Summary of Comments Received on the Proposal to Stay the Effectiveness of Combustion Turbines NESHAP for Subcategories Proposed to be Delisted 1.0 Overview We, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( also referred to as " EPA" and " the Agency") are proposing to stay the effectiveness of the combustion turbines National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP) for new sources in the lean premix gas fired turbines and diffusion flame gas fired turbines subcategories ( Part 63, subpart YYYY). We are taking this action because we have also proposed to delist these type of turbines and two others from the source category list required by section 112( c)( 1) of the CAA. With this pending delisting it is necessary to stay the effectiveness of the NESHAP for these turbines to avoid wasteful and unwarranted expenditures on installation of emission controls which will not be required if the subcategories are delisted.

Our proposal to stay the effectiveness of the combustion turbines NESHAP for new sources in the lean premix gas fired turbines and diffusion flame gas fired turbines subcategories during the pendency of the rulemaking for delisting these sources appeared in the Federal Register on April 7, 2004 ( 69 FR 18338). The notice referred to the our companion proposal to delist these and two other subcategories from the source category list ( 69FR18327). We also provided a detailed rationale for staying the effectiveness of the combustion turbines NESHAP for these sources.

The proposal notice invited comment from interested parties on the proposal to stay the effectiveness of the combustion turbines NESHAP for new sources for these two subcategories. We received comments from industry only. These comments are summarized below in Section 2.0. Section 3.0 presents a table identifying the commenters.

2.0 Comments Six industry commenters ( 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9) support the proposal to stay the effectiveness of the combustion turbines NESHAP as specified in section 112( c) of the Act. These commenters generally believe that the proposed stay is supported by adequate data. Two of the six comments ( 4 and 6) noted that EPA recognizes that had the Agency proposed the delisting rulemaking earlier, the delisting would likely have been completed before the Maximum Achievable Control Technology ( MACT) Standards ( i. e., the NESHAP) were issued and the units would never had been subject to the MACT requirements.

All six of the commenters support the stay of effectiveness proposal because it avoids the unnecessary and unwarranted expenditure of resources on facilities that pose risks below the 2 statutory threshold for delisting. They further note that the expenditures are wasteful since EPA is highly likely to ultimately delist the subcategories to which the stay applies ( 3, 4, and 6); and place a greater burden on facilities built during the interim period than on identical sources built at a later date ( 5) while also placing unnecessary burdens on States and locals that had to process notifications and oversee and review the tests.

One of the commenters ( 6) questioned the timing of application of the final standards once the stay is lifted if the subcategories are not ultimately delisted. They quote EPA in the proposal stating that " The sources will then be given the same time to make the requisite demonstration of compliance they would have had if there had been no stay," and state that the language is unclear and may create a significant problem. They give an example of a new turbine starting up in January 2005 with the stay being lifted in February 2005 and question whether the turbine would be in immediate non compliance. They recommend that, at a minimum, EPA should extend the compliance date beyond the start up date by the same number of days that the stay was in effect.

Three commenters ( 3, 4, and 6) referred to EPA's citing of the precedent of staying the effectiveness of the NESHAP for radionuclide emissions from certain federal facilities in 1991 and the suspension of the listing of caprolactam pending the rulemaking to delist in 1995. The commenters agreed with EPA's reliance on these unchallenged actions as supporting the Agency's authority to proceed this way. A commenter ( 3) also noted that EPA took a similar action in a virtually identical situation in the context of the Secondary Aluminum MACT standard. While EPA proposed changing the definition of a secondary aluminum production unit, they also proposed to defer the compliance date for new units until the compliance date for existing sources.

Two commenters ( 3 and 4) noted that the proposed stay would remove the potential for confusion with EPA's historic " once in, always in" policy. The commenters believe that a stay would avoid any confusion as to the applicability of the units since they would never had been required to comply with the MACT rules.

Finally, all commenters urged EPA to proceed quickly with the stay proposal since affected units are required to demonstrate compliance by September 1, 2004. To meet this deadline preparations and expenditures for tests would have to begin well before the September 1. A commenter ( 6) recommended the stay be finalized 30 days after the end of the comment period ( by June 23, 2004) to avoid the testing preparations and expenses. 3 3.0 Commenters The commenters on the proposal to stay the effectiveness of the combustion NESHAP for certain subcategories of sources are listed below in Table 1. The table provides the document number from the rulemaking docket ( OAR 2003 0196), the author, the author's company or affiliation. In this case the commenters all support the stay and all represent industry.

Table. 1. Commenters on the Stay of Effectiveness Proposal Document Numbera Author Company/ Affiliation 3 unspecified Gas Turbine Association 4 Craig S. Harrison Hutton and Williams, Counsel to the Utility Air Regulatory Group 5 Lisa Beal Interstate Natural Gas Association of America 6 T. Ted Cromwell and Richard Karp The American Chemistry Council and The American Petroleum Institute, respectively 8b Robin G. Bennett The Boeing Company 9 Norbert Dee National Petrochemical and refiners Association a Document number in rulemaking docket OAR 2003 0196 b Document 7 was erroneously sent to this docket. The comment was meant for the docket for the delisting OAR 2003 0189. The commenter has since submitted the comment to the correct docket.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 180 (Friday, September 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63752-63753]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22265]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commission Staff Attendance at MISO Meetings

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives
notice that Commission staff may attend the following MISO-related
meetings:

 Advisory Committee
    [cir] September 14, 10:15 a.m.-3 p.m., St. Paul Hotel, 350 Market
Street, St. Paul, MN
 Board of Directors Audit & Finance Committee
    [cir] September 14, 3:45 p.m.-5 p.m., St. Paul Hotel, 350 Market
Street, St. Paul, MN
 Board of Directors
    [cir] September 15, 8:30 a.m.-12 noon, St. Paul Hotel, 350 Market
Street, St. Paul, MN
 Board of Directors Markets Committee
    [cir] September 13, 9 a.m.-12 noon, St. Paul Hotel, 350 Market
Street, St. Paul, MN
 Board of Directors Corporate Governance and Strategic Planning
Committee
    [cir] September 13, 11:15 a.m.-1 p.m., St. Paul Hotel, 350 Market
Street, St. Paul, MN

    Unless otherwise noted all of the meetings above will be held at
either:

Carmel, MISO Headquarters, 701 City Center Drive, 720 City Center
Drive, and Carmel, IN 46032.

Little Rock, 1700 Centerview Drive, Little Rock, AR.
Eagan, 2985 Ames Crossing Rd., Eagan, MN.
Metarie, 3850 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 442 Metairie, LA.

Further information and dial in instructions may be found at
www.misoenergy.org. All times are Local Prevailing Time.
    The above-referenced meetings are open to the public.
    The discussions at each of the meetings described above may address
matters at issue in the following proceedings:

Docket No. ER11-4081, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. ER12-678, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. ER12-2302, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. ER13-187, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. ER13-186, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. ER13-101, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. ER13-89, MidAmerican Energy Company
Docket No. ER12-1266, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. ER12-1265, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. ER13-1924, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-1943, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-1944, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-1945, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. EL13-88, Northern Indiana Public Service Corp. v
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., et al.
Docket No. EL14-12, ABATE et al. v Midcontinent Independent System
Operator, Inc., et al.
Docket No. AD12-16, Capacity Deliverability across the MISO/PJM Seam
Docket No. AD14-3, Coordination of Energy and Capacity across the MISO/
PJM Seam
Docket No. ER13-1938, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER14-1736, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER14-2445, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER15-133, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER15-530, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER15-767, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER15-945, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-1431, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. ER11-2275, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. ER11-3279, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. ER12-1194, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. ER15-1210, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER13-1938, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER14-649, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER14-2952, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER14-2605, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER14-1210, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER15-943, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER16-469, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER15-2657, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER16-533, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER16-534, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER16-675, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. EL15-70, Public Citizen, Inc v. Midcontinent Independent
System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. EL15-71, People of the State of Illinois v. Midcontinent
Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. EL15-72, Southwestern Electric Cooperative, Inc. v.
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. EL15-82, Illinois Industrial Energy Consumers v.
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER16-696, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER16-770, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER16-833, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER16-56, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER16-1039, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER16-1096, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. EL16-112, Coalition of MISO Transmission Customers v.
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    For more information, contact Patrick Clarey, Office of Energy
Markets Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-
5937 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Christopher Miller, Office of
Energy Markets Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at
(317) 249-5936 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: September 8, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-22265 Filed 9-15-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES

AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

	June 19, 2009

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	HED ChemSAC Request to Remove 40 CFR 180.1(h).

FROM:	Bernard A. Schneider, Ph.D., Senior Plant Physiologist

Chemistry and Exposure Branch

Health Effects Division (7509P)

THROUGH:	William Donovan, Ph.D., and Michael Doherty, PhD, Chairpersons,

HED Chemistry Science Advisory Council (ChemSAC)

Health Effects Division (7509P)

TO:	Barbara Madden, Minor Use Officer

Minor Use, Inerts and Emergency Response Branch

                        Registration Division (7505P)

Conclusions

As part of the ongoing Crop Group Revision Project, periodic updates are
being made to 40 CFR §180 to include the recommended changes.  This
process has created an opportunity to implement another change that was
identified by the HED ChemSAC in its meeting of 6/10/2009: to remove
section 180.1(h).  This decision was arrived at due to the SAC’s
unanimous agreement that 1) use information should generally be avoided
in the tolerance listings, 2) there is no safety benefit to be gained by
attempting to distinguish between residues arising from pre- or
post-harvest treatments, and 3) removal of 180.1(h) would not result in
any increased exposure under existing tolerances due to expansion of
post-harvest uses unless OPP first determined that increased exposure
met the FFDCA safety standard.

Detailed Considerations

The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 180.1(h) states,
“Unless otherwise specified, tolerances and exemptions established
under the regulations in this part apply to residues from only
preharvest application of the chemical.”  As a general policy, HED has
recommended avoiding the addition of use information into the tolerance
declarations in 40 CFR 180, preferring that this information be part of
the product label directions for use.  Use conditions in tolerances are
difficult for FDA to enforce in the context of sampling residues in
food.   With the language in 180.1(h), tolerances associated with
post-harvest uses of a pesticide are required to be designated as such.
There is inconsistent practice within OPP on the inclusion of
post-harvest language in the 40 CFR §180 tolerance listings and this
inconsistency has led to confusion regarding the coverage of certain
tolerances.  While in instances where there is a great disparity in
residue levels between pre- and post-harvest use it may be wise to
establish pre- and post-harvest tolerances despite the enforcement
difficulties.  HED, however, expects this situation to the exception
rather than the rule.  Removing existing requirement in 180.1(h) will
give HED the flexibility to draft tolerances in a manner that balances
the needs of enforcement with appropriate restraints on the use of
pesticides.  Revisions to the CFR are being made in connection with crop
grouping revisions and there is an opportunity to remove 180.1(h) from
the regulations in that action.

HED believes that removing section 180.1(h) will have no substantive
impact on pesticide use or exposure under existing tolerances.  Whether
or not existing tolerances are limited to application to pre-harvest
uses of pesticides, before a post-harvest use could be added for a
particular pesticide, the pesticide registrant would have to demonstrate
to EPA that (1) the existing tolerance level was adequate to cover
residues resulting from the post-harvest use; or (2) petition for an
amended tolerance.  In either case, EPA could not approve the new use
until the applicant has shown that  the FFDCA safety standard was met.
Changes to FIFRA registration, including label changes such as the
addition of a post-harvest use, can only be made if “all necessary
[FFDCA] tolerances . . . have been issued . . . .”  40 CFR §
152.112(g).  Applicants seeking to add post-harvest use to an existing
pre-harvest use in their FIFRA registration would have to submit residue
data demonstrating that the existing FFDCA tolerance was set at a high
enough level to cover residues from the post-harvest use or petition to
raise the tolerance.  If the applicant petitions under the FFDCA to
raise the tolerance, EPA could only approve that modification of the
tolerance if EPA concluded that the tolerance meets the FFDCA safety
standard.  If the residue data shows that no change in the tolerance is
necessary, EPA can still not approve the amendment adding a post-harvest
use to the FIFRA registration until EPA determines that dietary risk
from the pesticide is not “inconsistent with the standard under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( 21 U.S.C.
346a).”  7 USC §136(bb).  Thus, the removal of section 180.1(h) would
not authorize post-harvest uses not previously allowed.  Moreover,
before such uses can be added to FIFRA labels, EPA would have to
determine they are safe under FFDCA section 408.

 …..

Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  2


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 6 (Thursday, January 9, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1154-1155]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00135]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ20-11-000]

City of Pasadena, California; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on December 26, 2019, the City of Pasadena,
California submitted its tariff filing: City of Pasadena 2020 TRBAA
Update to be effective 1/1/2020.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 16, 2020.

    Dated: January 3, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-00135 Filed 1-8-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 10, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13649-13650]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05079]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2021-0133]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; San Diego Bay, San Diego, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone for
all navigable waters within a 200-yard radius of the U.S. Coast Guard
Cutter (USCGC) BERTHOLF while berthed at 10th Avenue Marine Terminal in
San Diego, CA. The security zone is needed to protect the military
vessel, personnel in and around the military vessel, navigable
waterways, and waterfront facilities. Entry of vessels or persons into
this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain
of the Port San Diego.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8:30 a.m. until 10:30 a.m. on March
10, 2021.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2021-0133 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant John Santorum, Waterways Management, U.S.
Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it would be impracticable based on
the unpredictable nature of vessel operations and the fact that details
of the port call were not finalized until March 3, 2021. This security
zone is required to protect the military vessel, personnel in and
around the military vessel, navigable waterways, and waterfront
facilities while the vessel is docked at the 10th Avenue Marine
Terminal. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must
establish this security zone by March 10, 2021.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable because the security zone is needed on
March 10, 2021 to provide for the security of the military vessel,
personnel in and around the military vessel, navigable waterways, and
waterfront facilities while the vessel is docked at the 10th Avenue
Marine Terminal.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034. The Captain of the Port Sector San Diego (COTP) has determined
that the presence of the military vessel at this location presents a
potential target for terrorist attack, sabotage, or other subversive
acts, accidents, or other causes of similar nature. This rule is needed
to protect the military vessel, personnel in and around the military
vessel, navigable waterways, and waterfront facilities while the vessel
is docked at the 10th Avenue Marine Terminal.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a security zone from 8:30 a.m. until 10:30
a.m. on March 10, 2021. The security zone will cover all navigable
waters within a 200-yard radius around the USCGC BERTHOLF while berthed
at 10th Avenue Marine Terminal in San Diego, CA. The duration of the
zone is intended to protect the military vessel, personnel in and
around the military vessel, navigable waterways, and waterfront
facilities while the vessel is docked at the 10th Avenue Marine
Terminal. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the security
zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and limited duration of the security zone. This zone impacts
a small designated area of the San Diego Bay for a very limited period.
Furthermore, vessel traffic can safely transit around the security
zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
security zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A. above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves
establishment of a security zone lasting only 2 hours on the navigable
waters of San Diego Bay. It is categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction
Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is available in the docket. For
instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T11-050 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-050  Security Zone; San Diego Bay; San Diego, CA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a security zone: All waters of
San Diego Bay, from surface to bottom, within a 200-yard radius of the
U.S. Coast Guard Cutter BERTHOLF while berthed at 10th Avenue Marine
Terminal in San Diego, CA.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Sector San Diego (COTP) in the enforcement of the
security zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general security zone regulations in
subpart D of this part, you may not enter the security zone described
in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative by VHF Channel 16. Those in the security zone must
comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP
or the COTP's designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 8:30
a.m. until 10:30 a.m. on March 10, 2021.

    Dated: March 5, 2021.
T.J. Barelli,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector San Diego.

[FR Doc. 2021-05079 Filed 3-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 51 (Thursday, March 15, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11570-11573]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05295]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82853; File No. SR-ICC-2018-001]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICC Rules, ICC Risk
Management Model Description Document, ICC Risk Management Framework,
ICC Stress Testing Framework, and ICC Liquidity Risk Management
Framework

March 12, 2018.

I. Introduction

    On January 16, 2018, 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 (``Act''),\1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change (SR-ICC-2018-001)
to revise: (i) ICC's Clearing Rules to support the clearing of a new
transaction type; and (ii) the ICC Risk Management Model Description
Document, the ICC Risk Management Framework, the ICC Stress Testing
Framework, and the ICC Liquidity Risk Management Framework to
incorporate certain modifications to its risk management
methodology.\3\ The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on January 26, 2018.\4\ The Commission did not
receive comments on the proposed rule change. For the reasons discussed
below, the Commission is approving the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Capitalized terms used in this order, but not defined
herein, have the same meaning as in the ICC Clearing Rules.
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-82542 (January 19,
2018), 83 FR 3821 (January 26, 2018) (SR-ICC-2018-001) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    ICC proposed revisions to its Rules, Risk Management Model
Description Document, Risk Management Framework, Stress Testing
Framework, and Liquidity Risk Management Framework in order to provide
for the clearing of a new transaction type, the Standard European
Senior Non-Preferred Financial Corporate, and to provide for revised
risk management practices.

A. Changes to ICC Rules

    ICC proposed amending Rule 26H-102, which sets forth the List of
Eligible Standard European Financial Corporate (``STEFC'') Reference
Entities, to include the Standard European Senior Non-Preferred
Financial Corporate transaction type as an Eligible STEFC Reference
Entity to be cleared by ICC.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Notice, 82 FR at 3821.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICC also proposed amending Rule 26H-102 to state that for a STEFC
Reference Entity where the transaction type is the Standard European
Senior Non-Preferred Financial Corporate, the STEFC Contracts Reference
Obligation shall be determined in accordance with the Additional
Provisions for Senior Non-Preferred Reference Obligations as published
by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association. In addition,
ICC proposed to incorporate certain conforming changes to Rule 26H-303
and Rule 26H-315 to add references to the new transaction type.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Changes to ICC Risk Management Methodology

    As currently constructed, ICC's risk management methodology takes
into consideration the potential losses associated with idiosyncratic
credit events, which ICC refers to as ``Loss-Given Default'' or
``LGD.'' ICC deems each Single Name (``SN'') reference entity a Risk
Factor, and each combination of definition, doc-clause, tier, and
currency for a given SN Risk Factor as a SN Risk Sub-Factor. ICC
currently measures losses associated with credit events through a
stress-based approach incorporating three recovery rate scenarios: A
minimum recovery rate, an expected recovery rate, and maximum recovery
rate. ICC combines exposures for Outright and index-derived Risk Sub-
Factors at each recovery rate scenario.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICC currently uses the results from the recovery rate scenarios as
an input into the Profit/Loss-Given-Default (``P/LGD'') calculations at
both the Risk Sub-Factor and Risk Factor levels. For each Risk Sub-
Factor, ICC calculates the P/LGD as the worst credit event outcome, and
for each Risk Factor, ICC calculates the P/LGD as the sum of the worst
credit outcomes per Risk Sub-Factor. These final P/LGD results are used
as part of the determination of risk requirements.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICC proposed changes to its LGD framework at the Risk Factor level
with respect to the LGD calculation. Specifically, ICC proposed a
change to its approach by incorporating more consistency in the
calculation of the P/LGD by using the same recovery rate scenarios
applied to the different Risk Sub-Factors which are part of the
considered Risk Factor. For each Risk

Factor, ICC would continue to calculate an ``extreme outcome'' as the
sum of the worst Risk Sub-Factor P/LGDs across all scenarios and would
also, for each Risk Factor, calculate an ``expected outcome'' as the
worst sum of all the Risk Sub-Factors P/LGDs across all of the same
scenarios. Under the proposed changes, ICC would then combine the
results of the ``extreme outcome'' calculation and the ``expected
outcome'' calculation to compute the total LGD for each Risk Factor.\9\
ICC proposed to apply a weight of 25% to the extreme outcome component
in order to implement certain requirements of relevant regulatory
technical standards arising under the European Market Infrastructure
Regulation.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id. at 3821-22.
    \10\ See Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 153/2013
supplementing Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament
and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards on
requirements for central counterparties. As a third-country central
counterparty recognized by the European Securities and Markets
Authority, ICC is subject to the requirements of the European Market
Infrastructure Regulation and associated regulatory technical
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICC also proposed to expand its LGD analysis to incorporate a new
``Risk Factor Group'' level. Under the proposed changes, a set of
related Risk Factors would form a Risk Factor Group based on either (1)
having a common majority parental sovereign ownership (e.g. quasi-
sovereigns and sovereigns), or (2) being a majority owned subsidiary of
a common parent entity according to the Bloomberg Related Securities
Analysis. ICC noted that a Risk Factor Group could consist of only one
Risk Factor.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Notice, 82 FR at 3822.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed revisions, ICC would calculate the total
quantity LGD on a Risk Factor Group level, and account for the exposure
due to credit events associated with the reference entities within a
given Risk Factor Group. Where a Risk Factor Group contains only one
Risk Factor, ICC would compute the LGD as the risk exposure due to a
credit event for a given underlying reference entity. Moreover, under
the proposed approach, ICC would sum the P/LGDs for each Risk Factor in
a given Risk Factor Group, with limited offsets in the event the Risk
Factors exhibit positive P/LGD. Using the results of the above
calculation, ICC would obtain the Risk Factor Group level LGD. The
proposed approach would also include a calculation which allows for the
Risk Factor Group level LGD to be attributed to each Risk Factor within
the considered Risk Factor Group.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to these changes, ICC also proposed changes to various
components of its Risk Management Model Description Document.
Specifically, the ``Loss Given Default Risk Analysis'' section of its
Risk Management Model Description Document would be changed to
incorporate the Risk Factor and Risk Factor Group LGD calculation
changes described above. ICC also proposed certain conforming changes
to other sections of the Risk Management Description Document to
incorporate these methodology changes and reflect the Risk Factor Group
analysis.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICC also proposed further changes with respect to the
`Idiosyncratic Jump-to-Default Requirements' section of the Risk
Management Model Description document. As currently constructed, the
portfolio jump-to-default approach collateralizes the worst
uncollateralized LGD (``ULGD'') exposure among all Risk Factors. Under
the proposed changes, the portfolio Jump-to-Default (``JTD'') approach
will collateralize, through the portfolio JTD initial margin
requirement that accounts for the Risk Factor Group-specific LGD
collateralization, the worst ULGD exposure among all Risk Factor
Groups. The ULGD exposure for a given Risk Factor Group would be
calculated as a sum of the associated Risk Factor ULGDs.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICC also proposed certain minor edits to the ``Portfolio Level
Wrong-Way Risk and Contagion Risk Analysis'' section to update language
and calculation descriptions to accommodate the introduction of the
Risk Factor Group to the ``Idiosyncratic Jump-to-Default Requirements''
section.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, ICC proposed changes to the ``Guaranty Fund
Methodology'' section. ICC's current Guaranty Fund Methodology
includes, among other things, the assumption that up to three credit
events, different from the ones associated with Clearing Participants,
occur during the considered risk horizon. ICC proposed expanding this
approach to the Risk Factor Group level by assuming that credit events
associated with up to three Risk Factor Groups, different from the ones
associated with the Clearing Participants and the Risk Factors that are
in the Risk Factor Groups as the Clearing Participants, occur during
the considered risk horizon.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other proposed changes to the Risk Management Model Description
Document included clarifications to the calculation for the Specific
Wrong Way Risk component of the Guaranty Fund. Currently, for a given
Clearing Participant, the Specific Wrong Way Risk component of the
Guaranty Fund is based on self-referencing positions arising from one
or more Risk Factors. ICC proposed clarifying this approach to be based
on the Risk Factor Group level instead.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICC proposed certain conforming changes to its Risk Management
Framework, Liquidity Risk Management Framework, and Stress Testing
Framework, to reflect the LGD enhancements described above. With
respect to the Risk Management Framework, ICC proposed revisions to the
``Jump-to-Default Requirements'' section to note that the worst LGD
associated with a Risk Factor Group is selected to establish the
portfolio idiosyncratic JTD requirement. ICC also proposed revisions to
the ``Guaranty Fund'' section of the Risk Management Framework to
reflect the Risk Factor Group LGD enhancements related to ICC's
Guaranty Fund calculation.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding its Stress Testing Framework, ICC proposed changes to its
stress testing methodology to incorporate reference entity group level
changes (also referred to by ICC as the Risk Factor Group level).
Currently, ICC utilizes scenarios based on hypothetically constructed
(forward looking) extreme but plausible market scenarios augmented with
adverse credit events affecting up to two additional reference entities
per Clearing Participant affiliate group. ICC proposed expanding its
adverse credit event analysis to include up to two additional reference
entity groups, and also proposed that the selected Risk Factor Group
for stress testing purposes must contain one or more reference entities
displaying a 500 bps or greater 1-year end-of-day spread level in order
to be subjected to credit events. ICC also proposed changes to its
reverse stress testing, general wrong way risk, and contagion stress
testing analyses, to be at the Risk Factor Group level, and proposed
removing Risk Factor level references under its Recovery Rate
Sensitivity analysis to be consistent with the proposed changes related
to Risk Factor Groups.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, with respect to ICC's Liquidity Risk Management Framework,
ICC proposed changes to base the liquidity stress testing methodology
on the reference entity group level (also referred to as the Risk
Factor Group

level). Currently, ICC utilizes scenarios based on hypothetically
constructed (forward looking) extreme but plausible market scenarios
augmented with adverse credit events affecting up to two additional
reference entities per Clearing Participant affiliate group. ICC
proposed expanding its adverse credit event analysis to include up to
two additional reference entity groups. Similar to the Stress Testing
Framework, ICC also proposed that the selected Risk Factor Group for
liquidity stress testing purposes must contain one or more reference
entities displaying a 500 bps or greater 1-year end-of-day spread level
in order to be subjected to credit events. ICC also proposed adding
additional language to the Liquidity Risk Management Framework
detailing the rationale behind the selection of the 500 bps threshold
to be consistent with its Stress Testing Framework.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\21\ For the reasons given below, the Commission finds
that the proposal is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,
and Rules 17Ad-22(b)(2) and (b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of a registered clearing agency 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 the clearing agency or for which it is
responsible and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.\22\ The proposed rule change will provide for the clearance
and settlement of the Standard European Senior Non-Preferred Financial
Corporate, a new type of transaction that is similar to contracts
already cleared by ICC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Separately, as described above, the proposed rule change would also
provide for certain revisions to ICC's risk management methodology with
respect to ICC's LGD methodology. These changes entail (i)
incorporating a more consistent approach with respect to ICC's recovery
rate scenarios through the application of the same recovery rate
scenarios to risk factors that form part of the same Risk Factor Group,
(ii) combining the results of the ``expected'' and ``extreme'' P/LGD
outcomes in order to calculate the total LGD for each Risk Factor,
(iii) expanding ICC's LGD analysis to a new Risk Factor Group level,
(iv) revising the calculation of the Uncollateralized Loss Given
Default to incorporate the Risk Factor Group level LGD approach, and
(v) modifying ICC's Guaranty Fund Methodology to expand the credit
event analysis to include the Risk Factor Group approach.
    Based on a review of the Notice, the Commission believes that the
Standard European Senior Non-Preferred Financial Corporate transaction
type is substantially similar to other contracts cleared by ICC. As
such, the Commission believes that ICC's existing clearing
arrangements, and related financial safeguards (including as further
modified by the proposed rule change), protections and risk management
procedures will apply to this new product on a substantially similar
basis to the other contracts currently cleared by ICC.
    Moreover, the Commission believes that the proposed changes to
ICC's risk management framework described above will enhance the manner
by which ICC considers and manages the risks particular to the range of
contracts it clears, including the new Standard European Senior Non-
Preferred Financial Corporate contract, because such changes will
enable ICC's ability to more accurately consider the particular risks
of each type of security-based swap (``SBS'') product it clears.
Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
intended to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions and derivatives agreements, contracts, and
transactions, as well as to assure the safeguarding of securities and
funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for
which it is responsible and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest, and is therefore consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
of the Act.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Commission further finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2). Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2) requires, in
relevant part, a registered clearing agency that performs central
counterparty services to establish, implement, maintain and enforce
written policies and procedures reasonably designed to use margin
requirements to limit the registered clearing agency's credit exposures
to participants under normal market conditions and use risk-based
models and parameters to set margin requirements.\24\ As described
above, the proposed changes would (i) amend the manner in which ICC
calculates its Risk Factor-level LGD, (ii) expand the LGD analysis to
the Risk Factor Group level, and (iii) amend the approach to
calculating the Uncollateralized LGD to incorporate the Risk Factor
Group level approach. Specifically, ICC would calculate, for each Risk
Factor, an extreme outcome as the sum of the worst Risk Sub-factor P/
LGDs across all scenarios, and an expected outcome as the worst sum of
all Risk Sub-factor P/LGDs using the same scenarios, and then add the
two components to determine the total LGD for each Risk Factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The LGD analysis would also be modified to group individual Risk
Factors into Risk Factor Groups, and would result in the total LGD
being the sum of the P/LGDs for each Risk Factor within the Risk Factor
Group. The Commission believes that by making these changes, ICC will
augment its ability to more accurately consider the risks associated
with the SBS products it clears, including the Standard European Senior
Non-Preferred Financial Corporate transaction type.
    As a result, the Commission believes that the proposed rule changes
will enable ICC to more accurately determine and collect the amount of
resources necessary to limit its credit exposures under normal market
conditions, including credit exposures resulting from clearing the new
transaction type, through the use of risk-based models. Therefore the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule
17Ad-22(b)(2).\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Commission further finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(b)(3). Rule 17Ad-22(b)(3) requires, in
relevant part, a registered clearing agency that performs central
counterparty services for SBS to establish, implement, maintain and
enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to
maintain sufficient financial resources to withstand, at a minimum, a
default by the two participant families to which it

has the largest exposures in extreme but plausible market
conditions.\26\ As described above, the proposed rule change would
amend certain assumptions in ICC's Guaranty Fund Methodology, and the
calculation of the Specific Wrong Way Risk component, by incorporating
the new Risk Factor Group level analysis. Specifically, ICC would
expand its current approach to assume that credit events used in the
guaranty fund analysis occur at the Risk Factor Group level, and would
also base the specific wrong-way risk component of its guaranty fund
methodology on the Risk Factor Group approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with the changes to the LGD approach, the Commission believes
that the proposed changes to ICC's Guaranty Fund Methodology will
permit ICC to consider the particular risks associated with the
products it clears, including the Standard European Senior Non-
Preferred Financial Corporate transaction type that will be cleared as
a result of the proposed changes to ICC's Rules described above. As a
result, the Commission believes that the proposed changes will enable
ICC's to more accurately measure the risks of associated with the
products it clears and thereby improve ICC's ability to collect and
maintain the level of financial resources necessary to address the risk
of default by its participants. Therefore, the Commission finds that
the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(b)(3).\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
in particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act,\28\ and
Rules 17Ad-22(b)(2) and (3) thereunder.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \29\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2) and (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\30\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ICC-2018-001) be, and hereby is,
approved.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \31\ 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).
    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-05295 Filed 3-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 107 (Friday, June 3, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35766-35767]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13155]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0242; FRL-9946-52]

Pesticides; Draft Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on Pesticide
Resistance Management Labeling

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Agency is announcing the availability of and seeking
public comment on a draft Pesticide Registration Notice (PR Notice)
entitled ``Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on Pesticide Resistance
Management Labeling.'' PR Notices are issued by the Office of Pesticide
Programs (OPP) to inform pesticide registrants and other interested
persons about important policies, procedures, and registration related
decisions, and serve to provide guidance to pesticide registrants and
OPP personnel. This draft PR Notice provides guidance for registrants
to follow when developing resistance management information to include
on their pesticide labels. This draft PR Notice would update the
guidance in PR Notice 2001-5.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 2, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0242, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nikhil Mallampalli, Biological and
Economic Analysis Division (7503P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. Although this
action may be of particular interest to those persons who are required
to submit data under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) or are required to register pesticides. Since
other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to
describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

C. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    A copy of the draft PR Notice ``Guidance for Pesticide Registrants
on Pesticide Resistance Management Labeling'' and any related or
supporting information are available in the docket

under docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0242.

II. Overview of the Agency's Effort To Address Pesticide Resistance

    Pesticides can be used to control a variety of pests, such as
insects, weeds, rodents, bacteria, fungi, etc. Over time many
pesticides have gradually lost their effectiveness because pests have
developed resistance--a significant decrease in sensitivity to a
pesticide, which reduces the field performance of these pesticides. The
Agency is concerned about resistance issues and believes that managing
the development of pesticide resistance, in conjunction with
alternative pest-management strategies and Integrated Pest Management
programs, is an important part of sustainable pest management. To
address the growing issue of resistance and preserve the useful life of
pesticides, the Agency is beginning to embark on a more widespread
effort and several activities that are aimed at combating and slowing
the development of pesticide resistance.
    One such activity, which is the subject of this FR Notice, is
today's release and request for comment on draft PR Notice 2016-X,
``Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on Pesticide Resistance Management
Labeling.'' Draft PR Notice 2016-X updates PR Notice 2001 and applies
to all conventional, agricultural pesticides (i.e., herbicides,
fungicides, bactericides, insecticides, and acaricides). This draft PR
Notice focuses on pesticide labels and is aimed at improving
information about how pesticide users can minimize and manage pest
resistance.
    Another such activity, involves the release of draft PR Notice
2016-XX, ``Guidance for Herbicide Resistance Management Labeling,
Education, Training, and Stewardship.'' Draft PR Notice 2016-XX applies
to herbicides, and communicates the Agency's current thinking and
approach to address herbicide-resistant weeds by providing guidance on
labeling, education, training, and stewardship for herbicides
undergoing registration review or registration (i.e., new herbicide
actives, new uses proposed for use on herbicide-resistant crops, or
other case-specific registration actions). Draft PR Notice 2016-XX will
also be published in today's Federal Register. In the future, the
Agency plans to evaluate other types of pesticides (e.g. fungicides,
bactericides, insecticides, and acaricides) to determine whether and
what guidance may be appropriate for these types pesticides. If the
Agency releases future guidance on these other types of pesticides, we
plan to seek input from the public.

III. What guidance does this PR Notice provide?

    Draft PR Notice 2016-X, which revises and updates PR Notice 2001-5,
applies to all conventional, agricultural pesticides (i.e., herbicides,
fungicides, bactericides, insecticides and acaricides). The updates in
draft PR Notice 2016-X focus on pesticides labels and are aimed at
improving information about how pesticide users can minimize and manage
pest resistance. The draft PR Notice 2016-X updates PR Notice 2001-5
with the following three categories of changes:
     Provides additional guidance, and recommended format, for
resistance management statements or information to place on labels.
     Includes references to external technical resources for
guidance on resistance management (e.g., professional scientific
societies, resistance action committees for different types of
pesticides).
     Updates the instructions on how to submit changes to
existing labels in order to enhance resistance management language.
    This draft PR Notice also references draft revisions to Chapter
11.VI.G of EPA's Label Review Manual (LRM), which illustrates the
generic format for resistance management labeling along with examples
of various labeling scenarios that registrants may encounter. The
Agency requests comments on the updates to this draft PR Notice and
this chapter of the LRM.

IV. Do PR Notices contain binding requirements?

    The PR Notice discussed in this notice is intended to provide
guidance to EPA personnel and decision-makers, as well as pesticide
registrants. While the requirements in the statute and Agency
regulations are binding on EPA and the applicants, this PR Notice is
not binding on either EPA or pesticide registrants, and EPA may depart
from the guidance where circumstances warrant and without prior notice.
Likewise, pesticide registrants may assert that the guidance is not
appropriate generally or not applicable to a specific pesticide or
situation.

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: May 23, 2016.
Jack E. Housenger,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2016-13155 Filed 6-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P