[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 215 (Thursday, November 5, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70645-70646]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24605]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2020-0036; OMB No. 1660-0105]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; National Disaster Preparedness Survey

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: 60 day notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public to take this opportunity to comment on a revision of
a currently approved information collection. In

accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks
comments concerning the charge to FEMA and DHS to meet FEMA strategic
priorities, and FEMA's program management to improve the public's
knowledge and actions for preparedness and resilience. Information from
this collection will be used to track changes in knowledge, attitudes,
and behaviors related to preparedness in the general public. The
Individual and Community Preparedness Division analyzes and uses data
collected in FEMA Form 008-0-15, National Disaster Preparedness Survey
to identify progress and gaps in individual and community preparedness
to better understand the motivators and barriers to preparedness in
general and about specific hazards. The survey measures the public's
knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors relative to preparing for a wide
range of hazards.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 4, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Please submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket
ID FEMA-2020-0036. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. All
submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID, and
will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information
you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public.
You may wish to read the Privacy and Security Notice that is available
via a link on the homepage of www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Faulk, Preparedness Data Lead,
Individual and Community Preparedness Division,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>202-212-7723. You may contact the
Information Management Division for copies of the proposed collection
of information at email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Stafford Act, Title VI, Emergency
Preparedness (42 U.S.C. 5195-5195(a)) identifies the purpose of
emergency preparedness ``for the protection of life and property in the
United States from hazards.'' It directs that the Federal Government
``provide necessary direction, coordination, and guidance'' as
authorized for a comprehensive emergency preparedness system for all
hazards. Emergency preparedness is defined as all ``activities and
measures designed or undertaken to prepare or minimize the effects of a
hazard upon the civilian population. . .'' The ``conduct of research''
is among the measures to be undertaken in preparation for hazards.
    The DHS Strategic Plan 2020-2024 includes Goal 5, to ``strengthen
preparedness and resiliency.'' The first objective of this goal is to
``build a national culture of preparedness'' with a sub-objective to
``improve awareness initiatives to encourage public action to increase
preparedness.
    Similarly, in FEMA's Strategic Plan 2018-2022, Strategic Goal 1 is
to ``build a culture of preparedness'' with objective 1.3 to ``help
people prepare for disasters.'' The performance measures for objective
1.3 include increasing the percentage of people with savings set aside
for an emergency and increasing the percentage of people who have taken
preparedness actions.
    Presidential Policy Directive-8 (PPD-8) directs the Secretary of
Homeland Security to ``coordinate a comprehensive campaign to build and
sustain national preparedness, including public outreach and community-
based and private sector programs to enhance national resilience, the
provision of Federal financial assistance, preparedness efforts by the
Federal Government, and national research and development efforts.''
    In response to FEMA's responsibilities above, the information from
this collection will be used to track changes in knowledge, attitudes,
and behaviors related to preparedness in the general public.

Collection of Information

    Title: National Disaster Preparedness Survey.
    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0105.
    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form 008-0-15.
    Abstract: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
this collection assists FEMA's Individual and Community Preparedness
Division to identify progress and gaps in citizen and community
preparedness.
    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 7,000.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 7,000.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,250.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $46,938.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: There are
no respondents' Operation and Maintenance costs associated with this
information collection.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: There are no
recordkeeping, capital and start-up costs associated with this
information collection.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $281,200.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Maile Arthur,
Acting Records Management Branch Chief, Office of the Chief
Administrative Officer, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Department of Homeland Security.

[FR Doc. 2020-24605 Filed 11-4-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-27-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 163 (Thursday, August 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47723-47726]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18356]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2021-0025; Notice 2]

Combi USA, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Denial of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Combi USA (Combi), has determined that certain Combi USA
BabyRide rear-facing child restraint

systems manufactured between May 1, 2016, and August 31, 2019, do not
fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
213, Child Restraint Systems. Combi filed an original noncompliance
report dated March 8, 2021, and later amended it on March 10, 2021,
March 11, 2021, May 25, 2021, and July 22, 2021. Subsequently, Combi
petitioned NHTSA on March 30, 2021, for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
This document announces the denial of Combi's petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelley Adams-Campos, Safety Compliance
Engineer, NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    Combi has determined that certain Combi USA BabyRide rear-facing
child restraint systems manufactured between May 1, 2016, and August
31, 2019, do not fully comply with the requirements of paragraph
S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) of FMVSS No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213).
Combi filed an original noncompliance report dated March 8, 2021, and
later amended it on March 10, 2021, March 11, 2021, May 25, 2021, and
July 22, 2021, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. Combi subsequently petitioned NHTSA on
March 30, 2021 for an exemption from the notification and remedy
requirements of 49 U.S.C. chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556,
Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
    Notice of receipt of Combi's petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on April 22, 2021, in the Federal Register (86
FR 21435). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2021-0025.''

II. Child Restraint Systems Involved

    Approximately 13,880 Combi USA BabyRide rear-facing child restraint
systems with model number 378099, manufactured between May 1, 2016, and
August 31, 2019, are potentially involved.

III. Noncompliance

    Combi explains that the noncompliance is that the subject rear-
facing child restraint systems are equipped with 25-mm-wide webbing
used in the center front harness adjuster that does not comply with the
minimum breaking strength requirements as required in paragraph
S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) of FMVSS No. 213. Specifically, the subject child restraint
systems have an initial breaking strength of between 9,622 N and 10,136
N (median load 9,871 N), which is less than the required minimum
breaking strength of 11,000 N.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) of FMVSS No. 213 includes the requirements
relevant to this petition. The webbing of belts provided with a child
restraint system and used to secure a child to a child restraint system
shall have a minimum breaking strength for new webbing of not less than
11,000 N when tested in accordance with paragraph S5.1 of FMVSS No.
209. Each value shall be not less than 11,000 N. ``New webbing'' means
webbing that has not been exposed to abrasion, light, or micro-
organisms as specified elsewhere in FMVSS No. 213.

V. Summary of Combi's Petition

    The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of Combi's Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by
Combi and do not reflect the views of the Agency. Combi describes the
subject noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, Combi submitted the following
reasoning:
    1. Combi has not received any reports from consumers related to the
strength of the 25-mm-wide webbing in the BabyRide infant car seat.
    2. The BabyRide with the 25-mm-wide webbing at issue complies with
dynamic testing requirements of FMVSS No. 213, paragraph S5.1, in
testing conducted by both NHTSA and Combi between 2016 and 2019. This
includes testing with the 12-month-old CRABI ATD that represents the
heaviest child that the BabyRide infant car seat is used with.
    3. The actual webbing strength of the 25-mm-wide webbing far
exceeds the strength needed for the application of an infant car seat
used with children 10 kg (22 lbs.) or less. When tested with the 12-
month-old CRABI ATD that weighs 22 lbs., representing the maximum
weight occupant for the car seat, the maximum load that the 25-mm-wide
webbing is subjected to during an FMVSS No. 213 compliance crash test
is 302.9 N. Combi believes that this peak loading represents the
maximum load applied to the 25-mm-wide webbing in all Combi USA
BabyRide infant car seats. Combi bases that belief on the total belt
load applied to the vehicle lap belt and LATCH belt recorded in the
2016 UMTRI and 2021 UMTRI testing with the 12-month-old ATD. The total
vehicle lap belt load recorded in the 2021 test (AG2101) of 4206 N
(945.6 lbs.) is consistent with the total vehicle lap belt and LATCH
belt loading recorded in the 2016 tests conducted by UMTRI with the 12-
month-old ATD of 4,067.2 N (851.4 lbs.) in Test TT1603 and 3,989.1 N
(896.8 lbs.) in Test TT1604. The maximum load measured in the 25-mm-
wide webbing in the BabyRide infant car seat is much lower than the
total load applied to the vehicle lap belt and LATCH belt as the car
seat is for rear-facing use only and for use with a child weighing 10
kg (22 lb.) or less. In a rear-facing car seat, a significant portion
of the load from the ATD during the dynamic test is transferred and
supported by the seatback, thus reducing the maximum load applied to
the harness system including the 25-mm-wide webbing. Combi has reviewed
the harness webbing specifications defined in FMVSS No. 213 and notes
the webbing specified is for use with children up to 80 lbs. (36 kg),
and sufficiently strong to restrain an 80 lb occupant when forward
facing. Combi states that the loads carried by the seatback support
surface significantly reduce the loading experienced by the harness
webbing and center front adjuster webbing as shown in the UMTRI test
AG2101, and that this load is significantly lower than the load applied
to the harness and center front adjuster webbing when used in a
forward-facing restraint system that is used up to 80 lbs. Combi
asserts that rear-facing use of the BabyRide car seat with children 22
lbs. or less will subject the harness belts and adjuster belt to only a
small percentage of the load applied when forward-facing with an
occupant weighing 80 lbs. Combi believes that the initial minimum
breaking strength of 11,000 N is much higher than the strength needed
for a rear-facing car seat like the BabyRide even when occupied by a
child at the maximum weight and that the 25-mm-wide webbing used in the
BabyRide exceeds the forces applied in a crash.
    4. Combi cites the webbing requirements in FMVSS No. 213 for new
webbing breaking strength, S<IP_ADDRESS>(a), webbing strength after
abrasion,

S<IP_ADDRESS>(b)(1), and webbing strength after exposure to light,
S<IP_ADDRESS>(c)(1) and summarizes results for testing based on these
requirements performed by Combi and/or NHTSA. In Combi's summation,
they explain that the initial breaking strength of the 25-mm-wide
webbing in NHTSA's and Combi's \1\ testing is between 9,266 N and
10,136 N \2\ which they recognize does not comply. Combi notes that
based on the required 11,000 N minimum strength for new webbing, the
median breaking strength requirement after abrasion of not less than 75
percent of the new webbing strength must be at least 8,250 N. In spite
of this, Combi believes from their testing that the average breaking
strength after abrasion of 8,047 N or 86.7 percent of the original
breaking strength of the 25-mm-wide webbing complies. The median \3\
breaking strength of the 25-mm-wide webbing after exposure to light in
NHTSA's testing measured 9,752 N or 98.8 percent of the original
breaking strength, which Combi believes complies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Test Report No. 4737580AL-1R-21, (March 16, 2021 revised).
    \2\ In their petition, Combi mistakenly refers to 10,136 N as
10,126 N.
    \3\ In their petition, Combi mistakenly referred to the median
breaking strength after exposure to light as the average breaking
strength after exposure to light.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Combi concludes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential
as it relates to motor vehicle safety and that its petition to be
exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required
by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by
49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.

VI. NHTSA's Analysis

    The burden of establishing the inconsequentiality of a failure to
comply with a performance requirement in a standard--as opposed to a
labeling requirement with no performance implications--is more
substantial and difficult to meet. Accordingly, the Agency has not
found many such noncompliances inconsequential.\4\ Potential
performance failures of safety-critical equipment, like seat belts or
air bags, are rarely deemed inconsequential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899
(Apr. 14, 2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was expected
to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or
approaching drivers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An important issue to consider in determining inconsequentiality is
the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event against
which the recall would otherwise protect.\5\ In general, NHTSA does not
consider the absence of complaints or injuries to show that the issue
is inconsequential to safety. ``The absence of a complaint does not
mean there have not been any problems or failures, and it does not mean
that there will not be failures in the future.'' \6\ ``[T]he fact that
in past reported cases good luck and swift reaction have prevented many
serious injuries does not mean that good luck will continue to work.''
\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding
noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it had no
effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system
and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods.
Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using
noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly
greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source).
    \6\ See Dorel Juvenile Group, Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 53189, 53190 (August 28, 2013).
    \7\ United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d 754, 759 (D.C.
Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an unreasonable risk when it
``results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden engine fire,
and where there is no dispute that at least some such hazards, in
this case fires, can definitely be expected to occur in the
future'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Combi identifies no receipt of any reports from consumers related
to the strength of the 25-mm-wide webbing. As discussed above, the
Agency finds the absence of consumer complaints (or reports as Combi
noted) insufficient evidence of an inconsequential effect on the safety
of the webbing.
    Next, Combi argues that, based on measured forces acting on the 25-
mm-wide webbing when subjected to the dynamic testing requirements of
FMVSS No. 213 using the 22 lbs. 12-month-old CRABI ATD, the maximum
weight occupant for the car seat, the subject child restraints present
no motor vehicle safety risk since the measured forces acting on the
25-mm-wide webbing were no higher than 320.9 N. Combi also believes
that this represents the maximum load applied to 25-mm-wide webbing in
all Combi USA BabyRide Infant Car Seats, based on the total belt load
applied to the vehicle lap belt and LATCH belt recorded in 2016 and
2021 UMTRI testing with the 12-month-old ATD.
    Consistent with the Agency's decision to deny Combi's 2013 petition
\8\ for inconsequential noncompliance for failure to comply with the
initial webbing breaking strength requirements, NHTSA is not persuaded
by these arguments. NHTSA does not simply have one performance test, a
dynamic test. NHTSA has multiple performance tests because a single
test does not address the range of safety concerns with child
restraints. The webbing breaking strength test and the child restraint
system dynamic test do not test for the same conditions and serve
distinct purposes. The webbing breaking strength test conditions are
necessarily more severe than those for dynamic testing to help ensure
that the webbing will afford effective protection for severe crashes,
even after the webbing degrades due to abrasion in use and exposure to
sunlight. In addressing past similar arguments raised by Combi, who
submitted webbing load force data generated in dynamic testing to
demonstrate apparent safety margins in comparison to webbing breaking
strength test results, the Agency stated that ``[a] 30 mile per hour
test is not indicative of the upper limit of safety. The test
conditions in FMVSS No. 213 reflect the concern that child restraints
will withstand even the most severe crashes. These are well above 30
mph.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Combi USA, Inc., Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 71028 (and decisions cited
therein) (Nov. 27, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Combi asserts that in a rear-facing car seat, a significant portion
of the load from the ATD during the dynamic test is transferred and
supported by the seat back, thus reducing the maximum load applied to
the harness system including the 25-mm-wide webbing. The petitioner's
reasoning is unpersuasive. The minimum initial webbing strength
requirements apply to the component level, i.e., child restraint
webbing must comply as required in paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) of FMVSS No.
213 when tested independently from the child restraint system, and are
not uniquely specified according to rear-facing or forward-facing child
restraint systems. The breaking strength requirements ensure that the
performance of webbing over the lifetime of a child restraint system is
sufficient to provide the necessary protection. Requirements that apply
to new child restraints only, such as the dynamic sled test conducted
on the child restraint as a system, do not provide comparable
assurances, particularly for components such as webbing that are likely
to experience extraordinary ``wear and tear'' and exposure to elements
that can degrade the webbing strength in the course of normal use.
    Combi cites the webbing requirements in FMVSS No. 213 for new
webbing breaking strength, S<IP_ADDRESS>(a), webbing strength after
abrasion, S<IP_ADDRESS>(b)(1), and webbing strength after exposure to light,
S<IP_ADDRESS>(c)(1) and summarizes results for testing based on these
requirements performed by Combi and/

or NHTSA. In NHTSA's compliance tests of the Combi BabyRide 25-mm-wide
webbing for new webbing breaking strength, three samples were tested
and each sample failed to meet the minimum requirement of 11,000 N.\9\
Combi submitted test data for a single sample of the 25-mm-wide webbing
measuring 9,278 N initial breaking strength, also less than the
required minimum value of 11,000 N and consistent with their submitted
2016-2019 production data which measured between 9,600 N and 9,900 N.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Frank Savino (2020, October). Child restraint system,
component parts: Model No.: Combi Babyride (Report No. 4642921-018).
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Combi also submitted test data for two samples of the 25-mm-wide
webbing after being subjected to abrasion and referenced a 98.8 percent
retention of the original breaking strength in NHTSA's testing of the
25-mm-wide webbing after exposure to light. The Agency is not opining
on the compliance of these results as they are not germane to the
subject noncompliance, thus not dispositive of the inconsequentiality
analysis.
    Combi believes that the initial minimum breaking strength of 11,000
N is much higher than the strength needed for a rear-facing car seat
like the BabyRide, even when occupied by a child at the maximum weight,
and that the 25-mm-wide webbing used in the BabyRide exceeds the forces
applied in a crash. FMVSS No. 213 requires an absolute minimum initial
breaking strength for new webbing to provide a margin of safety for use
throughout the life of a child restraint. In the Agency's analysis in
determining a minimum breaking strength requirement for new webbing,
published in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) \10\ and subsequent
Final Rule,\11\ NHTSA examined harness webbing compliance data for 109
child restraint systems collected from 2000 to 2002. That compliance
data showed that 92 percent (100 out of 109) of the harness webbing
complied with the proposed 11,000 N minimum breaking strength
requirement. In Dorel Juvenile Group; Denial of Appeal of Decision on
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 75 FR 510 (January 5, 2010) (NHTSA-2008-
0132) (and decisions cited therein), the Agency explained that an
inconsequentiality petition is not the appropriate means to challenge
the methodology of a specific test and/or stringency of a performance
requirement in a FMVSS. The appropriate venue for such arguments is to
comment during the proposal phase or as a petition for rulemaking to
amend a current safety standard. During the 2005-2006 proposal and
final rulemaking phases for the new webbing strength requirement, NHTSA
published a report showing test results for the Combi Baby One dated
June 10, 2005.\12\ In that report the median new webbing strength of
the adjuster webbing was 9,207 N (converted from 2,070 lbs.). Despite
this, Combi neither commented on the NPRM nor petitioned for
reconsideration of the final rule with respect to FMVSS No. 213
paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 70 FR 37731 (June 30, 2005)
    \11\ 71 FR 32855 (June 7, 2006)
    \12\ Frank Savino (2005, June). Child restraint system,
component parts: Model No.: Combi--Baby One (Report No. 206827-08).
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA's Decision

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Combi has
not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 213
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly,
Combi's petition is hereby denied, and Combi is consequently obligated
to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under
49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Joseph Kolly,
Acting Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2021-18356 Filed 8-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


From:
"Jones, DonnaLee"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Fri, 16 Sep 2022 15:09:29
To:
"BATTEN; KATIE M"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
Coke ICR2<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mcginn, Kevin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Shappley, Ned<EMAIL_ADDRESS>French, Chuck<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>STARKWEATHER, DIANA M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
RE: Analysis of Coke Oven Gas for BTEX

Hi Katie  -  Both Kevin and Ned are out today but I believe I can answer most if not all your questions today. When Kevin and Ned are back on Monday, we may need to clarify the responses further.

See my answers below. Let me know if you have any remaining questions. If not, I hope you have a good weekend.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711
Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.

From: BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, September 16, 2022 1:34 PM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mcginn, Kevin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Shappley, Ned<EMAIL_ADDRESS>French, Chuck<EMAIL_ADDRESS>GABRIELLE RAYMOND<EMAIL_ADDRESS>STARKWEATHER, DIANA M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: Analysis of Coke Oven Gas for BTEX

Hi Donna Lee,

Thank you for the prompt response to SunCoke's August 31, 2022 letter.  Based on the altered ICR requirements described in your email, we are optimistic that SunCoke and EPA will be able reach agreement on the scope and timing of the ICR.

We have been working hard on evaluating the feasibility of these requests since receiving your email, and would like to clarify several details around the Enclosure 2 stack testing as we continue our planning for the imminent testing at Haverhill this month.  The trailers are being loaded today and shipped early next week to Haverhill, so it would be very helpful to receive a response to these questions as soon as possible.

1. Your email appears to be asking for 3 dscm of PM, metals, and acid gases (HCl and HF).  However, the official ICR only requests 1 dscm for acid gases.  We assume 1 dscm is sufficient, but please let us know if that is not the case and the reason for the change. The additional volumes are to avoid measurements that are below the limit of quantification of the analytical method. Since there will only be 3 test runs, it is very important that each test run be valid, i.e., useable.

2. We want to just confirm for you that it is not feasible to test prior to the HRSG, so we will assume the Enclosure 2, Table 3 tests are no longer required.  This may also facilitate some of the other testing EPA is requesting at Haverhill. OK. Confirming.

3. Given the time constraints, we are not going to be able to submit a formal test plan to EPA in advance of this testing, which we anyway understood to be optional, not a requirement.  We will provide a schedule once finalized.  Please confirm that will be acceptable. Yes, it is acceptable and optional. Only the fugitive testing has a required advance test plan.

4. Your email notes that the testing for dioxins/furans and VOHAPs are lower priority.  We agree, but can you please help us understand why that is the case from your perspective?  Our decision was based on previous data SunCoke submitted in 2016. These data showed that the values were very low. Low values for these organics are a sign of nearly complete combustion of carbon material and the maintenance of high temperatures throughout the combustion process.

5. Your email appears to be stating that the ICR stack testing request from Jewell could instead be satisfied at Haverhill (subject to the changes described in your email), and not be required at Jewell in the spring of 2023 as we proposed in our letter.  Conducting this testing at Haverhill now will require extraordinary efforts from AECOM and our plant team on short notice, while we are still trying to conduct other testing required under our CD and permit.  However, as described in our letter, Jewell has been dealing with a great deal of adversity from recent major weather events, so we are highly motivated to alleviate the operational burden on them to the greatest extent possible and not have stack testing done there, even next spring.  And it is looking promising for us to be able to arrange the testing at Haverhill for the constituents you identified at the sample volumes you requested (although we are almost certainly not going to be able to conduct more than 3 runs given the limited timeframe while the stacks are open).  Given all this, we would appreciate confirmation that conducting the testing at Haverhill this month will completely satisfy the ICR test requirements from Jewell. Yes, the testing at Haverhill, complete with both stack and fugitive testing, will alleviate the need to test at Jewel. We are on a tight rule schedule so earlier is better for us, also. The applicable Enclosure 1 questions in Sections A and E would still need to be completed for Jewel as well as Haverhill, as specified in our letter of 7/22/22.

Thanks,

Katie Batten
Director of Health, Safety and Environmental

SunCoke Energy, Inc.
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>cell:<PHONE_NUMBER>

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, September 12, 2022 4:04 PM
To: BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>; Mcginn, Kevin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Shappley, Ned<EMAIL_ADDRESS>French, Chuck<EMAIL_ADDRESS>GABRIELLE RAYMOND<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: Analysis of Coke Oven Gas for BTEX

Hi Katie: Sorry for the delay, but we wanted to make sure we provided all the information that was needed.

In response to the points made in the SunCoke letter of 8/31/22, we would like to point out that the Clean Air Act (CAA) provides EPA with authority to request information for the development of any emission standard under CAA section 112 of the Act. As such, EPA's authority to request information from SunCoke is not limited by the scope of the action to be taken to satisfy the court's order in Citizen's for Pennsylvania's Future, et al., v. Wheeler, Case No. 3:19-cv-02004 (N.D. Cal.). The EPA also may at any time list additional categories and subcategories of source of hazardous air pollutants.

We carefully considered SunCoke letter of 8/31/22 and email of 9/6/22. In this regard, we are continuing with our plan for the CAA section 114 information request to SunCoke, but with the following modifications:

We accept SunCoke's offer to use the upcoming bypass event at Haverhill due to flue gas desulfurization maintenance to meet some of SunCoke's CAA section 114 testing obligations of bypass stacks. We agree that three valid runs for each pollutant is sufficient. However, in order to accept the bypass stack testing at Haverhill scheduled for late September, the volume collected will need to meet the specification of the CAA section 114 request, as follows: 3 dscm for particulate matter (PM), metals, and acid gas testing, as opposed to the approximate test volumes of 2 dscm, 1.3 dscm and 1 dscm, respectively, that were mentioned in Attachment 1 of SunCoke's 8/31/22 letter. The PM may be collected separate from or simultaneously with either the EPA method 29 metals sampling or the EPA method 26A sampling train. Since the contractor is currently performing continuous emissions monitoring testing (EPA methods 6C and 7E for SO2 and NOx, and possibly method 3A for O2 and CO2), we request that the carbon monoxide (CO) testing by EPA method 10 also be performed at the same time, since CO gases are readily available, and the addition of the CO monitoring will not require any additional personnel or any additional time beyond calibration of the analyzer. This testing then would meet all of the testing obligations for SO2, NOx, and CO, as required in the CAA section 114 request. Additional testing, minimally, for PM, metals, formaldehyde, acid gases (HCL and HF), and HCN are still necessary. Therefore, we strongly recommend that SunCoke also test for these pollutants in September 2022 at the Haverhill facility to obtain a minimum of 3 valid test runs for each pollutant. We recommend more runs, if possible, in order to obtain a more robust data set, but understand that may not be possible. The required testing for the bypass stack can be added to the upcoming Haverhill testing (in lieu of testing at the Jewell facility described in our June 28, 2022 CAA section 114 request) at the sample volumes required by Enclosure 2 of the CAA section 114 request. The testing for dioxin/furans and VOHAP are lower priority and can be completed at a later date at the Jewell Coke facility, if necessary.

Per SunCoke's request for alternative sampling and analysis of the Enclosure 2 Table 3 coke oven gas sampling, if it is not feasible to test prior to the HRSG, the Enclosure 2 Table 3 tests are no longer required. If the coke oven gas can be sampled prior to the HRSG, EPA method TO-15 is not an applicable solution because it is an ambient air method. The methods in Table 3 should be used. The use of a passivated evacuated canister is appropriate for sampling the coke oven gas, although the EPA recommends that, in order to prevent condensation in the canister, the canister not be filled completely, and a partial vacuum maintained on the canister.

We also considered the previous fugitive data obtained from Haverhill over the period 2004-2014, as SunCoke requested. However, because of the age of the data and how these (and other) measurement approaches (e.g., method 325A/B) are being applied in this sector now as part of EPA's section 114 request efforts, we must request current fugitive sampling, as follows:

o        Testing should include EPA methods 325A&B, and TO-13A and 15, as described in the original CAA section 114 request (dated June 28, 2022).
o        No interior fugitive tests are required.
o        The fugitive monitoring plan is due to EPA 30 days from the date of this email.
o        Fugitive monitoring must begin within 40 days of the date EPA approves the monitoring plan (typically less than a 2-week EPA turn around).
o        Nine (9) weeks of fugitive monitoring must be performed and the resulting data submitted within 110 days from the date that EPA approves the monitoring plan. The EPA is permitting the reduced fenceline monitoring requirements in recognition of the previous monitoring efforts at/near the facility.

::        We accept SunCoke's proposed schedule for Enclosure 1 information from the SunCoke August 31, 2022, letter for submitting the information from Jewel (Vansant) and Haverhill (Franklin Furnace).

Let me know if you have any further questions. We greatly appreciate your help with our test request.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711
Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.

From: BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>> Sent: Friday, September 9, 2022 11:08 AMTo: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>; STARKWEATHER, DIANA M<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>Subject: FW: Analysis of Coke Oven Gas for BTEX

Hi Donna Lee,

Please see the information below.  Will this be acceptable to EPA?

Thanks and have a good weekend,

Katie Batten
Director of Health, Safety and Environmental

SunCoke Energy, Inc.
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>cell:<PHONE_NUMBER>

From: Workman, Gerald<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>> Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 1:00 PMTo: BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>Cc: Aron H. Schnur<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; STARKWEATHER, DIANA M<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>Subject: Analysis of Coke Oven Gas for BTEX

Katie,
Table 3 in Enclosure 2 requires collection of three gas-phase mercury samples and three BTEX samples from the HRSG inlet or outlet.  Because of the high temperature of the gas stream at the HRSG inlet, it will be most practical to collect these samples from the HRSG outlet.  Table 3 specifies GPA Standard 2286 (2014) for BTEX analysis; however this method is specifically intended for compositional analysis of natural gas samples by GC.  The gas stream downstream of the HRSG is essentially flue gas (not like natural gas at all).  Table 3 of Enclosure 2 also does not specify a BTEX sample collection method.  AECOM suggests that samples for BTEX at the HRSG outlet be collected in evacuated canisters and analyzed using EPA Compendium Method TO15, this approach and GC analytical method being more suitable for the overall composition of the exhaust gas.
-Jerry

Jerry Workman, P.E.
Pronouns: he, him, his

Air Measurements East Supervisor
Environmental Business UnitD +1-919-461-1289
M<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>AECOM5438 Wade Park Boulevard
Suite 200
Raleigh, NC 27607, USAT +1-919-461-1100aecom.com <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Fgcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__http*3A*2Fwww.aecom.com*2F__*3B!!Kzd_BKvQsVQrMA!h-1Pb1_q61u4Ljy3950X5uq1aIxr8Y2daE2TII2eUe4EtVTvhyBMMtOcqROVAwKZABEGQKWntYNO-V2sUmzBIeo*24%26data%3D05*7C01*7CJones.Donnalee*40epa.gov*7Ce8ef12f4a9f04370d63808da92751ae8*7C88b378b367484867acf976aacbeca6a7*7C0*7C0*7C637983328918220320*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C3000*7C*7C*7C%26sdata%3Dp09POcct4PxtQFkGkbVT1A3HxCzJfFCfevPTHc5O6Jk*3D%26reserved%3D0__%3BJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!Kzd_BKvQsVQrMA!gBs-Bcfis6enT0Rh3gebPkQ9Ewz9xeVfNO78T1OKQeFJhNsggyPg1ozMgV65Mt5CfnVjqq9i__N_zP62ffrlEB2YkA%24&data=05%7C01%7CCoke.ICR2%40rti.org%7C55aac6fb4d1e43e2ddee08da9816fcd1%7C2ffc2ede4d4449948082487341fa43fb%7C0%7C0%7C637989521784839188%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qtaxPsXfpMu5jrO%2F7FoNgtTWls%2BVioL1EHy27kg1gsg%3D&reserved=0>

LinkedIn <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Fgcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__http*3A*2Fwww.linkedin.com*2Fcompany*2Faecom__*3B!!Kzd_BKvQsVQrMA!h-1Pb1_q61u4Ljy3950X5uq1aIxr8Y2daE2TII2eUe4EtVTvhyBMMtOcqROVAwKZABEGQKWntYNO-V2sldUkARs*24%26data%3D05*7C01*7CJones.Donnalee*40epa.gov*7Ce8ef12f4a9f04370d63808da92751ae8*7C88b378b367484867acf976aacbeca6a7*7C0*7C0*7C637983328918220320*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C3000*7C*7C*7C%26sdata%3DhTc2E59AW56JugMjZupKN*2F3WdzKlJMyno5FAMaTtU0M*3D%26reserved%3D0__%3BJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!Kzd_BKvQsVQrMA!gBs-Bcfis6enT0Rh3gebPkQ9Ewz9xeVfNO78T1OKQeFJhNsggyPg1ozMgV65Mt5CfnVjqq9i__N_zP62ffrhIfOvLQ%24&data=05%7C01%7CCoke.ICR2%40rti.org%7C55aac6fb4d1e43e2ddee08da9816fcd1%7C2ffc2ede4d4449948082487341fa43fb%7C0%7C0%7C637989521784839188%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=9xGPh2c2MpmxEBPDUk%2Fztfm7B9wrwDYuY1TToTvGg0I%3D&reserved=0>   Twitter <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Fgcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__http*3A*2Ftwitter.com*2FAECOM__*3B!!Kzd_BKvQsVQrMA!h-1Pb1_q61u4Ljy3950X5uq1aIxr8Y2daE2TII2eUe4EtVTvhyBMMtOcqROVAwKZABEGQKWntYNO-V2sJL70qvI*24%26data%3D05*7C01*7CJones.Donnalee*40epa.gov*7Ce8ef12f4a9f04370d63808da92751ae8*7C88b378b367484867acf976aacbeca6a7*7C0*7C0*7C637983328918220320*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C3000*7C*7C*7C%26sdata%3DLx3o*2FQW73iNAlKKTvhkWAWJRG5V6glESdD2BjFFgxa4*3D%26reserved%3D0__%3BJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!Kzd_BKvQsVQrMA!gBs-Bcfis6enT0Rh3gebPkQ9Ewz9xeVfNO78T1OKQeFJhNsggyPg1ozMgV65Mt5CfnVjqq9i__N_zP62ffpXxw1Ofw%24&data=05%7C01%7CCoke.ICR2%40rti.org%7C55aac6fb4d1e43e2ddee08da9816fcd1%7C2ffc2ede4d4449948082487341fa43fb%7C0%7C0%7C637989521784839188%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=c8r42zkO%2Faj1dPsV4y0ecefmg9HH6nqXuU8V8OW%2BIc8%3D&reserved=0>   Facebook <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Fgcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__http*3A*2Fwww.facebook.com*2FAecomTechnologyCorporation__*3B!!Kzd_BKvQsVQrMA!h-1Pb1_q61u4Ljy3950X5uq1aIxr8Y2daE2TII2eUe4EtVTvhyBMMtOcqROVAwKZABEGQKWntYNO-V2sAqQel9g*24%26data%3D05*7C01*7CJones.Donnalee*40epa.gov*7Ce8ef12f4a9f04370d63808da92751ae8*7C88b378b367484867acf976aacbeca6a7*7C0*7C0*7C637983328918220320*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C3000*7C*7C*7C%26sdata%3DXkFsgutRo35RV0SXHmiuEeTQtM*2B8HJ1KK6xgNd7v3pE*3D%26reserved%3D0__%3BJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!Kzd_BKvQsVQrMA!gBs-Bcfis6enT0Rh3gebPkQ9Ewz9xeVfNO78T1OKQeFJhNsggyPg1ozMgV65Mt5CfnVjqq9i__N_zP62ffrSr-Zhlw%24&data=05%7C01%7CCoke.ICR2%40rti.org%7C55aac6fb4d1e43e2ddee08da9816fcd1%7C2ffc2ede4d4449948082487341fa43fb%7C0%7C0%7C637989521784839188%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=jfWw9DE1z%2FXpcru8eKDZTbeRSOvnDqYS2EctA8BIZMs%3D&reserved=0>   Instagram <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Fgcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__http*3A*2Finstagram.com*2Faecom__*3B!!Kzd_BKvQsVQrMA!h-1Pb1_q61u4Ljy3950X5uq1aIxr8Y2daE2TII2eUe4EtVTvhyBMMtOcqROVAwKZABEGQKWntYNO-V2sal4hFdk*24%26data%3D05*7C01*7CJones.Donnalee*40epa.gov*7Ce8ef12f4a9f04370d63808da92751ae8*7C88b378b367484867acf976aacbeca6a7*7C0*7C0*7C637983328918220320*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C3000*7C*7C*7C%26sdata%3DBMMRD2hmnzPFx7gOY8kV0j5byWMRHvL9dVHvueAXMqk*3D%26reserved%3D0__%3BJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!Kzd_BKvQsVQrMA!gBs-Bcfis6enT0Rh3gebPkQ9Ewz9xeVfNO78T1OKQeFJhNsggyPg1ozMgV65Mt5CfnVjqq9i__N_zP62ffq_wfFi_g%24&data=05%7C01%7CCoke.ICR2%40rti.org%7C55aac6fb4d1e43e2ddee08da9816fcd1%7C2ffc2ede4d4449948082487341fa43fb%7C0%7C0%7C637989521784839188%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=T2ra3ApTi2H9CHy1I4tzE0mUKzRpkJdwp%2B8OJ5MEdKY%3D&reserved=0>

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential information and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42167-42168]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18858]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Form N-PX, SEC File No. 270-524, OMB Control No. 3235-0582.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``Paperwork Reduction Act''), the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting
comments on the collection of information summarized below. The
Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to
the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and
approval.
    Rule 30b1-4 (17 CFR 270.30b1-4) under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) requires every registered management
investment company, other than a small business investment company
registered on Form N-5 (``funds''), to file a report on Form N-PX not
later than August 31 of each year. Funds use Form N-PX to file annual
reports with the Commission containing their complete proxy voting
record for the most recent twelve-month period ended June 30.
    The Commission estimates that there are approximately 2,376 funds
registered with the Commission, representing approximately 11,818 fund
portfolios that are required to file Form N-PX reports. The 11,818
portfolios are comprised of approximately 7,111 portfolios holding
equity securities, 3,249 portfolios holding no equity securities, and
1,458 portfolios holding fund securities (i.e., fund of funds).\1\ The
currently approved burden of Form N-PX for portfolios holding equity
securities is 7.2 hours per response, the current burden estimate for
funds holding no equity securities is 0.17 hours (10 minutes) per
response, and the current burden estimate for fund of funds is 1 hour
per response. Therefore, the number of aggregate burden hours, when
calculated using the current number of portfolios, is approximately
53,210 hours.\2\ We continue to believe that these estimates for Form
N-PX's current burden are appropriate. Based on the Commission's
estimate of 53,210 burden hours and an estimated wage rate of
approximately $345 per hour,\3\ the total cost to reporting persons of
the hour burden for filing Form N-PX is approximately $18.44
million.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The estimate of 2,376 funds is based on the number of
management investment companies currently registered with the
Commission. The Commission staff estimates that there are
approximately 6,385 portfolios that invest primarily in equity
securities, 726 ``hybrid'' or bond portfolios that may hold some
equity securities, 2,831 bond portfolios that hold no equity
securities, and 418 money market fund portfolios, and 1,458 fund of
funds, for a total of 11,818 portfolios required to file Form N-PX
reports. The staff has based its portfolio estimates on a number of
publications. See Investment Company Institute, Trends in Mutual
Fund Investing (April 2017); Investment Company Institute, Closed-
End Fund Assets and Net Issuance (First Quarter 2017); Investment
Company Institute, ETF Assets and Net Issuance (April 2017).
    \2\ (7,111 portfolios that hold equity securities x 7.2 hours
per year) + (3,249 portfolios holding no equity securities x 0.17
hours per year) + (1,458 portfolios holding fund securities x 1 hour
per year) = 53,210 hours.
    \3\ The hourly wage figure for a compliance attorney is from the
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association's Management &
Professional Salaries in the Securities Industry 2013, modified by
Commission staff to account for an 1800-hour work-year and inflation
and multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee
benefits and overhead.
    \4\ 53,210 hours x $345 per hour = $18,357,288.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated cost burden of Form N-PX is $1,000 in external costs
per portfolio holding equity securities that is paid to third-party
service providers. External costs for portfolios holding no equity
securities have previously been estimated to be zero because portfolios
holding no equity securities generally have no proxy votes to report
and therefore do not require third-party service providers to assist
with proxy voting and preparing reports on Form N-PX. The estimated
cost burden of Form N-PX for fund of funds is estimated to be $100 per
portfolio because fund of funds generally either have no proxy votes to
report; or if proxy votes are reported, they are generally limited in
the number of securities and the number of voting matters relative to
portfolios holding equity securities. Therefore, the aggregate cost
burden, when calculated using the current number of portfolios, is
approximately $7.3 million in external costs.\5\ We continue to believe
that these estimates for Form N-PX's current cost burden are
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ (7,111 portfolios holding equity securities x $1,000 per
year) + (3,249 portfolios holding no equity securities x $0 per
year) + (1,458 fund of funds x $100) = $7,256,800.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimates of average burden hours and costs are made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a
comprehensive or even representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules and forms. Compliance with the collection of
information requirements of Form N-PX is mandatory. Responses to the
collection of information will not be kept confidential. An agency may
not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of
the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    Dated: August 31, 2017.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-18858 Filed 9-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 30, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 59)]
[Notices]
[Page 14176-14179]
[DOCID:fr30mr09-108]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59620; File No. SR-NYSEALTR-2009-29]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Alternext US LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Extending
the Operative Date of Rule 92(c)(3) From March 31, 2009 to July 31,
2009

March 23, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 13, 2009, NYSE Alternext US LLC \3\ (``NYSE Alternext'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the
Act \4\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\5\ which renders the proposed
rule change effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 USC. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ The Commission notes that NYSE Alternext US LLC recently
changed its name to NYSE Amex LLC. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 59575 (March 13, 2009) (SR-NYSEALTR-2009-24).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

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

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to extend the operative date of Rule 92(c)(3)
from March 31, 2009 to July 31, 2009. The text of the proposed rule
change is available at NYSE Alternext, the Commission's Public
Reference Room, and http://www.nyse.com.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to extend the delayed operative date of
Rule 92(c)(3) from March 31, 2009 to July 31, 2009. The Exchange
believes that this extension will provide the time necessary for the
Exchange, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), and the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') to harmonize their
respective rules concerning customer order protection to achieve a
standardized industry practice.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See SR-NYSE-2009-30 (formally submitted on March 13, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Merger Background
    As described more fully in a related rule filing,\7\ NYSE Euronext
acquired The Amex Membership Corporation (``AMC'') pursuant to an
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated January 17, 2008 (the ``Merger'').
In connection with the Merger, the Exchange's predecessor, the American
Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex''), a subsidiary of AMC, became a subsidiary
of NYSE Euronext and was renamed NYSE Alternext US LLC (``NYSE
Alternext'' or the ``Exchange''), and continues to operate as a
national securities exchange registered under Section 6 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'').\8\ The
effective date of the Merger was October 1, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58673 (Sept. 29,
2008), 73 FR 57707 (Oct. 3, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-60 and SR-Amex 2008-
62) (approving the Merger).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with the Merger, on December 1, 2008, the Exchange
relocated all equities trading conducted on the Exchange legacy trading
systems and facilities located at 86 Trinity Place, New York, New York,
to trading systems and facilities located at 11 Wall Street, New York,
New York (the ``Equities Relocation''). The Exchange's equity trading
systems and facilities at 11 Wall Street (the ``NYSE Alternext Trading
Systems'') are operated by the NYSE on behalf of the Exchange.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58705 (Oct. 1,
2008), 73 FR 58995 (Oct. 8, 2008) (SR-Amex-2008-63) (approving the
Equities Relocation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the Equities Relocation, NYSE Alternext adopted NYSE
Rules 1-1004, subject to such changes as necessary to apply the Rules
to the Exchange, as the NYSE Alternext Equities Rules to govern trading
on the NYSE Alternext Trading Systems.\10\ The NYSE Alternext Equities
Rules, which became operative on December 1, 2008, are substantially
identical to the current NYSE Rules 1-1004 and the Exchange continues
to update the NYSE Alternext Equities Rules as necessary to conform
with rule changes to corresponding NYSE Rules filed by the NYSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 58705 (Oct. 1,
2008), 73 FR 58995 (Oct. 8, 2008) (SR-Amex-2008-63); No. 58833 (Oct.
22, 2008), 73 FR 64642 (Oct. 30, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-106); No. 58839
(Oct. 23, 2008), 73 FR 64645 (October 30, 2008) (SR-NYSEALTR-2008-
03); No. 59022 (Nov. 26, 2008), 73 FR 73683 (Dec. 3, 2008) (SR-
NYSEALTR-2008-10); and No. 59027 (Nov. 28, 2008), 73 FR 73681 (Dec.
3, 2008) (SR-NYSEALTR-2008-11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 92 Background
    On July 5, 2007, the Commission approved amendments to NYSE Rule 92
to permit riskless principal trading at the NYSE.\11\ These amendments
were filed in part to begin the harmonization process between NYSE Rule
92 and FINRA's Manning Rule.\12\ In connection with those amendments,
the NYSE implemented for an operative date of January 16, 2008, NYSE
Rule 92(c)(3), which permits NYSE member organizations to submit
riskless principal orders to the NYSE, but requires them to submit to a
designated NYSE database a report of the execution of the facilitated
order. That rule also requires members to submit to that same database
sufficient information to provide an electronic link of the execution
of the facilitated order to all of the underlying orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56017 (Jul. 5,
2007), 72 FR 38110 (Jul. 12, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-21).
    \12\ See NASD Rule 2111 and IM-2110-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of NYSE Rule 92(c)(3), the NYSE informed member
organizations that when executing riskless principal transactions,
firms must submit order execution reports to the NYSE's Front End
Systemic Capture (``FESC'') database linking the execution of the
riskless principal order on the NYSE to the specific underlying orders.
The information provided must be sufficient for both member firms and
the NYSE to reconstruct in a time-sequenced manner all orders,
including allocations to the underlying orders, with respect to which a
member organization is claiming the riskless principal exception.
    Because the rule change required both the NYSE and member
organizations to make certain changes to their trading and order
management systems, the NYSE filed for immediate effectiveness to delay
to May 14, 2008 the operative date of the NYSE Rule 92(c)(3)
requirements, including submitting end-of-day allocation reports for
riskless principal transactions and using the riskless principal
account type indicator.\13\ The NYSE filed for an additional extension
of the operative date of Rule 92(c)(3) to March 31, 2009.\14\ Because
NYSE Alternext adopted NYSE Rule 92 in its then current form, the
delayed operative date of March 31, 2009 for the NYSE Rule 92(c)(3)
reporting requirements also applies for NYSE Alternext Equities Rule
92(c)(3) reporting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56968 (Dec. 14,
2007), 72 FR 72432 (Dec. 20, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-114).
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57682 (Apr. 17,
2008), 73 FR 22193 (Apr. 24, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-29).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Extension
    FINRA, NYSE, and the Exchange have been working diligently on fully
harmonizing their respective rules, including reviewing the
possibilities for a uniform reporting standard for riskless principal
transactions. However, because of the complexity of the existing
customer order protection rules, including the need for input from
industry participants as well as Commission approval, the Exchange,
NYSE, and FINRA will not have harmonized their respective customer
order protection rules by March 31, 2009.
    The Exchange notes that it has reached agreement with NYSE and
FINRA on a harmonized approach to customer order protection rules. As
authorized by their respective Boards, FINRA and NYSE Regulation, Inc.
have

each published a Notice to Members/Information Memo that solicit
comments from their respective member participants on the proposed
harmonized approach to customer order protection.\15\ Because industry
participants need to code their trading systems to comply with customer
order protection rules, the Exchange believes that industry input is
vital to ensuring that the approach to customer order protection both
meets regulatory needs of protecting customer orders, but is also
feasible technologically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See NYSE Regulation Information Memo 09-13 (March 12,
2009); FINRA Regulatory Notice 09-15 (March 12, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange continues to believe that pending full harmonization
of the respective customer order protection rules, it would be
premature to require firms to meet the current Rule 92(c)(3) FESC
reporting requirements.\16\ Indeed, having differing reporting
standards for riskless principal orders would appear to defeat the
overall goal of the harmonization process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchange notes that it would also need to make
technological changes to implement the proposed FESC reporting
solution for Rule 92(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, to provide the Exchange, NYSE, and FINRA the time
necessary to review their respective rules and develop a harmonized
rule set that would apply across their respective marketplaces, the
Exchange is proposing to delay the operative date for NYSE Alternext
Equities Rule 92(c)(3) from March 31, 2009 to July 31, 2009.
    Pending the harmonization of the three rules, the Exchange will
continue to require that, as of the date each member organization
implements riskless principal routing, the member organization have in
place systems and controls that allow them to easily match and tie
riskless principal execution on the Exchange to the underlying orders
and that they be able to provide this information to the Exchange upon
request. To make clear that this requirement continues, the Exchange
proposes to add supplementary material to Rule 92 that explains that
the Rule 92(c)(3) reporting requirements are suspended until July 31,
2009 and that member organizations are required to have in place such
systems and controls relating to their riskless principal executions on
the Exchange. Moreover, the Exchange will coordinate with NYSE and
FINRA to examine for compliance with the rule requirements.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\17\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\18\ in particular, insofar as
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. The Exchange believes the proposed extension provides
the Exchange, NYSE, and FINRA the time necessary to develop a
harmonized rule concerning customer order protection that will enable
member organizations to participate in the national market system
without unnecessary impediments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the proposed rule change: (i) Does not significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not
impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) does not become
operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter
time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \19\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not
become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\21\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \22\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver
would allow the Exchange to extend the operative date of NYSE Alternext
Equities Rule 92(c)(3) without interruption. For this reason, the
Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon
filing with the Commission.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to
the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed
rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed
rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing
of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by
the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this notice requirement.
    \22\ Id.
    \23\ For the purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative
delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEALTR-2009-29 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEALTR-2009-29. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule

change that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m.
and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEALTR-2009-29 and should
be submitted on or before April 20, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-6961 Filed 3-27-09; 8:45 am]


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15747-15750]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06002]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91361; File No. SR-ICC-2021-004]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICC Governance Playbook

March 18, 2021.

I. Introduction

    On January 29, 2021, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'')
\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to update and
formalize the ICC Governance Playbook. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on February 16, 2021.\3\
The Commission did not receive comments regarding 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\ Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice
of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICC Governance
Playbook; Exchange Act Release No. 91090 (Feb. 9, 2021); 86 FR 9557
(Feb. 16, 2021) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The principal purpose of the proposed rule change is to update and
formalize the ICC Governance Playbook.\4\ Specifically, the proposed
rule change would consolidate and summarize governance arrangements set
forth in the ICC Clearing Rules

(``Rules''), operating agreement, and other ICC policies and procedures
within the Governance Playbook document. The Governance Playbook
contains information regarding the governance structure at ICC, which
includes the Board, committees, and management. The document is divided
in six parts and sets out (i) the purpose of the document, (ii) an
introduction to the ICC governance structure, (iii) information on the
ICC Board of Managers (the ``Board,'' with each member a ``Manager''),
(iv) descriptions of the committees at ICC, (v) descriptions of the
special purpose committees at ICC, and (vi) a revision history of the
Governance Playbook and an appendix that outlines the roles,
responsibilities, and required skills of key senior management
positions and provides an email template relating to the annual
reconstitution of ICC's Risk Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The description that follows is substantially excerpted from
the Notice, 86 FR at 9557.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Purpose

    ICC proposes to formalize and update the purpose section of the
Governance Playbook. Specifically, the purpose section includes a
statement that the governance guidelines set forth in the Governance
Playbook are intended to comply with applicable Commission and
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'') regulations. This
statement would include an updated citation to a relevant CFTC
Regulation.

2. Introduction to ICC Governance Structure

    In the introduction section of the Governance Playbook, ICC
proposes to formalize its general mission and describe its overall
governance structure, comprised of its Board, committees and
management. The introduction section reflects the Board-determined
mission statement that ICC is to provide safe and sound central
counterparty services to reduce systemic risk in an efficient and
compliant manner while generating positive returns for shareholders.
The introduction section also states that ICC's governance arrangements
are clear and transparent, promote its safety and efficiency and
support the stability of the broader financial system, other relevant
public interest considerations and the objectives of relevant
stakeholders.

3. Board of Managers

    In this section of the Governance Playbook, ICC proposes to
formalize the Board's sole responsibility for the control and
management of ICC's operations, subject only to prior consultation
rights of the ICC Risk Committee and the ICC Risk Management
Subcommittee as described in Chapter 5 of its Rules. This section would
clarify that ICC's officers, including the Chief Operating Officer,
Chief Compliance Officer, Chief Risk Officer and General Counsel, are
designated by the Board following a determination that they possess the
requisite experience and skills to discharge their responsibilities and
report to the ICC President. The section also formalizes additional
reporting lines of certain ICC officers to ensure that relevant
personnel have sufficient access to the Board, consistent with relevant
regulation. Specifically, the Chief Compliance Officer has an
additional reporting line directly to the Board, and the Chief Risk
Officer has an additional reporting line directly to the Chairperson of
the Risk Committee, who also is a Manager on the Board. This section of
the Governance Playbook details how the Board guides management with
respect to strategic planning and priority setting.
    Additionally, this section of the Governance Playbook describes the
composition of the Board, and specifies the fitness standards required
of each Manager, as well as the fitness standards and qualifications of
the Board as a whole. ICC represents that it includes such procedures
in the Governance Playbook to ensure that the Board consists of
suitable individuals having appropriate skills and incentives and that
Managers have the appropriate experience, skills, and integrity
necessary to discharge their Board responsibilities.\5\ The Governance
Playbook describes the election procedures for new Managers and
specifies who is responsible for electing new Managers and for ensuring
such Managers meet the fitness standards. The Governance Playbook also
contains information regarding scheduling of meetings and meeting
frequency, and lists all documents relevant to Board operations. The
Governance Playbook sets forth the process for determining the
independence of those Managers who are required to be independent.
Additionally, the document lists the independence qualifications
considered as part of such independence determinations and describes
the annual questionnaire process each independent Manager is required
to complete. The Governance Playbook also describes the self-evaluation
survey process by which ICC reviews the performance of the Board and
its individual Managers on an annual basis in accordance with
applicable regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Notice, 86 FR at 9557.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Governance Playbook also contains information on required
disclosures of the Board's major decisions under relevant regulations.
The Governance Playbook formalizes arrangements by which all major
decisions of the Board are clearly disclosed to clearing members, other
relevant stakeholders, and ICC's regulators. In addition, the
Governance Playbook provides governance procedures for clearly
disclosing to the public the Board's major decisions that have a broad
market impact. With respect to information made available to the
public, ICC posts on its website relevant rules and material procedures
and documents. ICC maintains a comprehensive public Disclosure
Framework that describes its material rules, policies, and procedures
regarding its legal, governance, risk management, and operating
framework. ICC updates the Disclosure Framework every two years or more
frequently following material changes to ICC's systems or environment
in which it operates.
    Further, the Governance Playbook describes the Board's role in
reviewing the performance and compensation of senior managers who are
responsible for executing the Board's decisions throughout the year. As
part of this process, the Board will consider, in accordance with
relevant regulation, whether senior management continues to have the
appropriate experience, skills, and integrity necessary to discharge
their responsibilities.

4. Committees

    In this section of the Governance Playbook, ICC would formalize
information regarding the roles and responsibilities of the various
committees at ICC, including the Audit Committee, Risk Committee, Risk
Management Subcommittee, Advisory Committee, Futures Commission
Merchant (FCM) Executive Council, Participant Review Committee, Credit
Review Subcommittee, New Initiatives Approval Committee, Operations
Working Group, Trading Advisory Group, Business Continuity Planning
(BCP) and Disaster Recovery (DR) Oversight Committee of the Compliance
Committee, Risk Working Group, Compliance Committee, and Steering
Committee. The Governance Playbook further details and updates the
membership composition and meeting frequency for each committee and
contains a listing of all relevant committee documents (including, as
applicable, a charter, meeting minutes,

and agendas). As applicable, the Governance Playbook details procedures
for electing new members to a committee. The Governance Playbook also
includes procedures for the annual Audit Committee performance review
and the annual reconstitution of the Risk Committee.

5. Special Purpose Committees

    This section of the Governance Playbook would formalize information
regarding ICC's special purpose committees, including the Business
Conduct Committee, Regional CDS Committees, and the CDS Default
Committee. The Governance Playbook contains a brief description of each
special purpose committee, details membership composition and meeting
frequency, and lists relevant committee documents. As applicable, the
Governance Playbook contains information regarding the appointment of
new members.

6. Revision History and Appendix

    Finally, the Governance Playbook includes a revision history to
document the date, versions, and revisions to the Governance Playbook
document. An appendix follows the revision history with relevant
detailed information, including a record of the roles,
responsibilities, and required skills of key senior management in
Appendix 1, and an email template relating to the annual reconstitution
of the ICC Risk Committee composition in Appendix 2.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a
proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that
such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such
organization.\6\ For the reasons given below, the Commission finds that
the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act \7\ and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2) and (e)(23)(i), (iv), and (v)
thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2) and (e)(23)(i), (iv), and (v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the rules
of a clearing agency, such as ICC, be designed to promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and,
to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and
transactions, to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which
are in the custody or control of ICC or for which it is responsible,
and to protect the public interest.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    As noted above, the principal purpose of the proposed rule change
is to formalize and update the Governance Playbook as a single
reference document of governance guidelines that consolidates and
summarizes the ICC governance arrangements set forth in the Rules,
operating agreement, and a number of written ICC policies and
procedures. The introduction section of the Governance Playbook states
its intended purposes to ensure that ICC's governance arrangements are
clear and transparent, promote ICC's safety and efficiency and support
the stability of the broader financial system, other relevant public
interest considerations and the objectives of relevant stakeholders.
    The Governance Playbook also reflects the Board's sole
responsibility for the control and management of ICC's operations,
subject only to prior consultation rights of the ICC Risk Committee and
the ICC Risk Management Subcommittee as described in Chapter 5 of ICC's
Rules. The Governance Playbook describes the composition of the Board
and the election procedures for new Managers, provides information
regarding scheduling of meetings and meeting frequency, and updates
required disclosures under relevant regulations of the Board's major
decisions. The Governance Playbook describes the role of the Board in
reviewing the performance and compensation of senior managers
responsible for executing the Board's decisions, information regarding
the roles and responsibilities of the various committees at ICC,
information regarding ICC's special purpose committees, and a revision
history and an appendix with relevant information that outlines the
roles, responsibilities, and required skills of key senior management
positions and provides an email template relating to the annual
reconstitution of ICC's Risk Committee.
    Governance arrangements are critical to the sound operation of
clearing agencies.\10\ Specifically, clear and transparent governance
documents promote accountability and reliability in the decisions,
rules, and procedures of a clearing agency.\11\ Clear and transparent
governance documents also provide interested parties, including owners,
members, and general members of the public, with information about how
a clearing agency's decisions are made and what the rules and
procedures are designed to accomplish.\12\ Further, the decisions,
rules, and procedures of a clearing agency are important, as they can
have widespread impact, affecting multiple market members, financial
institutions, markets, and jurisdictions.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71699 (May 21, 2014),
79 FR 29508, 29521 (May 22, 2014) (``Covered Clearing Agency
Standards Proposing Release'').
    \11\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64017 (March 3, 2011),
76 FR 14472 (March 16, 2011) at 14488.
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Covered Clearing Agency Standards Proposing Release, 79 FR
at 29521.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed rule change would provide
ICC stakeholders with a better understanding of how ICC makes decisions
that could ultimately affect them and, potentially, the broader
financial system. The proposed rule change would also help the Board,
as well as ICC's management, employees, and members, understand the
roles and responsibilities of ICC officers, committees and
subcommittees. The Commission further believes that the Governance
Playbook should enhance the clarity and transparency of ICC's
governance structure and facilitate the efficiency and effectiveness of
ICC's governance procedures by providing a single, consolidated summary
document of governance guidelines for ease of reference. For these
reasons, the proposed rule change should facilitate ICC's ability to
provide clearing services that are supported by, and consistent with,
clear and transparent governance arrangements that comply with relevant
regulations and internal policies and procedures, thereby helping ICC
maintain prudent risk management processes to promote the prompt and
accurate clearance of settlement and securities transactions and
derivative agreements, contracts and transactions cleared by ICC, to
assure the safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody or
control of ICC, and to protect the public interest.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For these reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2) under the Act requires each covered clearing
agency to establish, implement, maintain and

enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide
for governance arrangements that, among other things, are clear and
transparent, establish that the board of directors and senior
management have appropriate experience and skills to discharge their
duties and responsibilities, and specify clear and direct lines of
responsibility.\16\ As stated above, the proposed rule change would
update and formalize the Governance Playbook to reflect the governance
arrangements in place at ICC, including those that specify: the Board's
responsibility for the control and management of ICC's operations, the
composition of the Board, the election procedures for new Managers, the
fitness standards and qualifications required of each Manager and the
Board as a whole, and the process to review the performance of ICC's
senior managers. The Commission believes that these aspects of the
proposed rule change should help ICC ensure that the Board and
individual Managers, as well as ICC's senior managers, including the
Chief Operating Officer, Chief Compliance Officer, Chief Risk Officer
and General Counsel, have the appropriate experience and skills to
discharge their duties and responsibilities. Further, the Commission
believes the Governance Playbook specifies clear and direct lines of
responsibility by identifying reporting lines of certain ICC officers
to ensure they have sufficient access to the Board, consistent with
relevant regulation. For these reasons, the Commission believes that
the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2) \17\
under the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(i), (iv), and (v) Under the Act

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(i), (iv), and (v) under the Act requires each
covered clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain and enforce
written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide for,
among other things, (1) publicly disclosing all relevant rules and
material procedures, including key aspects of its default rules and
procedures, (2) a comprehensive public disclosure that describes its
material rules, policies, and procedures regarding its legal,
governance, risk management, and operating framework, accurate in all
material respects at the time of publication, and (3) updating the
public disclosure every two years, or more frequently following changes
to its system or the environment in which it operates to the extent
necessary to ensure statements previously provided remain accurate in
all material respects.\18\ As noted above, the Governance Playbook
reflects updated arrangements by which all major decisions of the Board
are clearly disclosed to clearing members, other relevant stakeholders,
and ICC's regulators. In addition, the Governance Playbook provides
governance procedures for clearly disclosing to the public the Board's
major decisions that have a broad market impact. With respect to
information made available to the public, the Governance Playbook
specifies that ICC posts on its website all relevant rules and material
procedures and documents, as required by applicable regulations. The
Commission believes that these aspects of the Governance Playbook
should help ensure that ICC publicly discloses all relevant rules and
material procedures, including key aspects of its default rules and
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(23)(i), (iv), and (v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Governance Playbook specifies that ICC maintains a
comprehensive public Disclosure Framework that describes its material
rules, policies, and procedures regarding its legal, governance, risk
management, and operating framework. The Governance Playbook formalizes
the process by which ICC Legal will update the public Disclosure
Framework every two years or more frequently following material changes
to ICC's systems or environment in which it operates, including updates
for major decisions of the Board with a broad market impact. The
Commission believes that these aspects of the Governance Playbook
should help ensure ICC's compliance with its regulatory obligation to
provide a comprehensive public disclosure that is updated every two
years or more frequently following material changes.
    For these reasons, the Commission believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(i), (iv), and (v) \19\
under the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(23)(i), (iv) and (v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. 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 \20\ and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2) and (e)(23)(i), (iv), and (v)
thereunder.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2) and (e)(23)(i), (iv), and (v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\22\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ICC-2021-004), be, and hereby
is, approved.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \23\ 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.\24\

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

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-06002 Filed 3-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P