyl-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3,-trifluoro-1-propenyl)-
2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate) in connection with use of the
pesticide under a section 18 emergency exemption granted by EPA. This
tolerance will expire and is revoked on the date specified in the
following table.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Expiration/Revocation
          Commodity           Parts per million            Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orchardgrass, forage........                2.5                 12/31/09
Orchardgrass, hay...........                4.5                 12/31/09
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. E8-13068 Filed 6-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 90 (Thursday, May 9, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20454-20456]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09510]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85776; File No. SR-ICEEU-2019-006]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to Amendments to the CDS Risk
Management Model Description

May 3, 2019.

I. Introduction

    On March 13, 2019, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear Europe'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
make certain amendments to its CDS Risk Model Description document to
incorporate risk model enhancements related to the single name credit
default swap (``CDS'') liquidity charge methodology. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on March 22,
2019.\3\ The Commission did not receive comments on the proposed rule
change. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is approving
the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85350 (March 18, 2019),
84 FR 10869 (March 22, 2019) (SR-ICEEU-2019-006) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    ICE Clear Europe proposes a revised approach to computing single
name CDS liquidity charges.\4\ ICE Clear Europe might incur additional
costs to unwind positions in the event of a clearing member default.
Therefore, the ICE Clear Europe CDS risk model includes a provision to
account for the additional liquidation cost due to the exposure to Bid/
Offer Width (``BOW''). This provision is called a liquidation charge
and such charges are computed separately for single names and indices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have
the meanings given to them in the CDS Policies or ICE Clear Europe
Rulebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICE Clear Europe proposes to introduce minimum instrument liquidity
requirements independent of instrument maturities.\5\ ICE Clear
Europe's current spread-based liquidity charge approach features
instrument liquidity requirements that decay with time to maturity for
fixed credit spread levels.\6\ The proposed rule change introduces
minimum liquidity requirements for individual instruments, independent
of time to maturity for the considered instruments, and thus
establishes minimum liquidity charges that do not decay over time as
contract maturity is approached.\7\ The proposed calculation for single
name CDS liquidity charges at the instrument level incorporates a
price-based bid-offer width floor component to provide stability and
anti-procyclicality requirements, as well as a dynamic spread-based BOW
component to reflect the additional risk associated with distressed
market conditions.\8\ The values of such price-based BOW and spread-
based BOW are fixed factors, which are subject to at least monthly
reviews and updates by ICE Clear Europe Risk Management Department with
consultation with the Risk Working Group.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Notice, 84 FR at 10869.
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICE Clear Europe proposes other enhancements to the liquidity
charge calculation at the single name level.\10\ The current liquidity
charge approach at the single name level accounts for the liquidation
cost across the curve. All positions are aggregated and priced at each
maturity interval separately as a synthetic forward CDS instrument.
This current approach introduces potential sub-additivity at the single
name level, as it may result in a higher liquidity charge than the sum
of the single name instrument requirements.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed calculation, liquidity charges at the single
name level will be computed by first calculating the liquidity
requirements for each individual instrument position in the portfolio,
and then summing all instrument liquidity requirements for positions
with the same directionality, i.e., bought or sold protection.\12\ The
liquidity charge requirements at the single name level will be the
greatest liquidity requirement associated with either the sum of all
bought protection position liquidity requirements, or the sum of all
sold protection position liquidity requirements.\13\ Under this
proposed approach, the portfolios' liquidity charge cannot exceed the
sum of the individual instrument's requirements.\14\ There are no
changes to the liquidity charge calculation at the portfolio level.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICE Clear Europe expects these enhancements will ensure more stable
liquidity requirements for instruments across the curve and simplify
ICE Clear Europe's liquidity charge methodology.\16\ As stated above,
the current single name level liquidity requirements are based on
forward CDS spread levels and are, in general, more difficult to
calculate as forward spread levels are not observable across the
curve.\17\ ICE Clear Europe, as part of its end-of-day price discovery
process, provides end-of-day pricing data for instruments in which
clients have open positions, which will, under the proposed approach,
allow for easier replication for clients who wish to estimate liquidity
charges for hypothetical and current positions.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id.
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a
proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that
such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such
organization.\19\ For the reasons given below, the Commission finds
that the proposed

rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \20\ and
Rules 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) and (ii) and (e)(6)(i) and (v) thereunder.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) and (ii) and (e)(6)(i) and (v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of ICE Clear Europe be designed to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to
the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and
transactions, as well as to assure the safeguarding of securities and
funds which are in the custody or control of ICE Clear Europe or for
which it is responsible, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the proposed rule change establishes minimum
liquidity charges that do not decay over time as the contract maturity
is approached. The Commission believes that this approach promotes a
more conservative margin calculation approach by maintaining a minimum
liquidity charge through an instrument's maturity. The Commission
believes that this ensures that ICEEU requires clearing members to
maintain sufficient margin to cover losses through the entire contract
life rather than reducing these requirements as maturity approaches.
    Further, as discussed above, under the proposed enhancements to the
liquidity charge calculation, the portfolios' liquidity charge cannot
exceed the sum of the individual instrument's requirements, which is a
possibility under the current approach discussed above. The Commission
believes that this proposal will in turn ensure more stable liquidity
requirements for instruments across the curve and not require higher
margins than necessary. Further, by summing all instrument liquidity
requirements for positions with the same directionality rather than
across the curve, the Commission believes that ICEEU is simplifying the
process for clearing members as the approach is considered easier to
calculate than the current approach, which is based on forward spread
levels and hence more difficult to observe. Consequently, the
Commission believes that this in turn will promote more accurate margin
calculation by clearing members.
    The Commission believes that the simplified and more conservative
approach to calculating the liquidity charge for single name CDS
discussed above will allow ICE Clear Europe's members to more easily
calculate margin requirements in a way that promotes the prudent
accumulation of financial resources.
    Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change would
provide ICE Clear Europe with the financial resources to ensure the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions
and to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in
their custody or control. For these same reasons, the Commission also
finds that the proposed rule change would, in general, protect
investors and the public interest.

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) and (ii)

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) and (ii) requires, in relevant part, that ICE
Clear Europe establish, implement, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to effectively identify,
measure, monitor, and manage its credit exposures to participants and
those arising from its payment, clearing, and settlement processes by
maintaining sufficient financial resources to cover its credit exposure
to each participant fully with a high degree of confidence and maintain
financial resources to enable it to cover the default of the two
participant families that would potentially cause the largest aggregate
credit exposure for ICE Clear Europe in extreme but plausible market
conditions.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) and (ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the Commission believes that the enhancements
to the margin calculations related to single name CDS will help to
maintain the soundness of ICE Clear Europe's margin requirements by
promoting conservative, simple, and stable margin requirements that
better capture the portfolio risks of single name CDS. The Commission
believes that this in turn will help to ensure that ICE Clear Europe
can maintain sufficient financial resources to withstand, at a minimum,
a default by the two participant families to which it has the largest
exposures in extreme but plausible market conditions.

C. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) and (v)

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) requires, in relevant part, that ICE Clear
Europe cover its credit exposures to its participants by establishing a
risk-based margin system that, at a minimum considers, and produces
margin levels commensurate with, the risks and particular attributes of
each relevant product, portfolio, and market.\24\ Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(v)
requires, in relevant part, that ICE Clear Europe cover its credit
exposures to its participants by establishing a risk-based margin
system that, at a minimum uses an appropriate method for measuring
credit exposure that accounts for relevant product risk factors and
portfolio effects across products.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(i).
    \25\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the Commission believes that the enhancements
to the risk model related to calculating the liquidity charges for
single name CDS improves ICE Clear Europe's ability to avoid the losses
that could result from the miscalculation of its credit exposures for
particular products and thus produces margin levels more commensurate
with the risks and particular attributes of each relevant product,
portfolio, and market. In particular, by maintaining a minimum
liquidity charge through an instrument's maturity, the Commission
believes that clearing members will be better able to maintain
sufficient margin to cover losses over time rather than reducing these
requirements as maturity approaches. Moreover, as discussed above, by
changing the liquidity charge requirements at the single name level so
that the portfolios' liquidity charge cannot exceed the sum of the
individual instrument's requirements, the Commission believes that this
proposal will ensure more stable liquidity requirements for instruments
and not require higher margins than necessary and that are commensurate
with, the risks and particular attributes of each relevant product.
    Therefore, for these reasons discussed above, the Commission finds
that the proposed rule change is consistent with is consistent with
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) and (v).\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) and (v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act,
and in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act \27\ and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) and (ii) and (e)(6)(i) and (v)
thereunder.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \28\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) and (ii) and (e)(6)(i) and (v).

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

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\29\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ICEEU-2019-006) be, and hereby
is, approved.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \30\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's 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.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-09510 Filed 5-8-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P