60 Day FR Notice

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

34862

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2022 / Notices

covers a huge expanse of territory that is far
outside the CFTC’s statutory authority over
derivatives markets under the CEA.
• Request no. 3 asks what steps the
Commission should consider, in addition to
publishing information in its possession, ‘‘to
make climate-related data more available to
registrants, registered entities, other market
participants, and/or the public (as
appropriate and subject to any applicable
data confidentiality requirements) in order to
help understand and/or manage climaterelated financial risk?’’ This suggests that the
CFTC has statutory authority under the CEA
to order, as it deems appropriate, any
individual or entity to make data available
for the benefit of registrants, registered
entities, other market participants, and/or the
public. It does not.
• Request no. 18 asks what derivatives
products ‘‘are currently used to manage
climate-related financial risk, facilitate price
discovery for climate-related financial risk,
and/or allocate capital to climate-benefiting
projects?’’ In Section 3(a) of the CEA,
Congress found that the derivatives
transactions regulated by the CFTC provide
‘‘a means for managing and assuming price
risks [and] discovering prices . . .’’ In
Section 3(b) of the CEA, Congress then
identified the CEA’s purposes as including
deterring and preventing manipulation or
other market disruptions; ensuring the
financial integrity of transactions; avoiding
systemic risk; protecting market participants
from fraud, abusive sales practices, and
misuses of customer assets; and promoting
responsible innovation and fair competition.2
Nowhere in the CEA did Congress suggest
that it is a purpose of the CEA, or the mission
of the CFTC, to allocate capital—whether to
climate-benefiting projects or otherwise.
• Request no. 24 asks whether the
Commission should consider ‘‘creating some
form of registration framework for any market
participants within the voluntary carbon
markets to enhance the integrity of the
voluntary carbon markets?’’ The CFTC does
not have statutory authority under the CEA
to create a registration framework for market
participants within voluntary carbon markets
unless they engage in activities relating to
derivatives.
• Request no. 25 asks whether ‘‘digital
assets and/or distributed ledger technology
offer climate-related financial risk mitigating
benefits?’’ The CFTC does not have statutory
authority under the CEA to regulate digital
assets or distributed ledger technology except
to the extent they involve derivatives.
• Request no. 27 asks whether there are
‘‘any steps that the Commission should
consider when assessing how the impact of
climate change on the derivatives markets
and/or underlying commodities markets, or
proposed policy solutions to address such
impact, may affect financially vulnerable
populations?’’ The CFTC does not have
authority under the CEA to take any
regulatory steps with respect to underlying
commodities markets, regardless of whether
they affect financially vulnerable
populations.
• Request no. 30 asks what literature and
research the Commission should consult
2 CEA

sections 3(a), 3(b), 7 U.S.C. 5(a), 5(b).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:56 Jun 07, 2022

Jkt 256001

‘‘related to climate risks as applicable to the
derivatives markets, underlying commodities
markets, registrants, registered entities, or
other derivatives market participants?’’ As
noted above, Congress has not provided the
CFTC with regulatory authority in the CEA
with respect to climate risks applicable to
underlying commodities markets.
I have no opposition to requesting the
information we need to consider the
implications of climate-related financial risk
in fulfilling our mission under the CEA. But
I am concerned that requesting information
on matters over which the CFTC has no
statutory authority and ignoring
opportunities to ask questions of market
participants already using our markets to
hedge their climate exposure will not further
the purported goal of this RFI.

Appendix 5—Concurring Statement of
Commissioner Caroline D. Pham
I respectfully concur with the publication
of the Request for Information (RFI) on
Climate-Related Financial Risk in the Federal
Register because it is imperative that the
public has an opportunity to provide input
and share expertise.
In our work in this area, however, we must
be mindful of our statutory mandate:
oversight of the commodity derivatives
markets.1 In particular, as the RFI recognizes,
our markets are ‘‘affected with a national
public interest’’ because they facilitate risk
management and price discovery ‘‘through
trading in liquid, fair and financially secure
trading facilities.’’ 2 Further, as the RFI also
recognizes, the Commodity Exchange Act
mandates that the Commission serve this
public interest through our oversight of ‘‘a
system of effective self-regulation of trading
facilities, clearing systems, market
participants and market professionals,’’ and
by deterring and preventing price
manipulation and other disruptions to
market integrity, ensuring the financial
integrity of transactions in our markets,
avoiding systemic risk, protecting market
participants from ‘‘fraudulent or other
abusive sales practices and misuses of
customer assets,’’ and promoting
‘‘responsible innovation and fair
competition.’’ 3 This statutory mandate bears
repeating because it makes clear that the
Commission is a market regulator over our
markets and products, market infrastructure,
market integrity, market conduct, market
participants, and market professionals.
We are not, for instance, a prudential
banking regulator like the Fed, OCC, or FDIC,
nor are we a primarily disclosures-based
market regulator like the SEC. Keeping our
focus on our markets, products, and
purpose—keeping our eyes on the ball—will
help us avoid the risk of diluting our limited
resources and potentially straying from our
core expertise and responsibilities into areas
already tasked to others.
As we do our work on climate-related
financial risks within our statutory
authority—such as by fostering the
1 Commodity

Exchange Act (‘‘CEA’’) section
2(a)(1)(A), 7 U.S.C. 2(a)(1)(A).
2 CEA section 3(a), 7 U.S.C. 5(a).
3 CEA section 3(b), 7 U.S.C. 5(b).

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

development of new products and markets to
manage physical risk and transition risk—we
also should be thoughtful when considering
the steps we take. Any actions that may
impose new obligations and costs on our
market participants, especially end-users that
rely upon our markets for hedging, must be
balanced and carefully considered.
For registrants that have other regulators
and are already subject to climate risk
management frameworks, we should seek to
harmonize from the start with existing
prudential and other regulatory regimes in
order to be efficient and avoid imposing
duplicative or unnecessarily burdensome and
complex requirements.
And most importantly, I caution that for
any potential future Commission action, we
must take care to consider the impact on
small entities and evaluate alternatives that
would accomplish the objectives of any
potential rule without unduly burdening the
substantial numbers of growers, producers,
and other end-users who depend on our
markets for risk management and price
discovery.4 That is, after all, the original
purpose of our markets and the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2022–12302 Filed 6–7–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351–01–P

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. CPSC–2012–0058]

Agency Information Collection
Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Safety Standard for
Walk-Behind Power Lawn Mowers
Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:

Pursuant to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, the Consumer
Product Safety Commission
(Commission or CPSC) requests
comments on a proposed extension of
approval of a collection of information
relating to testing and recordkeeping
requirements in the Safety Standard for
Walk-Behind Power Lawn Mowers,
approved previously under OMB
Control No. 3041–0091. CPSC will
consider all comments received in
response to this notice before requesting
an extension of this collection of
information from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
DATES: Submit written or electronic
comments on the collection of
information by August 8, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by Docket No. CPSC–2012–
0058, by any of the following methods:
SUMMARY:

4 See Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5
U.S.C. 601–612), as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996, Public Law 104–121, 110 Stat. 857 (codified
at 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM

08JNN1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2022 / Notices
Electronic Submissions: Submit
electronic comments to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
CPSC typically does not accept
comments submitted by electronic mail
(email), except as described below.
CPSC encourages you to submit
electronic comments by using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal, as
described above.
Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier/
Confidential Written Submissions:
Submit comments by mail, hand
delivery, or courier to: Division of the
Secretariat, Consumer Product Safety
Commission, 4330 East-West Highway,
Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: (301)
504–7479. If you wish to submit
confidential business information, trade
secret information, or other sensitive or
protected information that you do not
want to be available to the public, you
may submit such comments by mail,
hand delivery, or courier, or you may
email them to: couscous;cpsc.gov.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the agency name and docket
number. CPSC may post all comments
without change, including any personal
identifiers, contact information, or other
personal information provided, to:
https://www.regulations.gov. Do not
submit through this website:
confidential business information, trade
secret information, or other sensitive or
protected information that you do not
want to be available to the public. If you
wish to submit such information, please
submit it according to the instructions
for mail/hand delivery/courier/
confidential written submissions.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to: https://
www.regulations.gov, and insert the
docket number, CPSC–2012–0058, into
the ‘‘Search’’ box, and follow the
prompts.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cynthia Gillham, Consumer Product
Safety Commission, 4330 East-West
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301)
504–7991, or by email to: cgillham@
cpsc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CPSC
seeks to renew the following currently
approved collection of information:
Title: Safety Standard for WalkBehind Power Lawn Mowers.
OMB Number: 3041–0091.
Type of Review: Renewal of
collection.
Frequency of Response: On occasion.
Affected Public: Manufacturers and
importers of walk-behind power lawn
mowers.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:56 Jun 07, 2022

Jkt 256001

Estimated Number of Respondents:
Approximately 29 manufacturers and
importers of walk-behind power lawn
mowers.
Estimated Time per Response: Walkbehind power lawn mowers are
manufactured seasonally to meet
demand. They are manufactured during
an estimated 130 days out of the year.
When they are manufactured, firms are
required to test and maintain records of
those tests. Staff estimates three hours
daily for testing and recordkeeping per
firm totaling 390 hours per firm (3 hours
× 130 days). In addition, to produce
labels and apply labels on the newly
manufactured lawn mowers, staff
estimates one hour daily for each firm
during the production cycle for a total
of 130 hours per firm (1 hour × 130
days).
Total Estimated Annual Burden: Staff
estimates 11,310 hours on testing and
recordkeeping (29 firms × 390 hours)
and 3,770 hours for labeling (29 firms ×
130 hours). Aggregate annual burden
hours related to testing, recordkeeping,
and labeling are estimated to be 520
hours (390 + 130) per firm and 15,080
hours (11,310 + 3,770) for the industry.
Annual testing, reporting and
recordkeeping costs burden is estimated
to be $796,224 based on 11,310 hours ×
$70.40 (total compensation for
management, professional, and related
workers in goods-producing industries)
and annual cost burden related to
labeling is estimated to be $132,628.60
based on 3,770 hours × $35.18 (total
compensation for all sales and office
workers in goods-producing
industries).1 Aggregate annual burden
costs related to testing, recordkeeping,
and labeling are estimated to be
$928,852.60 ($796,224 + $132,628.60)
for the industry.
General Description of Collection: In
1979, the Commission issued the Safety
Standard for Walk-Behind Power Lawn
Mowers (16 CFR part 1205) to address
blade contact injuries. Subpart B of the
standard sets forth regulations
prescribing requirements for a
reasonable testing program to support
certificates of compliance with the
standard for walk-behind power lawn
mowers. 16 CFR part 1205, subpart B.
In addition, section 14(a) of the CPSA
(15 U.S.C. 2063(a)) requires
manufacturers, importers, and private
labelers of a consumer product subject
to a consumer product safety standard
to issue a certificate stating that the
product complies with all applicable
1 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ‘‘Employer Costs
for Employee Compensation,’’ December 2021,
Table 4. Private industry workers by occupational
and industry group—2021 Q04 Results (bls.gov).

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

34863

consumer product safety standards.
Section 14(a) of the CPSA also requires
that the certificate of compliance must
be based on a test of each product or
upon a reasonable testing program. The
information collection is necessary
because these regulations require
manufacturers and importers to
establish and maintain records to
demonstrate compliance with the
requirements for testing and labeling to
support the certification of compliance.
Request for Comments
The CPSC solicits written comments
from all interested persons about the
proposed collection of information. The
CPSC specifically solicits information
relevant to the following topics:
—Whether the collection of information
described above is necessary for the
proper performance of the CPSC’s
functions, including whether the
information would have practical
utility;
—Whether the estimated burden of the
proposed collection of information is
accurate;
—Whether the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected could be enhanced; and
—Whether the burden imposed by the
collection of information could be
minimized by use of automated,
electronic or other technological
collection techniques, or other forms
of information technology.
Alberta E. Mills,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
[FR Doc. 2022–12323 Filed 6–7–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement for
Bremerton Waterfront Infrastructure
Improvements, Bremerton, Kitsap
County, WA, and To Announce a
Virtual Public Scoping Meeting
Department of the Navy (DON),
Department of Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:

Pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969, as implemented by the Council on
Environmental Quality Regulations, the
Department of the Navy (DON)
announces its intent to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
to evaluate the potential environmental
impacts associated with construction,
modification, replacement, demolition,

SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM

08JNN1