[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 94 (Wednesday, May 15, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21768-21769]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10049]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 3185-005]

Pembroke Hydro Associates LP; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Application for Non-capacity Amendment.
    b. Project No: P-3185-005.
    c. Date Filed: March 21, 2019.
    d. Applicant: Pembroke Hydro Associates Limited Partnership, a
subsidiary of Eagle Creek Renewable Energy.
    e. Name of Project: Webster Pembroke Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Suncook River between
the towns of Pembroke and Allentown in Merrimack County, New Hampshire.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Robert A. Gates, Eagle Creek Renewable
Energy, 65 Madison Ave., Suite 500, Morristown, New Jersey 07960, (973)
998-8403.
    i. FERC Contact: Kurt Powers,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the
Commission.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations using the
Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-3185-005.
    k. Description of Request: The exemptee proposes to remove a
portion of stacked stone blocks, of varying dimensions, and stone cap
blocks from the Pembroke Dam. The removal area totals approximately 30
linear feet or 380 square feet of the existing dam. The stone blocks
would be removed one by one via a crane that would be placed on a pad
located on previously disturbed grass adjacent to the Emerson Mill
Condos. The stone blocks would be taken off-site and either donated or
disposed of properly. The work is expected to take two to three weeks
to complete. The exemptee would continue to meet minimum flow
requirements during the work.
    l. Locations of the Application: This filing may be viewed on the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number P-3185 in the docket number field to access the
documents. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
call 1-866-208-3676 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item (h) above and at the Commission's
Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title COMMENTS, PROTEST, or MOTION TO
INTERVENE as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions
to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and
otherwise comply with the

requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or
protests should relate to project works which are the subject of the
license amendment. Agencies may obtain copies of the application
directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to
intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant
specified in the particular application. If an intervener files
comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an
issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource
agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource
agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application
must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the
service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in
accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: May 9, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-10049 Filed 5-14-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 25, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 142)]
[Notices]
[Page 40846]
[DOCID:fr25jy07-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-480-001]

Hardy Storage Company, LLC; Notice of Filing

July 17, 2007.
    Take notice that on July 11, 2007, Hardy Storage Company, LLC
(Hardy) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original
Revised Volume No. 1, as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised
Sheet No. 93B and First Revised Sheet No. 93C, bearing a proposed and
effective date of July 6, 2007.
    Hardy is filing the subject revised tariff sheets for the purpose
of correcting certain typographical errors that were discovered after
the issuance of the Commission's June 29, 2007 Letter Order accepting
Hardy's proposed changes to the creditworthiness provisions of its
Tariff.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest 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 Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-14302 Filed 7-24-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 203 (Monday, October 23, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72809-72812]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23341]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2021-0089, Notice 1]

Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (Mercedes-Benz) has determined that
certain model year (MY) 2019-2021 Mercedes-Benz motor vehicles do not
fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
101, Controls and Displays, and FMVSS No. 102, Transmission Shift
Position. Mercedes-Benz filed a noncompliance report dated September
24, 2021, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA (the ``Agency'') on October
25, 2021, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This document
announces receipt of Mercedes-Benz's petition.

DATES: Send comments on or before November 22, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and may be
submitted by any of the following methods:
    Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. The
Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except for
Federal holidays.
    Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging onto the
Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register

pursuant to the authority indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frederick Smith, General Engineer,
NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance,<PHONE_NUMBER> or Ahmad
Barnes, General Engineer, NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance,
(202) 366-7236.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Mercedes-Benz determined that certain MY 2020
Mercedes-Benz CLS450, MY 2019 Mercedes-Benz E300, MY 2019-2020
Mercedes-Benz E450, MY 2019 Mercedes-Benz AMG E53, MY 2019-2020
Mercedes-Benz AMG G63, MY 2020-2021 Mercedes-Benz E350, MY 2019-2020
Mercedes-Benz G550 do not fully comply with paragraph S5.3.1(a),
S5.3.1(b), S<IP_ADDRESS>, S<IP_ADDRESS>(a), S5.3.3(a). of FMVSS No. 101, Controls
and Displays (49 CFR 571.101) and paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> of FMVSS No. 102,
Transmission Shift Position, (49 CFR 571.102.) Mercedes-Benz filed a
noncompliance report dated September 24, 2021, pursuant to 49 CFR part
573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Mercedes-Benz
petitioned NHTSA on October 25, 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.
    This notice of receipt of Mercedes-Benz's petition is published
under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency
decision or another exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the
petition.
    II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 27,742 MY 2020 Mercedes-Benz
CLS450, MY 2019 Mercedes-Benz E300, MY 2019-2020 Mercedes-Benz E450, MY
2019 Mercedes-Benz AMG E53, MY 2019-2020 Mercedes-Benz AMG G63, MY
2020-2021 Mercedes-Benz E350, MY 2019-2020 Mercedes-Benz G550,
manufactured between January 29, 2018, and August 25, 2020, were
reported by the manufacturer.
    III. Noncompliance: Mercedes-Benz explains that the illumination of
the instrument cluster in the subject vehicles may be interrupted under
certain circumstances, and therefore does not comply with paragraph
S5.3.1(a), S5.3.1(b), S<IP_ADDRESS>, S<IP_ADDRESS>(a), S5.3.3(a). of FMVSS No.
101 and paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> of FMVSS No. 102. Specifically, the digital
indicators including the shift position indicator, digital/analog
speedometer, tachometer, time, and temperature may briefly fade to dark
for a maximum of 2.5 seconds and then intensify back to full
illumination.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S5.3.1(a), S5.3.1(b), S<IP_ADDRESS>,
S<IP_ADDRESS>(a), S5.3.3(a). of FMVSS No. 101 and paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>. of
FMVSS No. 102 include the requirements relevant to this petition.
Except as provided in FMVSS 101 S5.3.1(c), the identifications of
controls for which the word ``Yes'' is specified in column 5 of Table 1
must be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlamps are
activated. This requirement does not apply to a control located on the
floor, floor console, steering wheel, steering column, or in the area
of windshield header, or to a control for a heating and air-
conditioning system that does not direct air upon the windshield.
Except as provided in S5.3.1(c), the indicators and their
identifications for which the word ``Yes'' is specified in column 5 of
Table 1 must be illuminated whenever the vehicle's propulsion system
and headlamps are activated. Means must be provided for illuminating
the indicators, identifications of indicators and identifications of
controls listed in Table 1 to make them visible to the driver under
daylight and nighttime driving conditions. The means of providing the
visibility required by S<IP_ADDRESS>: must be adjustable to provide at least
two levels of brightness. Means must be provided for illuminating
telltales and their identification sufficiently to make them visible to
the driver under daylight and nighttime driving conditions. Except as
specified in FMVSS 102 S<IP_ADDRESS>, if the transmission shift position
sequence includes a park position, identification of shift positions,
including the positions in relation to each other and the position
selected, shall be displayed in view of the driver whenever the
ignition is in a position where the transmission can be shifted, or the
transmission is not in park.
    V. Summary of Mercedes-Benz's Petition: The following views and
arguments presented in this section, ``V. Summary of Mercedes-Benz's
Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by Mercedes-Benz. They
have not been evaluated by the Agency and do not reflect the views of
the Agency. Mercedes-Benz describes the subject noncompliance and
contends that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety.
    Mercedes-Benz claims that the conditions needed to cause the FMVSS
No. 101 noncompliance is rare. In order for the subject FMVSS No. 101
noncompliance to occur, three events must occur simultaneously. First,
the CPU load must approach the limits of the instrument cluster's input
capacity. Second, while there is a high CPU load, a specific diagnostic
function must be activated and the combined effect of the already high
CPU load and the diagnostics is sufficient to threaten an instrument
cluster freeze, which would trigger a preventative reset. Finally,
during the reset, which would last no more than 2.5 seconds, a separate
equipment malfunction or condition must occur that would activate an
indicator or telltale.
    Mercedes-Benz believes that ``the likelihood of a telltale being
activated in any particular 2.5 second period is very low.'' Compounded
with the probability of the being activated following the first two
events, the Mercedes-Benz contends that the likelihood of the subject
noncompliance occurring is ``negligible.''
    Mercedes-Benz says that its engineers determined that the maximum
duration of illumination loss is 2.5 seconds, and the maximum time of
analog display illumination loss is 0.8 seconds. Additionally,
Mercedes-Benz claims that the subject noncompliance ``would not cause
the instrument cluster to report inaccurate information.''
    Mercedes-Benz also claims that a driver is unlikely to be confused
if the display experiences diminished illumination for 2.5 seconds and
the driver would be unlikely to notice a 2.5 second interruption of
illumination. Mercedes-Benz refers to a prior NHTSA decision in which
the agency granted a similar petition based on its belief that a reset
of the instrument panel would happen quickly within seconds before the
driver would be distracted to realize what was happening.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Grant of Petition for Inconsequential Noncompliance to
General Motors, Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0134, 81 FR 6928. (February 9,
2016)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to Mercedes-Benz, it is difficult to formulate an outcome
in a

situation had the instrument cluster displays made the driver aware of
the situation 2.5 seconds sooner. Mercedes-Benz explains that the
purpose of the IC displays is to inform the driver of the vehicle and
equipment functions, metrics, and status. They have no control over the
vehicle's operation or the equipment and functions that they monitor
and report on. The subject noncompliance would therefore have no effect
on the vehicle's operation.
    Finally, Mercedes-Benz contends that the IC reset is a functional
safety measure designed to prevent a permanent IC display failure.
Mercedes-Benz asserts that if this reset feature is determined to be
consequential to vehicle safety and manufacturers were required to
remove or disable it, vehicle occupants would be exposed ``to a much
higher and enduring safety risk.
    Mercedes-Benz believes that NHTSA precedent supports the granting
of its petition for the subject noncompliance. According to Mercedes-
Benz, ``NHTSA has consistently held that brief interruption of vehicle
display visibility, lasting only seconds, is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety.'' Mercedes-Benz says that the subject noncompliance is
similar to the noncompliances at issue in past petitions that were
granted. Mercedes-Benz says that NHTSA granted a petition by General
Motors, LLC, in which MY 2014 Chevrolet Silverado motor vehicles were
noncompliant with FMVSS No. 101 and FMVSS No. 102 due to an instrument
cluster reset. According to Mercedes-Benz, in this case, the affected
vehicles were equipped with an instrument cluster that would reset if
the driver used the steering wheel controls to operate an external
device connected to the vehicle's USB port. All warning lights would go
out, the shift position indicator (PRNDM) would extinguish, and the
analog gauges (such as the speedometer) would drop to zero for 1.5
seconds. All telltales would then turn on for 5 seconds following the
reset. Mercedes-Benz notes that the noncompliance in the Chevrolet
Silverado vehicles would cause telltale activation to be obscured for
6.5 seconds in total which is more than 2.5 times the maximum time the
digital displays in the subject vehicles would be affected in the
present case and more than eight times the maximum time the analog
meters would be affected. Mercedes-Benz says that NHTSA found that the
noncompliance in the Chevrolet Silverado vehicles was inconsequential
to vehicle safety because the reset would be corrected within seconds,
``before the driver would be distracted, or realize what was
happening.''
    Mercedes-Benz contends that the granting of another petition by
General Motors, LLC, further supports the granting of the current
petition. In 2016, NHTSA granted General Motors' petition in which GMC
Denali motor vehicles were equipped with an instrument cluster that
``would reset if the design input rate of the CPU was exceeded due to
simultaneous use of multiple functions (such as navigation, Bluetooth
calling, pairing a media device, or others).'' In this case, the reset
would cause a loss of illumination to all digital warning lights and
the shift position indicator, and the indicator gauges would drop to
zero for 1.3 seconds. After the reset, all telltales would illuminate
for 5 seconds. Mercedes-Benz says that NHTSA determined this
noncompliance to be inconsequential to vehicle safety because the reset
would be a momentary condition and ``the instrument panel telltales and
indicators would extinguish and return to normal very quickly, with
little, if any, impact to the driver.''
    Mercedes-Benz contends that the subject noncompliance is similar to
the aforementioned noncompliances because the instrument cluster reset
in question is likely to be infrequent because the reset is ``triggered
by the simultaneous occurrence of two unusual and independent events.''
Mercedes-Benz claims that the subject noncompliance has been difficult
for its engineers ``to induce or observe, in large part because of the
infrequent coincidence of the two events.''
    Mercedes-Benz believes that the loss of display visibility is not
likely to cause driver distraction or other increased risk to motor
vehicle safety. The subject noncompliance causes the illumination of
the speedometer and tachometer to be interrupted for up to 0.8 seconds
and would interrupt the illumination of the digital indicators and
telltale lamps for less than 2.5 seconds. Mercedes-Benz contends that
it is unlikely that an IC indicator or telltale would activate during
this reset period and even in the event that it did, activation of the
indicator or telltale after the 2.5 second reset would not cause an
increased risk to motor vehicle safety.
    According to Mercedes-Benz, NHTSA has not previously required a
recall ``to address a seconds-long interruption of instrument cluster
illumination.'' The interruption of illumination affecting the
Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Denali motor vehicles in the aforementioned
General Motors petitions is more than twice the duration of the reset
in the subject Mercedes-Benz motor vehicles. Mercedes-Benz contends
that NHTSA found that the displays ``would return to normal quickly
with little to no impact to the driver,'' and should therefore have the
same finding for the subject noncompliance. Like the Chevrolet
Silverado and GMC Denali motor vehicles, none of the subject vehicles'
operating functions would be affected by the instrument cluster reset.
Mercedes-Benz adds that many signals on the digital main instrument
cluster involve comfort or convenience features unrelated to vehicle
safety and conditions communicated by other indicators or telltales
would not be significantly affected by a driver response that is 2.5
seconds earlier. Furthermore, the analog gauges, like the speedometer,
would continue to display the correct information when illumination is
interrupted and during daylight, the analog gauges remain visible.
    Finally, Mercedes-Benz contends that any risk to motor vehicle
safety related to the subject noncompliance is ``lower than the risk
posed by instrument cluster malfunctions NHTSA has previously
exempted.'' Mercedes-Benz says that the analog gauge readings in the
Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Denali noncompliances dropped to zero
during a reset and the instrument clusters would stop functioning
whereas the analog gauges in the subject vehicles continue to display
accurate information and the instrument clusters would lack
illumination but would otherwise remain functional during the reset.
Further, the operation of the instrument panels in the Chevrolet
Silverado and GMC Denali vehicles was interrupted and only the
illumination of the instrument panels in the subject vehicles is
interrupted. In the Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Denali vehicles, any
meaningful message would be further obscured for 5 seconds while all
the telltales are illuminated which Mercedes-Benz claims could cause
confusion, but no such confusion would occur in the subject vehicles
because once the reset is completed, only those controls or telltales
that have been activated would be displayed to the driver. Therefore,
Mercedes-Benz believes that the instrument cluster reset in the subject
vehicles poses an even lower risk to safety than the Chevrolet
Silverado and GMC Denali noncompliance which NHTSA determined to be
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    Mercedes-Benz claims that the subject noncompliance has no effect
on the operation of headlights, taillights, or

other vehicle lights. Mercedes-Benz states that they are not aware of
any reports or claims regarding crashes or injuries concerning the
subject noncompliance.
    Mercedes-Benz concludes by stating its belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety
and 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.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that Mercedes-Benz
no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve
vehicles distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale,
offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into
interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control
after Mercedes-Benz notified them that the subject noncompliance
existed.

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

Otto G. Matheke, III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2023-23341 Filed 10-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: March 31, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 62)]
[Notices]
[Page 16350-16353]
[DOCID:fr31mr06-103]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53546; File No. SR-NASD-2005-067]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment
Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Thereto Relating to Amendments to NASD Rule 6530 To
Clarify the Review Process for OTCBB Eligibility Determinations and To
Implement Fees for Such Review

March 24, 2006.
    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 May 24, 2005, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD''), through its subsidiary, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.
(``Nasdaq''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'' or ``SEC'') a proposed rule change to amend NASD Rules
6530 and 7010 to clarify the availability of a process to review
eligibility determinations under NASD Rule 6530 and to adopt service-
based fees for Over-the-Counter Bulletin Board (``OTCBB'') issuers. On
September 27, 2005, Nasdaq filed with the Commission Amendment No. 1 to
the proposed rule change to remove the record-keeping fee proposed in
NASD Rule 7010. On October 1, 2005, the Commission approved a separate
proposed rule change in which NASD amended its Plan of Allocation and
Delegation of Functions by NASD to Subsidiaries, as well as certain
corresponding NASD rules, to permit NASD to assume direct authority for
over-the-counter (``OTC'') equity operations, including the OTCBB,
rather than continuing to delegate this authority to Nasdaq.\3\ As
such, NASD assumed direct authority for OTC equities operations,
including operation of the OTCBB (quotation and trade reporting
platform and other services), trade reporting for other non-

OTCBB OTC equity securities and other services, and related rulemaking
functions. On December 8, 2005, NASD filed with the Commission
Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change to reflect NASD's authority
for the OTCBB and to make certain clarifying changes. On February 23,
2006, NASD filed with the Commission Amendment No. 3 to the proposed
rule change to clarify eligibility for the hearing process set forth in
proposed NASD Rule 6530(f) for those securities of an OTCBB issuer
subject to removal from the OTCBB under NASD Rule 6530(e)(1),\4\ and to
make clarifying changes relating to the application of the NASD Rule
9700 Series, as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items
have been prepared by NASD.\5\ The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52508 (September 26,
2005), 70 FR 57346 (September 30, 2005) (SR-NASD-2005-089). Nasdaq,
however, will continue to furnish the OTCBB quotation and trade
reporting platform and certain other services that it provided with
respect to over-the-counter equity operations.
    \4\ Pursuant to NASD Rule 6530(e), the securities of those OTCBB
issuers (1) that are delinquent in a required filing three times in
a two-year period and (2) those that are removed from the OTCBB for
failure to file two times in a two-year period, are ineligible for
quotation on the OTCBB. Following removal under NASD Rule 6530(e),
an issuer's security would not be eligible for re-inclusion unless
the issuer has timely filed in complete form all required annual and
quarterly reports for a one-year period. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 52786 (November 16, 2005), 70 FR 70907 (November 23,
2005) (SR-NASD-2005-011). See also infra note 14.
    \5\ Amendment No. 3 replaced and superseded the prior filings
for this proposed rule change in their entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASD is proposing to amend NASD Rule 6530 to clarify the
availability of a process to review eligibility determinations with
respect to OTCBB securities and to implement fees for such review.
Below is the text of the proposed rule change, as amended. Proposed new
language is in italics; proposed deletions are in [brackets].
* * * * *
6530. OTCBB-Eligible Securities
    A Member shall be permitted to quote the following categories of
securities in the Service:
    (a) through (d) No change.
    (e) Notwithstanding the foregoing paragraphs, a member shall not be
permitted to quote a security if:
    (1) and (2) No change.
    If an issuer's security becomes ineligible for quotation on the
OTCBB pursuant to paragraph (e)(1) above, the security will be removed
from quotation on the OTCBB without the benefit of any grace period for
the third delinquency, except that NASD will provide seven calendar
days from the date notification is mailed to the issuer pursuant to
paragraph (f)(1) to permit an aggrieved party to request a review of
the determination by a hearing panel pursuant to paragraph (f) below.
Following the removal of an issuer's security[securities] pursuant to
this paragraph (e), such security[securities] shall not be eligible for
quotation until the issuer has timely filed in a complete form all
required annual and quarterly reports due in a one-year period. For
purposes of this paragraph, a report filed within any applicable
extensions permitted by [SEC] Rule 12b-25 under the Exchange Act will
be considered timely filed. Furthermore, filings for reporting periods
ending before October 1, 2005 will not be considered for purposes of
this paragraph (e).
    (f) (1) Upon determining that an issuer's security would be
ineligible for quotation under this rule, NASD will send a notification
to the address on the cover of the issuer's last periodic report. This
notification will state the date upon which the security will be
removed, following any applicable grace period, unless the condition
causing the ineligibility has been cured by that date. When a security
becomes ineligible for quotation pursuant to paragraph (e) above,
however, the issuer may not cure the condition that caused the
ineligibility. In all cases, NASD will provide at least seven calendar
days from the date the notification is mailed to the issuer to permit
an aggrieved party to request review pursuant to paragraph (f)(2)
below, before removal of the security.
    (2) Pursuant to the Rule 9700 Series, as modified herein, an
aggrieved party may request a review by a hearing panel of the
determination that an issuer's security is ineligible for quotation
under this rule. NASD must receive the request for review at least two
business days prior to the scheduled removal of the security, together
with a $4,000 hearing fee payable to NASD to cover the cost of review.
A request for review under this paragraph (f)(2) will stay the removal
of the issuer's security from the Service until the hearing panel
issues a decision under Rule 9750. The hearing panel will consider only
the issues of whether the issuer's security is then eligible for
quotation in the Service and/or whether the issuer filed a complete
report by the applicable due date taking into account any extensions
pursuant to Rule 12b-25 under the Exchange Act. The hearing panel shall
not have discretion to grant any extensions of time for ineligible
securities to become eligible. Notwithstanding any contrary provision
in the Rule 9700 Series, hearings will be conducted via telephone and
NASD will provide the aggrieved party at least five business days
notice of the hearing unless the aggrieved party waives such notice.
    (3) The aggrieved party may request a review of a hearing panel's
decision under Rule 9760. Such a request for review must be accompanied
by a $4,000 fee payable to NASD to cover the cost of review. This
review will only consider whether the issuer's security, at the time of
the initial review under paragraph (f)(2), was eligible for quotation
in the Service and/or whether the issuer filed a complete report by the
applicable due date taking into account any extensions pursuant to Rule
12b-25 under the Exchange Act. A request for review under this
paragraph (f)(3) shall not stay the removal of the issuer's security
from the Service and there will be no discretion to grant extensions of
time for ineligible securities to become eligible. Notwithstanding any
contrary provision in the Rule 9700 Series, a review under this
paragraph (f)(3) will be based on the written record, unless additional
hearings are ordered. If any further hearings are ordered, the hearings
will be conducted via telephone and NASD will provide the aggrieved
party at least five business days notice of the hearing unless the
aggrieved party waives such notice.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NASD included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. NASD 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
    In January 1999, Nasdaq and NASD adopted amendments to NASD Rules
6530 and 6540 that require all issuers of securities quoted on the
OTCBB to be current in their filings with the Commission or other
appropriate

regulator (the ``Eligibility Rule'').\6\ When an OTCBB issuer does not
comply with the Eligibility Rule, either because a filing is not made
or because a filing is incomplete,\7\ a fifth character ``E'' is
appended to the trading symbol of that issuer's security.\8\ This
identifier notifies investors and other market participants that NASD
does not have information that the issuer is current in its reporting
obligations. If the issuer does not comply within the applicable grace
period provided by the Eligibility Rule (typically 30 days), the
issuer's security is removed from the OTCBB.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40878 (January 4,
1999), 64 FR 1255 (January 8, 1999) (SR-NASD-98-51).
    \7\ In order for a filing to be complete, it must, for example,
contain all required certifications, attestations, and financial
statements, including an auditor's review pursuant to SAS-100 (for
quarterly reports) or an unqualified auditor's opinion (for annual
reports). See, e.g., Rule 13a-14 under the Act, 17 CFR 240.13a-14,
and Rules 10-01(d) and 2-02(c) of Regulation S-X, 17 CFR 210.10-
01(d) and 2-02(c). In addition, the auditor must be registered with
the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. See Section 102(a) of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 15 U.S.C. 7212(a).
    \8\ To the extent an issuer has multiple classes of securities
quoted on the OTCBB, when an issuer becomes delinquent with respect
to its reporting requirements under NASD Rule 6530, all of that
issuer's securities become ineligible for quotation on the OTCBB.
    \9\ The Eligibility Rule provides a 60-day grace period to
banks, savings associations and insurance companies that do not file
with the Commission, but are required to file with other regulators.
NASD has filed a separate proposed rule change with the Commission,
which became effective upon filing, to amend NASD Rule 6530 to
clarify the removal process and grace periods contained in that
rule. See File No. SR-NASD-2006-029.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In November 2005, the Commission approved amendments to NASD Rule
6530 that limit the eligibility for quotation on the OTCBB of the
securities of an issuer that is repeatedly late or otherwise delinquent
in filing periodic reports.\10\ Specifically, NASD Rule 6530(e)
provides that OTCBB issuers that file late with the Commission or other
respective regulator, even if within the grace period allowed by NASD
Rule 6530, three times in a two-year period and those that have been
removed from the OTCBB for failure to file two times in a two-year
period, are ineligible for quotation on the OTCBB by an NASD member
until such time as the issuer has timely filed complete required
periodic reports for a one-year period.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52786 (November 16,
2005), 70 FR 70907 (November 23, 2005) (SR-NASD-2005-011).
    \11\ This provision of NASD Rule 6530 applies to filings for
reporting periods ending on and after October 1, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since late 2000, a party aggrieved by a determination relating to
the OTCBB (``aggrieved party'') has been able to request a review of a
determination under the Eligibility Rule by a hearing panel pursuant to
the NASD Rule 9700 Series.\12\ The proposed rule change would provide
transparency to the availability and scope of such review and impose a
fee for such review.\13\ Specifically, under the proposed rule change,
upon determining that an issuer's security would be ineligible for
quotation under NASD Rule 6530, NASD would send a notice to the address
appearing on the issuer's most recent periodic report at least seven
calendar days prior to the removal, even if there is no applicable
grace period.\14\ The notice would indicate the removal date for the
issuer's security after any applicable grace period, unless the
condition causing the ineligibility has been cured by the expiration of
any applicable grace period.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, e.g., High Speed Net Solutions, Inc., Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 43434 (October 12, 2000); Palmworks, Inc.,
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43423 (October 6, 2000); JD
American Workwear, Inc., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43295
(September 15, 2000).
    \13\ Under proposed NASD Rule 6530(f)(2), the hearings would be
conducted via telephone.
    \14\ Under NASD Rule 6530(e), the securities of an issuer are
removed from the OTCBB the third time that the issuer fails to file
by the due date (including, if applicable, any extension permitted
by Rule 12b-25 of the Exchange Act) in a two-year period, without
the benefit of the grace period for the third delinquency. Prior to
removal from the OTCBB, however, NASD provides seven calendar days
to allow an aggrieved party to request a review of such
determination by a hearing panel. As such, where an issuer's
security will be removed for failure to file by the due date for the
third time in a two-year period, NASD provides seven calendar days
(not the 30 or 60 day grace period provided in NASD Rule 6530(a)) to
allow an aggrieved party time to request a hearing. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 52786 (November 16, 2005), 70 FR 70907
(November 23, 2005) (SR-NASD-2005-011). NASD is proposing to amend
NASD Rule 6530(e) and (f) to codify this procedural framework.
    \15\ See Telephone conversation between Richard Holley III,
Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, and
Andrea Orr, Assistant General Counsel, NASD, on March 23, 2006. If
an issuer's security becomes ineligible for failure to file by the
due date for the third time in a two-year period, such issuer will
not be able to cure the condition causing the ineligibility. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52786 (November 16, 2005), 70 FR
70907 (November 23, 2005) (SR-NASD-2005-011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed rule change advises aggrieved parties of
their right to request a review of the determination by a hearing
panel, pursuant to the procedures in the NASD Rule 9700 Series as
modified by the proposed rule change, and implements a $4000 fee for
such review. The proposed rule specifies that the hearing panels can
determine whether the issuer's security is eligible for continued
quotation and/or whether the issuer filed a complete report by the
applicable due date taking into account any extensions pursuant to Rule
12b-25 under the Exchange Act. The hearing panels do not have the
discretion to grant any extensions of time for ineligible securities to
become eligible for quotation on the OTCBB.\16\ NASD believes that this
lack of discretion is appropriate given the 30 or 60-day grace period
that is already built into the rule. The proposed rule change notes
that the request for review will stay the securities' removal until the
panel makes its determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ If a valid filing is made before the hearing panel's
decision is issued, the issuer would not be rendered ineligible for
further quotation on the OTCBB. However, if a security becomes
ineligible for quotation pursuant to NASD 6530(e)(1), the issuer may
not cure the condition that caused the ineligibility. See supra note
15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change also advises aggrieved parties of their
right to request a review of the hearing panel decision, pursuant to
NASD Rule 9760, and implements a $4000 fee for such review. The
proposed rule change indicates that the review of the hearing panel
decision is limited to whether the issuer's security, at the time of
the initial review by the hearing panel, was eligible for quotation on
the OTCBB and/or whether the issuer filed a complete report by the
applicable due date taking into account any extensions pursuant to Rule
12b-25 under the Exchange Act. There is no discretion to grant any
extensions of time for ineligible securities to become eligible for
quotation on the OTCBB. The proposed rule change notes that the request
for review of the hearing panel decision will not stay the security's
removal.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The proposed rule change further notes that review of the
hearing panel decision will be based on the written record, unless
further hearings are ordered. If further hearings are ordered, they
will be conducted via telephone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unlike the NASD Rule 4800 Series that governs hearings for Nasdaq-
listed securities, the NASD Rule 9700 Series currently does not provide
for a fee to offset the costs to conduct these hearings.\18\ Given the
increasing number of these hearings,\19\ NASD believes it is
appropriate to adopt a fee to offset the associated costs.
Specifically, NASD

proposes to adopt a $4,000 fee for aggrieved parties requesting review
by a hearing panel. In addition, aggrieved parties that seek review of
the hearing panel's decision would also be subject to an additional
$4,000 fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See, e.g., NASD Rule 4805(c), which requires Nasdaq-listed
issuers to submit a $4,000 fee for a written hearing and a $5,000
fee for an oral hearing, to cover the cost of holding the hearing,
and NASD Rule 4807(a), which requires Nasdaq-listed issuers to
submit a fee of $4,000 to cover the cost of review by the Nasdaq
Listing and Hearing Review Council. See also Sections 1203 and 1205
of the American Stock Exchange's Company Guide, which impose similar
fees, and Section 804.00 of the New York Stock Exchange's Listed
Company Manual, which requires an issuer to submit a $20,000 fee to
request review of a delisting decision by the NYSE staff.
    \19\ In 2003, 14 hearing requests were received from OTCBB
issuers. By contrast, in 2004, 53 hearing requests were received
from OTCBB issuers and, in 2005, 124 such requests were received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change will be effective immediately upon
Commission approval.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among other
things, that NASD rules provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and
other persons using any facility or system that NASD operates or
controls. NASD also believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, which
requires, among other things, that NASD rules must be designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. NASD believes that the proposed rule
change will clarify the OTCBB eligibility review process and will
impose certain fees associated therewith to compensate NASD for the
costs of conducting eligibility review hearings.

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

    NASD does not believe that the proposed rule change, as amended,
will result in 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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received by NASD.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, as amended, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, 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-NASD-2005-067 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2005-067. 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. Copies of the filing
also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal
office of NASD. 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-
NASD-2005-067 and should be submitted on or before April 21, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-4673 Filed 3-30-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: April 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 66)]
[Notices]
[Page 17210-17212]
[DOCID:fr06ap07-94]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55565; File No. SR-OCC-2007-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed
Rule Change Relating to Portfolio Margining of Customer Securities

April 2, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''), notice is hereby given that on March 2, 2007, The Options
Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change described in Items
I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared primarily by OCC.
The Commission is publishing this notice and order to solicit comments
from interested persons and to grant accelerated approval of the
proposal.

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

    The proposed rule change amends OCC's Rule 611, Segregation of Long
Option Positions, to allow a clearing member to instruct OCC to
unsegregate a long options position that is carried in a customer's
portfolio margining account.

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

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

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

    In a rule filing submitted in 2003 and subsequently approved by the
Commission,\1\ OCC created a ``customers' lien account'' in which
clearing members are permitted to carry positions and collateral that
are carried

for customers at the firm level in portfolio margining accounts. In a
regular customers account at OCC, all long positions must be
``segregated'' (i.e., held free of OCC's lien and therefore given no
value in determining margin requirements) except when a long position
is part of a customer spread. This practice was adopted to comply with
Commission Rule 15c3-3, which requires that customers' ``fully paid''
and ``excess margin'' securities be held free of lien. Because it is
anticipated that brokers will ordinarily be extending credit in
portfolio margin accounts, the Commission approved OCC's rule filing
effectively providing that longs in such accounts need never be treated
as fully paid or excess margin securities. The Division of Market
Regulation also issued a ``no action'' letter to the effect that no
enforcement action would be taken against broker-dealers under Rule
15c3-3 for failing to segregate customer longs carried in portfolio
margin accounts.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Securities Exchange Act Release No,. 50509 (October 8,
2004), 69 FR 61289 (October 15, 2004) (OCC-2003-04).
    \2\ Letter to William H. Navin, Executive Vice President,
General Counsel and Secretary, OCC (July 14, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC has been informed by several clearing members that a customers'
lien account is not practical for them because their customer trades
are routed to them from many sources and having more than one
customers' account could result in a large number of clearing
errors.\3\ OCC is therefore proposing an alternative procedure
(``Proposed Procedure'') for clearing members that are unable or that
elect not to use a customers' lien account. Under the Proposed
Procedure, a clearing member would be permitted to carry portfolio
margin positions in its regular securities customers' account at OCC.
When the clearing member submits instructions to unsegregate customer
longs that are part of a spread position, it will also submit
instructions to unsegregate all longs that are carried at the firm
level in customers' portfolio margin accounts. The result of the
Proposed Procedure will be that long options required to be segregated
in the customers' account will continue to be segregated and longs that
would be unsegregated in a customers' lien account will be unsegregated
in the regular customers' account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Information from Jean Cawley, Deputy General Counsel (March
26, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The lien language in both the regular customers' account and in the
customers' lien account provides in effect that to the extent that OCC
has a lien on property in the account, the lien secures only other
assets in that particular account. This limitation not only ensures
that customer longs are not pledged to secure proprietary obligations
of the firm in violation of the hypothecation rules, but it is
conservative in that it does not allow the longs to secure positions in
other customer accounts. Thus, to the extent that regular clearing
member customers have unsegregated longs in the account, those
positions would be subject to a lien securing the obligations of such
clearing member with respect to its portfolio-margining customers whose
short positions may be included in the account as well. Conversely, the
longs belonging to portfolio-margining customers would collateralize
the shorts of regular customers.
    OCC believes that the proposed procedure is appropriate under Rule
15c3-3 and the hypothecation rules (Rules 8c-1 and 15c-2) and is
appropriate as a matter of policy and fairness. There is no requirement
to separate positions of portfolio margining customers from positions
of other customers and the separate customers' lien account was
intended merely as a convenience to avoid the need for daily submission
of instructions to unsegregate long positions in portfolio margining
accounts. Clearing members that are willing to accept that burden in
order to carry the positions in a regular customers' account should be
permitted to do so. OCC has requested supplemental no-action relief
from the Commission staff in order to confirm the applicability of the
previous no-action relief to long positions in customer's portfolio
margining accounts that are carried on an unsegregated basis in the
regular customers' account at OCC rather than in a customers' lien
account.
    In SR-OCC-2003-04, Rule 611 was amended to provide that ``all
positions in cleared securities that are carried in a customers' lien
account shall be deemed to be unsegregated for purposes of this Rule
611.'' Although OCC's rules do not specifically require that positions
in a portfolio margin account at the firm level be carried in a
customers' lien account at OCC, the rule filing indicated that they
would be. In approving SR-OCC-2003-04 creating the customers' lien
account and amending Rule 611, the Commission stated:

    Under the portfolio margining methodology program, all long
positions in the customers' lien account will be available as an
offset to all short positions, regardless of the identity of the
customer. This should provide for a greater diversification benefit
to OCC's clearing members in the calculation of their margin.
However, because all positions in the customers' lien account will
be unsegregated and will be therefore subject to OCC's lien, the
long positions in the account will be available to OCC in the event
a clearing member fails to settle its obligations relating to a
short position. Accordingly, because the proposed rule change is
designed to ensure that transactions in securities which are
eligible for the new portfolio margining approved by the Commission
will be cleared and settled by OCC in a manner that will not reduce
the adequacy of collateral available to OCC, the proposed rule
change should not adversely affect OCC's ability to assure the
safeguarding of securities and funds which are in OCC's custody or
control or for which OCC is responsible.

    The Commission's rationale for approving SR-OCC-2003-04 should
apply to the Proposed Procedure as well. Rule 611 would simply be
amended to provide an additional basis by which a clearing member may
give instructions to release long options from segregation--namely when
they are carried for a customer in a porfolio margin account.
    The proposed rule change is consistent with the purpose and
requirements of Section 17A of the Act because it fosters cooperation
and competition with persons engaged in the clearance and settlement of
securities transactions, removes impediments to and perfects the
mechanism of a national system for the prompt and accurate clearance
and settlement of securities transactions, and in general protects
investors and the public interest by facilitating the implementation of
portfolio margining programs previously approved by the Commission. The
proposed rule change is not inconsistent with the existing rules of
OCC, including any other rules proposed to be amended.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition.

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

    Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with
respect to the proposed rule change, and none have been received.

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

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder and particularly with the requirements of Section
17A(b)(3)(F) \4\ of the Act, which

requires that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to provide for
the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in its possession or
control or for which it is responsible. The proposed rule change will
allow OCC's clearing members and their customers to benefit from the
portfolio margining program, which includes having greater liquidity
and more efficient use of collateral, in a manner that is consistent
with OCC's overall risk management process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule
change prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of
notice of filing because such approval will allow OCC's members to
immediately participate in the expanded portfolio margining pilot
scheduled to be implemented on April 2, 2007.

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-OCC-2007-04 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2007-04. 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 Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of OCC and on OCC's
Web site at http://www.optionsclearing.com. 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-OCC-2007-04 and should be submitted on
or before April 27, 2007.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-OCC-2007-04) be and hereby
is approved on an accelerated basis.

    For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-6493 Filed 4-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

			Issued by the Department of Transportation on March 10, 2005

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKETS OST-98-4345 & OST-98-3726

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant: Ethiopian Airlines Enterprise 						Date Filed: January 31,
2005

Relief requested:  Renew exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 to conduct
foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail between Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia, and the coterminal points Washington, DC, Newark and/or
JFK, via a non-traffic stop in Rome, for a period of two years.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  February 4, 2004, in this
docket

Applicant representative:  Michael F. Goldman<PHONE_NUMBER>		DOT analyst:
 Shelita Smith<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved in part; Balance dismissed 						Action date:  March
10, 2005

Effective dates of authority granted:  March 10, 2005 – March 10, 2006

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  Reciprocity

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

  X     Standard exemption conditions (attached)        __ Foreign air
carrier permit conditions (Order   -  -  )

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________

We found that the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that  (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

Foreign Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1546 or 1550, as
applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise
the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

(6)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a)  based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b)  based
on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term "international air transportation" means "international
transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

(11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department, with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S.
agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

 The applicant requested that the authority be effective for a period of
two years.  We dismissed that portion of the carrier’s application to
conduct the operations beyond February 3, 2005, without prejudice to
refilling at a later date.  The duration of this authority is consistent
with our usual policy of granting exemption authority in cases such as
that presented here.

05/2004


[Federal Register: January 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 15)]
[Notices]
[Page 3839-3841]
[DOCID:fr24ja06-55]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

January 17, 2006.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings.
    Docket Numbers: ER01-205-010; ER98-2640-008; ER98-4590-006; ER99-
1610-013; EL05-115-000.
    Applicants: Xcel Energy Services, Inc.; Northern States Power
Company; Public Service Company of Colorado; Southwestern Public
Service Company,

New Century Services, Inc.; Xcel Energy Services, Inc.
    Description: Xcel Energy Services, Inc., on behalf of Southwestern
Public Service Co. et al. submit an amendment to its updated market
power analysis in response to FERC's December 8, 2005 letter and
January 12, 2006 revision filing for Attachment B to this filing.
    Filed Date: January 10, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060112-0038.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 31, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER01-642-004; ER01-1335-006; ER01-1011-008.
    Applicants: CottonWood Energy Company LP; Magnolia Energy LP;
Redbud Energy LP.
    Description: Cottonwood Energy, LP, Magnolia Energy LP and Redbud
Energy LP submit an amended notification of change in status under
market-based rate authority.
    Filed Date: January 10, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060112-0035.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 31, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER01-642-005; ER01-1335-007; ER01-1011-009.
    Applicants: CottonWood Energy Company LP; Magnolia Energy LP;
Redbud Energy LP.
    Description: Cottonwood Energy Co., LP et al. submit revisions to
their respective market-based tariff to include a Conduct of Conduct.
    Filed Date: January 10, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060113-0145.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 31, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER03-394-004; ER03-427-004; ER03-175-006.
    Applicants: Elk Hills Power, LLC; Mesquite Power, LLC,
Termoelectrica U.S., LLC.
    Description: Elk Hills Power, LLC, Mesquite Power, LLC, et al.
submit an updated market power analysis pursuant to FERC's March 21,
2003 Order.
    Filed Date: January 10, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060113-0124.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 31, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-1312-001; EC05-123-000.
    Applicants: Monongahela Power Company and Columbus Southern Power
Company.
    Description: Monongahela Power Co., on behalf of Columbus Southern
Power Co., notifies FERC that the dispositions and acquisition of the
jurisdiction facilities authorized by such order was consummated on
December 31, 2005.
    Filed Date: January 10, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060113-0146.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 31, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-318-001.
    Applicants: North American Energy Credit and Clearing.
    Description: North American Energy Credit and Clearing submits
supplemental information and a revised rate schedule to amend the
Petition for Acceptance of Initial Rate Schedule, Wavier and Blanket
Authority.
    Filed Date: January 10, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060113-0147.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 31, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-326-001.
    Applicants: North American Energy Credit and Clearing.
    Description: North American Energy Credit & Clearing submits
supplemental information and a revised rate schedule to amend the
Petition for Acceptance of Initial Rate Schedule, Waivers &
BlanketAuthority.
    Filed Date: January 10, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060113-0148.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 31, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-463-000.
    Applicants: Alcoa Power Generating, Inc.
    Description: Alcoa Power Generating, Inc., submits the required
ministerial changes to the Large Generator Interconnection Agreement,
Small Generator Interconnection Procedures and Small Gen.
Interconnection Agreement sections of its Yadkin OATT.
    Filed Date: January 10, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060112-0323.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 31, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-464-000.
    Applicants: Highlands Energy Group LLC.
    Description: Highlands Energy Group, LLC's petition for acceptance
of initial rate schedule, waivers, and blanket authority.
    Filed Date: January 10, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060112-0324.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 31, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-466-000.
    Applicants: EL Paso Electric Company.
    Description: El Paso Electric Co., submits an unexecuted Service
Agreement with Tucson Electric Power Co.
    Filed Date: January 10, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060112-0326.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 31, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-470-000.
    Applicants: Alcoa Power Generating Inc.
    Description: Alcoa Power Generating Inc., submits required
ministerial changes to the Large Generator Interconnection Agreement,
and Small Generator Interconnection Agreement sections of its Tapoco
Division OATT.
    Filed Date: January 10, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060112-0329.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 31, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER96-1551-015; ER01-615-011.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Public Service Co. of New Mexico, submits filing of a
possible change in status with regard to the characteristics that the
Commission previously relied upon in granting PNM Market-Based Rate
Authority.
    Filed Date: January 10, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060113-0177.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 31, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER98-1150-007.
    Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Company.
    Description: Tucson Electric Power Co., submits filing of a change
in status with regard to the characteristics that the Commission relied
upon in granting market-based rate authority.
    Filed Date: January 10, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060113-0125.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 31, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER99-1757-009; EL05-67-000.
    Applicants: The Empire District Electric Company.
    Description: The Empire District Electric Co., submits additional
information in response to the Commission's deficiency letter order
dated December 9, 2005.
    Filed Date: January 9, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060112-0306.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 30, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER99-3077-002.
    Applicants: Colorado Power Partners.
    Description: Colorado Power Partners submits an amendment to its
triennial updated market power analysis and substitute tariff sheets to
FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: January 10, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060112-0036.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 31, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER99-3197-002.
    Applicants: BIV Generation Company LLC.
    Description: BIV Generation Co., LLC submits an amendment to its
triennial updated market power analysis and Substitute tariff sheets to
FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: January 10, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060112-0037.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 31, 2006.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-789 Filed 1-23-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Revised INDEX TO DOCKET EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0762 Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Maricopa County PM-10 Nonattainment Area; Five Percent Plan for Attainment of the 24-Hour PM-10 Standard                      For Final Action Signed May 30, 2014

Index No. Category / Document Title  Document Date A.  Rulemaking Documents

   A.1. Index to docket EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0762: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Maricopa County PM-10 Nonattainment Area; Five Percent Plan for Attainment of the 24-Hour PM-10 Standard 2014-02-14    A.2. Federal Register Notice for Proposed Rule: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Maricopa County PM-10 Nonattainment Area; Five Percent Plan for Attainment of the 24-Hour PM-10 Standard 2014-02-06    A.3. Technical Support Document for EPA's Action on the 2012 Five Percent Plan 2014-01-14

B.  State Plans, Rules, Support Documents, and Correspondence

   B.1. Letter from Henry R. Darwin, Director, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 (Transmitting the MAG Plan)  2012-05-25       0.2.a.  Enclosure 1: MAG Five Percent Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area 2012-05-25       0.2.b.  Enclosure 1: MAG Five Percent Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area: Appendices Volume 1 2012-05-25       0.2.c.  Enclosure 1: MAG Five Percent Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area: Appendices Volume 2 2012-05-25       0.2.d.  Enclosure 2: SIP Completeness Checklist 2012-05-25       0.2.e.  Correct version of B.1 letter. 2013-05-25    B.2. Letter from Henry R. Darwin, Director, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 (Transmitting the Apache Junction Portion of the Plan)  2012-05-25 B.     2.1.        B.2.a        Enclosure 1: 2012 Five Percent Plan for PM-10 for the Pinal County Township 1 North, Range 8 East, Nonattainment Area 2012-05-25       B.2.b Enclosure 1: 2012 Five Percent Plan for PM-10 for the Pinal County Township 1 North, Range 8 East, Nonattainment Area: Appendix A: Certified Copies of Arizona Revised Statutes in Chapter IV 2012-05-25       B.2.c Enclosure 1: 2012 Five Percent Plan for PM-10 for the Pinal County Township 1 North, Range 8 East, Nonattainment Area: Appendix B: ADEQ Dust Action General Permit issued December 30, 2011 2012-05-25       B.2.d Enclosure 1: 2012 Five Percent Plan for PM-10 for the Pinal County Township 1 North, Range 8 East, Nonattainment Area: Appendix C: ADEQ Commitment to Assess the Effectiveness of the Dust Action General Permit 2012-05-25       B.2.e Enclosure 1: 2012 Five Percent Plan for PM-10 for the Pinal County Township 1 North, Range 8 East, Nonattainment Area: Appendix D: 2009 Negative Declaration for Commercial Agriculture 2012-05-25       B.2.f Enclosure 2: SIP Completeness Checklist and proof of public participation 2012-05-25    B.3. Evaluation of Innovative Control Measures and Existing Maricopa County Control Measures Contained in the MAG 2012 Five Percent Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area, revised, Maricopa County Air Quality Department 2013-06-06

C.   EPA Guidance Documents, Policies and Rulemakings

   3.1.  Final Rule -  Regulations for Implementing Revised Particulate Matter Standards, 52 FR 24672 1987-07-01    3.2.  Notice announcing designations and classifications for initial PM-10 nonattainment areas -  Designations and Classifications for Initial PM-10 Nonattainment Areas, 56 FR 11101 1991-03-15    3.3.  General preamble for future proposed rulemakings - State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 57 FR 13498 1992-04-16    3.4.  Addendum to the General Preamble for future proposed rulemakings - State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-10 Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 59 FR 41998 1994-08-16    3.5.  Final Rule - Clean Air Act Reclassification; Arizona-Phoenix Nonattainment Area; PM10 1996-05-10    3.6.  Proposed Rule - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arizona--Maricopa County PM-10 Nonattainment Area; Serious Area Plan for Attainment of the Annual PM-10 Standard, 65 FR 19964 2000-04-13    3.7.  Proposed Rule - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arizona--Maricopa County PM-10 Nonattainment Area; Serious Area Plan for Attainment of the 24-Hour PM-10 Standard and Contingency Measures, 66 FR 50252 2001-10-02    3.8.  Final Rule - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arizona--Maricopa County PM-10 Nonattainment Area; Serious Area Plan for Attainment of the PM-10 Standards, 67 FR 48718 2002-07-25    3.9.  Guidance Document  -  Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations, EPA, with appendices 2005-08    3.10.  Final Rule  -  National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter, 71 FR 61144 2006-10-17    3.11.  Final Rule  -  Findings of Failure To Attain; State of Arizona, Phoenix Nonattainment Area; State of California, Owens Valley Nonattainment Area; Particulate Matter of 10 Microns or Less, 72 FR 31183 2007-06-06    3.12.  Final Rule - Revisions to the Arizona State PM-10 Implementation Plan; Maricopa County Air Quality Department, (note: approval of Maricopa Rule 316), 74 FR 58553 2009-11-13    3.13.  Proposed Rule - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans-Maricopa County (Phoenix) PM-10 Nonattainment Area; Serious Area Plan for Attainment of the 24-Hour PM-10 Standard; Clean Air Act Section 189(d), 75 FR 54806 2010-09-09    3.14.  Final Rule - Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Maricopa County, (note: approval of Maricopa Rules 310 and 310.01), 75 FR 78167 2010-12-15    3.15.  Final Rule - Finding of Failure To Submit State Implementation Plan Revisions for Particulate Matter, PM-10, Maricopa County (Phoenix) PM-10 Nonattainment Area, AZ, 76 FR 8300 2011-02-14    3.16.  Final Rule - Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Maricopa County Area, (note: approval of several statutes into the SIP), 78 FR 72579 2013-12-03    3.17.  Notice of Adequacy - Adequacy Status of Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in Submitted State Implementation Plan; Maricopa County PM-10 Nonattainment Area, Arizona, 78 FR 73188 2013-12-20                                      C.18. Guidance Document - Interim Guidance on the Preparation of Demonstrations in Support of Requests to Exclude Ambient Air Quality Data Affected by High Winds Under the Exceptional Events Rule 2013-05

D.  Additional Documents Considered for Proposed Rulemaking

   4.1.  Documents Related to Completeness Finding

      4.1.a.  Letter from Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, US EPA Region 9 to Henry Darwin, Director, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 2012-07-20       4.1.b.  Completeness Determination for the Phoenix 2012 5% Plan, completed by Greg Nudd, USEPA Region 9 2012-07-02    4.2.  Supporting Technical Documents

      4.2.a.  Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Fugitive Dust Handbook, prepared by Countess Environmental for the Western Governors Association 2006-09-07       4.2.b.  PM-10 Source Attribution and Deposition Study; by Sierra Research for the Maricopa Association of Governments, with appendices 2008-03       4.2.c.  EPA Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42), EPA 2006       4.2.d.  AP-42 Updated Sections 13.2.1 and 13.2.2 2011-01    4.3.  Documents Related to Exceptional Event Determinations

      4.3.a.  Letter from Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, to Eric Massey, Director, Air Division, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, with Technical Support Document 2012-09-06       4.3.b.  Letter from Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, to Eric Massey, Director, Air Division, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, with Technical Support Document 2013-05-06       4.3.c.  Letter from Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, to Eric Massey, Director, Air Division, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 2013-07-01       4.3.d.  Letter from Eric Massey, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ to Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9 2013-09-11       4.3.e.  Email from Bradley Busby, Evaluation Unit Manager, ADEQ to Michael Flagg, EPA Region 9 2013-12-02       4.3.f.  Letter  from Eric Massey, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ to Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9 (with enclosures) 2012-03-14       4.3.g.  Letter from Eric Massey, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ to Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9 (with enclosures) 2013-01-28       4.3.h.  Letter from Eric Massey, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ to Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9 (enclosures included under D.3.j.) 2013-02-13       4.3.i.  Letter from Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, to Eric Massey, Director, Air Division, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, with Technical Support Document) 2013-07-01       4.3.j.  Enclosures to D.3.h. letter. 2013-02-13    4.4.  Documents Related to Adequacy Finding

      4.4.a.  Letter to Eric C. Massey, Director, Air Quality Division, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and Dennis Smith, Executive Director, Maricopa Association of Governments from Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, USEPA Region 9 2013-11-22          4.4.b.  Transportation Conformity Adequacy Review, Greg Nudd, EPA Region 9 2013-11-20    4.5.  Documents Related to Monitored Attainment Finding

      4.5.a.  AQS Raw Data Report 2013-08-02       4.5.b.  Letter from Matthew Lakin, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region 9 to William Willey, Director, MCAQD, regarding 2012 ANP approval 2013-04-12       4.5.c.  Letter from Matthew Lakin, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region 9 to Eric Massey, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ, regarding 2012 ANP approval 2013-03-01

      4.5.d.  Letter from Matthew Lakin, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region 9 to Don Gabrielson, Director, PCAQCD, regarding 2012 ANP approval 2013-07-12       4.5.e.  Maricopa County 2010 data certification 2011-08-05       4.5.f.  Letter from William Wiley, Director, MCAQD to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, regarding 2011 data certification 2012-04-27       4.5.g.  Letter from William Wiley, Director, MCAQD to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, regarding 2012 data certification 2013-06-28       4.5.h.  Letter from Eric Massey, Director, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, regarding 2010 data certification 2011-05-02       4.5.i.  Letter from Eric Massey, Director, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ to Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9, regarding 2011 data certification 2012-09-21       4.5.j.  Letter from Eric Massey, Director, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ to Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9, regarding 2012 data certification 2013-05-16       4.5.k.  Letter from Kale Walch, Deputy Director, PCAQD to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, regarding 2010 data certification 2011-04-29       4.5.l.  Letter from Kale Walch, Deputy Director, PCAQD to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, regarding 2011 data certification 2012-05-01       4.5.m.  Letter from Kale Walch, Deputy Director, PCAQD to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, regarding 2011 data certification 2013-04-26       4.5.n.  AQS Design Value Report 2013-07-13       4.5.o.  AQS Quicklook Report 2013-08-02       4.5.p.  Email from Stan Belone, Air Quality Program, SRPMIC to Michael Flagg, EPA Region 9 2013-06-26       4.5.q.  Supporting Analysis for SRPMIC Local Exceedance 2013-07-18    4.6.  Documents Related to Modeled Attainment Demonstration

      4.6.a.  PM-10 SIP Development Guide (EPA-450/2-86-001), EPA 1987-06       4.6.b.  Receptor Model Technical Series, Volume I, Overview of Receptor Model Application to Particulate Source Apportionment (EPA-450-4-81-016a), EPA 1981-07       4.6.c.  PM-10 SIP Demonstrations for Small Isolated Areas with Spatially Uniform Emissions, Robert Bauman and Joseph Tikvart 1990-07-05       4.6.d.  Ammonium Nitrate, Nitric Acid, and Ammonia Equilibrium in Wintertime Phoenix, Arizona, Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association by Watson, Chow, Lurman and Stefan (available in paper docket only) 1994-04

E.  Public Comments Received on Proposed Rule

                                     E.1. Letter from Amanda A. Reeve 2014-03-10                                      E.2. Letter from Barbara J. Sprungl, Manager, Air Quality and Laboratory Services, SRP 2014-03-10                                      E.3. Letter from William D. Wiley, Director, Maricopa County Air Quality Department 2014-03-10                                      E.4. Letter from Steve Trussel, Executive Director, Arizona Rock Products Association 2014-03-10                                      E.5. Letter from Eric C. Massey, Director, Air Quality Division, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 2014-03-10                                      E.6. Letter from Jeff Flake, U.S. Senator, United States Senate 2014-03-10                                      E.7. Letter from Joy E. Herr-Cardillo, Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest 2014-03-10                                      E.8. Letter from Lindy Bauer, Director, Maricopa Association of Governments 2014-03-06                                      E.9. Letter from Philip McNeely, Manager, Office of Environmental Programs, City of Phoenix 2014-03-07                                      E.10. Letter from Joy E. Herr-Cardillo, Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest (supplemental information) 2014-03-10                                      E.11. Letter from Glenn Hamer, President and CEO, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry 2014-03-10                                      E.12. Letter from Amanda McGennis, Sr. Vice President, Arizona Chapter Associated General Contractors 2014-03-10

F.  Additional Documents Considered for Final Rulemaking

   F.1. Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Maricopa County Area, Final rule. (79 FR 17878) 2014-03-31    F.2. Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Direct final rule. (79 FR 17879) 2014-03-31    F.3. Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Direct final rule. (79 FR 17881) 2014-03-31    F.4. EPA Exceptional Event Concurrence Tracking Sheet 2014-05-30

G.  Executive Orders and Statutes         G.1. Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 2011     G.2. Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 2011     G.3. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 2011     G.4. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735) 1993-10-04     G.5. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629) 1994-02-16     G.6. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885) 1997-04-23     G.7. Executive Order 13132: Federalism (64 FR 43255) 1999-08-10     G.8. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249) 2000-11-09     G.9. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355) 2001-05-22

H.  Notice of Final Rulemaking and Response to Comments

   H.1. Revised Index to docket EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0762 2014-05-30    H.2. Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans  -  Maricopa County PM-10 Nonattainment Area; Five Percent Plan for Attainment of the 24-Hour PM-10 Standard (Pre-publication version). 2014-05-30    H.3. [reserved for Final FR notice]