[Federal Register: August 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 149)]
[Notices]
[Page 44988]
[DOCID:fr01au08-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-442-000]

CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Request
Under Blanket Authorization

July 25, 2008.
    Take notice that on July 18, 2008, CenterPoint Energy Gas
Transmission Company (CEGT), 1111 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas
77002-5231, filed in Docket No. CP08-442-000, a prior notice request
pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.216 of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act for
authorization to abandon, by sale and transfer, certain facilities in
Oklahoma, all as more fully set forth in the application, which is on
file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may
also be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Specifically, CEGT proposes to abandon, by transfer and sale at net
book value of $544,481 as of June 30, 2008, to CenterPoint Energy
Resources Corp., d/b/a Oklahoma Gas, an affiliated local distribution
company, a segment of Line 11 and entire Line 11-D. CEGT states that
Line 11 consists of 8,126 feet of 4\1/2\ inch steel pipe with two
domestic taps and Line 11-D consists of 16,613 feet of 2\3/8\ inch
steel diameter pipe with nine domestic taps, both located in Comanche
County, Oklahoma. CEGT asserts that Oklahoma Gas will incorporate these
lines as part of its existing low-pressure distribution system in
Oklahoma.
    Any questions regarding the application should be directed to
Lawrence O. Thomas, Director-Rates & Regulatory, CenterPoint Energy Gas
Transmission Company, P.O. Box 21734, Shreveport, Louisiana 71151, or
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not
withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest,
the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-17641 Filed 7-31-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 155 (Tuesday, August 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47103-47104]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19040]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No., 14593-000]

 Patman Power, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On February 28, 2014, Wright Patman Power, LLC filed an application
for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power
Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of a hydropower project
to be located at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Wright
Patman Dam, on the Sulphur River near the town of Texarkana in Bowie
County, Texas. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is
to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application
during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the
permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise
enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express
permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) Three 48
inch-diameter, 300-foot-long steel penstocks; (2) three inline
generation units with a total capacity of 4-megawatts; (3) a switchyard
on the south bank adjacent to the dam; (4) a 1-mile-long, 138kV
transmission line.
    The project would have an average annual generation of 10,000
megawatt-hours and operate utilizing surplus water from the Wright
Patman Lake, as directed by the Corps.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Magn[uacute]s J[oacute]hannesson, Wister
Power, LLC, 46 Peninsula Center, Suite E, Rolling Hills Estates, CA
90274.<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    FERC Contact: Christiane Casey<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202)
502-8577.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and five copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14593) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: August 6, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-19040 Filed 8-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 173 (Wednesday, September 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61674-61675]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21443]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER16-2509-000]

Rutherford Farm, 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
Rutherford Farm, 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 September 20, 2016.
    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 Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 31, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-21443 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 23, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 225)]
[Notices]
[Page 65797-65798]
[DOCID:fr23no07-116]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56790; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2007-113]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the
Mid-Point Passive Liquidity Order

November 15, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 5, 2007, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or ``Exchange''),
through its wholly owned subsidiary, NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (``NYSE
Arca Equities'' or ``Corporation''), filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially
prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposed rule change
as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) \3\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which
renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Rule 7.31(h)(5) in order
to reduce the Mid-Point Passive Liquidity Order's (``MPL Order'')
minimum order entry size and minimum executable size from 1000 to 100.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    As part of its continuing efforts to provide additional flexibility
and increased functionality to its system and its Users,\5\ the
Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31(h)(5) in order to reduce the MPL
Order's minimum order entry size and minimum executable size from 1000
to 100. The MPL Order \6\ is a version of the NYSE Arca Passive
Liquidity Order,\7\ except that it is executable only at the midpoint
of the Protected Best Bid and Offer (``PBBO'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See NYSE Arca Rule 1.1(yy) for the definition of ``User.''
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56072 (July 13,
2007), 72 FR 39867 (July 20, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-61).
    \7\ See NYSE Arca Rule 7.31(h)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Presently, the MPL Order's minimum order entry and execution size
is 1000. The Exchange represents that this MPL Order type was initially
designed to accommodate larger customer transactions. However, since
its inception, it has become clear that Users with a typical order flow
less than this threshold are frequently unable to use it. This proposed
reduction of the order entry and execution size from 1000 to 100 will
allow all Users the same flexibility in using this order type.
    The Exchange is not proposing any other changes or amendments to
the MPL order. The Exchange intends to offer this functionality in
concert with other planned technological upgrades presently scheduled
to be implemented on November 19, 2007, or such later date as
communicated to its Users through a customer notice.
    The Exchange believes that reducing the minimum order entry size
and the minimum execution size will further enhance order entry and
execution opportunities on the Exchange. Retail customers, whose orders
are typically smaller than 1000, will particularly benefit from this
reduction and thus the proposed rule change will allow those Users the
same opportunities as larger institutional customers.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\8\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open
market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days after the date of filing (or such shorter time as the Commission
may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest) the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant
to

Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule
19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not
become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\12\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a
shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has satisfied the five-
day pre-filing requirement. In addition, the Exchange has requested
that the Commission waive the 30-day pre-operative delay and designate
the proposed rule change to become operative upon filing. The
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because reducing the MPL Order's minimum size from 1000 to 100 will
provide greater potential for all Users to be able to use this MPL
Order type without delay. Further, the Commission believes that this
change to an existing order type does not impose any burden on
competition or significantly affect the protection of investors.
Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal to become operative
upon filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay of
this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in the furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NYSEArca-2007-113 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2007-113. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090, on official business days between the
hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSE-2007-113 and should be submitted on or before December 14, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-22778 Filed 11-21-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 18 (Friday, January 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3821-3824]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01357]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82542; File No. SR-ICC-2018-001]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or
Advance Notice Relating to the ICC Rules, ICC Risk Management Model
Description Document, ICC Risk Management Framework, ICC Stress Testing
Framework, and ICC Liquidity Risk Management Framework

January 19, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934,\1\ and Rule 19b-4,\2\ notice is hereby given that on January 16,
2018, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared primarily
by ICC. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on
the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1)
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or Advance Notice

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to make revisions to the
ICC Clearing Rules (the ``Rules'') to support clearing of a new
transaction type. ICC also proposes related loss given default
enhancements to the ICC Risk Management Model Description Document, the
ICC Risk Management Framework, the ICC Stress Testing Framework, and
the ICC Liquidity Risk Management Framework.

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or
Advance Notice

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

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or
Advance Notice

(a) Purpose
    ICC proposes revisions to its Rules, Risk Management Model
Description Document, Risk Management Framework, Stress Testing
Framework, and Liquidity Risk Management Framework. ICC believes such
revisions will facilitate the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions and derivative agreements,
contracts, and transactions for which it is responsible. The proposed
revisions are described in detail as follows.
Proposed Amendments to the ICC Rules
    The purpose of the proposed changes to the ICC Rules is to support
clearing of a new transaction type, Standard European Senior Non-
Preferred Financial Corporate, which was recently published by the
International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. (``ISDA''). ICC
proposes amending its Rules to provide for the clearance of contracts
referencing this new transaction type. ICC believes the addition of
these contracts will benefit the market for credit default swaps by
providing market participants the benefits of clearing, including
reduction in counterparty risk and safeguarding of margin assets
pursuant to clearing house rules.
    Specifically, ICC proposes amending Rule 26H-102 (Definitions),
`List of Eligible Standard European Financial Corporate (``STEFC'')
Reference Entities' to include Standard European Senior Non-Preferred
Financial Corporate in the list of Eligible STEFC Reference Entities to
be cleared by ICC. ICC also proposes amending Rule 26H-102
(Definitions), `STEFC Contract Reference Obligations' to note that in
the case of a STEFC Reference Entity where the transaction type is
Standard European Senior Non-Preferred Financial Corporate, the STEFC
Contracts Reference Obligation shall be determined in accordance with
the Additional Provisions for Senior Non-Preferred Reference
Obligations, as published by ISDA. ICC also proposes conforming changes
to Rule 26H-303 (STEFC Contract Adjustments) and Rule 26H-315 (Terms of
the Cleared STEFC Contract), to incorporate reference to the new
transaction type.
Proposed Loss Given Default Enhancements
    ICC's risk management methodology incorporates considerations of
idiosyncratic credit events and the associated potential losses. These
credit event losses are termed Loss-Given-Default (``LGD''). In order
to support clearing of the new transaction type, ICC proposes certain
LGD enhancements to its risk model. A description of these changes is
set forth below.
    ICC first proposes Risk Factor (``RF'') level LGD enhancements.
These proposed RF level enhancements are designed to better capture the
LGD risk associated with the issuance of new debt structures by
European banks, and provide a consistent recovery rate scenario
approach to different sub-factors.
    Under ICC's risk model, every Single Name (``SN'') reference entity
is deemed a RF. Each combination of definition, doc-clause, tier, and
currency for a given SN RF determines a SN Risk Sub-Factor (``RSF'').
Currently, ICC measures losses associated with credit events (``LGD'')
by means of a stress-based approach, which utilizes three recovery rate
(``RR'') scenarios: Minimum RR, expected RR, and maximum RR. Outright
and index-derived RSF exposures are combined at each RR scenario.
    The results of these RR scenarios are used as an input into the
Profit/Loss-Given-Default (``P/LGD'') calculations at both the RSF and
RF levels. For each RSF, P/LGD is calculated as the worst credit event
outcome, and for each RF, P/LGD is calculated as the sum of the worst
credit outcomes per RSF. These final P/LGD results are used as part of
the determination of risk requirements.
    ICC proposes enhancements to the RF level LGD calculation.
Specifically, ICC proposes a change to the calculation by incorporating
a more consistent approach in the calculation of the P/LGD by using the
same RR scenarios applied to the different RSFs which part of the
considered RF.
    For each RF, ICC will continue to calculate an ``extreme outcome''
as the sum of the worst RSF P/LGDs across all scenarios. ICC will also,
for each RF, calculate an ``expected outcome'' as the worst sum of all
the RSF P/LGDs across all of the same scenarios. Under the proposed
approach, ICC will then combine the results of the ``extreme outcome''
calculation and the ``expected outcome'' calculation to compute the
total LGD for each RF.
    ICC also proposes to expand its LGD analysis to Risk Factor Groups
(``RFG''). Under the proposed changes, a collection of related RFs will
form a RFG. These related RFs will be defined as a RFG based on either
(1) having a common majority parental sovereign ownership (e.g. quasi-
sovereigns and sovereigns), or (2) being a majority

owned subsidiary of a common parent entity according to the Bloomberg
Related Securities Analysis. A RFG can consist of only one RF. This
change will better capture the risk exposure dynamics of related RFs,
and will allow ICC the ability to provide limited LGD benefits across
RFs with opposite exposures, as well as allow for the ability to
capture accumulation of directional exposure for related RFs.
    Under the proposed approach, the total quantity LGD will be
calculated on a RFG level, and account for the exposure due to credit
events associated with the reference entities within a given RFG. If a
RFG contains only one RF, the LGD will continue to be computed as the
risk exposure due to a credit event for a given underlying reference
entity. Under the proposed approach, ICC will sum the P/LGDs for each
RF in a given RFG, with limited offsets in the event RFs exhibit
positive PLGD. Using the results of the above calculation, ICC will
obtain the RFG level LGD. The proposed approach also includes a
calculation which allows for the RFG level LGD to be attributed to each
RF within the considered RFG.
    ICC proposes changes to the `Loss Given Default Risk Analysis'
section of the Risk Management Model Description Document to reflect
the described RF and RFG LGD calculation changes. ICC also proposes
conforming changes to other sections of the Risk Management Description
Document to incorporate these methodology changes and reflect the RFG
analysis.
    ICC proposes a revision to the `Uncollateralized Loss Given
Default' calculation in order to incorporate the RFG level LGD
attribution calculation mentioned above.
    ICC proposes changes to the `Idiosyncratic Jump-to-Default
Requirements' section of the Risk Management Model Description
document. Currently, the portfolio JTD approach collateralizes the
worst uncollateralized LGD (``ULGD'') exposure among all RFs. Under the
proposed approach, the portfolio JTD approach will collateralize,
through the portfolio JTD IM requirement that accounts for the RFG-
specific LGD collateralization, the worst ULGD exposure among all RFGs.
The ULGD exposure for a given RFG will be calculated as a sum of the
associated RF ULGDs.
    ICC also proposes minor edits to the `Portfolio Level Wrong-Way
Risk and Contagion Risk Analysis' section to update language and
calculation descriptions to accommodate the introduction of the RFG to
the `Idiosyncratic Jump-to-Default Requirements' section.
    ICC proposes changes to the `Guaranty Fund Methodology' section.
ICC's risk management approach establishes GF to provide for the
mutualization of losses under extreme credit market scenarios.
Specifically, the ICC GF is designed to provide adequate funds to cover
losses associated with the default of the two CP affiliate groups that
would potentially cause the largest aggregate credit exposure to ICC
under extreme but plausible market conditions. ICC's current GF
methodology includes, among other assumptions and adverse market
conditions, the assumption that up to three credit events, different
from the ones associated with CPs, occur during the established risk
horizon. ICC proposes expanding this analysis to the RFG level. Under
this proposed approach, it will be assumed that credit events
associated with up to three RFGs, different from the ones associated
with the CPs and the RFs that are in the RFGs as the CPs, occur during
the established risk horizon. As such, the uncollateralized losses,
used in the Guaranty Fund analysis, reflect the proposed expansion to
the RFG level.
    ICC also proposes clarifications to the calculation for the
Specific Wrong Way Risk component of the Guaranty Fund. Currently, for
a given CP, the Specific Wrong Way Risk component is based on self-
referencing positions arising from one or more RFs; ICC proposes
clarifying this analysis to be based on the RFG level.
    ICC proposes conforming changes to its Risk Management Framework,
Liquidity Risk Management Framework, and Stress Testing Framework, to
reflect the LGD enhancements described above. For the Risk Management
Framework, ICC proposes revisions to the `Jump-to-Default Requirements'
section to note that the worst LGD associated with a RFG is selected to
establish the portfolio idiosyncratic JTD requirements. ICC also
proposes revisions to the `Guaranty Fund' section to reflect the RFG
LGD enhancements related to ICC's Guaranty Fund calculation.
    With regards to the Stress Testing Framework, ICC proposes changes
to its stress testing methodology to be based on the reference entity
group level (also referred to as the RFG level). Currently, ICC
utilizes scenarios based on hypothetically constructed (forward
looking) extreme but plausible market scenarios augmented with adverse
credit events affecting up to two additional reference entities per CP
affiliate group; ICC proposes expanding its adverse credit event
analysis to include up to two additional reference entity groups. ICC
also proposes that the selected RFG for stress testing purposes must
contain one or more reference entities displaying 500 bps or greater 1-
Y end-of-day spread level in order to be subjected to credit events.
ICC also proposes changes to its reverse stress testing, general wrong
way risk, and contagion stress testing analyses, to be at the RFG
level. ICC proposes removing RF level references under its Recovery
Rate Sensitivity analysis to be consistent with the proposed changes
related to RFG.
    Finally, with regards to the ICC Liquidity Risk Management
Framework, ICC proposes changes to its liquidity stress testing
methodology to be based on the reference entity group level (also
referred to as the RFG level). Currently (consistent with the stress
testing methodology), ICC utilizes scenarios based on hypothetically
constructed (forward looking) extreme but plausible market scenarios
augmented with adverse credit events affecting up to two additional
reference entities per CP affiliate group; ICC proposes expanding its
adverse credit event analysis to include up to two additional reference
entity groups. Similar to the Stress Testing Framework, ICC also
proposes that the selected RFG for liquidity stress testing purposes
must contain one or more reference entities displaying 500 bps or
greater 1-Y end-of-day spread level in order to be subjected to credit
events. Finally, ICC is adding additional language to the liquidity
framework detailing the rationale behind the selection of the 500 bps
threshold, to be consistent with Stress Testing Framework.
(b) Statutory Basis
    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \3\ requires, among other things,
that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, and
to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts and
transactions and to comply with the provisions of the Act and the rules
and regulations thereunder. ICC believes that the proposed rule changes
are consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to ICC, in particular, to Section
17(A)(b)(3)(F),\4\ because ICC believes that the proposed rule changes
will promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities

transactions, derivatives agreements, contracts, and transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In regards to the proposed amendments to the ICC Rules, contracts
referencing the Standard European Senior Non-Preferred Financial
Corporate transaction type are similar to the STEFC contracts currently
cleared by ICC, and will be cleared pursuant to ICC's existing clearing
arrangements and related financial safeguards, protections and risk
management procedures. Clearing of these contracts will allow market
participants an increased ability to manage risk and ensure the
safeguarding of margin assets pursuant to clearing house rules. ICC
believes that acceptance of these contracts, on the terms and
conditions set out in the Rules, is consistent with the prompt and
accurate clearance of and settlement of securities transactions and
derivative agreements, contracts and transactions cleared by ICC, the
safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody or control of ICC,
and the protection of investors and the public interest, within the
meaning of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Clearing of contracts referencing the Standard European Senior Non-
Preferred Financial Corporate transaction type will also satisfy the
requirements of Rule 17Ad-22.\6\ In particular, in terms of financial
resources, ICC will apply its existing initial margin methodology to
the contracts. ICC believes that this model will provide sufficient
initial margin requirements to cover its credit exposure to its
clearing members from clearing such contracts, consistent with the
requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2).\7\ In addition, ICC believes its
Guaranty Fund, under its existing methodology, will, together with the
required initial margin, provide sufficient financial resources to
support the clearing of the contracts consistent with the requirements
of Rule 17Ad-22(b)(3).\8\ ICC also believes that its existing
operational and managerial resources will be sufficient for clearing of
the contracts, consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-
22(d)(4),\9\ as the new contracts are substantially the same from an
operational perspective as existing contracts. Similarly, ICC will use
its existing settlement procedures and account structures for the new
contracts, consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(d)(5), (12)
and (15) \10\ as to the finality and accuracy of its daily settlement
process and avoidance of the risk to ICC of settlement failures. ICC
determined to accept the contracts for clearing in accordance with its
governance process, which included review of the contracts and related
risk management considerations by the ICC Risk Committee and approval
by its Board. These governance arrangements are consistent with the
requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(d)(8).\11\ Finally, ICC will apply its
existing default management policies and procedures for the contracts.
ICC believes that these procedures allow for it to take timely action
to contain losses and liquidity pressures and to continue meeting its
obligations in the event of clearing member insolvencies or defaults in
respect of the additional single names, in accordance with Rule 17Ad-
22(d)(11).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(3).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(4).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(5), (12) and (15).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(8).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regards to the LGD enhancements, the proposed risk model
revisions enhance ICC's risk methodology and are expected to impose
more conservative requirements, which would enhance the financial
resources available to ICC and thereby facilitate its ability to
promptly and accurately clear and settle its cleared CDS contracts. In
addition, the proposed revisions are consistent with the relevant
requirements of Rule 17Ad-22.\13\ In particular, the LGD related
amendments will enhance the financial resources available to the
clearing house, and continue to ensure that ICC maintains sufficient
financial resources to withstand a default by the Clearing Participant
(``CP'') family to which it has the largest exposure in extreme but
plausible market conditions, and are therefore reasonably designed to
meet the margin and financial resource requirements of Rule 17Ad-
22(b)(2-3).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFRSec.  240.17Ad-22.
    \14\ 17 CFRSec.  240.17Ad-22(b)(2-3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    ICC does not believe the proposed rule changes would have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition. Contracts referencing the
Standard European Senior Non-Preferred Financial Corporate transaction
type will be available to all ICC participants for clearing. The
clearing of these contracts by ICC does not preclude the offering of
the contracts for clearing by other market participants. Additionally,
the LGD enhancements apply uniformly across all CPs. Therefore, ICC
does not believe the proposed rule changes impose any burden on
competition that is inappropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule
Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or Advance Notice Received From
Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been
solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by ICC.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based
Swap Submission, or Advance Notice and Timing for Commission Action

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-ICC-2018-001 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2018-001. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the

submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with
respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission,
and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change
between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be
withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
552, will be available for website viewing and printing in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Credit and on ICE
Clear Credit's website at https://www.theice.com/clear-credit/regulation.
    All comments received will be posted without change. Persons
submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2018-001 and should be
submitted on or before February 16, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-01357 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 242 (Thursday, December 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78773-78775]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31753]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2012-0031]

The Standard on 4, 4'--Methylenedianiline (MDA) in Construction;
Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of
Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to
extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the
information collection requirements specified in the Standard on 4,4'--
Methylenedianiline (MDA) in Construction (29 CFR 1926.60).

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
February 16, 2016.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit a copy of your comments and
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2012-0031,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are
accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal
business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the
OSHA docket number (OSHA-2012-0031) for this Information Collection
Request (ICR). All comments, including any personal information you
provide, are placed in the public docket without change, and may be
made available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further
information on submitting comments see the ``Public Participation''
heading in the section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download from the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at
the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate
of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609,
200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accord with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing
information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational
injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also
requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden

upon employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to
reduce to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of
efforts in obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    The information collection requirements specified in the 4',4'--
Methylenedianiline Standard for Construction (the ``MDA Standard'') (29
CFR 1926.60) protect employees from the adverse health effects that may
result from their exposure to MDA, including cancer, liver and skin
disease. The major paperwork requirements specify that employers must
perform initial, periodic, and additional exposure monitoring; notify
each worker in writing of their results as soon as possible but no
longer than 5 days after receiving exposure monitoring results; and
routinely inspect the hands, face, and forearms of each worker
potentially exposed to MDA for signs of dermal exposure to MDA.
Employers must also: establish a written compliance program; institute
a respiratory protection program in accord with 29 CFR 1910.134 (OSHA's
Respiratory Protection Standard); and develop a written emergency plan
for any construction operation that could have an MDA emergency (i.e.,
an unexpected and potentially hazardous release of MDA).
    Employers must label any material or products containing MDA,
including containers used to store MDA-contaminated protective clothing
and equipment. They also must inform personnel who launder MDA-
contaminated clothing of the requirement to prevent release of MDA, and
personnel who launder or clean MDA-contaminated protective clothing or
equipment must receive information about the potentially harmful
effects of MDA. In addition, employers must post warning signs at
entrances or access ways to regulated areas, as well as train workers
exposed to MDA at the time of their initial assignment, and at least
annually thereafter.
    Other paperwork provisions of the MDA Standard require employers to
provide workers with medical examinations, including initial, periodic,
emergency and follow-up examinations. As part of the medical-
surveillance program, employers must ensure that the examining
physician receives specific written information, and that they obtain
from the physician a written opinion regarding the worker's medical
results and exposure limitations.
    The MDA Standard also specifies that employers are to establish and
maintain exposure-monitoring and medical-surveillance records for each
worker who is subject to these requirements, make any required record
available to OSHA compliance officers and the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) for examination and copying, and
provide exposure-monitoring and medical-surveillance records to workers
and their designated representatives.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    The Agency is requesting an adjustment decrease of 43 burden hours
to 986 burden hours. The decrease is a result of removing burden hours
for training because the Agency, upon further consideration, does not
believe that training is covered by the PRA.
    The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to
this notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB to
extend the approval of the information collection requirements
contained in the MDA Standard.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: 4, 4'--Methylenedialine in Construction Standard (29 CFR
1926.60).
    OMB Control Number: 1218-0183.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits; Not-for-profit
organizations; Federal Government; State, Local, or Tribal Government.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Average Time per Response: Varies from 5 minutes (.08 hour) for
employers to provide information to the physician to 2 hours for
initial monitoring.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 986.
    Number of Respondents: 2,469.
    Total Number of Responses: 2,558.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number (Docket No. OSHA-2012-0031) for the ICR. You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download from this Web
site.
    All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for
inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments and access
the docket is available at the Web site's ``User Tips'' link. Contact
the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available
from the Web site, and for assistance in using the Internet to locate
docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44

U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR
3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on December 14, 2015.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2015-31753 Filed 12-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 199 (Thursday, October 15, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62145-62146]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26153]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76110 ; File No. SR-NYSE-2015-44]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Amending Sections 902.03, 902.04, 902.05 and 902.06 of the Listed
Company Manual To Increase Certain of the Fees Set Forth Therein

October 8, 2015
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on September 25, 2015, New York Stock Exchange LLC
(``NYSE'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes toamend[sic] sections 902.03, 902.04, 902.05
and 902.06 of the Listed Company Manual (the ``Manual'') to increase
certain of the fees set forth therein. The Exchange proposes to
immediately reflect the proposed changes in the Manual, but not to
implement the proposed fee changes until January 1, 2016. The text of
the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend sections 902.03, 902.04, 902.05 and
902.06 of the Manual to increase certain of the fees set forth therein.
The Exchange proposes to immediately reflect the proposed changes in
the Manual, but not to implement the proposed fee changes until January
1, 2016.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange has proposed changes to the Manual, as
reflected in Exhibit 5 attached hereto, in a manner that would
permit readers of the Manual to identify the changes that would be
implemented on January 1, 2016. The Commission notes that Exhibit 5
is attached to the filing, not to this Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 902.03 of the Manual currently provides, in part, for
annual fees for listed equity securities. Currently, the annual fee for
an issuer's primary class of common shares or, if no class of common
shares is listed on the Exchange, the preferred stock of such issuer is
the greater of $45,000 or $0.001 per share. The Exchange proposes to
increase these thresholds to $52,500 and $0.001025, respectively.
Currently, the annual fee for each additional class of common shares,
each additional class of preferred stock and each class of warrants is
calculated as the greater of a specified minimum fee or $0.001 per
share. The Exchange proposes to leave the minimum fee for those three
categories unchanged, but to increase the fee per share for each
category to $0.001025 per share.
    Sections 902.04, 902.05 and 902.06 of the Manual set forth, in
part, the annual fees for closed-end funds, structured products and
short-term securities, respectively. In each case, the current annual
fee for these securities is calculated as the greater of a specified
minimum fee or $0.001 per share. The Exchange proposes to leave the
minimum fee for those three categories of securities unchanged, but to
increase the fee per share for each category to $0.001025 per share.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ With respect to closed-end funds, the increase to the fee
per share will be applicable to both the primary listed security and
each additional class of listed equity securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described below, the Exchange proposes to make the
aforementioned fee increases to better reflect the Exchange's costs
related to listing equity securities and the corresponding value of
such listing to issuers.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with section 6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of sections 6(b)(4) \7\ of the Act, in particular, in that
it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other
persons using its facilities. The Exchange also believes that the
proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b)(5) \8\ of the Act
in that it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to amend section 902.03
of the Manual to increase the minimum annual fee for an issuer's
primary class of common shares and primary class of

preferred stock, to the greater of $52,500 or $0.001025 per share and
to increase the fee per share for each additional class of common
shares, each additional class of preferred stock, each class of
warrants, each class of listed securities of closed-end funds,
structured products and short-term securities to $0.001025 per share
because the resulting fees would better reflect the Exchange's costs
related to such listing and the resulting value that that such listings
provide to the issuers. In that regard, the Exchange notes that it has
incurred increased expenses as it continues to improve and increase the
services it provides to listed companies. These improvements include
renovating and upgrading the Exchange building to provide meeting
spaces for listed companies and a significant upgrade to the NYSE
Connect online community accessible to all listed companies. The
Exchange believes that the proposed fee increases are equitably
allocated because the per share fee increase will be the same for all
issuers on the Exchange. Therefore, the proposed fee increases will not
be unfairly discriminatory towards any individual issuer. Further, the
Exchange believes it is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act to
increase the minimum fee for the primary class of common shares and
primary class of preferred stock but not the minimum fee for each
additional class of such securities. The Exchange notes that the
minimum fee for an additional class of common shares or preferred stock
is already less than the fee for a primary class and that such fee
differential has been approved under the Act. The Exchange has
determined to leave the minimum fee for an additional class of common
shares or preferred stock unchanged at this time as there are only a
few listed companies with more than one class of common shares or
preferred stock listed on the Exchange.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
designed to ensure that the fees charged by the Exchange accurately
reflect the services provided and benefits realized by listed
companies. The market for listing services is extremely competitive.
Each listing exchange has a different fee schedule that applies to
issuers seeking to list securities on its exchange. Issuers have the
option to list their securities on these alternative venues based on
the fees charged and the value provided by each listing. Because
issuers have a choice to list their securities on a different national
securities exchange, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
fee changes impose a burden on competition.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
section 19(b)(3)(A) \9\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-
4 \10\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
section 19(b)(2)(B) \11\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2015-44 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2015-44. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2015-44 and should be
submitted on or before November 5, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-26153 Filed 10-14-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 65 (Monday, April 6, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18313]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07730]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket Number USCG-2015-0150]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Upper Mississippi River, Rock
Island, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Rock Island Railroad and Highway
Drawbridge across the Upper Mississippi River, mile 482.9, at Rock
Island, Illinois. The deviation is necessary to allow the Bandits Race
to Home 5K Marathon to cross the bridge. This deviation allows the
bridge to be maintained in the closed-to-navigation position for two
hours.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m., April
11, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0150] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Eric A. Washburn, Bridge
Administrator, Western Rivers, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Cheryl F. Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Army Rock Island Arsenal requested
a temporary deviation for the Rock Island Railroad and Highway
Drawbridge, across the Upper Mississippi River, mile 482.9, at Rock
Island, Illinois to remain in the closed-to-navigation position for a
two hour period from 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m., April 11, 2015, while the
Bandits Race to Home 5K Marathon is held between the cities of
Davenport, IA and Rock Island, IL.
    The Rock Island Railroad and Highway Drawbridge currently operates
in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, which states the general requirement
that drawbridges shall open promptly and fully for the passage of
vessels when a request to open is given in accordance with the subpart.
    There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section
of the Upper Mississippi River.
    The Rock Island Railroad and Highway Drawbridge, in the closed-to-
navigation position, provides a vertical clearance of 23.8 feet above
normal pool. Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of
commercial tows and recreational watercraft. This temporary deviation
has been coordinated with waterway users. No objections were received.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: March 30, 2015.
Eric A. Washburn,
Bridge Administrator, Western Rivers.
[FR Doc. 2015-07730 Filed 4-3-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Notification of Compliance All facilities will submit a Notification of Compliance every time they complete a comprehensive performance test. Waiver of Performance Test It is estimated that 20% of facilities conducting the comprehensive performance test will apply for a waiver of the Hg, SVM, LVM, and total chlorine emission standards every year. The EPA anticipates that all applications for the waiver will be granted.

MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems ( CEMS) and Continuous Opacity Monitoring Systems ( COMS)

All facilities are already required to monitor for carbon monoxide ( CO) or hydrocarbons ( HC) and oxygen under current regulatory requirements, thus there is no capital investment burden associated with the Interim Standards MACT requirements.

It is estimated that all cement kilns are also equipped with COMS ( or equivalent devices).

Continuous Monitoring Systems All facilities are currently equipped with all CMS required with the MACT Interim Standards Rule. Thus, there is no capital investment burden.

Feedstream Analysis Plan All HWCs already have developed and implemented feedstream analysis plans under current RCRA requirements ( referred to as waste analysis plan). There is no incremental burden for this requirement.

Alternative Compliance Monitoring Requirements for Standards other than those Monitored with a CEMS It is estimated that 10% of all facilities will apply for and receive approval to use alternative monitoring requirements to document compliance with: the emission standards of Subpart EEE other than CO or HC which are monitored with a CEMS. 59 Use of CEMS in lieu of Operating Parameter Limits; or Alternative Methods in lieu of CEMS It is estimated that no facilities will make this request.

CMS Performance Evaluations As part of the comprehensive performance test, HWCs will submit a CMS quality control program, notification of performance evaluation and additional notification requirements, performance evaluation test plan, and conduct a CMS performance test. Also, it is estimated that EPA will also request additional relevant information for the site specific CMS performance test plan from 10% of the facilities performing the test.

Destruction and Removal Efficiency It is estimated that all currently operating HWCs already have the equipment needed for the MACT DRE monitoring requirements.

Dioxins and Furans It is estimated that all currently operating HWCs already have the equipment needed for the MACT PCDD/ PCDF monitoring requirements since they are under similar RCRA regulations. It is estimated that no facilities will choose to use a CEMS for compliance monitoring.

Mercury It is estimated that all currently operating HWCs already have the equipment needed for the MACT Hg monitoring requirements since they are under similar RCRA regulations. It is estimated that no facilities will choose to use a CEMS for compliance monitoring.

Particulate Matter It is estimated that all currently operating HWCs already have the equipment needed to comply with the MACT PM monitoring requirements since they are under similar RCRA regulations. It is estimated that no facilities will choose to use a CEMS for compliance monitoring.

Semivolatile Metals and Low Volatile Metals It is estimated that all currently operating HWCs already have the equipment needed to comply with the CAA MACT SVM and LVM monitoring requirements as they are currently regulated under similar RCRA regulations. It is estimated that no facilities will choose to use a CEMS for compliance monitoring.

Total Chlorine ( HCl and Chlorine Gas) 60 It is estimated that all currently operating HWCs already have the equipment needed for the MACT total chlorine monitoring requirements since they are under similar RCRA regulations. It is estimated that no facilities will choose to use a CEMS for compliance monitoring.

Operating under Different Modes of Operation It is estimated that 50% of all facilities will perform the comprehensive performance test under two or more operating modes. These facilities will be required to document what operating mode they are in.

NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS Initial Notifications All facilities will submit an initial notification. Additionally, as part of the initial notification, it is estimated that 5 facilities will apply for construction approval and 5 facilities will apply for reconstruction approval. EPA anticipates requesting additional relevant information from each facility.

Adjustment to Time Periods or Postmark Deadlines for Submittal and Review of Required Communications It is estimated that 25% of all facilities will submit a request for an adjustment to a time period or postmark deadline.

Change in Information Already Provided It is estimated that 25% of all facilities will submit change( s) to information already provided.

Request to Reduce Frequency of Excess Emissions and CMS Performance Reports It is estimated that 10% of facilities will submit a request to reduce frequency of excess emissions and continuous system performance reports from a quarterly ( or more frequent basis).

Waiver of Recordkeeping or Reporting Requirements It is estimated that 1% of all facilities will submit a waiver of recordkeeping or reporting requirements.

Data Compression It is estimated that 25% of facilities will submit a request for approval to use data compression techniques. 61 RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Reports It is anticipated that 25% of facilities will take actions during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction that are consistent with the procedures specified in the facility's startup, shutdown, or malfunction plan. These facilities are required to submit a periodic startup, shutdown, and malfunction report. Another 10% of facilities will take actions that are not consistent with procedures specified in their plans. These facilities acquired to submit an immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report. Excess Emissions and Continuous Monitoring System Performance Report and Summary Report It is anticipated that all facilities will submit an excess emissions and continuous monitoring system performance report and summary report.

General Recordkeeping Requirements It is estimated that it will take 40 hours each year for each of the HWC facilities to maintain copies of all required information. Additionally, it is estimated that in order to maintain the files, the facilities will need to purchase file cabinets, cost of which has been shown in the exhibits.

Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for Sources with Continuous Monitoring Systems It is estimated that it will take an additional 20 hours each year for facilities to maintain copies of all required information for sources with continuous monitoring systems.

Documentation of Compliance It is anticipated that all facilities will develop a Documentation of Compliance to be included in their operating records.

COMPLIANCE DATE BE EXTENDED TO INSTALL POLLUTION PREVENTION OR WASTE MINIMIZATION CONTROLS It is estimated that 10% of HWCs will submit a one time request for a compliance extension due to the installation of controls, and that another 10% will submit a one time request for a compliance extension for waste minimization purposes.

QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES FOR CONTINUOUS EMISSIONS MONITORS USED FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE COMBUSTORS Performance Evaluation All HWCs must meet the QA requirements for CEMS. These requirements are very 62 similar to those currently required under RCRA.

Use of Alternative CEMS Spans It is estimated that no HWCs will submit requests to use an alternative CEMS span.

6( e). BOTTOM LINE BURDEN HOUR AND COST TABLES Exhibit 1 shows the total annual burden and cost to the respondents. EPA estimates the annual respondent burden to be 151,339 hours per year and a Capital/ Startup and O& M cost of $ 3,925,726 per year. The total burden to the respondents over 3 years is estimated to be 454,017 hours and a Capital/ Startup and O& M cost of $ 11,777,178.

Exhibit 2 shows the total annual burden and cost to the Agency. EPA estimates the annual burden to the Agency is 9,943 hours per year and a Capital/ Startup and O& M cost of $ 662 per year. The total burden to the Agency over 3 years is estimated to be 29,829 hours and a Capital/ Startup and O& M cost of $ 1,986.

6( f). REASONS FOR CHANGE IN BURDEN This ICR consolidates the several individual ICRs prepared for the modifications to the MACT rule, and for the interim MACT rule during the last 3 years. Thus, this ICR covers the respondent burden on the HWCs based on the regulations as they now exist at 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart EEE. The increased PRA burden on the HWCs covered in this ICR is because the rule will become effective on September 30, 2003, and the regulated facilities have to upgrade their pollution control devices, install monitoring equipment, and conduct monitoring and recordkeeping activities to ensure compliance by the effective date, and subsequently thereafter. Even though the regulations were issued in September 1999, they were being litigated, the effective date of compliance was far away, and the compliance requirements in this intervening period were very little.

6( g). BURDEN STATEMENT The average respondent recordkeeping and reporting burden under this ICR is estimated to be 1,271 hours per respondent per year ( based on a total estimated 151,339 hours/ yr of recordkeeping and reporting and 119 facilities under this ICR).

This breaks down into recordkeeping and reporting as:

  Reporting   611 hours per respondent per year ( based on 72,757 hours/ yr of reporting and 119 facilities under this ICR).

Reporting includes time for: preparing and submitting notifications, requests, petitions, and applications to comply with alternative requirements; preparing and submitting reports; and responding to additional requests for relevant information.

  Recordkeeping   660 hours per year per facility ( based on 78,582 hours/ yr of 63 recordkeeping and 119 facilities under this ICR).

Recordkeeping includes time for retaining copies of the information in the operating record.

Burden Statement: Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. 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 OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. RCRA 2002 0030, which is available for public viewing at the RCRA Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 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 Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the RCRA Docket is ( 202) 566 0270. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search," then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. RCRA 2002 0030 and OMB control number 2050 0171 in any correspondence.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 138 (Thursday, July 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33549-33550]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15253]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0015; Notice 1]

Volvo Trucks North America, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Volvo Trucks North America (VTNA), has determined that certain
model year (MY) 2017 Volvo VNL and 2017 Volvo VNM heavy duty trucks do
not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
120, Tire selection and rims and motor home/recreation vehicle trailer
load carrying capacity information for motor vehicles with a GVWR of
more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds). VTNA filed a noncompliance
information report dated February 9, 2017. VTNA also petitioned NHTSA
on February 28, 2017, and revised its petition on April 29, 2017, for a
decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is August 21,
2017.

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Volvo Trucks North America (VTNA), has determined that
certain model year (MY) 2017 Volvo VNL and 2017 Volvo VNM heavy duty
trucks do not fully comply with paragraph S5.2(b) of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 120, Tire selection and rims and
motor home/recreation vehicle trailer load carrying capacity
information for motor vehicles with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms
(10,000 pounds). VTNA filed a noncompliance report dated February 9,
2017, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. VTNA also petitioned NHTSA on February 28,
2017, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556,
and revised its petition on April 29, 2017, to obtain an exemption from
the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on
the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety.
    This notice of receipt of VTNA's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 862 MY 2017 Volvo VNL and 2017
Volvo VNM heavy duty trucks, manufactured between August 15, 2016, and
November 10, 2016, are potentially involved.
    III. Noncompliance: VTNA explains that the noncompliance is that
the wheels on the subject vehicles incorrectly identify the rim size as
24.5'' x 8.25'' instead of 22.5'' x 8.25'', and therefore do not meet
the requirements of paragraph S5.2(b) of FMVSS No. 120. Specifically,
the marking error overstates the wheel diameter by 2''.
    IV. Rule Text: paragraph S5.2 of FMVSS No. 120 states:

    S5.2 Rim marking. Each rim or, at the option of the manufacturer
in the case of a single-piece wheel, wheel disc shall be marked with
the information listed in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this
paragraph, in lettering not less than 3 millimeters high, impressed
to a depth or, at the option of the manufacturer, embossed to a
height of not less than 0.125 millimeters . . .
    (b) The rim size designation, and in case of multipiece rims,
the rim type designation. For example: 20 x 5.50, or 20 x 5.5.

    V. Summary of VTNA's Petition: VTNA described the subject
noncompliance and stated its belief that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, VTNA referenced a letter to NHTSA,
dated December 5, 2016, from Arconic Wheel and Transportation Products
(Arconic), which is the rim manufacturer, and provided the following:
    1. A 24.5'' inch tire will not seat on the rim; therefore, if
someone tries to mount a 24.5'' tire to the rim, it will not hold air
and therefore cannot be inflated.
    2. When tires are replaced, the technician will select the tire
based on the size and rating of the tire being replaced. When Volvo
manufactured the vehicle, the tire used was a 22.5'' (i.e., the correct
size for the rim). Therefore, the tires installed by Volvo have the
correct size on the sidewall of the tire.
    3. Volvo is required to list the tires size and inflation pressures
on the certification label as required by 49 CFR 567. The information
printed on the label is the correct size, a 22.5'' inch tire and
reflects the tires that were installed when manufactured. The
certification label is located inside the driver's door and can be
easily accessed by the tire installer.
    Volvo concluded by expressing the belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    To view VTNA's petition analyses in its entirety you can visit
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets and by using the docket ID number for this
petition shown in the heading of this notice.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that VTNA no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve vehicle
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after VTNA
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

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

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2017-15253 Filed 7-19-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P