[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 24, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15634-15636]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05759]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2021-0069; FRL-10021-35-Region 3]

Air Plan Approval; Delaware; Nonattainment New Source Review
Requirements for 2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
(DNREC). This SIP revision will fulfill Delaware's nonattainment new
source review (NNSR) SIP element requirement for the 2015 8-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This action is being
taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 23, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2021-0069 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Johansen, Permits Branch (3AD10),

Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Johansen can also be reached via
electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 3, 2020, DNREC submitted on behalf
of the state of Delaware a formal SIP revision, requesting EPA's
approval of its NNSR Certification for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Delaware is certifying that its existing NNSR program, covering the
Delaware portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-
MD-DE (Philadelphia Area) nonattainment area (which includes New Castle
County) for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, is at least as stringent as
the requirements at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.165, as
amended by the final rule titled ``Implementation of the 2015 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: Nonattainment Area State
Implementation Plan Requirements'' (SIP Requirements Rule), for ozone
and its precursors. See 83 FR 62998 (December 6, 2018).

I. Background

    On October 1, 2015, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of
0.070 parts per million (ppm). 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015). Under
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 50.19, the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS is
attained when the three-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone concentration is less
than or equal to 0.070 ppm.
    Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires EPA
to designate as nonattainment any area that is violating the NAAQS
based on the three most recent years of ambient air quality data at the
conclusion of the designation process. The Philadelphia Area was
classified as marginal nonattainment for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS on
June 4, 2018 (effective August 3, 2018) using 2014-2016 ambient air
quality data. 83 FR 25776. On December 6, 2018, EPA issued the final
SIP Requirements Rule, which establishes the requirements that state,
tribal, and local air quality management agencies must meet as they
develop implementation plans for areas where air quality exceeds the
2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 83 FR 62998 (December 6, 2018). Areas that
were designated as marginal ozone nonattainment areas are required to
attain the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS no later than August 3, 2021. 40 CFR
51.1303 and 83 FR 10376 (March 9, 2018).
    Based on initial nonattainment designations for the 2015 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, as well as the December 6, 2018 final SIP Requirements
Rule, Delaware was required to develop a SIP revision addressing
specific CAA requirements for the Philadelphia Area, and submit to EPA
a NNSR Certification SIP or SIP revision no later than 36 months after
the effective date of area designations for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS
(i.e., August 3, 2021). See 83 FR 62998 (December 6, 2018). In this
action, EPA is only proposing to approve Delaware's August 3, 2020 NNSR
Certification SIP revision.\1\ EPA's analysis of how this SIP revision
addresses the NNSR requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS is
provided in Section II of this rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In addition to certifying its NNSR program, DNREC's August
3, 2020 SIP submittal contains information certifying its Emission
Statement Program and requirements for reasonable available control
technology (RACT). While DNREC's submittal contains information
regarding these other requirements, each requirement was submitted
as standalone SIP revisions for separate EPA action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    This rulemaking is specific to Delaware's NNSR requirements. NNSR
is a preconstruction review permit program that applies to new major
stationary sources or major modifications at existing sources located
in a nonattainment area.\2\ The specific NNSR requirements for the
ozone NAAQS are codified at 40 CFR 51.160-165.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See CAA sections 172(c)(5), 173 and 182.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The minimum SIP requirements for NNSR permitting programs for the
2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS are set forth in 40 CFR 51.165. These NNSR
program requirements include those promulgated in the ``Phase 2 Rule''
implementing the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (70 FR 71611 (November 29,
2005)), the 2008 Ozone NAAQS SIP implementation Rule (80 FR 12264,
March 6, 2015) and the 2015 SIP Requirements Rule (83 FR 62998,
December 6, 2018). Under the Phase 2 Rule, the SIP for each ozone
nonattainment area must contain NNSR provisions that: Set major source
thresholds for oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic
compounds (VOC) pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(1) and (2);
classify physical changes as a major source if the change would
constitute a major source by itself pursuant to 40 CFR
51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(3); consider any significant net emissions increase
of NOX as a significant net emissions increase for ozone
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(E); consider certain increases of
VOC emissions in extreme ozone nonattainment areas as a significant net
emissions increase and a major modification for ozone pursuant to 40
CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(F); set significant emissions rates for VOC and
NOX as ozone precursors pursuant to 40 CFR
51.165(a)(1)(x)(A)-(C) and (E); contain provisions for emissions
reductions credits pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1)-(2);
provide that the requirements applicable to VOC also apply to
NOX pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(8); and set offset ratios
for VOC and NOX pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(9).
    Delaware's SIP approved NNSR program, established in Title 7
Delaware Administrative Code (DE Admin Code) 1125 (Requirements for
Preconstruction Review), applies to the construction and modification
of major stationary sources in nonattainment areas. In its August 3,
2020 SIP revision, Delaware certifies that the version of Title 7 DE
Admin Code Section 1125 approved in the SIP is at least as stringent as
the Federal NNSR requirements for the Philadelphia Area.\3\ EPA last
approved Delaware's major NNSR program as being consistent with Federal
NNSR requirements on August 12, 2019. 84 FR 39758 (August 12, 2019). In
that action, EPA approved DNREC's 2008 Ozone Certification SIP
revision, which is analogous to EPA's proposed approval of this action.
Since EPA's August 12, 2019 approval, DNREC has made one change to its
regulations (related to EPA's modeling guidance), which EPA approved
into DNREC's SIP on May 1, 2020. 85 FR 25307. Approval of that action,
which revised Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions,
does not impact DNREC's certification or EPA's proposed approval of
DNREC's August 3, 2020 SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On October 20, 2016, EPA disapproved a proposed SIP revision
that sought to include additional ERC provisions, adopted by
Delaware on December 11, 2016, into the Delaware SIP, specifically,
7 DE Admin Code 1125 Sections 2.5.5 and 2.5.6. 81 FR 72529. Since
EPA disapproved these provisions, the previously approved provisions
that EPA approved into Delaware's SIP on October 2, 2012 remain
applicable Federal requirements. 77 FR 60053.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Delaware has chosen not to include certain optional NNSR provisions
that EPA could approve, pertaining to emissions change of VOC in
extreme nonattainment areas and emission reduction credits. Delaware's
choice not to include these provisions does not affect EPA's
determination regarding the approvability of its August 3, 2020

submittal, and they will not be discussed in this rulemaking.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ DNREC provided information regarding anti-backsliding in its
August 3, 2020 SIP submittal to EPA, which was not a requirement of
EPA's 2015 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule. See 83 FR 62998 (December 6,
2018). EPA noted in the 2015 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule that it
would address anti-backsliding in a future rulemaking action;
therefore, EPA will not be acting on anything related to anti-
backsliding in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Action

    EPA's review of this material indicates that Delaware's submission
fulfills the 40 CFR 51.1114 revision requirement, meets the
requirements of CAA sections 110 and 172 and the minimum SIP
requirements of 40 CFR 51.165. EPA is proposing to approve the
Delaware's SIP revision addressing the NNSR requirements for the 2015
8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Philadelphia Area, which was submitted on
August 3, 2020. 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 approves 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 Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     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 (Pub. L. 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, approving Delaware's 20015 8-hour
ozone NAAQS Certification SIP revision for NNSR, 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate Matter, Transportation, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 15, 2021
Diana Esher,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2021-05759 Filed 3-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48572-48576]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19884]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67621; File No. SR-FICC-2012-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Rules Regarding the
GCF Repo Service To Adopt Changes Recommended by the Tri-Party Repo
Infrastructure Reform Task Force

August 8, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On June 8, 2012, the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change SR-FICC-2012-05 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'').\1\ The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on June 26,
2012.\2\ The Commission received no comment letters. For the reasons
discussed below, the Commission is granting approval of the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-67277 (June 20,
2012), 77 FR 38108 (June 26, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    On July 12, 2011, FICC submitted a proposed rule change filing to
the Commission (SR-FICC-2011-05) proposing to make certain changes to
its GCF Repo service in order to comply

with the recommendations that had been made by the Tri-Party Repo
Infrastructure Reform Task Force (``TPR''), an industry group formed
and sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.\3\ Because the
GCF Repo service operates as a tri-party mechanism, FICC was requested
to incorporate changes to the GCF Repo service to align the service
with the other TPR recommended changes for the overall tri-party repo
market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The main purpose of the TPR was to develop recommendations
to address the risk presented by tri-party repo transactions due to
the current morning reversal or ``unwind'' process and to move to a
process by which tri-party repo transactions are collateralized all
day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule change described in SR-FICC-2011-05 was proposed to be run
as a pilot program (``Pilot Program'') for one year starting from the
date on which the Commission approved the filing.\4\ During this past
year, FICC implemented a portion of the rule changes that were included
in SR-FICC-2011-05 and wishes to continue to have these aspects of the
GCF Repo service continue as part of the renewed Pilot Program. FICC
also wishes to make certain modifications to the Pilot Program as noted
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-65213 (August 29,
2011), 76 FR 54824 (September 2, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Background: Description of the GCF Repo Service and History

(1) Creation of the GCF Repo Service
    The GCF Repo service allows Government Securities Division
(``GSD'') dealer members to trade general collateral repos \5\
throughout the day without requiring intra-day, trade-for-trade
settlement on a delivery-versus-payment (DVP) basis. The service allows
the dealers to trade such general collateral repos, based on rate and
term, throughout the day with inter-dealer broker netting members on a
blind basis. Standardized, generic CUSIP numbers have been established
exclusively for GCF Repo processing and are used to specify the
acceptable type of underlying Fedwire book-entry eligible collateral,
which includes Treasuries, Agencies, and certain mortgage-backed
securities.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A general collateral repo is a repo in which the underlying
securities collateral is nonspecific, general collateral whose
identification is at the option of the seller. This is in contrast
to a specific collateral repo.
    \6\ In 2009, the Commission approved FICC rule filing 2009-04 to
add debt securities issued under the Debt Guaranty Program component
of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's (``FDIC'') Temporary
Liquidity Guarantee Program (``TLGP'') to the GCF Repo service. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-59558 (March 11, 2009), 74 FR
11385 (March 17, 2009). The TLGP, one of the steps taken by the U.S.
Government to stabilize the credit markets and stimulate lending,
was designed to allow banks to issue FDIC-insured debt, ensuring
that the banks would be able to roll over any debt coming due in the
coming months. The guarantee consists of timely payment of principal
and interest. The expiration of the FDIC's guarantee is the earlier
of either the maturity date of the issued debt or June 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The GCF Repo service was developed as part of a collaborative
effort among the Government Securities Clearing Corporation (``GSCC'')
(GSD's predecessor), its two clearing banks (The Bank of New York
Mellon (``BNY'') and JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association
(``Chase'')), and industry representatives. GSCC introduced the GCF
Repo service on an intra-clearing bank basis in 1998.\7\ Under the
intrabank service, dealers could only engage in GCF Repo transactions
with other dealers that cleared at the same clearing bank.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-40623 (October
30, 1998), 63 FR 59831 (November 5, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Creation of the Interbank Version of the GCF Repo Service
    In 1999, GSCC expanded the GCF Repo service to permit dealer
participants to engage in GCF Repo trading on an interbank basis,
meaning that dealers using different clearing banks could enter into
GCF Repo transactions (on a blind brokered basis).\8\ Because dealer
members that participate in the GCF Repo service do not all clear at
the same clearing bank, introducing the service as an interbank service
necessitated the establishment of a mechanism to permit after-hours
movements of securities between the two clearing banks to deal with the
fact that GSCC would likely have unbalanced net GCF securities and cash
positions within each clearing bank (that is, it is likely that at the
end of GCF Repo processing each business day, the dealers in one
clearing bank will be net funds borrowers, while the dealers at the
other clearing bank will be net funds lenders). To address this issue,
GSCC and its clearing banks established, and the Commission approved, a
legal mechanism by which securities would ``move'' across the clearing
banks without the use of the Fedwire Securities Service (``Fedwire
Securities'').\9\ (Movements of cash do not present the same issue
because the Fedwire Funds Service (``Fedwire Funds'') is open later
than Fedwire Securities). Therefore, at the end of the day, after the
GCF net results are produced, securities are pledged via a tri-party-
like mechanism and the interbank cash component is moved via Fedwire
Funds. In the morning, the pledges are unwound, that is, funds are
returned to the net funds lenders and securities are returned to the
net funds borrowers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-41303 (April 16,
1999), 64 FR 20346 (April 26, 1999).
    \9\ See id. for a detailed description of the clearing bank and
FICC accounts needed to effect the after-hour movement of
securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(3) Issues With Morning Unwind Process
    In 2003, FICC shifted the GCF Repo service back to intrabank status
only.\10\ By that time, the service had grown significantly in
participation and volume. However, with the increase in use of the
interbank service, certain payments systems risk issues arose from the
inter-bank funds settlements related to the service, namely, the large
interbank funds movement in the morning. FICC shifted the service back
to intrabank status to enable management to study the issues presented
and identify a satisfactory solution for bringing the service back to
interbank status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-48006 (June 10,
2003), 68 FR 35745 (June 16, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(4) The NFE Filing and Restoration of Service to Interbank Status
    In 2007, FICC submitted to the Commission a proposed rule change to
address the issues raised by the interbank morning funds movement and
return the GCF Repo service to interbank status (``2007 NFE
Filing'').\11\ The 2007 NFE Filing addressed these issues by using a
hold against a dealer's ``net free equity'' (``NFE'') at the clearing
bank to collateralize its GCF Repo cash obligation to FICC on an
intraday basis.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-57652 (April 11,
2008), 73 FR 20999 (April 17, 2008).
    \12\ NFE is a methodology that clearing banks use to determine
whether an account holder (such as a dealer) has sufficient
collateral to enter into a specific transaction. NFE allows the
clearing bank to place a limit on its customer's activity by
calculating a value on the customer's balances at the bank. Bank
customers have the ability to monitor their NFE balance throughout
the day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2007 NFE Filing replaced the Day 2 morning unwind process with
an alternate process, which is currently in effect. Specifically, in
lieu of making funds payments, the interbank dealers grant to FICC a
security interest in their NFE-related collateral equal to their
prorated share of the total interbank funds amount. FICC, in turn,
grants to the other clearing bank (that was due to receive the funds) a
security interest in the NFE-related collateral to support the debit in
the FICC account at the clearing bank. The debit in the FICC account

(``Interbank Cash Amount Debit'') occurs because the dealers who are
due to receive funds in the morning must receive those funds at that
time in return for their release of collateral. The debit in the FICC
account at the clearing bank gets satisfied during the end of day GCF
Repo settlement process. Specifically, that day's new activity yields a
new interbank funds amount that will move at end of day--however, this
amount gets netted with the amount that would have been due in the
morning, thus further reducing the interbank funds movement. The NFE
holds are released when the interbank funds movement is made at end of
day. The 2007 NFE Filing did not involve any changes to the after-hours
movement of securities occurring at the end of the day on Day 1.
    As part of the 2007 NFE Filing, FICC imposed certain additional
risk management measures with respect to the GCF Repo service. First,
FICC imposed a collateral premium (``GCF Premium Charge'') on the GCF
Repo portion of the Clearing Fund deposits of all GCF participants to
further protect FICC in the event of an intra-day default of a GCF Repo
participant. FICC requires GCF Repo participants to submit a quarterly
``snapshot'' of their holdings by asset type to enable risk management
staff to determine the appropriate Clearing Fund premium. As with all
other instances of late submissions of required information, members
who do not submit this required information by the deadlines
established by FICC are subject to a fine and an increased Clearing
Fund premium.
    Second, the 2007 NFE Filing addressed the situation where FICC
becomes concerned about the volume of interbank GCF Repo activity. Such
a concern might arise, for example, if market events were to cause
dealers to turn to the GCF Repo service for increased funding at levels
beyond normal processing. The 2007 NFE Filing provides FICC with the
discretion to institute risk mitigation and appropriate disincentive
measures in order to bring GCF Repo levels to a comfortable level from
a risk management perspective.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Specifically, the 2007 NFE Filing introduced the term ``GCF
Repo Event,'' which will be declared by FICC if either of the
following occurs: (i) The GCF interbank funds amount exceeds five
times the average interbank funds amount over the previous ninety
days for three consecutive days; or (ii) the GCF interbank funds
amount exceeds fifty percent of the amount of GCF Repo collateral
pledged for three consecutive days. FICC reviews these figures on a
semi-annual basis to determine whether they remain adequate. FICC
also has the right to declare a GCF Repo Event in any other
circumstances where it is concerned about GCF Repo volumes and
believes it is necessary to declare a GCF Repo Event in order to
protect itself and its members. FICC will inform its members about
the declaration of the GCF Repo Event via important notice. FICC
will also inform the Commission about the declaration of the GCF
Repo Event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Changes to the GCF Repo Service to Implement the TPR's
Recommendations

    In SR-FICC-2011-05, FICC proposed the following rule changes with
respect to the GCF Repo service to address the TPR's Recommendations:
    1. (a) To move the Day 2 unwind from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.; (b) to
move the NFE process \14\ from morning to a time established by FICC as
announced by notice to all members; \15\ (c) to move the cut-off time
of GCF Repo submissions from 3:35 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.; and (d) to move
the cut-off time for dealer affirmation or disaffirmation from 3:45
p.m. to 3:00 p.m.; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ No other changes are being proposed to the NFE process that
was in place by the 2007 NFE Filing; the risk management measures
that were put in place by the 2007 NFE Filing remain in place with
the present proposal.
    \15\ SR-FICC-2011-05 noted that the possible time range would be
between 8:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. to coincide with the collateral
substitution mechanism that was being developed between FICC and its
clearing banks. FICC wishes to clarify that the 8:00 a.m. to 1:00
p.m. proposed time range in SR-FICC-2011-05 referred to the clearing
bank hold on the FICC interest in the NFE (i.e., as part of the NFE
process, FICC grants to the other clearing bank (that was due to
receive the funds) a security interest in the NFE--related
collateral to support the debit in the FICC account at the clearing
bank). With respect to the NFE hold on the dealers, please see
footnote 17 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. To establish rules for intraday GCF Repo collateral
substitutions (i.e., SR-FICC-2011-05 stated that with respect to
interbank GCF Repo transactions, the substitution process would only
permit cash as an initial matter to accommodate current processing
systems).
    FICC has implemented the proposed changes referred to in
subsections 1(c) and 1(d) above. FICC has not yet implemented the
proposed changes referred to in subsections 1(a), 1(b) and 2 above.
FICC is seeking the Commission's approval to extend the Pilot Program
for all of these changes for an additional year as noted above. FICC is
working with its clearing banks with respect to the implementation of
the changes that have not yet been implemented.
(1) Change Regarding the Morning Unwind and Related Rule Changes
    The TPR has recommended that the Day 2 unwind for all tri-party
transactions be moved from the morning to 3:30 p.m. The TPR has made
this recommendation in order to reduce the clearing banks' intraday
credit exposure to the dealers. As previously stated, because the GCF
Repo service is essentially a tri-party repo mechanism, FICC has also
been requested by the TPR to accommodate this time change. For the GSD
rules, this extends the change to the GSD's ``Schedule of GCF
Timeframes'' (``Schedule'') implemented during the initial Pilot
Program. Specifically, the 7:30 a.m. time in the Schedule was deleted
and the language therein moved to a new time of 3:30 p.m.
    The change to the time of the intrabank unwind also extends the
change implemented during the initial Pilot Program to the cut-off time
for GCF Repo trade submissions, which was 3:35 p.m. in the Schedule
prior to the initial Pilot Program. FICC amended the Schedule to change
the cut-off time to 3:00 p.m. to allow FICC to submit files to the
clearing banks which, in turn, will provide files to the dealers by
3:30 p.m.; this will permit the dealers to have a complete picture of
their positions as the unwind occurs at 3:30 p.m. The 3:45 p.m. cutoff
for dealer affirmation or disaffirmation that was in the Schedule prior
to the implementation of the initial Pilot Program was moved to 3:00
p.m. so that the new 3:00 p.m. cutoff for submissions is also the
cutoff for dealer affirmations and disaffirmations.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ This change updates the current Schedule to provide that
the cutoff for submissions and dealer affirmations/disaffirmations
is at the same time; the current practice is inconsistent with the
current Schedule and the proposed rule change would remedy this
inconsistency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the Day 2 unwind is moving from the morning to 3:30 p.m.
and because the NFE process established by the 2007 NFE Filing is tied
to the moment of the interbank unwind, the NFE process will also move
to the time established by FICC as announced by notice to all
members.\17\ Because the NFE process is a legal process and not an
operational process, it is not reflected on the Schedule. FICC is
deleting the reference to the ``morning'' timeframe on Day 2 with
respect to the NFE process in Section 3 of Rule 20 and adding language
referencing ``at the time established by the Corporation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Currently, the NFE hold is from the time the collateral is
returned to the repo dealer (approximately 7:30 a.m.) until the time
the funds move between the two clearing banks (approximately 5:00
p.m.). When the systems processing for the tri-party reform effort
continues on the part of the clearing banks, the unwind will move to
3:30 p.m. and the funds will continue to move between the two
clearing banks at 5:00 p.m.; when this occurs, the NFE hold which
applies to dealers will be between 3:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Change Regarding Intraday GCF Repo Securities Collateral
Substitutions
    As a result of the time change of the unwind (i.e., the reversal on
Day 2 of

collateral allocations established by FICC for each netting member's
GCF net funds borrower positions and GCF net funds lender positions on
Day 1) to 3:30 p.m., the provider of GCF Repo securities collateral in
a GCF Repo transaction on Day 1 will no longer have access to such
securities at the beginning of Day 2. Therefore, during Day 2 prior to
the unwind of the Day 1 collateral allocations, the provider of GCF
Repo securities collateral needs a substitution mechanism for the
return of its posted GCF Repo securities collateral in order to make
securities deliveries for utilization of such securities in its
business activities. FICC is establishing a substitution process for
this purpose in conjunction with its clearing banks. The language for
the substitution mechanism is being added to Section 3 of GSD Rule 20.
The rule change provides that all requests for substitution for the GCF
Repo securities collateral must be submitted by the provider of the GCF
Repo securities collateral by the applicable deadline on Day 2 (the
``substitution deadline'').\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ FICC will establish such deadline prior to the
implementation of the changes to this service in conjunction with
the clearing banks and the Federal Reserve in light of market
circumstances. The initial substitution deadline is anticipated to
be 1:00 p.m.; however, this will be finalized with the Federal
Reserve and the clearing banks. The possible time range will be
between 8:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. FICC will provide members advanced
notice of the substitution deadline and any future changes thereto
by important notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(3) Substitutions on Intrabank GCF Repos
    If the GCF Repo transaction is between dealer counterparties
effecting the transaction through the same clearing bank, on Day 2 such
clearing bank will process each substitution request of the provider of
GCF Repo securities collateral submitted prior to the substitution
deadline promptly upon receipt of such request. The return of the GCF
Repo securities collateral in exchange for cash and/or eligible
securities of equivalent value can be accomplished by simple debits and
credits to the accounts of the GCF Repo dealer counterparties at the
clearing agent bank. Eligible securities for this purpose will be the
same as those currently permitted under the GSD rules for collateral
allocations, namely, Comparable Securities,\19\ (ii) Other Acceptable
Securities,\20\ or (iii) U.S. Treasury bills, notes or bonds maturing
in a time frame no greater than that of the securities that have been
traded (except where such traded securities are U.S. Treasury bills,
substitution may be with Comparable Securities and/or cash only).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The GSD rules define ``Comparable Securities'' as follows:
The term ``Comparable Securities'' means, with respect to a security
or securities that are represented by a particular Generic CUSIP
Number, any other security or securities that are represented by the
same Generic CUSIP Number.
    \20\ The GSD rules define ``Other Acceptable Securities'' as
follows: The term ``Other Acceptable Securities'' means, with
respect to: (An) adjustable-rate mortgage-backed security or
securities issued by Ginnie Mae, any fixed-rate mortgage-backed
security or securities issued by Ginnie Mae, or (an) adjustable-rate
mortgage-backed security or securities issued by either Fannie Mae
or Freddie Mac: (a) Any fixed-rate mortgage-backed security or
securities issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, (b) any fixed-rate
mortgage-backed security or securities issued by Ginnie Mae, or (c)
any adjustable-rate mortgage-backed security or securities issued by
Ginnie Mae.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(4) Substitutions on Interbank GCF Repos
    For a GCF Repo that was processed on an interbank basis and to
accommodate a potential substitution request, FICC will initiate a
debit of the securities in the account of the lender through the FICC
GCF Repo accounts at the clearing bank of the lender and the FICC GCF
Repo account at the clearing bank of the borrower (``Interbank
Movement''). This Interbank Movement is being done so that a borrower
who elects to substitute collateral will have access to the collateral
for which it is substituting. The Interbank Movement is expected to
occur in the morning, though the clearing banks and FICC have the
capability to have the Interbank Movement occur at any point during the
day up until 2:30 p.m. During the Pilot Program, FICC and the clearing
banks will unwind the intrabank GCF Repo transactions at 3:30 p.m. FICC
and the clearing banks will determine the most appropriate timeframe
for the Interbank Movement process to occur.
    GCF Repo securities collateral will be debited from the securities
account of the receiver of the collateral at its clearing bank and from
a FICC account at the same clearing bank. If a substitution request is
received by the clearing bank of the provider of GCF Repo securities
collateral, prior to the substitution deadline at a time specified in
FICC's procedures,\21\ that clearing bank will process the substitution
request by releasing the GCF Repo securities collateral from the FICC
GCF Repo account at such clearing bank and crediting it to the account
of the provider of GCF Repo securities collateral. All cash and/or
securities substituted for the GCF Repo securities collateral being
released will be credited to FICC's GCF Repo account at the clearing
bank of the provider of the GCF Repo securities collateral.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ This timeframe will also be established in consultation
with the clearing banks and the Federal Reserve. The parties are
considering whether to have the substitution process be accomplished
in two batches during the day depending upon the time of submission
of the notifications for substitution. In any event, substitution
requests will be subject to the substitution deadline. The details
of the batches, if applied, will be announced to members by
important notice. The deadline for submission of GCF Repo
substitution requests will be the same for intrabank and interbank
processing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Simultaneously, with the debit of the GCF Repo securities
collateral from the account at the clearing bank of the original
receiver of GCF Repo securities collateral, such clearing bank will
effect a cash debit equal to the value of the securities collateral in
FICC's GCF Repo account at such clearing bank and will credit the
account of the original receiver of securities collateral at such
clearing bank with such cash amount in order to make payment to the
original receiver of securities collateral. (This is because when the
original receiver of securities collateral is debited the securities,
it must receive the funds.) In order to secure FICC's obligation to
repay the balance in FICC's GCF Repo account at the clearing bank of
the original receiver of the GCF Repo securities collateral, FICC will
grant to such clearing bank a security interest in the cash and/or
securities substituted for the GCF securities collateral in FICC's GCF
repo account at the other clearing bank.
    For substitutions that occur with respect to GCF Repo transactions
that were processed on an inter-clearing bank basis, FICC and the
clearing banks will permit cash substitutions as noted in SR-FICC-2011-
05. However, as discussions have developed between FICC and its
clearing banks, it has been determined that cash and securities may be
used for substitutions. The rule change provides FICC with flexibility
in this regard by referring to FICC's procedures. When interbank
securities substitutions begin to be permitted, FICC will announce this
to members by important notice.
Other Rule Changes
    FICC is also making technical clean-up changes to Section 7 of GSD
Rule 20, which relate to the GCF Repo collateral process. Specifically,
FICC is changing reference to the defined term ``Security'' to
``security'' to conform to the use of ``security'' throughout the rule.
The rule change also introduces a term that previously had not been
included in the rules inadvertently, ``GCF Collateral Excess Account.''
This term is defined as ``the account established by a GCF Custodian
Bank in the name of the Corporation to hold securities it credits to
the GCF Securities Account the

Corporation establishes for another GCF Clearing Bank.''

III. Discussion

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \22\ requires, among other things,
that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of security transactions and
assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the
custody or control of such clearing agency or for which it is
responsible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Because the proposed rule change aligns the GCF Repo service with
recommendations made by the TPR to address risks in the overall tri-
party repo market, it will promote the prompt and accurate clearance
and settlement of security transactions and assure the safeguarding of
securities and funds which are in the custody or control of FICC or for
which it is responsible, and therefore is consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act. The proposed rule
change is not inconsistent with the existing rules of FICC, including
any other rules proposed to be amended.

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in
particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \23\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\24\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-FICC-2012-05) be,
and hereby is, approved.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \25\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-19884 Filed 8-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 194 (Friday, October 5, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60956-60959]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24640]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

23 CFR Part 1200

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0137]
RIN 2127-AL29

State Graduated Driver Licensing Incentive Grant

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This NPRM seeks public comment on the minimum qualification
criteria for the State Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL) Incentive Grant
program authorized under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act (MAP-21). MAP-21 authorizes grants for States that
implement multi-stage licensing systems that require novice drivers
younger than 21 years of age to comply with the requirements and
process set forth below before receiving an unrestricted driver's
license. NHTSA will consider comments in developing a rule implementing
the GDL requirements under MAP-21.

DATES: Written comments may be submitted to NHTSA and must be received
on or before October 25, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Written comments to NHTSA may be submitted using any one of
the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments to: Docket Management Facility, M-30,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Written comments may be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Internet: To submit comments electronically, go to the US
Government regulations Web site at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Hand Delivery: If you plan to submit written comments by
hand or courier, please do so at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    Whichever way you submit your comments, please remember to identify
the docket number of this document within your correspondence. The
docket may be accessed via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public
Participation'' heading in the ``Supplementary Information'' section of
this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided.
    Privacy Act: Please see the Privacy Act heading under Rulemaking
Analyses and Notices.
    Docket: All documents in the dockets are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
at the Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC. The Docket Management Facility is
open between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For Program Issues: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Associate Administrator,
Regional Operations and Program Delivery, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., NTI-200, Washington,
DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For Legal Issues: Mr. Russell Krupen, Attorney-Advisor, Office of
the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., NCC-113, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202)
366-1834. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On July 6, 2012, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century
Act (MAP-21) was enacted into law (Pub. L. 112-141). Section 31105 of
MAP-21 amended 23 U.S.C. 405 to consolidate several grant programs to
address national priorities for reducing highway deaths and injuries.
MAP-21 also created new grant programs under Section 405, including one
for states that adopt and implement graduated driver's licensing (GDL)
laws.
    All 50 states have enacted GDL laws as a means of providing a safe
transition for novice drivers to the driving task. A GDL system
generally consists of a multi-staged process for issuing driver's
licenses to young, novice drivers. During the first stage, the
applicant generally is issued a learner's permit and may operate a
motor vehicle only while under the supervision of a licensed driver
over the age of 21. During the second stage, the applicant is issued an
intermediate (also called a provisional or restricted) license and may
operate a motor vehicle without a supervising adult, but only under
certain conditions. Additional restrictions also generally apply during
these first two stages. Once drivers meet all of the conditions and
restrictions of the first two stages, they can then earn an
unrestricted driver's license. Some of the significant benefits of GDL
systems are that young drivers are able to gain valuable driving
experience under controlled circumstances, and they must demonstrate
responsible driving behavior and proficiency to move through each level
of the system before graduating to the next.
    States have various approaches to the requirements and restrictions
associated with each GDL stage. Although evaluations clearly show the
benefits of adopting GDL laws, these benefits vary greatly across
states depending upon the approaches taken. A NHTSA-supported study by
Johns Hopkins University, released in June 2006, found that States that
have comprehensive GDL programs had a 20-percent reduction in fatal
crashes involving 16-year-old drivers. A recent study by the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety ranked States by the

strength of their GDL laws and found that strong GDL programs were
associated with 30 percent lower fatal crash rates among 15-17 year-
olds compared to weak licensing programs. NHTSA publishes research and
information on teen driver safety, including the benefits of GDL
systems, on its Web site at http://www.nhtsa.gov/Driving+Safety/
Driver+Education.
    Under a previous authorization, enacted in 1998, Congress expanded
the criteria that States could use to satisfy the requirements for an
alcohol-impaired driving prevention program incentive grant to include
the adoption of a GDL system. See Public Law 105-178, Sec. 2004 (The
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century [TEA-21]) (formerly
codified at 23 U.S.C. 410). The agency issued an interim final rule
implementing these provisions on December 29, 1998, 63 FR 71688, and a
final rule on July 28, 2000, 65 FR 46344. In 2005, Section 2007 of the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59) eliminated the GDL
system criterion, and MAP-21 repealed the Section 410 program as it
consolidated the various grants into the Section 405 program.
    MAP-21 reintroduces an incentive for States to implement GDL
systems by authorizing a grant program under the amended Section 405
program. The statute sets forth minimum qualification criteria,
permitted exceptions, grant allocation requirements, and limitations on
the use of grant funds that are awarded. The fifty States, the District
of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are each
eligible to apply for a GDL grant. In setting forth the minimum
qualification criteria for the GDL grant, MAP-21 is very prescriptive;
few, if any, potential applicants currently meet all of the minimum
qualification criteria prescribed by MAP-21. This NPRM describes the
basic structure of the MAP-21 GDL Incentive Grant and seeks public
comment to assist the agency in promulgating a rule implementing those
minimum qualification criteria.

II. Minimum Qualification Criteria

    MAP-21 specifies a ``2-stage licensing process'' for a qualifying
GDL program. Specifically, in order to receive an incentive grant, a
State's driver's license law must require novice drivers younger than
21 years of age to comply with a ``learner's permit stage'' and an
``intermediate stage'' before receiving an unrestricted driver's
license.
    MAP-21 requires that the State GDL system begin with a learner's
permit stage that is at least six months in duration and remains in
effect until the driver reaches 16 years of age and enters the
intermediate stage or reaches 18 years of age. The learner's permit
stage must prohibit the driver from using a cellular telephone or any
communications device in a non-emergency situation.
    Under MAP-21, the State GDL system must include an intermediate
stage that commences immediately after the expiration of the learner's
permit stage, is at least six months in duration, and remains in effect
until the driver reaches 18 years of age. The intermediate stage must
restrict driving at night and prohibit the driver from operating a
motor vehicle with more than 1 non-familial passenger younger than 21
years of age unless a licensed driver who is at least 21 years of age
is in the motor vehicle. Finally, as with the learner's permit stage,
the intermediate stage must prohibit the driver from using a cellular
telephone or any communications device in a non-emergency situation.
    MAP-21 allows the agency to prescribe additional requirements
beyond those described above for GDL systems. In allowing this
discretion, the statute identifies the following criteria for
consideration: During the learner's permit stage, requiring (1) at
least 40 hours of behind-the-wheel training with a licensed driver who
is at least 21 years of age, (2) a driver training course, and (3) the
driver to be accompanied and supervised by a licensed driver who is at
least 21 years of age at all times while such driver is operating a
motor vehicle; During the learner's permit and intermediate stages, in
addition to any other penalties imposed by State law, an automatic
delay in the grant of an unrestricted driver's license for any
individual who, during either of those stages, is convicted of a
driving-related offense, including driving while intoxicated,
misrepresentation of his or her true age, reckless driving, driving
without wearing a seat belt, speeding, and any other driving-related
offense as determined by the Agency.
    MAP-21 requires NHTSA to promulgate regulations necessary to
implement the minimum qualification criteria for the GDL program in
accordance with the notice and comment provisions under 5 U.S.C. 553.
Accordingly, this notice seeks public comment on the minimum
qualification criteria set forth above. For example, should the agency
adopt all or only some of the additional criteria identified in MAP-21?
Are there any further criteria that should be adopted? Commenters are
directed to the MAP-21 amendments to 23 U.S.C. 405 (specifically, new
section 405(g)(2)), set forth in section 31105 of MAP-21, for the full
text of these qualification criteria. NHTSA will consider all timely
comments in developing a rule implementing the GDL requirements under
MAP-21.

III. Public Participation

    MAP-21 requires NHTSA to implement regulations creating a single
application process for both the Section 405 grant applications and
applications for Highway Safety Grants under 23 U.S.C. 402, to be
included in the State Highway Safety Plan that is used currently by the
States to apply for the Section 402 grants, and further establishes a
single deadline for such applications to enable the award of grants
early in the fiscal year (FY). NHTSA intends to issue regulations as
expeditiously as possible to provide sufficient lead time for States to
develop and submit applications and receive FY 2013 grant funds as
early as practicable in that fiscal year, as well as provide lead time
for FY 2014 grant applications, which are due on July 1, 2013, as
specified by MAP-21. Because of these deadlines, NHTSA is operating
under an aggressive schedule to issue the new regulations required by
MAP-21.
    NHTSA plans to consider all public comments on the GDL criteria
timely received under this notice in the course of implementing the GDL
requirements under MAP-21. The agency plans to combine, in one rule,
the GDL requirements that are the subject of today's notice with the
MAP-21 requirements for the Section 402 program grants and the other
Section 405 program grants. In that rule, NHTSA will also address the
application process, qualification criteria, and use of grant funds by
the States, as well as any other relevant requirements and information
for the implementation of the new grant programs. In order to ensure
that NHTSA has adequate time to take into account all comments
submitted in response to this NPRM and to issue a rule that provides
the States sufficient lead time to prepare applications for all grants
under MAP-21, NHTSA has limited the comment period for today's notice
to 20 days. (See DATES section.)

A. How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the

Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your
comments. Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (See 49
CFR Sec.  553.21.) We established this limit to encourage you to write
your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach
necessary additional documents to your primary comments. There is no
limit on the length of the attachments.
    Please submit your comments, including the attachments, to Docket
Management by any of the methods given above under ADDRESSES.
    If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe)
file, we ask that the documents submitted be scanned using Optical
Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agency to search
and copy certain portions of your submissions. Optical character
recognition (OCR) is the process of converting an image of text, such
as a scanned paper document or electronic fax file, into computer-
editable text.

B. How can I be sure my comments were received?

    If you submit your comments by mail and wish Docket Management to
notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed,
stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon
receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by
mail.

C. Will the agency consider late comments?

    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If a comment
is received too late for us to consider in developing a final rule
(assuming that one is issued), we will consider that comment as an
informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

D. How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the materials placed in the docket for this document
(e.g., the comments submitted in response to this document by other
interested persons) at any time by going to http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. You may also
read the materials at the Docket Management Facility by going to the
street address given above under ADDRESSES. The Docket Management
Facility is open between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. Some people may submit late comments.
Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the docket for
new material.

IV. Statutory Basis for This Action

    The agency's proposal would implement the State GDL Incentive Grant
program created by section 31105 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in
the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. 112-141), which requires the Department
of Transportation to issue implementing regulations for national
priority safety programs, including the State GDL Incentive Grant
program.

V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O.
13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The agency has considered the impact of this rulemaking action
under E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563, and the Department of Transportation's
regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking was not reviewed by
the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.'' The rulemaking action has also been determined
to be not significant under the Department's regulatory policies and
procedures. (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
    Today's NPRM only seeks public comment on the minimum qualification
criteria for the State Graduated Driver Licensing Incentive Grant
program authorized under MAP-21. NHTSA will consider any comments it
receives as it develops a rule that combines the GDL requirements that
are the subject of today's notice with the MAP-21 requirements for the
Section 402 and Section 405 grant programs. The minimum qualification
criteria addressed in this rule affect only the State GDL Incentive
Grant program, and the funds to be distributed under that program total
no more than $13.25 million in fiscal year 2013 and $13.6 million in
fiscal year 2014.
    The agency concludes that the impacts of this proposed action are
so minimal that preparation of a full regulatory evaluation is not
required. However, the agency does expect safety benefits resulting
from the implementation of conforming GDL systems by States.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
requires agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their proposed
and final rules on small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions. Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to
certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the proposed
rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) amended the RFA to require Federal
agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying
that an action would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    This NPRM is for a rulemaking that will implement a new grant
program enacted by Congress in MAP-21. Under this new Federal program,
States will receive grant funds if they adopt compliant GDL systems.
This program will affect only State governments, which are not
considered to be small entities as that term is defined by the RFA.
Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities and find that the
preparation of a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is unnecessary.

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132 on ``Federalism'' requires NHTSA to develop
an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications.'' 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999). ``Policies
that have federalism implications'' are defined in the Executive Order
to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, an agency
may not issue a regulation with Federalism implications that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs and that is not required by statute
unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the
direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments or the
agency consults with State and local governments in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. An agency also may not issue a
regulation with Federalism implications that preempts a State law
without consulting with State and local officials.
    The agency has analyzed this rulemaking action in accordance with
the principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132, and has

determined that this proposed rule would not have sufficient Federalism
implications as defined in the order to warrant formal consultation
with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism
summary impact statement. However, NHTSA continues to engage with state
representatives regarding general implementation of MAP-21, including
this grant program, and expects to continue these informal dialogues in
connection with the forthcoming consolidated grant regulations mandated
by MAP-21.

D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996)),
``Civil Justice Reform,'' the agency has considered whether this
proposed rule would have any retroactive effect. I conclude that it
would not have any retroactive or preemptive effect, and judicial
review of it may be obtained pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 702. That section
does not require that a petition for reconsideration be filed prior to
seeking judicial review. This action meets applicable standards in
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as implemented by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 5 CFR part 1320, a person is
not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal
agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This
action does not contain a collection of information requirement for
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Although MAP-21 requires the
submission of applications for the State GDL Incentive Grant, the
application procedures will be addressed in a subsequent and separate
rulemaking action. This NPRM only solicits public comment on minimum
grant qualification criteria.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires
agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and
other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate
likely to result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million
annually (adjusted annually for inflation with base year of 1995). This
proposal would not meet the definition of a Federal mandate because the
resulting annual State expenditures would not exceed the minimum
threshold. The program is voluntary and States that choose to apply and
qualify would receive grant funds.

G. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has considered the impacts of this rulemaking action for the
purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has
determined that this proposal would not have a significant impact on
the quality of the human environment.

H. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribes)

    The agency has analyzed this proposal under Executive Order 13175,
and has determined that the proposed action would not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, would not
impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal
governments, and would not preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal
summary impact statement is not required.

I. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in or about April and October of each
year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of
this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

J. Privacy Act

    Please note that anyone is able to search the electronic form of
all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

    Authority:  Pub. L. 112-141, Section 31105; 23 U.S.C. 405(g) (as
set forth in MAP-21); delegation of authority at 49 CFR Sec. Sec.
1.94 and 1.95.

    Issued On: October 1, 2012.
Ronald Medford,
Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-24640 Filed 10-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 83 (Thursday, April 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24314-24315]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10009]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-xxxx-xxxx]

Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is
announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection
of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish a notice in
the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information
and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This
notice solicits comments on an information collection supporting Driver
Distraction Measurement Research.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 29, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments using any of the following methods:
    Electronic submissions: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE.,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
    Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
Docket number for this Notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without changes to http://www.regulations.gov including any
personal information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Mazzae, Applied Crash
Avoidance Research Division, Vehicle Research and Test Center, NHTSA,
10820 State Route 347--Bldg. 60, East Liberty, Ohio 43319; Telephone
(937) 666-4511; Facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), before an agency submits a proposed collection
of information to OMB for approval, it must first publish a document in
the Federal Register providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise
consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning
each proposed collection of information. The OMB has promulgated
regulations describing what must be included in such a document. Under
OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR 1320.8(d), an agency must ask for public
comment on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;

    (ii) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) how to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected;
    (iv) how to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic
submission of responses. In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA
asks for public comments on the following proposed collection of
information:
    Title: Driver Distraction Measurement Research.
    Type of Request: New collection.
    OMB Clearance Number: None.
    Form Number: NHTSA Form 1157.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from date of
approval.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: NHTSA proposes to collect
information from the public as part of a multi-study research effort
that supports the development of measurement techniques for auditory-
vocal interactions involving in-vehicle and portable devices. Questions
will be asked in conjunction with driving experiments involving both
driving simulator and visual occlusion apparatus research tools. The
research will involve driving simulator-based experiments in which
participants perform specific secondary tasks while driving. The
questions will be used to assess individuals' suitability for study
participation, to obtain ratings of task difficulty that can be
compared to driving performance data, and to assess the incidence and
severity of any discomfort stemming from driving the simulator.
    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's
(NHTSA) mission is to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce
healthcare and other economic costs associated with motor vehicle
crashes. An April 2010 program plan document titled ``Overview of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Driver Distraction
Program'' announced multiple efforts to reduce the dangers associated
with distracted driving. This research aims to inform the development
of test procedures and criteria that could be used for voice systems.
    Respondents: We estimate that 1,650 persons will complete at least
a portion of the information collection. Respondents will be licensed
drivers aged 18-70 years who drive at least 3,000 miles annually, are
in good health, and do not require to assistive devices to safely
operate a vehicle.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: In support of this research, it is
estimated that 1,650 individuals will complete the first set of
screening questions and 1,400 will complete the second set of screening
questions. Of the 1,400, it is estimated that 1,000 individuals will
meet criteria for participation. From those 1,000, approximately 425
individuals will be chosen to produce a sample providing a balance of
age and genders and will be scheduled for study participation.
    Estimated Time per Response: Completion of the screening questions
is estimated to take approximately 5 minutes for the first set and 10
minutes for the second set. The Rating Scale for Mental Effort (RSME)
is estimated to take 2.5 minutes per participant and the simulator
sickness questionnaire is estimated to take 2 minutes per participant.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 176 hours.
    Frequency of Collection: The data collection described will be
performed once to obtain the target number of valid test participants.

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).

Nathaniel Beuse,
Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety Research.
[FR Doc. 2015-10009 Filed 4-29-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 03/13/2008 11:03 AM

To

Janet Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

RE: final? edits

Thank you Janet I rec'd the fax (we all share the fax machine)

I am reading all the files and look forward to chatting this afternoon.

Best !!

heidi

-----Original Message-----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 7:57 PM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: final? edits

Heidi,

    To speed your review, I faxed you 12 pages from the RIA that we

changed since we sent you documents last night.  These changes reflect

comments from OPEI and other internal reviewers.  I will also be

emailing you shortly complete documents that have these changes

incorporated into them.  I did not have your fax number and Ron said you

went home for the evening, so I used the fax number I had for Rob

202-395-7285.  Let me know if you would like for me to fax the 12 pages

to a different number.

Thanks,

Janet

_______________________________________

Janet F. Cakir, Ph.D.

Environmental Protection Specialist

Air Benefits Cost Group

109 TW Alexander Dr., (C439-02)

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>