[Federal Register: January 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 2)]
[Notices]
[Page 529-531]
[DOCID:fr03ja08-62]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57045; File No. SR-FINRA-2007-037]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change Relating to Amendments to FINRA's New York Stock
Exchange Rule 409(f)

December 27, 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 December 21, 2007, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') (f/k/a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD'')) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by
FINRA. FINRA has designated the proposed rule change as constituting a
``non-controversial'' rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of
the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \4\ thereunder, which renders the
proposal effective upon receipt of this filing by 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

    FINRA is proposing to amend New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'') Rule
409(f), to delete the requirement that certain confirmations and
reports include the name of the securities market on which a
transaction is effected. Below is the text of the proposed rule change.
Proposed new language is in italics; proposed deletions are in
brackets.
* * * * *

Rule 409. Statements of Accounts to Customers

    (a) through (e) No change.
    (f) Confirmation of all transactions (including those made ``over-
the-counter'' and on other exchanges) in securities admitted to
dealings on the Exchange, sent by members or member organizations to
their customers, shall [indicate]clearly set forth with a suitable
legend the settlement date of each transaction[ and bear the name of
the securities market on which the transaction was made]. This
requirement also applies to confirmations or reports from an
organization to a correspondent, but does not apply to reports made by
floor brokers to the member organization from whom the orders were
received.
    [All confirmations shall contain a suitable legend clearly setting
forth all required information.]
    (g) No change.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    NYSE Rule 409(f) requires that confirmations of all transactions
(including those made over-the-counter and on other exchanges) in
securities admitted to dealings on the NYSE, and sent by FINRA members
that are also members of NYSE (``Dual Members'') to their customers,
indicate the settlement date of the transaction and the name of the
securities market on which the transaction was effected.\5\ This
requirement also applies to confirmations or reports from an
organization to a correspondent, but does not apply to reports made by
floor brokers to the member organization from which the orders were
received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ FINRA incorporated NYSE Rule 409(f) into its interim
rulebook; however, the incorporated NYSE rules, including NYSE Rule
409(f), apply solely to Dual Members. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 56147 (July 26, 2007), 72 FR 42166 (August 1, 2007)
(Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of SR-
NASD-2007-054).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the SEC's adoption of Regulation NMS, an increasing
number of orders, or portions of orders, routed to a given market for
execution are rerouted to other markets that, at that time, display a
better quotation. This process, which often is necessary due to the
requirements of the Order Protection Rule under Regulation NMS, may
lead to relatively small orders receiving executions in multiple market
centers.\6\ This has created an operational challenge for Dual Members
to capture the name of the market of execution on a timely basis for
inclusion on the transaction confirmation as required by NYSE Rule
409(f). As a result of this challenge, on March 20, 2007, NYSE granted
its member organizations temporary relief from the requirement that
confirmations and correspondent reports include the securities market
on which the transaction was effected.\7\ The temporary relief, which
expired on September 30, 2007, was extended by FINRA and by NYSE until
January 1, 2008.\8\ In extending the relief, both FINRA and NYSE stated
that they would continue to reassess the utility of NYSE Rule 409(f) in
the current regulatory environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Order Protection Rule requires trading centers,
including broker-dealers that internally execute orders, to
establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to protect against ``trade-throughs'' of
protected quotations in NMS stocks. See 17 CFR 242.611(a).
    \7\ See NYSE Information Memo 07-28 (March 20, 2007).
    \8\ See FINRA Regulatory Notice 07-35 (August 2007); NYSE
Information Memo 07-84 (August 2, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the duty of best execution, Dual Members are required to
exercise diligence to obtain the best price when routing customer
trades for execution,\9\ and Regulation NMS imposes disclosure
obligations on broker-dealers regarding the handling of customer
orders.\10\ In this regard, NASD Rule 2320 requires every FINRA member
to employ reasonable diligence in ascertaining best execution in the
execution of a transaction. As stated in NASD Notice to Members 01-22,
members generally may execute such diligence on either a trade-by-trade
basis or through the regular and rigorous review of the execution
quality of various market centers. FINRA has concluded that in light of
these existing best execution and disclosure requirements, the
usefulness of including on a confirmation or correspondent report the
securities market on which a transaction was effected does not outweigh
the operational difficulties of capturing the information following the
adoption of Regulation NMS. Consequently, the proposed rule change
would delete from NYSE Rule 409(f) the requirement that confirmations
and correspondent reports include the securities market on which the
transaction was effected. Dual Members would, however, still be
required to indicate the settlement date of each transaction on
customer and correspondent confirmations and correspondent reports for
all transactions (including those made over-the-counter and on other
exchanges) in securities admitted to dealings on the NYSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June
9, 2005), 70 FR 37496, 37537-38 (June 29, 2005) (discussing the duty
of best execution in relation to Regulation NMS).
    \10\ SEC Rule 606(b) requires a broker-dealer to disclose to its
customer upon request ``the identity of the venue to which the
customer's orders were routed for execution in the six months prior
to the request, whether the orders were directed orders or non-
directed orders, and the time of the transactions, if any, that
resulted from such orders.'' See 17 CFR 242.606(b). SEC Rule 607
requires a broker-dealer that acts as agent for a customer to
disclose, in writing, upon opening a new account and on an annual
basis thereafter, the firm's policies regarding receipt of payment
for order flow and the firm's policies for determining where to
route customer orders that are the subject of payment for order
flow. See 17 CFR 242.607(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness. The operative date will be January 1, 2008.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\11\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that the operational difficulties of
including on a confirmation or correspondent report the securities
market on which a transaction was effected outweigh the benefits of
including the information in light of existing best execution and
disclosure requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing 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 from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\13\ In accordance with Rule 19b-4,\14\ FINRA
submitted written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule
change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed

rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative
delay contained in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \15\ under the Act based upon
a representation that the temporary exemptive relief provided by FINRA
and NYSE expires on January 1, 2008. In light of the foregoing, the
Commission believes such waiver is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission
designates the proposal to be effective upon filing with the Commission
and operative on January 1, 2008.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \16\ 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 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-FINRA-2007-037 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-FINRA-2007-037. 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, 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 FINRA. 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-FINRA-2007-037 and should be
submitted on or before January 24, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-25508 Filed 1-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 51 (Friday, March 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16512-16513]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05970]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-1108]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Interstate Shellfish
Dealer's Certificate

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

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

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by April
15, 2013.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0021.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

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

Interstate Shellfish Dealer's Certificate (OMB Control Number 0910-
0021)--Extension

    Under section 243 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 243),
FDA is required to cooperate with and aid State and local authorities
in the enforcement of their health regulations

and is authorized to assist States in the prevention and suppression of
communicable diseases. Under this authority, FDA participates with
State regulatory agencies, some foreign nations, and the molluscan
shellfish industry in the National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP).
    NSSP is a voluntary, cooperative program to promote the safety of
molluscan shellfish by providing for the classification and patrol of
shellfish growing waters and for the inspection and certification of
shellfish processors. Each participating State and foreign nation
monitors its molluscan shellfish processors and issues certificates for
those that meet the State or foreign shellfish control authority's
criteria. Each participating State and nation provides a certificate of
its certified shellfish processors to FDA on Form FDA 3038,
``Interstate Shellfish Dealer's Certificate.'' FDA uses this
information to publish the ``Interstate Certified Shellfish Shippers
List,'' a monthly comprehensive listing of all molluscan shellfish
processors certified under the cooperative program. If FDA did not
collect the information necessary to compile this list, participating
States would not be able to identify and keep out shellfish processed
by uncertified processors in other States and foreign nations.
Consequently, NSSP would not be able to control the distribution of
uncertified and possibly unsafe shellfish in interstate commerce, and
its effectiveness would be nullified.
    In the Federal Register of November 15, 2012 (77 FR 68129), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
extension of this collection of information. FDA received one letter in
response to the notice, containing multiple comments on the testing
methods used by certified shellfish processors in the NSSP. These
comments were outside the scope of the four collection-of-information
topics on which the notice requested comments, and will not be
discussed in this document. FDA estimates the burden of this collection
of information as follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                     Activity                         FDA Form No.      Number of      responses per     Total annual   Average  burden    Total hours
                                                                       respondents       respondent       responses      per  response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submission of Interstate Shellfish Dealer's                   3038               40               57            2,280             0.10              228
 Certificate......................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    FDA estimates that 40 respondents will submit 2,280 Interstate
Shellfish Dealer's Certificates annually, for a total burden of 228
hours (2,280 submissions x 0.10 hours = 228 hours). This estimate is
based on FDA's experience and the number of certificates received in
the past 3 years.

    Dated: March 11, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-05970 Filed 3-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 23, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 57448]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18097]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[CERCLA-02-2023-2003; FRL-11171-01-R2]

Proposed CERCLA Cost Recovery Settlement for the Frankfort
Asbestos Superfund Site, Village of Frankfort, Herkimer County, New
York

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (``CERCLA''),
notice is hereby given by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(``EPA''), Region 2, of a proposed cost recovery settlement agreement
(``Settlement'') pursuant to CERCLA, with Crown Container Transfer
Station Co., Inc. (``Settling Party'') for the Frankfort Asbestos
Superfund Site (``Site''), located in the Village of Frankfort,
Herkimer County, New York.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 22, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the proposed Settlement and
submission of comments must be via electronic mail. Comments should
reference the Frankfort Asbestos Superfund Site, Frankfort, Herkimer
County, New York, Index No. CERCLA-02-2023-2003. For those unable to
communicate via electronic mail, please contact the EPA employee
identified below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jocelyn Scott, Attorney, Office of
Regional Counsel, New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 17th Floor, New York, NY
10007-1866. Email: [email protected] Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Settling Party will pay $55,000 to the
EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund in partial reimbursement of EPA's
past response costs paid in connection with the Site. This payment
shall be made within 30 days of the Effective Date of the Settlement.
The Settlement includes a covenant by EPA not to sue or to take
administrative action against the Settling Party pursuant to section
107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), with regard to EPA's past response
costs as provided in the Settlement. For thirty (30) days following the
date of publication of this notice, EPA will receive written comments
relating to the Settlement. EPA will consider all comments received and
may modify or withdraw its consent to the Settlement if comments
received disclose facts or considerations that indicate that the
proposed Settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. EPA's
response to any comments received will be available for public
inspection at EPA Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-
1866.

Pasquale Evangelista,
Director, Superfund & Emergency Management Division U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2023-18097 Filed 8-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 152 (Monday, August 8, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52364-52365]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18328]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

49 CFR Part 40

RIN 2105-AE54

Technical Amendment

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the U.S. Department of Transportation's
(DOT) regulation to conform to recent legislation that changed the
definition of the term ``service agent'' in the DOT drug and alcohol
testing regulations. The final rule also revises the definition of
``service agent'' to include all entities that provide services for DOT
mandated drug and alcohol programs.

DATES: This final rule is effective on August 8, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrice M. Kelly, Acting Director,
Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE.; Washington, DC 20590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Good Cause Exemption From Delayed Effect Date and Notice and Comment

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of title 5, U.S. Code, authorizes agencies to
dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency
for ``good cause'' finds that those procedures are ``impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' In this instance,
the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) required
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to create a
database for records pertaining to drug and alcohol program violations
by commercial motor vehicle operators. As part of that legislative
mandate, MAP-21 included a definition of the term ``service agent''
that is inconsistent with the current definition of ``service agent''
in DOT's drug and alcohol testing regulation at 49 CFR 40.3. This final
rule amends the DOT regulation so that it is consistent with MAP-21 and
clarifies the scope of the definition of service agent, as the term
applies throughout the DOT Agencies that utilize 49 CFR part 40,
including FMCSA. Since the definition of ``service agent'' found in 49
CFR part 40 is now inconsistent with MAP-21, DOT finds that notice and
public comment to this final rule, as well as any delay in its
effective date, is unnecessary as the change is already effective under
the statute.

I. Authority for This Rulemaking

    This rulemaking is promulgated pursuant to the Omnibus
Transportation Employee Testing Act (OTETA) of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-143,
105 Stat. 952, (Oct. 28, 1991)) and MAP-21 (Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat.
802, (July 6, 2012).

II. Background

    Historically, service agents have played an integral role in many
DOT-regulated employers' drug and alcohol testing programs. Many
employers use their service agents as advisors and rely on their
services to maintain compliance with DOT regulations. Service agents
who are focused on compliance typically increase efficiencies and
contribute to the safety of the traveling public.
    MAP-21 is a transportation reauthorization bill signed into law on
July 6, 2012. In response to section 32402 of the bill, codified at 49
U.S.C. 30106a, FMCSA issued a proposed rule, 79 FR 9703 (Feb. 20,
2014), to create the Commercial Driver's License Drug and Alcohol
Clearinghouse (Clearinghouse) under 49 CFR part 382. The Clearinghouse
would be a database containing drug and alcohol test program violations
by the holders of commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) subject to 49 CFR
part 382. The proposal contained, among other things, a provision that
would permit motor carrier employers to designate service agents to
perform various tasks on their behalf within the Clearinghouse (e.g.,
reporting employees' drug and alcohol violations to the Clearinghouse).
MAP-21 defines a service agent as ``a person or entity, other than an
employee of the employer, who provides services to employers or
employees under the [DOT-wide drug and alcohol] testing program'' (49
U.S.C. 31306a(m)(8)).
    For more than sixteen years, the term ``service agent'' has been
defined as, ``any person or entity, other than an employee of the
employer, who provides services specified under this part to employers
and/or employees in connection with DOT drug and alcohol testing
requirements. This includes, but is not limited to, collectors, BATs
[Breath Alcohol Technicians] and STTs [Saliva Testing Technicians],
laboratories, MROs [Medical Review Officers], substance abuse
professionals, and C/TPAs [Consortia/Third Party Administrators]. To
act as service agents, persons and organizations must meet the
qualifications set forth in applicable sections of this part. Service
agents are not employers for purposes of this part.'' (49 CFR 40.3)
    In addition, over the years, the service agent industry has grown
and it provides many services to DOT-regulated employers. As technology
has grown, service agents have branched into providing electronic
services. As the sophistication of the drug and alcohol testing
industry has grown, we have seen service agents offer auditing services
to DOT-regulated employers. Given the fact that additional services
have been offered to employers related to DOT's drug and alcohol
program, the types of providers that fall into the definition of
service agent have evolved.
    In this final rule, we are deleting from the current definition of
``service agent'' the phrases ``specified under this part'' and ``set
forth in applicable sections of this part'' (both of which refer to 49
CFR part 40). We have also inserted the language ``if applicable'' to
the definition because we believe that it is important to continue to
note that if a DOT regulation requires specific qualifications, then
the service agent must comply. In so doing, we are conforming to MAP-21
and clarifying that the expanding range of drug and alcohol program
services has been included in this definition.

III. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several analyses.
First, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354), as codified in
5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires agencies to analyze the economic impact
of regulatory changes on small entities. The Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) requires that DOT consider the
impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on
the public and, under the provisions of PRA section 3507(d), obtain
approval from OMB for each collection of information it conducts,
sponsors, or requires through regulations. Section (a)(5) of division H
of the Fiscal Year 2005 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Public Law 108-447,
118 Stat. 3268 (Dec. 8, 2004) and section 208 of the E-Government Act
of 2002, Public Law 107-347, 116 Stat. 2889 (Dec. 17, 2002) requires
DOT to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) of a regulation that
will affect the privacy of individuals. Finally, the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
requires

DOT to analyze this action to determine whether it will have an effect
on the quality of the environment. This portion of the preamble
summarizes the DOT's analyses of these impacts with respect to this
final rule.

Executive Order 12866 and 13563 and DOT's Regulatory Policies and
Procedures

    This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866 and 13563, as well as the Department's Regulatory
Policies and Procedures. This rule deletes a term used in the current
definition of ``service agent'' in 49 CFR part 40. Its provision
conforms to MAP-21 and includes entities that provide additional
services with respect to DOT mandated drug and alcohol testing. This
rule does not propose any major policy changes or impose significant
new costs or burdens.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354, ``RFA''), 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq., establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance
that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the
rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational
requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and
governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this
principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible
regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to
assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.'' The RFA
covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-
for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
section 605(b) provides that the head of the agency may so certify, and
a regulatory flexibility analysis will not be required. The
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
    Service agents provide useful services that employers may use in
order to maintain compliance with DOT regulations. This rule creates no
additional burdens for service agents or the DOT-regulated employers
that utilize their services. DOT has long interpreted its regulation in
part 40 to encompass all services ``in connection with DOT drug and
alcohol testing requirements'' performed by service agents. See 49 CFR
40.3. Thus, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I certify that this
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The PRA requires that the DOT consider the impact of paperwork and
other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The rule
does not create an impact of paperwork and other information collection
burdens.

Privacy Act

    The revised definition of ``service agent'' does not have any
impact with respect to the Privacy Act.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The agency has analyzed the environmental impacts of this proposed
action pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has determined that it is categorically
excluded pursuant to DOT Order 5610.1C, Procedures for Considering
Environmental Impacts (44 FR 56420, Oct. 1, 1979). Categorical
exclusions are actions identified in an agency's NEPA implementing
procedures that do not normally have a significant impact on the
environment and therefore do not require either an environmental
assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). See 40 CFR
1508.4. In analyzing the applicability of a categorical exclusion, the
agency must also consider whether extraordinary circumstances are
present that would warrant the preparation of an EA or EIS. Id.
Paragraph 3.c.5 of DOT Order 5610.1C incorporates by reference the
categorical exclusions for all DOT Operating Administrations. This
action is covered by the categorical exclusion listed in the Federal
Highway Administration's implementing procedures, ``[p]romulgation of
rules, regulations, and directives.'' 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20). The
purpose of this rulemaking is to revise the regulation to conform to
recent legislation that changed the definition of the term ``service
agent'' in the DOT drug and alcohol testing regulations. The agency
does not anticipate any environmental impacts, and there are no
extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

V. How To Obtain Additional Information

A. Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained by
using the Internet--
    1. Search regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov) for the
docket number listed at the beginning of this document; or
    2. Search the Office of the Federal Register's Web page (https://www.federalregister.gov) for the RIN listed at the beginning of this
document.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 40

    Administrative practice and procedure, Drug testing, Laboratories,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Department of Transportation
amends part 40 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 40--PROCEDURES FOR TRANSPORTATION WORKPLACE DRUG AND ALCOHOL
TESTING PROGRAMS

0
1. The authority citation for part 40 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 101, 102, 301, 322, 5331, 20140, 31306,
and 45101 et seq.

0
2. In Sec.  40.3, revise the definition of ``Service agent'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  40.3   What do the terms of this part mean?

* * * * *
    Service agent. Any person or entity, other than an employee of the
employer, who provides services to employers and/or employees in
connection with DOT drug and alcohol testing requirements. This
includes, but is not limited to, collectors, BATs and STTs,
laboratories, MROs, substance abuse professionals, and C/TPAs. To act
as service agents, persons and organizations must meet DOT
qualifications, if applicable. Service agents are not employers for
purposes of this part.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 25, 2016.
Anthony R. Foxx,
Secretary of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2016-18328 Filed 8-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59089-59090]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23359]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0083; Notice 1]

Spartan Motors, Inc. on Behalf of Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc.,
Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Spartan Motors, Inc. on behalf of Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc.
(Spartan) has determined that certain model year 2008 through 2013
Spartan Gladiator and MetroStar chassis cabs do not fully comply with
paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Spartan has filed an appropriate report
dated April 19, 2013, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.

DATES: October 25, 2013.

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 at the beginning of this notice and be
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 http://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 your comments were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Spartan's Petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)
(see implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), Spartan submitted a
petition for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements
of 49 U.S.C.

Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety.
    This notice of receipt of Spartan'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. Chassis Cabs Involved: Affected are approximately 26 model year
2008 through 2013 Spartan Gladiator and MetroStar chassis cabs
manufactured between April 9, 2008 and January 14, 2013.
    III. Noncompliance: Spartan explains that it has determined that
certain emergency rescue chassis cabs built between April 9, 2009 and
January 14, 2013 may not meet the brake actuation time for trucks as
identified in Sec.  5.3.3 of FMVSS No. 121.
    IV. Rule Text: Section S5.3.3 of FMVSS No. 121 specifically states:

    S5.3.3 Brake actuation time. Each service brake system shall
meet the requirements of S<IP_ADDRESS> (a) and (b).
    S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) With an initial service reservoir system air
pressure of 100 psi, the air pressure in each brake chamber shall,
when measured from the first movement of the service brake control,
reach 60 psi in not more than 0.45 second in the case of trucks and
buses,* * *

    V. Summary of Spartan's Analyses: Spartan stated its belief that
the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety
for the following reasons:
    Section <IP_ADDRESS> of FMVSS No. 121 defines the amount of pressure (60
psi) for, in this case, the front brake chambers. Further, it also
defines a ``not to exceed'' time (0.45 seconds) in which that pressure
at the brake chamber must be achieved. This is not interpreted to mean
brakes are to be applied at 60 psi but rather a certain pressure at the
brake chamber will be achieved. Brakes will be applied nearly
instantaneously after actuation of the treadle valve.
    Spartan conducted three tests on a sample of three chassis cabs of
similar brake system configurations. Detailed results from the testing
are shown in Spartan's petition. The reported average was used to
determine the actual results in comparison to the requirements. By
rounding the average of the three tests for each sample, Spartan
Chassis identified it exceeds the requirements by 0.01 second.
    The measurement of time, in this case, is for when air pressure at
the chamber reaches 60 psi. As stated, the brakes are still being
applied irrespective of achieving the 60 psi pressure at the front
brake chambers. The impact of being 0.006 to 0.01 seconds above the
requirement of 0.45 seconds would have very little impact
(approximately 1 ft @ 60 mph) to stopping distance of the vehicle and
would not impede the capability of the vehicle being able to stop.
    According to Driver's License Manual, stopping distance is impacted
by driver perception distance and reaction distance. Other factors
include speed and gross weight of the vehicle. These attributes would
appear to have a more significant impact to overall stopping distance
than 0.01 second timing for air pressure to reach 60 psi at the front
brake chambers.
    From a speed of 60 mph, vehicles affected by this condition are
required to achieve a complete stop in 310 ft. At this speed, it would
take approximately 3.52 seconds for vehicles to stop at this rate of
speed. Vehicles affected by the condition that has resulted in the
identified non-compliance are capable of stopping within the distance
of 310 ft as prescribed by FMVSS No. 121 and would still be able to
stop within the required stopping distance.
    Spartan has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the
noncompliance so that all future production Gladiator and MetroStar
chassis cabs will comply with FMVSS No. 121.
    In summation, Spartan believes that the described noncompliance of
the subject chassis cabs is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition, to exempt from providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, 26 Gladiator and
MetroStar chassis cabs that Spartan no longer controlled at the time it
determined that the noncompliance existed. Therefore, these provisions
only apply to the 26 Chassis cabs that Spartan 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 for delivery or introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Spartan 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)

Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013-23359 Filed 9-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 150 (Thursday, August 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51523-51527]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18467]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IC-32197; File No. 812-14575]

Bain Capital Specialty Finance, Inc., et al.; Notice of
Application

July 29, 2016.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION:  Notice of application for an order under sections 17(d) and
57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') and rule 17d-
1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise
prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1
under the Act.

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

    Summary of Application: Applicants request an order to permit
business development companies (``BDCs'') to co-invest in portfolio
companies with each other and with affiliated investment funds.
    Applicants: Bain Capital Specialty Finance, Inc. (the ``Fund'');
BCSF Advisors, LP (``BCSFA''), on behalf of itself and its successors;
\1\ Bain Capital Credit, LP (``Bain''), Bain Capital Credit
(Australia), Pty. Ltd, Bain Capital Credit Asia, LLC, Bain Capital
Credit (European Advisors), Ltd., Bain Capital Credit, Ltd. (together
with BCSFA, the ``Existing Bain Advisers''), on behalf of themselves
and their successors; Avery Point II CLO, Limited, Avery Point III CLO,
Limited, Avery Point IV CLO, Limited, Avery Point V CLO, Limited, Avery
Point VI CLO, Limited, Newhaven II CLO, Designated Activity Company,
Race Point IX CLO, Limited, Race Point X CLO, Limited, Race Point V
CLO, Limited, Race Point VI CLO, Limited, Race Point VII CLO, Limited,
Race Point VIII CLO, Limited, Bain Capital CLO Partners, L.P., Sankaty
Credit Opportunities (Offshore Master) IV, L.P., Sankaty Credit
Opportunities II, L.P., Sankaty Credit Opportunities III, L.P., Sankaty
Credit Opportunities IV, L.P., Bain Capital Distressed and Special
Situations 2013 (AIV I), L.P., Bain Capital Distressed and Special
Situations 2013 (AIV II Master), L.P., Bain Capital Distressed and
Special Situations 2013 (A), L.P., Sankaty Credit Opportunities V-A2
(Master), L.P., Bain Capital Distressed and Special Situations 2013
(B), L.P., Bain Capital Direct Lending 2015 (L), L.P., SDLF (L-A), LLC,
Bain Capital Direct Lending 2015 (U), L.P., Sankaty Drawbridge
Opportunities, L.P., Sankaty High Income Feeder II, L.P., Sankaty High
Income Feeder, Ltd., Bain Capital High Income Partnership, L.P., Bain
Capital Credit Managed Account (CalPERS), L.P., Bain Capital Credit
Managed Account (E), L.P., Bain Capital Credit Managed Account (Newport
Mobile), L.P., Sankaty Managed Account (NZSF), L.P., Bain Capital
Credit Managed Account (PSERS), L.P., Bain Capital Credit Managed
Account (TCCC), L.P., Bain Capital Credit Managed Account (UCAL), L.P.,
Sankaty Middle Market Opportunities Fund (Offshore Master II), L.P.,
Sankaty Middle Market Opportunities Fund (Offshore Master), L.P., Bain
Capital Middle Market Credit 2014, L.P., Sankaty Middle Market
Opportunities Fund II-A (Master), L.P., Bain Capital Middle Market
Credit 2014 (F), L.P., Bain Capital Middle Market Credit 2010, L.P.,
Bain Capital Credit Rio Grande FMC, L.P., Bain Capital Senior Loan Fund
(SRI), L.P., Sankaty Senior Loan Fund Public Limited Company, Bain
Capital Senior Loan Fund, L.P., Warehouse Funding Avery Point VII, LLC,
Queenscliff Trust, Bain Capital Credit Managed Account (CLO), L.P.,
Cape Schanck Direct Lending Trust, Bain Capital Distressed and Special
Situations 2016 (A), L.P., Bain Capital Distressed and Special
Situations 2016 (B Master), L.P., Sankaty Credit Opportunities VI-B,
L.P., Sankaty Credit Opportunities VI-EU, L.P., Sankaty Credit
Opportunities VI-EU (Master), L.P., Bain Capital Distressed and Special
Situations 2016 (F), L.P., Sankaty Credit Opportunities (F) Europe,
L.P. (collectively, the ``Existing Affiliated Funds'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The term ``successor,'' as applied to each Adviser (defined
below), means an entity that results from a reorganization into
another jurisdiction or change in the type of business organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Filing Dates: The application was filed on November 6, 2015 and
amended on April 1, 2016 and July 18, 2016.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by
5:30 p.m. on August 23, 2016, and should be accompanied by proof of
service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request
notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
St. NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: Ranesh Ramanathan,
Esq., General Counsel, Bain Capital Credit, LP, 200 Clarendon Street,
37th Floor, Boston, MA, 02116.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth G. Miller, Senior Counsel,
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or Holly Hunter-Ceci, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Chief Counsel's Office, Division of Investment Management).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Applicants' Representations:
    1. The Fund is a Delaware corporation organized as a closed-end
management investment company that has elected to be regulated as a BDC
under Section 54(a) of the Act.\2\ The Fund's Objectives and Strategies
\3\ are to provide risk-

adjusted returns and current income to investors. The Fund invests
primarily in middle-market companies with between $10 million and $150
million in annual earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and
amortization. The Fund intends to focus on senior investments with a
first or second lien on collateral and strong structures and
documentation intended to protect the lender.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section 2(a)(48) defines a BDC to be any closed-end
investment company that operates for the purpose of making
investments in securities described in sections 55(a)(1) through
55(a)(3) of the Act and makes available significant managerial
assistance with respect to the issuers of such securities.
    \3\ ``Objectives and Strategies'' means a Regulated Fund's
investment objectives and strategies, as described in the Regulated
Fund's registration statement on Form 10, other filings the
Regulated Fund has made with the Commission under the Securities Act
of 1933 (the ``Securities Act''), or under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and the Regulated Fund's reports to shareholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The board of directors of the Fund (the ``Board'') is comprised
of five directors, three of whom are not ``interested persons,'' within
the meaning of Section 2(a)(19) of the 1940 Act (the ``Non-Interested
Directors''), of the Fund.
    3. BCSFA is registered as an investment adviser under the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the ``Advisers Act''). BCSFA serves as
investment adviser to the Fund. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Bain.
    4. Bain is registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers
Act. Bain serves as investment adviser to certain Existing Affiliated
Funds and either it or another Adviser will serve as the investment
adviser to any Future Affiliated Funds (defined below).
    5. Bain Capital Credit (Australia), Pty. Ltd., an Australian
proprietary company formed in 2012, is authorized and regulated by the
Australian Securities and Investments Commission. It is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Bain.
    6. Bain Capital Credit (European Advisors), Ltd., a United Kingdom
private limited company formed in 2014, and Bain Capital Credit, Ltd.,
a United Kingdom private limited company formed in 2005, are authorized
and regulated by the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority. They are both
wholly-owned subsidiaries of Bain.
    7. Bain Capital Credit Asia, LLC is a limited liability company
organized in the State of Delaware in 2014 that has been registered in
Hong Kong under the Hong Kong Companies Ordinance. It is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Bain.
    8. As Bain Capital, LP controls Bain, and will control any other
Adviser, it may be deemed to control the Regulated Funds and the
Affiliated Funds. Applicants state that Bain Capital, LP is a holding
company and does not currently offer investment advisory services to
any person and is not expected to do so in the future. Applicants state
that as a result, Bain Capital, LP has not been included as an
Applicant.
    9. Applicants seek an order (``Order'') to permit a Regulated Fund
\4\ and one or more Regulated Funds and/or one or more Affiliated Funds
\5\ to participate in the same investment opportunities through a
proposed co-investment program (the ``Co-Investment Program'') where
such participation would otherwise be prohibited under section 57(a)(4)
and rule 17d-1 by (a) co-investing with each other in securities issued
by issuers in private placement transactions in which an Adviser
negotiates terms in addition to price; \6\ and (b) making additional
investments in securities of such issuers, including through the
exercise of warrants, conversion privileges, and other rights to
purchase securities of the issuers (``Follow-On Investments''). ``Co-
Investment Transaction'' means any transaction in which a Regulated
Fund (or its Wholly-Owned Investment Sub, as defined below)
participated together with one or more other Regulated Funds and/or one
or more Affiliated Funds in reliance on the requested Order.
``Potential Co-Investment Transaction'' means any investment
opportunity in which a Regulated Fund (or its Wholly-Owned Investment
Sub, as defined below) could not participate together with one or more
Affiliated Funds and/or one or more other Regulated Funds without
obtaining and relying on the Order.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Regulated Fund'' means the Fund and any Future Regulated
Fund. ``Future Regulated Fund'' means any closed-end management
investment company (a) that is registered under the Act or has
elected to be regulated as a BDC, (b) whose investment adviser is an
Adviser, and (c) that intends to participate in the Co-Investment
Program.
    The term ``Adviser'' means BCSFA and any Existing Bain Adviser
and any future investment adviser that (i) controls, is controlled
by or is under common control with Bain Capital, LP, and (ii) is
registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act and (iii)
is not a Regulated Fund or a subsidiary of a Regulated Fund.
    \5\ ``Future Affiliated Fund'' means any entity (a) whose
investment adviser is an Adviser, (b) that would be an investment
company but for section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act, and (c) that
intends to participate in the Co-Investment Program.
    \6\ The term ``private placement transactions'' means
transactions in which the offer and sale of securities by the issuer
are exempt from registration under the Securities Act.
    \7\ All existing entities that currently intend to rely upon the
requested Order have been named as applicants. Any other existing or
future entity that subsequently relies on the Order will comply with
the terms and conditions of the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Applicants state that a Regulated Fund may, from time to time,
form one or more Wholly-Owned Investment Subs.\8\ Such a subsidiary
would be prohibited from investing in a Co-Investment Transaction with
any Affiliated Fund or Regulated Fund because it would be a company
controlled by its parent Regulated Fund for purposes of section
57(a)(4) and rule 17d-1. Applicants request that each Wholly-Owned
Investment Sub be permitted to participate in Co-Investment
Transactions in lieu of its parent Regulated Fund and that the Wholly-
Owned Investment Sub's participation in any such transaction be
treated, for purposes of the requested Order, as though the parent
Regulated Fund were participating directly. Applicants represent that
this treatment is justified because a Wholly-Owned Investment Sub would
have no purpose other than serving as a holding vehicle for the
Regulated Fund's investments and, therefore, no conflicts of interest
could arise between the Regulated Fund and the Wholly-Owned Investment
Sub. The Regulated Fund's Board would make all relevant determinations
under the conditions with regard to a Wholly-Owned Investment Sub's
participation in a Co-Investment Transaction, and the Regulated Fund's
Board would be informed of, and take into consideration, any proposed
use of a Wholly-Owned Investment Sub in the Regulated Fund's place. If
the Regulated Fund proposes to participate in the same Co-Investment
Transaction with any of its Wholly-Owned Investment Subs, the Board
will also be informed of, and take into consideration, the relative
participation of the Regulated Fund and the Wholly-Owned Investment
Sub.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The term ``Wholly-Owned Investment Sub'' means an entity (i)
that is wholly-owned by a Regulated Fund (with the Regulated Fund at
all times holding, beneficially and of record, 100% of the voting
and economic interests); (ii) whose sole business purpose is to hold
one or more investments on behalf of the Regulated Fund; (iii) with
respect to which the Regulated Fund's Board has the sole authority
to make all determinations with respect to the entity's
participation under the conditions of the Application; and (iv) that
would be an investment company but for section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. When considering Potential Co-Investment Transactions for any
Regulated Fund, the applicable Adviser will consider only the
Objectives and Strategies, investment policies, investment positions,
capital available for investment, and other pertinent factors
applicable to that Regulated Fund. The Regulated Fund Advisers expect
that any portfolio company that is an appropriate investment for a
Regulated Fund should also be an appropriate investment for one or more
other Regulated Funds and/or one or more Affiliated Funds, with certain
exceptions based on available capital or diversification.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Regulated Funds, however, will not be obligated to
invest, or co-invest, when investment opportunities are referred to
them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. Other than pro rata dispositions and Follow-On Investments as
provided in conditions 7 and 8, and after making

the determinations required in conditions 1 and 2(a), the Adviser will
present each Potential Co-Investment Transaction and the proposed
allocation to the directors of the Board eligible to vote under section
57(o) of the Act (``Eligible Directors''), and the ``required
majority,'' as defined in section 57(o) of the Act (``Required
Majority'') \10\ will approve each Co-Investment Transaction prior to
any investment by the participating Regulated Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In the case of a Regulated Fund that is a registered
closed-end fund, the Board members that make up the Required
Majority will be determined as if the Regulated Fund were a BDC
subject to Section 57(o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. With respect to the pro rata dispositions and Follow-On
Investments provided in conditions 7 and 8, a Regulated Fund may
participate in a pro rata disposition or Follow-On Investment without
obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if, among other
things: (i) the proposed participation of each Regulated Fund and
Affiliated Fund in such disposition is proportionate to its outstanding
investments in the issuer immediately preceding the disposition or
Follow-On Investment, as the case may be; and (ii) the Board of the
Regulated Fund has approved that Regulated Fund's participation in pro
rata dispositions and Follow-On Investments as being in the best
interests of the Regulated Fund. If the Board does not so approve, any
such disposition or Follow-On Investment will be submitted to the
Regulated Fund's Eligible Directors. The Board of any Regulated Fund
may at any time rescind, suspend or qualify its approval of pro rata
dispositions and Follow-On Investments with the result that all
dispositions and/or Follow-On Investments must be submitted to the
Eligible Directors.
    14. No Non-Interested Director of a Regulated Fund will have a
financial interest in any Co-Investment Transaction, other than through
share ownership in one of the Regulated Funds.
    Applicants' Legal Analysis:
    1. Section 57(a)(4) of the Act prohibits certain affiliated persons
of a BDC from participating in joint transactions with the BDC or a
company controlled by a BDC in contravention of rules as prescribed by
the Commission. Under section 57(b)(2) of the Act, any person who is
directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common
control with a BDC is subject to section 57(a)(4). Applicants submit
that each of the Regulated Funds and Affiliated Funds be deemed to be a
person related to each Regulated Fund in a manner described by section
57(b) by virtue of being under common control. Section 57(i) of the Act
provides that, until the Commission prescribes rules under section
57(a)(4), the Commission's rules under section 17(d) of the Act
applicable to registered closed-end investment companies will be deemed
to apply to transactions subject to section 57(a)(4). Because the
Commission has not adopted any rules under section 57(a)(4), rule 17d-1
also applies to joint transactions with Regulated Funds that are BDCs.
Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act are applicable to
Regulated Funds that are registered closed-end investment companies.
    2. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibit
affiliated persons of a registered investment company from
participating in joint transactions with the company unless the
Commission has granted an order permitting such transactions. In
passing upon applications under rule 17d-1, the Commission considers
whether the company's participation in the joint transaction is
consistent with the provisions, policies, and purposes of the Act and
the extent to which such participation is on a basis different from or
less advantageous than that of other participants.
    3. Applicants state that in the absence of the requested relief,
the Regulated Funds would be, in some circumstances, limited in their
ability to participate in attractive and appropriate investment
opportunities. Applicants believe that the proposed terms and
conditions will ensure that the Co-Investment Transactions are
consistent with the protection of each Regulated Fund's shareholders
and with the purposes intended by the policies and provisions of the
Act. Applicants state that the Regulated Funds' participation in the
Co-Investment Transactions will be consistent with the provisions,
policies, and purposes of the Act and on a basis that is not different
from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
    4. Applicants also represent that if the Advisers, certain
employees and principals of Bain and its affiliated advisers
(collectively, the ``Principals''), any person controlling, controlled
by, or under common control with the Advisers or the Principals, and
the Affiliated Funds (collectively, the ``Holders'') own in the
aggregate more than 25 percent of the outstanding voting securities of
a Regulated Fund (``Shares''), then the Holders will vote such Shares
as required under Condition 14. Applicants believe that this condition
will ensure that the Non-Interested Directors will act independently in
evaluating the Co-Investment Program, because the ability of the
Advisers or the Principals to influence the Non-Interested Directors by
a suggestion, explicit or implied, that the Non-Interested Directors
can be removed will be limited significantly. Applicants represent that
the Non-Interested Directors will evaluate and approve any such
independent party, taking into account its qualifications, reputation
for independence, cost to the shareholders, and other factors that they
deem relevant.
    Applicants' Conditions:
    Applicants agree that the Order will be subject to the following
conditions:
    1. Each time an Adviser considers a Potential Co-Investment
Transaction for an Affiliated Fund or another Regulated Fund that falls
within a Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies, the
Regulated Fund's Adviser will make an independent determination of the
appropriateness of the investment for such Regulated Fund in light of
the Regulated Fund's then-current circumstances.
    2. (a) If the Adviser deems a Regulated Fund's participation in any
Potential Co-Investment Transaction to be appropriate for the Regulated
Fund, it will then determine an appropriate level of investment for the
Regulated Fund.
    (b) If the aggregate amount recommended by the applicable Adviser
to be invested by the applicable Regulated Fund in the Potential Co-
Investment Transaction, together with the amount proposed to be
invested by the other participating Regulated Funds and Affiliated
Funds, collectively, in the same transaction, exceeds the amount of the
investment opportunity, the investment opportunity will be allocated
among them pro rata based on each participant's capital available for
investment in the asset class being allocated, up to the amount
proposed to be invested by each. The applicable Adviser will provide
the Eligible Directors of each participating Regulated Fund with
information concerning each participating party's available capital to
assist the Eligible Directors with their review of the Regulated Fund's
investments for compliance with these allocation procedures.
    (c) After making the determinations required in conditions 1 and
2(a), the applicable Adviser will distribute written information
concerning the Potential Co-Investment Transaction (including the
amount proposed to be invested by each participating Regulated Fund and
Affiliated Fund) to the Eligible Directors of each participating
Regulated Fund for their consideration. A Regulated Fund will co-invest
with

one or more other Regulated Funds and/or one or more Affiliated Funds
only if, prior to the Regulated Fund's participation in the Potential
Co-Investment Transaction, a Required Majority concludes that:
    (i) the terms of the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, including
the consideration to be paid, are reasonable and fair to the Regulated
Fund and its shareholders and do not involve overreaching in respect of
the Regulated Fund or its shareholders on the part of any person
concerned;
    (ii) the Potential Co-Investment Transaction is consistent with:
    (A) the interests of the shareholders of the Regulated Fund; and
    (B) the Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies;
    (iii) the investment by any other Regulated Funds or Affiliated
Funds would not disadvantage the Regulated Fund, and participation by
the Regulated Fund would not be on a basis different from or less
advantageous than that of other Regulated Funds or Affiliated Funds;
provided that, if any other Regulated Fund or Affiliated Fund, but not
the Regulated Fund itself, gains the right to nominate a director for
election to a portfolio company's board of directors or the right to
have a board observer or any similar right to participate in the
governance or management of the portfolio company, such event shall not
be interpreted to prohibit the Required Majority from reaching the
conclusions required by this condition 2(c)(iii), if:
    (A) the Eligible Directors will have the right to ratify the
selection of such director or board observer, if any;
    (B) the applicable Adviser agrees to, and does, provide periodic
reports to the Regulated Fund's Board with respect to the actions of
such director or the information received by such board observer or
obtained through the exercise of any similar right to participate in
the governance or management of the portfolio company; and
    (C) any fees or other compensation that any Affiliated Fund or any
Regulated Fund or any affiliated person of any Affiliated Fund or any
Regulated Fund receives in connection with the right of an Affiliated
Fund or a Regulated Fund to nominate a director or appoint a board
observer or otherwise to participate in the governance or management of
the portfolio company will be shared proportionately among the
participating Affiliated Funds (who each may, in turn, share its
portion with its affiliated persons) and the participating Regulated
Funds in accordance with the amount of each party's investment; and
    (iv) the proposed investment by the Regulated Fund will not benefit
the Advisers, the Affiliated Funds or the other Regulated Funds or any
affiliated person of any of them (other than the parties to the Co-
Investment Transaction), except (A) to the extent permitted by
condition 13, (B) to the extent permitted by sections 17(e) or 57(k) of
the Act, as applicable, (C) indirectly, as a result of an interest in
the securities issued by one of the parties to the Co-Investment
Transaction, or (D) in the case of fees or other compensation described
in condition 2(c)(iii)(C).
    3. Each Regulated Fund has the right to decline to participate in
any Potential Co-Investment Transaction or to invest less than the
amount proposed.
    4. The applicable Adviser will present to the Board of each
Regulated Fund, on a quarterly basis, a record of all investments in
Potential Co-Investment Transactions made by any of the other Regulated
Funds or Affiliated Funds during the preceding quarter that fell within
the Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies that were
not made available to the Regulated Fund, and an explanation of why the
investment opportunities were not offered to the Regulated Fund. All
information presented to the Board pursuant to this condition will be
kept for the life of the Regulated Fund and at least two years
thereafter, and will be subject to examination by the Commission and
its staff.
    5. Except for Follow-On Investments made in accordance with
condition 8,\11\ a Regulated Fund will not invest in reliance on the
Order in any issuer in which another Regulated Fund, Affiliated Fund,
or any affiliated person of another Regulated Fund or Affiliated Fund
is an existing investor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This exception applies only to Follow-On Investments by a
Regulated Fund in issuers in which that Regulated Fund already holds
investments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. A Regulated Fund will not participate in any Potential Co-
Investment Transaction unless the terms, conditions, price, class of
securities to be purchased, settlement date, and registration rights
will be the same for each participating Regulated Fund and Affiliated
Fund. The grant to an Affiliated Fund or another Regulated Fund, but
not the Regulated Fund, of the right to nominate a director for
election to a portfolio company's board of directors, the right to have
an observer on the board of directors or similar rights to participate
in the governance or management of the portfolio company will not be
interpreted so as to violate this condition 6, if conditions
2(c)(iii)(A), (B) and (C) are met.
    7. (a) If any Affiliated Fund or any Regulated Fund elects to sell,
exchange or otherwise dispose of an interest in a security that was
acquired in a Co-Investment Transaction, the applicable Advisers will:
    (i) notify each Regulated Fund that participated in the Co-
Investment Transaction of the proposed disposition at the earliest
practical time; and
    (ii) formulate a recommendation as to participation by each
Regulated Fund in the disposition.
    (b) Each Regulated Fund will have the right to participate in such
disposition on a proportionate basis, at the same price and on the same
terms and conditions as those applicable to the participating
Affiliated Funds and any other Regulated Fund.
    (c) A Regulated Fund may participate in such disposition without
obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if: (i) The proposed
participation of each Regulated Fund and each Affiliated Fund in such
disposition is proportionate to its outstanding investments in the
issuer immediately preceding the disposition; (ii) the Board of the
Regulated Fund has approved as being in the best interests of the
Regulated Fund the ability to participate in such dispositions on a pro
rata basis (as described in greater detail in the application); and
(iii) the Board of the Regulated Fund is provided on a quarterly basis
with a list of all dispositions made in accordance with this condition.
In all other cases, the Adviser will provide its written recommendation
as to the Regulated Fund's participation to the Eligible Directors, and
the Regulated Fund will participate in such disposition solely to the
extent that a Required Majority determines that it is in the Regulated
Fund's best interests.
    (d) Each Affiliated Fund and each Regulated Fund will bear its own
expenses in connection with any such disposition.
    8. (a) If any Affiliated Fund or any Regulated Fund desires to make
a Follow-On Investment in a portfolio company whose securities were
acquired in a Co-Investment Transaction, the applicable Advisers will:
    (i) Notify each Regulated Fund that participated in the Co-
Investment Transaction of the proposed transaction at the earliest
practical time; and
    (ii) formulate a recommendation as to the proposed participation,
including

the amount of the proposed Follow-On Investment, by each Regulated
Fund.
    (b) A Regulated Fund may participate in such Follow-On Investment
without obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if: (i) The
proposed participation of each Regulated Fund and each Affiliated Fund
in such investment is proportionate to its outstanding investments in
the issuer immediately preceding the Follow-On Investment; and (ii) the
Board of the Regulated Fund has approved as being in the best interests
of the Regulated Fund the ability to participate in Follow-On
Investments on a pro rata basis (as described in greater detail in the
application). In all other cases, the Adviser will provide its written
recommendation as to the Regulated Fund's participation to the Eligible
Directors, and the Regulated Fund will participate in such Follow-On
Investment solely to the extent that a Required Majority determines
that it is in the Regulated Fund's best interests.
    (c) If, with respect to any Follow-On Investment:
    (i) The amount of the opportunity is not based on the Regulated
Funds' and the Affiliated Funds' outstanding investments immediately
preceding the Follow-On Investment; and
    (ii) the aggregate amount recommended by the Adviser to be invested
by each Regulated Fund in the Follow-On Investment, together with the
amount proposed to be invested by the participating Affiliated Funds in
the same transaction, exceeds the amount of the opportunity; then the
amount invested by each such party will be allocated among them pro
rata based on each participant's capital available for investment in
the asset class being allocated, up to the amount proposed to be
invested by each.
    (d) The acquisition of Follow-On Investments as permitted by this
condition will be considered a Co-Investment Transaction for all
purposes and subject to the other conditions set forth in the
application.
    9. The Non-Interested Directors of each Regulated Fund will be
provided quarterly for review all information concerning Potential Co-
Investment Transactions and Co-Investment Transactions, including
investments made by other Regulated Funds or Affiliated Funds that the
Regulated Fund considered but declined to participate in, so that the
Non-Interested Directors may determine whether all investments made
during the preceding quarter, including those investments that the
Regulated Fund considered but declined to participate in, comply with
the conditions of the Order. In addition, the Non-Interested Directors
will consider at least annually the continued appropriateness for the
Regulated Fund of participating in new and existing Co-Investment
Transactions.
    10. Each Regulated Fund will maintain the records required by
section 57(f)(3) of the Act as if each of the Regulated Funds were a
BDC and each of the investments permitted under these conditions were
approved by the Required Majority under section 57(f) of the Act.
    11. No Non-Interested Director of a Regulated Fund will also be a
director, general partner, managing member or principal, or otherwise
an ``affiliated person'' (as defined in the Act), of an Affiliated
Fund.
    12. The expenses, if any, associated with acquiring, holding or
disposing of any securities acquired in a Co-Investment Transaction
(including, without limitation, the expenses of the distribution of any
such securities registered for sale under the Securities Act) will, to
the extent not payable by the Advisers under their respective
investment advisory agreements with Affiliated Funds and the Regulated
Funds, be shared by the Regulated Funds and the Affiliated Funds in
proportion to the relative amounts of the securities held or to be
acquired or disposed of, as the case may be.
    13. Any transaction fee \12\ (including break-up or commitment fees
but excluding broker's fees contemplated by section 17(e) or 57(k) of
the Act, as applicable) received in connection with a Co-Investment
Transaction will be distributed to the participating Regulated Funds
and Affiliated Funds on a pro rata basis based on the amounts they
invested or committed, as the case may be, in such Co-Investment
Transaction. If any transaction fee is to be held by an Adviser pending
consummation of the transaction, the fee will be deposited into an
account maintained by such Adviser at a bank or banks having the
qualifications prescribed in section 26(a)(1) of the Act, and the
account will earn a competitive rate of interest that will also be
divided pro rata among the participating Regulated Funds and Affiliated
Funds based on the amounts they invest in such Co-Investment
Transaction. None of the Affiliated Funds, the Advisers, the other
Regulated Funds or any affiliated person of the Regulated Funds or
Affiliated Funds will receive additional compensation or remuneration
of any kind as a result of or in connection with a Co-Investment
Transaction (other than (a) in the case of the Regulated Funds and the
Affiliated Funds, the pro rata transaction fees described above and
fees or other compensation described in condition 2(c)(iii)(C); and (b)
in the case of an Adviser, investment advisory fees paid in accordance
with the agreement between the Adviser and the Regulated Fund or
Affiliated Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Applicants are not requesting and the staff is not
providing any relief for transaction fees received in connection
with any Co-Investment Transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. If the Holders own in the aggregate more than 25 percent of the
Shares of a Regulated Fund, then the Holders will vote such Shares as
directed by an independent third party when voting on (1) the election
of directors; (2) the removal of one or more directors; or (3) any
other matter under either the Act or applicable State law affecting the
Board's composition, size or manner of election.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-18467 Filed 8-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 128)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 37844-37846]
[DOCID:fr02jy08-34]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0181; FRL-8686-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Section 110(a)(1) 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002
Base-Year Inventory for the Somerset County Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a SIP revision
consisting of a maintenance plan that provides for continued attainment
of the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for
at least 10 years after the April 30, 2004 designations, as well as a
2002 base-year inventory for the Somerset County Area. EPA is approving
the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Somerset
County Area as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on August 1, 2008.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0181. All documents in the docket are listed in
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e. ,
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal
business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the
Pennsylvania Department of Environment Protection, Bureau of Air
Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Becoat,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On May 14, 2008 (73 FR 27786), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The NPR proposed
approval of Pennsylvania's SIP revision that establishes a maintenance
plan for the Somerset County Area that provides for continued
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after
designation, and a 2002 base-year emissions inventory. The formal SIP
revisions were submitted by PADEP on December 17, 2007. Other specific
requirements of Pennsylvania's SIP revision and the rationales for
EPA's proposed actions are explained in the NPR and will not be
restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR.

II. Final Action

    EPA is approving the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year
inventory for the Somerset County Area, submitted on December 17, 2007,
as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is approving the maintenance
plan and 2002 base-year inventory for the Somerset County Area because
it meets the requirements of section 110(a)(1) of the CAA.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52. 02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 2, 2008. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action.
    This action approving the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year
inventory for the Somerset County Area may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: June 24, 2008.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDed]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

0
2. In Sec.  52. 2020, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by
adding an entry for the 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-
Year Inventory for Somerset County at the end of the table to read as
follows:

Sec.  52. 2020  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
    Name of non-regulatory SIP          Applicable        submittal     EPA approval date        Additional
             revision                 geographic area        date                                explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and  Somerset County.....     12/17/07  7/2/08. [Insert page  ....................
 2002 Base-Year Inventory.                                             number where the
                                                                       document begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E8-14867 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 114 (Friday, June 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33915-33916]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13867]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1923-001; ER10-2334-002; ER12-1924-001; ER11-
3406-002; ER11-3407-002; ER10-2897-004; ER12-1865-003; ER12-1925-001.
    Applicants: Big Savage, LLC, Big Sky Wind, LLC, EverPower
Commercial Services LLC, Highland North LLC, Howard Wind LLC, Krayn
Wind LLC, Mustang Hills, LLC, Patton Wind Farm, LLC.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Update for the EverPower
Companies.
    Filed Date: 6/5/14.
    Accession Number: 20140605-5157.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/4/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1923-002; ER10-2334-003; ER12-1924-002; ER11-
3406-003; ER11-3407-003; ER10-2897-005; ER12-1865-004; ER12-1925-002.
    Applicants: Big Savage, LLC, Big Sky Wind, LLC, EverPower
Commercial Services LLC, Highland North LLC, Howard Wind LLC, Krayn
Wind LLC, Mustang Hills, LLC, Patton Wind Farm, LLC.
    Description: Notification of Change in Status by the EverPower
Companies.
    Filed Date: 6/5/14.
    Accession Number: 20140605-5162.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2105-001.
    Applicants: CPV Shore, LLC.
    Description: Resubmission of June 2, 2014 Section 205 Filing to be
effective 8/2/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/6/14.
    Accession Number: 20140606-5023.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/27/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2106-001.
    Applicants: CPV Maryland, LLC.
    Description: Resubmission of June 2, 2014 Section 205 Filing to be
effective 8/2/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/6/14.
    Accession Number: 20140606-5020.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/27/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2136-000.
    Applicants: Southwestern Electric Power Company.
    Description: SWEPCO-Prescott PSA Amendment--Depreciation Rate
Change to be effective 7/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/5/14.
    Accession Number: 20140605-5136.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2137-000.
    Applicants: Southwestern Electric Power Company.
    Description: SWEPCO-Minden PSA Amendment--Depreciation Rate Change
to be effective 7/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/5/14.
    Accession Number: 20140605-5137.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2138-000.
    Applicants: Limon Wind III, LLC.
    Description: Limon Wind III, LLC Application for Market-Based Rate
Authority to be effective 7/15/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/5/14.
    Accession Number: 20140605-5149.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2139-000.
    Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: ER14-2077 SDGE Annual Filing of Revised Costs and
Accruals for PBOPs to be effective 1/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 6/6/14.
    Accession Number: 20140606-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/27/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2140-000.
    Applicants: Mulberry Farm, LLC.
    Description: Baseline Filing--MBR Application and Tariff Filing to
be effective 6/6/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/6/14.
    Accession Number: 20140606-5002.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/27/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2141-000.
    Applicants: Selmer Farm, LLC.
    Description: Baseline Filing--Initial MBR Application and MBR
Tariff to be effective 6/6/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/6/14.

    Accession Number: 20140606-5004.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/27/14.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES14-43-000.
    Applicants: Indianapolis Power & Light Company.
    Description: Application of Indianapolis Power & Light Company
under FPA Section 204 for an Order Authorizing the Issuance of Short-
Term Debt Instruments.
    Filed Date: 6/5/14.
    Accession Number: 20140605-5161.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/14.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 6, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-13867 Filed 6-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P