[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 83 (Thursday, April 30, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24218-24220]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10118]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0044; FRL-9926-74-OAR]
RIN 2060-AR62

Reconsideration on the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS)
and the Utility New Source Performance Standards; Final Action

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final action denying petitions for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing
notice that it has responded to 23 petitions for reconsideration of the
final rules titled National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) From Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam
Generating Units and Standards of Performance (NSPS) for Fossil-Fuel-
Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small
Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units, published
in the Federal Register on February 16, 2012. The agency previously
granted reconsideration on several discrete issues and took final
action on reconsideration through documents published in the Federal
Register on April 24, 2013, and November 19, 2014. The Administrator
denied the remaining requests for reconsideration in separate letters
to the petitioners dated April 21, 2015. A document providing a full
explanation of the agency's rationale for each denial is in the docket
for these rules.

DATES: Effective April 30, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jim Eddinger, Sector Policies and
Programs Division (D243-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(919) 541-5450; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    This Federal Register document, the petitions for reconsideration,
the letters denying the petitions for reconsideration, and the document
titled ``Denial of Petitions for

Reconsideration of Certain Issues: MATS and Utility NSPS''
(Reconsideration Response Document) are available in the dockets the
EPA established under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234 and Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0044. The Reconsideration Response Document is
available in both the MATS and Utility NSPS dockets by conducting a
search of the title ``Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of
Certain Issues: MATS and Utility NSPS.'' All documents in the dockets
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential
business information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Room 3334, EPA WJC West
Building, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER> and the telephone number for the Air
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. This Federal Register document and the
Reconsideration Response Document denying the petitions can also be
found on the EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/utility/utilitypg.html.

II. Judicial Review

    Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) indicates which
Federal Courts of Appeals have venue for petitions for review of final
EPA actions. This section provides, in part, that the petitions for
review must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit if: (i) The agency action consists of ``nationally
applicable regulations promulgated, or final action taken, by the
Administrator,'' or (ii) such actions are locally or regionally
applicable, if ``such action is based on a determination of nationwide
scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator find and
publishes that such action is based on such a determination.''
    The EPA has determined that its actions denying the petitions for
reconsideration are of nationwide scope and effect for purposes of
section 307(d)(1) because the actions directly affect the ``National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) From Coal- and
Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards of
Performance (NSPS) for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-
Commercial-Institutional, and Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional
Steam Generating Units,'' both of which were found to be of nationwide
scope and effect. Thus, any petitions for review of the EPA's decisions
denying petitioners' requests for reconsideration must be filed in the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by
June 29, 2015.

III. Description of Action

    On February 16, 2012, pursuant to sections 111 and 112 of the CAA,
the EPA published the final rules titled ``National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility
Steam Generating Units and Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-
Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small
Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units'' (77 FR
9304). The NESHAP rule issued pursuant to CAA section 112 is referred
to as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), and the NSPS rule
issued pursuant to CAA section 111 is referred to as the Utility NSPS.
Following promulgation of the final rules, the Administrator received
petitions for reconsideration of numerous provisions of both MATS and
the Utility NSPS pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(7)(B).
    The EPA received 20 petitions for reconsideration of the MATS rule
and 3 petitions for reconsideration of the Utility NSPS. The EPA
received petitions for reconsideration of the MATS rule from the
following organizations: American Public Power Association, ARIPPA,
Babcock & Wilcox, Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Climate Policy
Group, Coal Utilization Research Council, Earthjustice, East Kentucky
Power Cooperative, Edgecombe/Spruance Genco, Edison Mission Energy,
FirstEnergy, Hawaiian Electric Company, Institute of Clean Air
Companies, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Power4Georgians,
Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, Southern Company, State of Texas
(Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Texas Public Utility
Commission, Railroad Commission of Texas), Utility Air Regulatory Group
(UARG), and Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative. The EPA received
petitions for reconsideration of the Utility NSPS from the following
organizations: Air Products, State of Texas (Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality, Texas Public Utility Commission, Railroad
Commission of Texas), and UARG.
    CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) states that ``[o]nly an objection to a
rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during
the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be
raised during judicial review. If the person raising an objection can
demonstrate to the Administrator that it was impracticable to raise
such objection within such time or if the grounds for such objection
arose after the period for public comment (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central
relevance to the outcome of the rule, the Administrator shall convene a
proceeding for reconsideration of the rule and provide the same
procedural rights as would have been afforded had the information been
available at the time the rule was proposed. If the Administrator
refuses to convene such a proceeding, such person may seek review of
such refusal in the United States court of appeals for the appropriate
circuit (as provided in subsection (b)).'' Thus, the EPA is only
required to grant a CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) petition for
reconsideration if the petitioner demonstrates both: (1) That it was
impractical to raise the objection during the public comment period, or
that the grounds for such objection arose after the public comment
period but within the time specified for judicial review (i.e., within
60 days after publication of the final rulemaking in the Federal
Register); and (2) that the objection is of central relevance to the
outcome of the rule.
    On November 30, 2012, the EPA issued a proposed rule reconsidering
certain new source MATS, the requirements applicable during periods of
startup and shutdown for MATS and the Utility NSPS (for the PM standard
only), certain definitional and monitoring issues in the Utility NSPS,
and additional technical corrections to both MATS and the Utility NSPS
(77 FR 71323). On April 24, 2013, the EPA issued the final action on
reconsideration of the new source MATS, the definitional and monitoring
provisions in the Utility NSPS, and the technical corrections in both
rules (78 FR 24073). The EPA issued the final action on reconsideration
of the startup and shutdown provisions in the MATS and Utility NSPS on
November 19, 2014 (79 FR 68777). In addition, on February 17, 2015, the
EPA proposed additional technical corrections to the final MATS rule
and the Utility NSPS (80 FR 8442). These actions addressed many issues

raised in the petitions for reconsideration of the final MATS rule and
the Utility NSPS.
    On April 21, 2015, the Administrator, Gina McCarthy, signed letters
to petitioners denying the remaining issues in the petitions for
reconsideration. The EPA carefully reviewed the petitions and evaluated
each issue raised in the petitions for reconsideration to determine if
they meet the CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) criteria for reconsideration.
The EPA denied the remaining issues in the petitions for
reconsideration because they do not meet the criteria for
reconsideration and/or are moot as explained in detail in the
Reconsideration Response Document. That document articulates in detail
the rationale for the EPA's final response to each of the remaining
issues in the petitions for reconsideration received on the final MATS
rule and the Utility NSPS.
    As explained in the Reconsideration Response Document, a
significant majority of the issues raised in the petitions for
reconsideration were or could have been raised in comments on the
proposed MATS and Utility NSPS. In addition, many of the parties that
filed petitions for reconsideration of the final MATS and Utility NSPS
also filed petitions for review of the final rules in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Court or D.C.
Circuit). Many of the issues raised in the petitions for
reconsideration were also raised in the D.C. Circuit litigation, and
other reconsideration issues could have been raised in that litigation.
On April 15, 2014, the Court denied all petitions for review of MATS
and the Utility NSPS. White Stallion Energy Center v. EPA, 784 F.3d
1222 (D.C. Cir. 2014); cert. granted, State of Michigan v. EPA, No. 14-
46 (and consolidated cases). As the Court may only consider issues
raised during the period for public comment, issues raised in the
litigation and addressed by the Court clearly do not meet the criteria
for reconsideration in CAA section 307(d)(7)(B). Moreover, parties may
not use this final action denying reconsideration as a basis to
litigate issues that could have been raised in the initial litigation.

    Dated: April 21, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-10118 Filed 4-29-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15357-15358]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06412]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-464, OMB Control No. 3235-0527]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension: Rule 7d-2.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    In Canada, as in the United States, individuals can invest a
portion of their earnings in tax-deferred retirement savings accounts
(``Canadian retirement accounts''). These accounts, which operate in a
manner similar to individual retirement accounts in the United States,
encourage retirement savings by permitting savings on a tax-deferred
basis. Individuals who establish Canadian retirement accounts while
living and working in Canada and who later move to the United States
(``Canadian-U.S. Participants'' or ``participants'') often continue to
hold their retirement assets in their Canadian retirement accounts
rather than prematurely withdrawing (or ``cashing out'') those assets,
which would result in immediate taxation in Canada.
    Once in the United States, however, these participants historically
have been unable to manage their Canadian retirement account
investments. Most investment companies (``funds'') that are ``qualified
companies'' for Canadian retirement accounts are not registered under
the U.S. securities laws. Securities of those unregistered funds,
therefore, generally cannot be publicly offered and sold in the United
States without violating the registration requirement of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Investment Company Act'').\1\ As a result of
this registration requirement, Canadian-U.S. Participants previously
were not able to purchase or exchange securities for their Canadian
retirement accounts as needed to meet their changing investment goals
or income needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 80a. In addition, the offering and selling of
securities that are not registered pursuant to the Securities Act of
1933 (``Securities Act'') is generally prohibited by U.S. securities
laws. 15 U.S.C. 77.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission issued a rulemaking in 2000 that enabled Canadian-
U.S. Participants to manage the assets in their Canadian retirement
accounts by providing relief from the U.S. registration requirements
for offers of securities of foreign issuers to Canadian-U.S.
Participants and sales to Canadian retirement accounts.\2\ Rule 7d-2
under the Investment Company Act \3\ permits foreign funds to offer
securities to Canadian-U.S. Participants and sell securities to
Canadian retirement accounts without registering as investment
companies under the Investment Company Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Offer and Sale of Securities to Canadian Tax-Deferred
Retirement Savings Accounts, Release Nos. 33-7860, 34-42905, IC-
24491 (June 7, 2000) [65 FR 37672 (June 15, 2000)]. This rulemaking
also included new rule 237 under the Securities Act, permitting
securities of foreign issuers to be offered to Canadian-U.S.
Participants and sold to Canadian retirement accounts without being
registered under the Securities Act. 17 CFR 230.237.
    \3\ 17 CFR 270.7d-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 7d-2 contains a ``collection of information'' requirement
within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.\4\ Rule 7d-2
requires written offering materials for securities offered or sold in
reliance on that rule to disclose prominently that those securities and
the fund issuing those securities are not registered with the
Commission, and that those securities and the fund issuing those
securities are exempt from registration under U.S. securities laws.
Rule 7d-2 does not require any documents to be filed with the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 44 U.S.C. 3501-3502.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 7d-2 requires written offering documents for securities
offered or sold in reliance on the rule to disclose prominently that
the securities are not registered with the Commission and may not be
offered or sold in the United States unless registered or exempt from

registration under the U.S. securities laws, and also to disclose
prominently that the fund that issued the securities is not registered
with the Commission. The burden under the rule associated with adding
this disclosure to written offering documents is minimal and is non-
recurring. The foreign issuer, underwriter, or broker-dealer can
redraft an existing prospectus or other written offering material to
add this disclosure statement, or may draft a sticker or supplement
containing this disclosure to be added to existing offering materials.
In either case, based on discussions with representatives of the
Canadian fund industry, the staff estimates that it would take an
average of 10 minutes per document to draft the requisite disclosure
statement.
    The staff estimates that there are 3,164 publicly offered Canadian
funds that potentially would rely on the rule to offer securities to
participants and sell securities to their Canadian retirement accounts
without registering under the Investment Company Act.\5\ The staff
estimates that all of these funds have previously relied upon the rule
and have already made the one-time change to their offering documents
required to rely on the rule. The staff estimates that 158 (5 percent)
additional Canadian funds would newly rely on the rule each year to
offer securities to Canadian-U.S. Participants and sell securities to
their Canadian retirement accounts, thus incurring the paperwork burden
required under the rule. The staff estimates that each of those funds,
on average, distributes 3 different written offering documents
concerning those securities, for a total of 474 offering documents. The
staff therefore estimates that 158 respondents would make 474 responses
by adding the new disclosure statement to 474 written offering
documents. The staff therefore estimates that the annual burden
associated with the rule 7d-2 disclosure requirement would be 79 hours
(474 offering documents x 10 minutes per document). The total annual
cost of these burden hours is estimated to be $30,020 (79 hours x $380
per hour of attorney time).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Investment Company Institute, 2015 Investment Company Fact
Book (2015) at 238, tbl. 66.
    \6\ The Commission's estimate concerning the wage rate for
attorney time is based on salary information for the securities
industry compiled by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association (``SIFMA''). The $380 per hour figure for an attorney is
from SIFMA's Management & Professional Earnings in the Securities
Industry 2013, modified by Commission staff to account for an 1800-
hour work-year and multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm
size, employee benefits, and overhead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These burden hour estimates are based upon the Commission staff's
experience and discussions with the fund industry. The estimates of
average burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork
Reduction Act. These estimates are not derived from a comprehensive or
even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules.
    Compliance with the collection of information requirements of the
rule is mandatory and is necessary to comply with the requirements of
the rule in general. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burdens
of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burdens of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F St. NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: March 17, 2016.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-06412 Filed 3-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	40 CFR Part 52

	[EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0139; FRL-        ]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District
of Columbia; Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997
8-Hour Ozone and the 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:  EPA is proposing to approve submittals from the District of
Columbia (the District) pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA) sections
110(k)(2) and (3).  These submittals address the infrastructure elements
specified in the CAA section 110(a)(2), necessary to implement,
maintain, and enforce the 1997 8-hour ozone and fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.  This proposed action is limited to the following
infrastructure elements which were subject to EPA’s completeness
findings pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(1) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS dated March 27, 2008, and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS dated October 22,
2008:  110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K),
(L), and (M).

DATES:  Written comments must be received on or before [insert date 30
days from date of publication].

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number
EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0139 by one of the following methods:

www.regulations.gov.  Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.

B.        E-mail:    HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>.

C.        Mail:  EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0139, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

D.   	Hand Delivery:  At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket(s normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.

Instructions:  Direct your comments to Docket ID No.
EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0139.  EPA’s policy is that all comments received
will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made
available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to
be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.  Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or
e-mail.  The www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access”
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.  If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet.  If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit.  If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment.  Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.

Docket:  All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.  Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form.  Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.  Copies of the State submittal
are available at the District of Columbia Department of the Environment,
Air Quality Division, 51 N Street, N.E., Washington, District of
Columbia 20002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Rose Quinto,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I.  Background

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS (62 FR
38856) and a new PM2.5 NAAQS (62 FR 38652).  The revised ozone NAAQS is
based on 8-hour average concentrations.  The 8-hour averaging period
replaced the previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of the
NAAQS was changed from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm.  The
new PM2.5 NAAQS established a health-based standard of 15.0 micrograms
per cubic meter (µg/m3) based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations, and a 24-hour standard of 65 µg/m3 based on a 3-year
average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations.  EPA
strengthened the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS from 65 µg/m3 to 35 µg/m3 on
October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144).

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit State Implementation
Plans (SIPs) that provide for the implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of new or revised NAAQS within three years following the
promulgation of such NAAQS.  In March of 2004, Earthjustice initiated a
lawsuit against EPA for failure to take action against States that had
not made SIP submissions to meet the requirements of sections 110(a)(1)
and (2) for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, i.e., failure to make
a “finding of failure to submit the required SIP 110(a) SIP
elements.”  On March 10, 2005, EPA entered into a Consent Decree with
Earthjustice that obligated EPA to make official findings, in accordance
with section 110(k)(1) of the CAA as to whether States have made
complete SIP submissions, pursuant to sections 110(a)(1) and (2), by
December 15, 2007 for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and by October 5,
2008 for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.  EPA made completeness findings for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS on March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16205) and on October
22, 2008 (73 FR 62902) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.  These completeness
findings did not include findings relating to:  1) section 110(a)(2)(C)
to the extent that such subsection refers to a permit program as
required by Part D Title I of the CAA; 2) section 110(a)(2)(I);  and 3)
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which has been addressed by a separate finding
issued by EPA on April 25, 2005 (70 FR 21147).  Therefore, this action
does not cover these specific elements.

II.   Summary of State Submittal

The District provided multiple submittals to satisfy section 110(a)(2)
requirements, that are the subject of this proposed rule for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.  The submittals
dated December 6, 2007 and January 11, 2008 addressed the 110(a)(2)
requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS;  the submittals dated
August 25, 2008 and September 22, 2008 addressed the 110(a)(2)
requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS; and the submittal dated September
21, 2009 addressed the section 110(a)(2) requirements for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.  These submittals addressed the following infrastructure
elements, that are the subject of this proposed rule:  110(a)(2)(A),
(B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M).

EPA has analyzed the above identified submissions and is proposing to
make a determination that such submittals meet the requirements of
110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and
(M).  A detailed summary of EPA’s review of and rationale for
approving the District’s submittals may be found in the Technical
Support Document (TSD) for this action which is available on line at
HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov , Docket
number EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0139.

III.   Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to approve the District of Columbia’s submittals that
provide the basic program elements specified in the CAA sections
110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and
(M) necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the 1997 8-hour ozone
and PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.  EPA is soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in this document.  These comments will
be considered before taking final action.

IV.  Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal
regulations.  42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).  Thus, in reviewing
SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the CAA.  Accordingly, this action merely
proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
For that reason, this proposed action:

is not a "significant regulatory action” subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993);

does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);

does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997);

is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211
(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the
CAA; and

does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects,
using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed rule, pertaining to the District of
Columbia’s section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements for the 1997
8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, does not have
tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian
country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Volatile organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

            W. C. Early, Acting

             Regional Administrator

__May 05, 2010________________
____________________________

Dated:
Shawn M. Garvin,

Regional Administrator,

Region III.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2

 PAGE  8


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 136 (Monday, July 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32849-32850]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15120]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER18-1981-000]

Pratt Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Pratt Wind, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to

intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is July 30, 2018.
    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
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected], or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 10, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15120 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 163 (Wednesday, August 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 42496]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18101]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 10552-016]

Contractor's Power Group, Inc.; American Falls Reservoir District
No. 2; Notice of Application for Transfer of License and Soliciting
Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    On July 13, 2018, Contractor's Power Group, Inc. (transferor) and
American Falls Reservoir District No. 2 (transferee) filed an
application for the transfer of license of the Mile 28 Hydroelectric
Project No. 10552. The project is located on the Bureau of
Reclamation's Milner-Gooding Canal, in Jerome County, Idaho.
    The applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the license for
the Mile 28 Hydroelectric Project from the transferor to the
transferee.
    Applicants Contact: For transferor: Mr. Breck Glassinger,
Contractor's Power Group, Inc., 124 Bridon Way, Jerome, ID 83338,
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For transferee: Mr. Ellis Gooch, President, American Falls
Reservoir District No. 2, 409 North Apple Street, Shoshone, ID 83352,
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> and Mr. Ted S. Sorenson, 1032 Grandview Drive,
Ivins, UT 84738.
    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests:
30 days from the date that the Commission issues this notice. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments,
motions to intervene, and protests 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 protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (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-10552-016.

    Dated: August 16, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-18101 Filed 8-21-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20684-20685]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8906]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0049]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Presubmission
Conferences, New Animal Drug Applications and Supporting Regulations,
and Food and Drug Administration Form 356V

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by May 13,
2011.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0032.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Juanmanuel Vilela, Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Presubmission Conferences, New Animal Drug Applications and Supporting
Regulations, and FDA Form 356V--(OMB Control Number 0910-0032)--
Extension

    Under section 512(b)(3) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360b(b)(3)), any person intending to file a
new animal drug application (NADA) or supplemental NADA or a request
for an investigational exemption under section 512(j) is entitled to
one or more conferences with FDA to reach an agreement acceptable to
FDA establishing a submission or investigational requirement. FDA and
industry have found that these meetings have increased the efficiency
of the drug development and drug review processes.
    Section 514.5 (21 CFR 514.5) describes the procedures for
requesting, conducting, and documenting presubmission conferences.
Section 514.5(b) describes the information that must be included in a
letter submitted by a potential applicant requesting a presubmission
conference, including a proposed agenda and a list of expected
participants. Section 514.5(d) describes the information that must be
provided by the potential applicant to FDA at least 30 days prior to a
presubmission conference. This information includes a detailed agenda,
a copy of any materials to be presented at the conference, a list of
proposed indications and, if available, a copy of the proposed labeling
for the product under consideration, and a copy of any background
material that provides scientific rationale to support the potential
applicant's position on issues listed in the agenda for the conference.
Section 514.5(f) discusses the content of the memorandum of conference
that will be prepared by FDA and gives the potential applicant an
opportunity to seek correction to or clarification of the memorandum.
    Under section 512(b)(1) of the FD&C Act, any person may file an
NADA seeking approval to legally market a new animal drug. Section
512(b)(1) of the FD&C Act sets forth the information required to be
submitted in an NADA. FDA allows applicants to submit a complete NADA
or to submit information in support of an NADA for phased review
followed by submission of an Administrative NADA when FDA finds all the
applicable technical sections are complete.
    The regulations under 21 CFR 514.1 interpret section 512(b)(1) of
the FD&C Act and further describe the information that must be
submitted as part of an NADA and the manner and form in which the NADA
must be assembled and submitted. The application must include safety
and effectiveness data, proposed labeling, product manufacturing
information, and where necessary, complete information on food safety
(including microbial food safety) and any methods used to determine
residues of drug chemicals in edible tissue from food-producing
animals. Guidance 152 entitled ``Evaluating the Safety of
Antimicrobial New Animal Drugs With Regard to Their Microbiological
Effects on Bacteria of Human Health Concern'' outlines a risk
assessment approach for evaluating the microbial food safety of
antimicrobial new animal drugs. FDA requests that an applicant
accompany NADAs, supplemental NADAs, and requests for phased review of
data to support NADAs, with the FDA Form 356V to ensure efficient and
accurate processing of information to support new animal drug approval.
    In the Federal Register of February 8, 2011 (76 FR 6798), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Average
                                     Number of       Number of     Total annual     burden per
   21 CFR Section/FDA Form No.      respondents    responses per     responses     response  (in    Total hours
                                        \4\         respondent                        Hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
514.5(b), (d) and (f)...........             154             .6            92.4               50           4,620
514.1 and 514.6.................             154             .1            15.4              212           3,265
514.4 \2\.......................             154            0               0                  0               0
514.8(b)........................             154            2.84          437.36              35          15,308
514.8(c)(1).....................             154             .1            15.4               71           1,093
514.8(c)(2) and (c)(3)..........             154             .7           107.8               20           2,156
514.11..........................             154             .2            30.8                1              31

558.5(i)........................             154             .01            1.54               5               8
514.1(b)(8) and 514.8(c)(1) \3\.             154             .21           32.34              90           2,911
FDA Form 356V...................             154            5.1           785.4                5           3,927
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         33,319
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.
\2\ Substantial Evidence--Because 21 CFR 514.4 only defines substantial evidence, it should not be viewed as
  creating additional collection burden.
\3\ NADAs and supplements regarding antimicrobial animal drugs that use a recommended approach to assessing
  antimicrobial concerns as part of the overall preapproval safety evaluation.
\4\ Based on the number of sponsors subject to animal drug user fees, FDA estimates that there was an average of
  154 annual respondents during the 5 fiscal years, from October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2010, on which
  these estimates were made. We use this estimate consistently throughout the table and calculate the ``annual
  frequency per respondent'' by dividing the total annual responses by the number of respondents.

    Dated: April 7, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-8906 Filed 4-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 63 (Tuesday, April 2, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19798-19799]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07459]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0011]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 19 individuals from its
rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM)
from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.
The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions are effective April 2, 2013. The exemptions
expire on April 2, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Room
W64-224, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of DOT's dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, or other
entity). You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal
Docket Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on
December 29, 2010 (75 FR 82132), or you may visit http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-12-29/pdf/2010-32876.pdf.

Background

    On February 4, 2013, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal
diabetes exemption applications from 19 individuals and requested
comments from the public (78 FR 7852). The public comment period closed
on March 6, 2013, and no comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 19 applicants and
determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would
achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3).

Diabetes Mellitus and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970
because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a
higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The
diabetes rule provides that ``A person is physically qualified to drive
a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring
insulin for control'' (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
    FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the
Agency's July 2000 study entitled ``A Report to Congress on the
Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated
Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the
Transportation Act for the 21st Century.'' The report concluded that a
safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to
operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441), Federal
Register notice in conjunction with the November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777),
Federal Register notice provides the current protocol for allowing such
drivers to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    These 19 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 4 to 44 years.
These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in
loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another
person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred
without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years. In each case,
an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a
willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus,
received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable
insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying
conditions, including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the
vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
    The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were
stated and discussed in detail in the February 4, 2013, Federal
Register notice and they will not be repeated in this notice.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption
is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than
would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the
applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and
reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the
ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is
likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and they include the following:
(1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist
completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual
checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each
individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes
of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to
manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other
adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is
related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide
a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical
examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that
each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to
the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep
a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-
employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when
driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local
enforcement official.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 19 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts Nicholas C. Bolton (NY), Isaias Gomez (IN), Brandon E. Hamlett
(NV), Douglas F. Keller (MI), Mark R. Loesel (WI), Steven A. Marion
(MA), Jason E. McAnnally (AL), Robert W. Moen (IA), Craig S. Moran
(CA), Wayne A. Ondrusek (PA), Lenicia R. Riley (TX), Mark L. Sandager
(MN), Samuel L. Sergio (MA), Jason L. Shaw (OK), Paul M. Shierk (OR),
Kailey J. Skroko (IN), Samantha K. Tsuchiya (CA), David W. West (MO),
and Eugene Zollner, II (OH) from the ITDM requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3), subject to the conditions listed under ``Conditions and
Requirements'' above.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption will
be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption
will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply
with the terms and conditions of the 1/exemption; (2) the exemption has
resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was
granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the
exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the
person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at
that time.

    Issued on: March 21, 2013.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-07459 Filed 4-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 164 (Wednesday, August 24, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58001-58002]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20250]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0031; Notice 2]

BMW of North America, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Denial of petition.

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

SUMMARY: BMW of North America, LLC (BMW), a subsidiary of BMW AG in
Munich, Germany, has determined that certain model year (MY) 2014-2015
BMW R nineT motorcycles do not fully comply with paragraph S6.4.3(a)
(Table V-b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108,
Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. BMW has filed an
appropriate report dated February 20, 2015, pursuant to 49 CFR part
573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. BMW then
petitioned NHTSA under 49 CFR part 556 requesting a decision that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.

ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Mike Cole,
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile
(202) 366-5930.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. BMW's Petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see
implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), BMW submitted a petition for an
exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of BMW's petition was published, with a 30-day
public comment period, on June 4, 2015 in the Federal Register (80 FR
31966). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2015-0031.''
    II. Motorcycles Involved: Affected are approximately 1,792 MY 2014-
2015 BMW R nineT motorcycles manufactured between November 27, 2013 and
January 26, 2015.
    III. Noncompliance: BMW explains that, due to an obstruction caused
by the tail lamp assembly, the noncompliance is that the rear turn
signal lamps were manufactured with a corner point of 5[deg]IB. The
turn signal lamps should have had a corner point of 20[deg]IB as
required by paragraph S6.4.3(a) (Table V-b) of FMVSS No. 108.
    BMW has since revised its petition to indicate that the obstructed
lens area was 666 sq-mm and that the photometric test point (20[deg]IB/
5[deg] down) was also obstructed and measured only 1.1 cd (FMVSS No.
108, S<IP_ADDRESS> and S<IP_ADDRESS>.2).
    IV. Rule Text: FMVSS No 108 requires in pertinent part:

    Paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>: Each lamp, reflective device, and item of
associated equipment must be securely mounted on a rigid part of the
vehicle, other than glazing, that is not designed to be removed
except for repair, within the mounting location and height limits as
specified in Table I, and in a location where it complies with all
applicable photometric requirements, effective projected luminous
lens area requirements, and visibility requirements with all
obstructions considered;
    Paragraph S6.4.3(a): When a vehicle is equipped with any lamp
listed in Table V-b each such lamp must provide not less than 1250
sq mm of unobstructed effective projected luminous lens area in any
direction throughout the pattern defined by the corner points
specified in Table V-b for each such lamp;
    Paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.2: As an alternative to S<IP_ADDRESS>.1, a rear
turn signal lamp installed on a motorcycle may be designed to
conform to the photometry requirements of Table XIII-a.

    V. Summary of BMW's Analyses: BMW stated its belief that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for
the following reasons:
    (A) BMW states that when the subject motorcycles are upright on a
level surface and equipped with standard tires at their recommended
cold tire inflation pressure; the lower edge of the rear turn signal
lenses are approximately 747 mm above ground, the lower edge of the
tail lamp lens is approximately 710 mm above ground and the tail lamp
lens extend upward. BMW believes that due to these geometric conditions
there is some overlap in the vertical direction between the rear turn
signal lenses and the tail lamp lens however, they are not aligned
along the same longitudinal centerline [of the turn signals].
Specifically, the tail lamp is on the motorcycle's longitudinal
centerline while the rear turn signals are on stalks offset from the
centerline. As a result, BMW believes that this has a very minor affect
upon the effective projected luminous lens area.
    (B) BMW stated its belief that the obstruction from the tail lamp
only occurs if another road user in a following vehicle has an eye-
point of approximately 747 mm above ground (extremely low for an
average vehicle) and is a worst-case-scenario. For other road users
with a higher eye-point, there is no apparent obstruction and the turn
signal would appear to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 108.
    (C) BMW also stated its belief that the effect of the
noncompliance, i.e., the overlap or interference of the turn signal
lamp by the tail lamp does not occur during critical traffic
conditions. A road user, who is following an affected motorcycle, and
in the same lane as an affected motorcycle, will be able to fully view
an affected motorcycle's rear turn signal at a distance of
approximately 1,935 mm (approximately 6 ft). BMW believes that in most
traffic conditions, a road user would not want to be closer to a
motorcycle than 6 ft. Thus, this ``non-visible'' rear turn signal
condition is not likely to occur during the vast majority of traffic
conditions. BMW provided detailed analysis of specific travel
conditions including following directly behind an affected motorcycle
and overtaking/passing an affected motorcycle that it believes supports
its conclusion that the condition caused by the subject noncompliance
will not interfere with the safety of the motorcycle rider or another
road user.
    (D) BMW Customer Relations has not received any contacts from
motorcycle riders, or other road users regarding this issue. Also, BMW
is not aware of any accidents or injuries that have occurred as a
result of this issue.
    BMW has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the
noncompliance so that all future production of the subject vehicles
will fully comply with FMVSS No. 108.
    In summation, BMW believes that the described noncompliance of the
subject motorcycles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and
that its petition, to exempt BMW from providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.

NHTSA'S Decision

    NHTSA's Analysis of BMW's Arguments: BMW stated that a number

of traffic conditions were analyzed to determine whether the
noncompliance is perceptible to other road users and, if so, its affect
upon safety.
    The first condition BMW reviewed was the rear turn signal mounting
height. BMW indicates that for another road user with a higher eye-
point, there is no apparent obstruction \1\ and the turn signal would
appear to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 108. While many road users
will have higher eye-points on a flat road than the mounting height of
these lamps, the downward requirements applicable to lamps are
generally necessary for instances when other road users are below the
preceding vehicles, such as vehicles cresting a hill. NHTSA has
previously relaxed the provisions of downward photometric test angles
for low mounted turn signal lamps,\2\ however, this provision would not
apply to BMW's turn signal lamps due to their moderately higher
mounting height. Regardless, even for lower mounted lamps, the
photometric test angles were relaxed at test points that were 15[deg]
down and 10[deg] down only. Essentially, any photometric requirements
for a low mounted turn signal lamp at the 15[deg] down and 10[deg] down
locations are allowed to be met at 5[deg] down. In the instant case,
BMW's turn signal lamps (as installed) at the 20[deg]IB/5[deg] down
test point are 75% below the required minimum photometric requirements.
As such, we are not compelled by BMW's argument on this point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ BMW later indicated that the obstruction of the turn signal
that created the noncompliance was due to a redesigned stop lamp.
    \2\ See Final Rule at 69 FR 48805, August 11, 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second condition that BMW reviewed was a traffic condition of
``Following Directly Behind an Affected Motorcycle.'' BMW's analysis in
this case assumes that the motorcycle and following vehicle are in the
same lane, and the motorcycle is on the left side of the lane directly
in front (and inline) with the driver of the following vehicle. BMW
argues that the following driver would have to be closer than 6 feet
from the motorcycle for the lamp to become obstructed and that would be
unlikely unless they were in bumper to bumper traffic. However, BMW did
not analyze the case where the motorcycle and the following vehicle
were in the same lane, but the motorcycle was oriented on the right
hand side of the lane. In this instance, the motorcycle could be offset
by 7.5 feet or more to the opposite side of the following driver, and
the distance from the motorcycle where the right turn signal lamp would
begin to become obstructed would be over 65 feet. This situation could
occur when the motorcyclist is preparing for a right hand turn and the
following driver may not receive the signal that the motorcycle is
about to slow down for the turn. As such, we are not compelled by BMW's
argument on this point.
    The third condition that BMW reviewed was a traffic condition of
``Overtaking/Passing an Affected Motorcycle.'' BMW's analysis in this
case assumes that the following vehicle is not in the same lane as the
motorcycle and that if the motorcyclist used its turn signal to
indicate a turn into the same lane as the following vehicle, the turn
signal lamp would not be obstructed. In this case, where a motorcyclist
indicates a turn into the same lane as a following vehicle, NHTSA
agrees that the turn signal lamp on that side would not be obstructed.
    NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds
that BMW has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS
No. 108 noncompliance described is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. Accordingly, BMW's petition is hereby denied and BMW is
obligated to provide notification of, and a free remedy for, that
noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.

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

Gregory K. Rea,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2016-20250 Filed 8-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 204 (Monday, October 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53326-53329]
[FR Doc No: 2018-22931]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Securities Exchange Act of 1934; Release No. 34-84440/October 16,
2018; Investment Company Act of 1940; Release No. IC-33272/October 16,
2018; Order Under Section 15b, Section 17a and Section 36 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Granting Exemptions From Specified
Provisions of the Exchange Act and Certain Rules Thereunder; Order
Under Section 6(C) and Section 38(A) of the Investment Company Act of
1940 Granting Exemptions From Specified Provisions of the Investment
Company Act and Certain Rules Thereunder

    On October 10, 2018, Hurricane Michael made landfall on the Florida
Panhandle. The storm and subsequent flooding has displaced individuals
and businesses and disrupted communications and transportation across
the affected region. We are issuing this Order to address the needs of
companies and individuals with obligations under the federal securities
laws who have been directly or indirectly affected by Hurricane Michael
and its aftermath.
    Section 15B(a)(4) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Exchange Act'') provides that the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission''), by rule or order, upon its own motion or upon
application, may conditionally or unconditionally exempt any broker,
dealer, municipal securities dealer or municipal advisor, or class of
brokers, dealers, municipal securities dealers, or municipal advisors
from any provision of Section 15B or the rules or regulations
thereunder, if the Commission finds that such exemption is consistent
with the public interest, the protection of investors and the purposes
of Section 15B.
    Section 36 of the Exchange Act authorizes the Commission, by rule,
regulation or order, to exempt, either conditionally or
unconditionally, any person, security or transaction, or any class or
classes of persons, securities or transactions, from any provision or
provisions of the Exchange Act or any rule or regulation thereunder, to
the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest, and is consistent with the protection of investors.
    Section 17A(c)(1) of the Exchange Act provides that the appropriate
regulatory agency, by rule or by order, upon its own motion or upon
application, may conditionally or unconditionally exempt any person or
security or class of persons or securities from any provision of
Section 17A or any rule or regulation prescribed under Section 17A, if
the appropriate regulatory agency \1\ finds that such exemption is in
the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and
the purposes of Section 17A, including the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions and the
safeguarding of securities and funds. Section 17A(c)(1) also requires
that the Commission not object to the use of exemptive authority in
instances where an appropriate regulatory authority other than the
Commission is providing exemptive relief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 3(a)(34)(B) of the Exchange Act defines
``appropriate regulatory authority.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Company
Act'') provides that the Commission may conditionally or
unconditionally exempt any person, security or transaction, or any
class or classes of persons, securities or transactions, from any
provision or provisions of the Company Act, or any rule or regulation
thereunder, if and to the extent that such exemption is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection
of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and
provisions of the Company Act. Section 38(a) of the Company Act
provides that the Commission may make, issue, amend and rescind such
rules and regulations and such orders as are necessary or appropriate
to the exercise of the powers conferred upon the Commission under the
Company Act.
    The necessity for prompt action of the Commission does not permit
prior notice of the Commission's action.

I. Time Period for the Relief

    The time period for the relief specified in Sections II and VI of
this Order is as follows:
     With respect to those persons or entities affected by
Hurricane Michael, for the period from and including October 10, 2018
to November 21, 2018, all reports, schedules or forms must be filed on
or before November 23, 2018.

II. Filing Requirements for Registrants and Other Persons

    The lack of communications, transportation, electricity, facilities
and available staff and professional advisors as a result of Hurricane
Michael could hamper the efforts of public companies and other persons
with filing obligations to meet their filing deadlines. At the same
time, investors have an interest in the timely availability of required
information about these companies and the activities of persons
required to file schedules and reports with respect to these companies.
While the Commission believes that the relief from filing requirements
provided by the exemption below is necessary and appropriate in the
public interest and consistent with the protection of investors, we
remind public companies and other persons who are the subjects of this
Order to continue to evaluate their obligations to make materially
accurate and complete disclosures in accordance with the anti-fraud
provisions of the federal securities laws.
    Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 36 of the Exchange
Act, that a registrant (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2) subject
to the reporting requirements of Exchange Act Section 13(a) or 15(d),
and any person required to make any filings with respect to such a
registrant, is exempt from any requirement to file or furnish materials
with the Commission under Exchange Act Sections 13(a), 13(d), 13(f),
13(g), 14(a), 14(c), 14(f), 15(d) and 16(a),

Regulations 13A, 13D-G, 14A, 14C and 15D, and Exchange Act Rules 13f-1,
14f-1 and 16a-3, as applicable, where the conditions below are
satisfied.

Conditions

    (a) The registrant or person other than a registrant is not able to
meet a filing deadline due to Hurricane Michael and its aftermath;
    (b) The registrant or person other than a registrant files with the
Commission any report, schedule or form required to be filed during the
applicable period of relief on or before the applicable deadline set
forth in Section I; and
    (c) In any such report, schedule or form filed pursuant to this
Order, the registrant or person other than a registrant must disclose
that it is relying on this Order and state the reasons why, in good
faith, it could not file such report, schedule or form on a timely
basis.

III. Furnishing of Proxy and Information Statements

    The conditions in the areas affected by Hurricane Michael,
including displacement of thousands of individuals and the destruction
of property, have prevented and will continue to prevent the delivery
of mail to the affected areas. In light of these conditions, we believe
that relief is warranted for those seeking to comply with our rules
imposing requirements to furnish materials to security holders when
mail delivery is not possible and that the following exemption is
necessary and appropriate in the public interest and consistent with
the protection of investors.
    Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 36 of the Exchange
Act, that a registrant or any other person is exempt from the
requirements to furnish proxy statements, annual reports and other
soliciting materials, as applicable (the ``Soliciting Materials''), and
the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules thereunder to
furnish information statements and annual reports, as applicable (the
``Information Materials''), where the conditions below are satisfied.

Conditions

    (a) The registrant's security holder has a mailing address located
within a zip code where, as a result of Hurricane Michael, the
registrant's common carrier has suspended delivery service of the type
or class customarily used by the registrant;
    (b) The registrant or other person making a solicitation has
followed normal procedure when furnishing the Soliciting Materials to
the security holder in order to ensure that the Soliciting Materials
preceded or accompanied the proxy, as required by the rules applicable
to the particular form of Soliciting Materials, or, in the case of
Information Materials, the registrant has followed normal procedure
when furnishing the Information Materials to the security holder in
accordance with the rules applicable to Information Materials; and
    (c) If requested by the security holder, the registrant or other
person provides the Soliciting Materials or Information Materials by a
means reasonably designed to furnish the Soliciting Materials or
Information Materials to the security holder.
    Any registrant or other person in need of additional assistance
related to deadlines, delivery obligations or their public filings,
should contact the Division of Corporation Finance at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
at https://tts.sec.gov/cgi-bin/corp_fin_interpretive.

IV. Transmittal of Annual and Semi-Annual Reports to Investors Required
by the Company Act and the Rules Thereunder

    For reasons similar to those cited in Section III, we believe that
relief is warranted for the transmittal by registered management
investment companies and registered unit investment trusts
(collectively, ``registered investment companies'') of annual and semi-
annual reports to investors and that the following exemption is
necessary and appropriate in the public interest and consistent with
the protection of investors.
    Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Sections 6(c) and 38(a) of
the Company Act that for the period from and including October 10, 2018
to November 21, 2018, a registered investment company is exempt from
the requirements of Section 30(e) of the Company Act and Rule 30e-1
thereunder to transmit annual and semi-annual reports to investors
affected by Hurricane Michael; and
    For the period from and including October 10, 2018 to November 21,
2018, a registered unit investment trust is exempt from the
requirements of Section 30(e) of the Company Act and Rule 30e-2
thereunder to transmit annual and semi-annual reports to unitholders
affected by Hurricane Michael,
    Provided that:
    (a) The affected investor's mailing address for transmittal as
listed in the records of the registered investment company has a zip
code for which the registered investment company's common carrier has
suspended mail service, as a result of Hurricane Michael, of the type
or class customarily used by the registered investment company for
transmittal of reports; and
    (b) The registered investment company or other person promptly
transmits the reports to affected investors: Either (a) if requested by
the investor; or (b) at the earlier of (i) November 23, 2018 or (ii)
the resumption of the applicable mail service.
    Registered investment companies who are unable to meet a deadline
as extended by this relief, or in need of additional assistance
regarding issues under the Company Act, should contact the Division of
Investment Management, Office of Chief Counsel, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected].
    Registered investment advisers in need of additional assistance
regarding issues under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 should
contact the Division of Investment Management, Investment Adviser
Regulation Office, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

V. Transfer Agent Compliance With Sections 17A and 17(f) of the
Exchange Act

    Exchange Act Section 17A and Section 17(f), as well as the rules
promulgated under Sections 17A and 17(f), contain requirements for
registered transfer agents relating to, among other things, processing
securities transfers, safekeeping of investor and issuer funds and
securities and maintaining records of investor ownership. Following the
events of Hurricane Michael, registered transfer agents located in the
affected regions may have difficulty complying with some or all of
their obligations as registered transfer agents. In addition,
registered transfer agents located outside the affected regions may be
unable to conduct business with entities or security holders inside the
regions, thereby making it difficult to process securities transactions
and corporate actions in conformance with Section 17A, Section 17(f)
and the rules thereunder.
    While the national clearance and settlement system continues to
operate well in light of these emergencies, the Commission recognizes
that the need to effect securities transfers and payments to and from
security holders in the affected regions may present compliance issues
for affected transfer agents. Therefore, the Commission is using its
authority under Section 17A and Section 36 of the Exchange Act to
provide temporary relief from certain regulatory provisions. This Order
temporarily exempts transfer agents

from the requirements of: (1) Section 17A of the Exchange Act and Rules
17Ad-1 through 17Ad-20 thereunder; and (2) Section 17(f) of the
Exchange Act and Rules 17f-1 and 17f-2 thereunder. The Commission finds
the following exemption to be in the public interest and consistent
with the protection of investors and the purpose of Section 17A of the
Exchange Act, including the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions and the safeguarding of
securities and funds.
    Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Sections 17A and 36 of the
Exchange Act, that any registered transfer agent that is unable to
comply with Section 17A and Section 17(f) of the Exchange Act and the
rules promulgated thereunder, as applicable, due to Hurricane Michael
and its aftermath is hereby temporarily exempted from complying with
such provisions for the period from and including October 10, 2018 to
November 21, 2018 where the conditions below are satisfied.

Conditions

    (a) A registered transfer agent relying on this Order must notify
the Commission in writing by November 21, 2018 of the following:
    (1) The transfer agent is relying on this Order;
    (2) A statement of the reasons why, in good faith, the transfer
agent is unable to comply with Section 17A and Section 17(f) of the
Exchange Act and the rules promulgated thereunder, as applicable;
    (3) If the transfer agent knows or believes that the books and
records it is required to maintain pursuant to Section 17A and the
rules thereunder were lost, destroyed or materially damaged,
information, to the extent reasonably available, as to the type of
books and records that were maintained, the names of the issuers for
whom such books and records were maintained, the extent of the loss of,
or damage to, such books and records and the steps taken to ameliorate
any such loss or damage; and
    (4) If the transfer agent knows or believes that funds or
securities belonging to either issuers or security holders and within
its possession were, for any reason, lost, destroyed, stolen or
unaccounted for, information, to the extent reasonably available,
regarding the dollar amount of any such funds and the number of such
securities and the steps taken to ameliorate any such loss; and
    (b) Transfer agents that have custody or possession of any security
holder or issuer funds or securities shall use all reasonable means
available to ensure that all such securities are held in safekeeping
and are handled, in light of all facts and circumstances, in a manner
reasonably free from risk of theft, loss or destruction and that all
funds are protected against misuse. To the extent possible, all
security holder or issuer funds that remain in the custody of the
transfer agent shall be maintained in a separate bank account held for
the exclusive benefit of security holders until such funds are properly
remitted.
    The notification required under (a) above shall be sent to:

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Division of Trading and
Markets, Office of Clearance and Settlement, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549-7010

    The Commission encourages registered transfer agents and the
issuers for whom they act to inform affected security holders whom they
should contact concerning their accounts, their access to funds or
securities and other shareholder concerns. If feasible, issuers and
their transfer agents should place a notice on their websites or
providing toll free numbers to respond to inquiries.
    Transfer agents who are unable to meet a deadline as extended by
this relief, or in need of additional assistance, should contact the
Division of Trading and Markets at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected].

VI. Filing of Annual Update to Form MA as Required by the Exchange Act
and the Rules Thereunder

    Section 15B of the Exchange Act and Rule 15Ba1-5(a)(1) thereunder
requires each registered municipal advisor to file with the Commission
an annual update to its Form MA. For reasons similar to those cited in
Section II, the Commission believes that relief is warranted for the
filing with the Commission of annual updates to Form MA by registered
municipal advisors and that such relief is consistent with the public
interest, the protection of investors and the purposes of Section 15B
of the Exchange Act.
    Accordingly, it is so ordered, pursuant to Section 15B(a)(4) of the
Exchange Act, that any registered municipal advisor is exempt from the
requirement to file an annual update to Form MA with the Commission, as
required by Section 15B of the Exchange Act and Rule 15Ba1-5(a)(1)
thereunder, where the conditions below are satisfied.

Conditions

    (a) The registered municipal advisor is not able to fulfill its
obligation to file an annual update to the registered municipal
advisor's Form MA within 90 days of the end of the registered municipal
advisor's fiscal year due to Hurricane Michael;
    (b) The registered municipal advisor files with the Commission its
annual update to Form MA required to be filed during the applicable
period of relief on or before the applicable deadline set forth in
Section I; and
    (c) In any such annual update to its Form MA filing, the registered
municipal advisor must disclose that it is relying on this Order and
state the reasons why, in good faith, it could not file such annual
update to Form MA on a timely basis.
    Registered municipal advisors who are unable to meet a deadline as
extended by this relief or in need of additional assistance, should
contact the Office of Municipal Securities at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected].

VII. Independence--Bookkeeping or Other Services Related to the
Accounting Records or Financial Statements of the Audit Client

    The conditions in the areas affected by Hurricane Michael,
including displacement of individuals, the destruction of property and
loss or destruction of corporate records, may require extraordinary
efforts to reconstruct lost or destroyed accounting records. The
Commission understands that in these particularly challenging
situations an audit client may look to its auditor for assistance in
reconstruction of its accounting records because of the auditor's
knowledge of the client's financial systems and records. Under Section
10A(g)(1) of the Exchange Act and Rule 2-01(c)(4)(i) of Regulation S-X,
auditors are prohibited from providing bookkeeping or other services
relating to the accounting records of the audit client, and in Rule 2-
01(c)(4)(i) of Regulation S-X, these prohibited services are described
as including ``maintaining or preparing the audit client's accounting
records'' or ``preparing or originating source data underlying the
audit client's financial statements.'' In light of the conditions in
areas affected by Hurricane Michael, however, we believe that limited
relief from these prohibitions is warranted for those registrants and
other persons that are required to comply with the independence
requirements of the federal securities laws and the Commission's rules
and regulations thereunder and that are affected by those conditions.
The Commission finds the following exemption to be necessary and
appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection
of investors.

    Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 36 of the Exchange
Act, that independent certified public accountants engaged to provide
audit services to registrants and other persons required to comply with
the independence requirements of the federal securities laws and the
Commission's rules and regulations thereunder are exempt from the
requirements of Section 10A(g)(1) of the Exchange Act and Rule 2-
01(c)(4)(i) of Regulation S-X, where the conditions below are
satisfied.

Conditions

    (a) Services provided by the auditor are limited to reconstruction
of previously existing accounting records that were lost or destroyed
as a result of Hurricane Michael and such services cease as soon as the
audit client's lost or destroyed records are reconstructed, its
financial systems are fully operational and the client can effect an
orderly and efficient transition to management or other service
provider; and
    (b) Services provided by the auditor to its audit client pursuant
to this Order are subject to pre-approval by the audit client's audit
committee as required by Rule 2-01(c)(7) of Regulation S-X.
    Auditors or audit clients who are in need of additional assistance
or have other questions relating to auditor independence, should
contact the Office of the Chief Accountant at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected].

    By the Commission.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-22931 Filed 10-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P