[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 249 (Monday, December 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71915-71916]
[FR Doc No: 2019-28123]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC20-26-000.
    Applicants: Krayn Wind LLC, Cambria Wind, LLC.
    Description: Joint Application for Authorization Under Section 203
of the Federal Power Act, et al. of Krayn Wind LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 12/19/19.
    Accession Number: 20191219-5337.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/9/20.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2806-004; ER10-2818-004; ER10-2847-004; ER14-
963-004.
    Applicants: TransAlta Energy Marketing (U.S.) Inc., TransAlta
Energy Marketing Corporation, TransAlta Centralia Generation, LLC,
TransAlta Wyoming Wind LLC.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Update Analysis for Northwest
Region of the TransAlta Northwest MBR Sellers, et al.
    Filed Date: 12/19/19.
    Accession Number: 20191219-5280.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/18/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3079-016; ER11-2539-006; ER11-2540-006; ER11-
2542-006.
    Applicants: Tyr Energy, LLC, Plains End, LLC, Plains End II, LLC,
Rathdrum Power, LLC.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis for Northwest Region of
Tyr Energy, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 12/20/19.
    Accession Number: 20191220-5104.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/18/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2154-010.
    Applicants: Twin Eagle Resource Management, LLC.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Update for the Southwest Region
of Twin Eagle Resource Management, LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/19/19.
    Accession Number: 20191219-5274.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/18/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-355-003; ER16-141-005; ER15-255-004; ER10-
2032-008; ER10-2033-008; ER15-190-011; ER12-2313-005; ER10-1330-007;
ER18-2465-001; ER18-2466-001; ER19-2343-002; ER17-2336-005.
    Applicants: Colonial Eagle Solar, LLC, Conetoe II Solar, LLC, Duke
Energy Beckjord Storage, LLC, Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc., Duke Energy
Ohio, Inc., Duke Energy Renewable Services, LLC, Laurel Hill Wind
Energy, LLC, North Allegheny Wind, LLC, Federal Way Powerhouse LLC,
Potter Road Powerhouse LLC, 2018 ESA Project Company, LLC, Shoreham
Solar Commons LLC.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Update for the Northeast Region
of Duke MBR Sellers.
    Filed Date: 12/20/19.
    Accession Number: 20191220-5165.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/18/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2305-000.
    Applicants: Valencia Power, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to June 28, 2019 Valencia Power, LLC
Updated Market Power Analysis for the SW Region.
    Filed Date: 12/20/19.
    Accession Number: 20191220-5148.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/10/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2707-002; ER10-2822-016; ER16-1238-003; ER16-
1250-008; ER17-1392-003; ER10-3158-009; ER12-308-009; ER10-3162-009;
ER10-3161-009; ER17-1242-002.
    Applicants: Poseidon Wind, LLC, Atlantic Renewable Projects II LLC,
Avangrid Arizona Renewables, LLC, Avangrid Renewables, LLC, El Cabo
Wind LLC, Dillon Wind LLC, Manzana Wind LLC, Mountain View Power
Partners III, LLC, Shiloh I Wind Project, LLC, Tule Wind LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Poseidon Wind, LLC and
the Avangrid Southwest MBR Sellers.
    Filed Date: 12/19/19.
    Accession Number: 20191219-5275.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-647-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2019-12-19_MISO-PJM JOA
revisions on Constraint Relaxation to be effective 2/18/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/19/19.
    Accession Number: 20191219-5211.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-648-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to the MISO-PJM
JOA re Constraint Relaxation to be effective 2/18/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/19/19.
    Accession Number: 20191219-5214.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-649-000.
    Applicants: AEP Energy Partners, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: MBR Tariff, FERC Electric
Tariff for Market Based Sales to be effective 1/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/19/19.
    Accession Number: 20191219-5216.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-650-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Service Agreement No. 325,
Large Generator Interconnection Agreement with EDF to be effective 12/
31/9998.
    Filed Date: 12/19/19.
    Accession Number: 20191219-5220.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-651-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Service Agreement No. 326,
Long-Term Conditional Firm PTP Agreement with EDF to be effective. 12/
21/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/19/19.
    Accession Number: 20191219-5221.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-652-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Oklahoma, Southwestern
Electric Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Market-Based Rates Tariff to
be effective 1/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/19/19.
    Accession Number: 20191219-5231.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-653-000.
    Applicants: Great Bay Solar I, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Shared Facilities Agreement
to be effective 12/20/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/19/19.
    Accession Number: 20191219-5232.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-654-000.
    Applicants: MidAmerican Central California Transco, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Annual TRBAA Update to be
effective 1/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/20/19.
    Accession Number: 20191220-5003.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/10/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-655-000.
    Applicants: New York State Reliability Council, L.L.C.
    Description: Informational Filing of the Revised Installed Capacity
Requirement for the New York Control Area by the New York State
Reliability Council, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 12/19/19.
    Accession Number: 20191219-5276.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-656-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 1313R13 Oklahoma Gas and
Electric Company NITSA NOA to be effective 12/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/20/19.
    Accession Number: 20191220-5015.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/10/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-657-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 1628R17 Western Farmers
Electric Cooperative NITSA NOA to be effective 12/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/20/19.
    Accession Number: 20191220-5019.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/10/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-658-000.
    Applicants: Fortistar North Tonawanda Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: Notice of Succession and New
eTariff Baseline Tariff to be effective 12/21/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/20/19.
    Accession Number: 20191220-5020.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/10/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-659-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: NYISO compliance filing re: Fast-
Start Resources to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 12/20/19.
    Accession Number: 20191220-5087.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/10/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-660-000.
    Applicants: Bolt Energy Marketing, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based
Rate Authorization and Request for Waivers to be effective. 1/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/20/19.
    Accession Number: 20191220-5107.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/10/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-661-000.
    Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Concurrences to Navajo
Project Agreements to be effective 12/23/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/20/19.
    Accession Number: 20191220-5164.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/10/20.

    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: December 20, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-28123 Filed 12-27-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48531-48532]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22582]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2011-0032]

Construction Standards on Posting Emergency Telephone Numbers and
Floor Load Limits; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's
(OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements

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

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to
extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the
information collection requirements specified in the Construction
Standards on Posting Emergency Telephone Numbers and Maximum Safe Floor
Load Limits.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
December 18, 2017.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit a copy of your comments and
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2011-0032,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N-3653, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are
accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal
business hours, 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number (OSHA-2011-0032) for the Information Collection Request
(ICR). All comments, including any personal information you provide,
are placed in the public docket without change, and may be made
available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further information
on submitting comments, see the ``Public Participation'' heading in the
section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at
the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Owen or Theda Kenney, Directorate
of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, telephone
(202) 693-2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accord with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing
information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational
injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also
requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon
employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce
to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of effort in
obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    Two construction standards, ``Medical Services and First Aid''
(Sec.  1926.50), and ``General Requirements for Storage'' (Sec.
1926.250), contain posting provisions. Paragraph (f) of Sec.  1926.50
requires employers to conspicuously post emergency telephone numbers
for physicians, hospitals, or ambulances at their worksites if 911
emergency telephone service is not locally available; in the event that
a worker has a serious injury at a worksite, this posting requirement
helps expedite emergency medical treatment of the worker. Paragraph
(a)(2) of Sec.  1926.250 specifies that employers must post the maximum
safe load limits of floors located in storage areas inside buildings or
other structures under construction, unless the floors or slabs are on
grade (sitting on the ground). This provision prohibits employers from
overloading floors in areas used to store material and equipment where
a structure's floors are not supported directly by the ground. This
requirement is intended to prevent floor collapses which could
seriously injure or kill workers.

II. Special Issues for Comment

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

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information
collection requirements contained in the two construction standards,
``Medical Services and First Aid'' paragraph (f) of Sec.  1926.50, and
``General Requirements for Storage'' paragraph (a)(2) of Sec.
1926.250. The Agency is proposing an adjustment increase of its current
burden hour estimate from 106,178

burden hours to 181,624 burden hours for a total increase of 75,446
burden hours associated with these two standards. The increase is due
to the increase in the number of affected construction projects. The
Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice
and will include this summary in the request to OMB.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Construction Standards on the Posting of Emergency Telephone
Numbers and Floor Load Limits (29 CFR 1926.50 and 29 CFR 1926.250).
    OMB Control Number: 1218-0093.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.
    Number of Respondents: 716,589.
    Number of Responses: 716,589.
    Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
    Average Time per Response: Various.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 181,624.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

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

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile; or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2011-0032). You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or a facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so that the Agency can attach
them to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger or courier service, please contact the OSHA
Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
dates of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are
available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit
comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's ``User
Tips'' link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about
materials not available from the Web site, and for assistance in using
the Internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The
authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR
3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on October 10, 2017.
Loren Sweatt,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2017-22582 Filed 10-17-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


region facility species. orig stage year impinged. est entrained. est notes dummy dummy dummy dummy dummy  999  999 dummy river winyah american. eel age01 1981 211 . RM# 35903; Table 2 pg 8 river winyah threadfin. shad age01 1981 150 . RM# 35903; Table 2 pg 8 river winyah coastal. shiner age01 1981 30 . RM# 35903; Table 2 pg 8 river winyah white. catfish age01 1981 30 . RM# 35903; Table 2 pg 8 river winyah mummichog age01 1981 30 . RM# 35903; Table 2 pg 8 river winyah flier age01 1981 30 . RM# 35903; Table 2 pg 8 river winyah redbreast. sunfish age01 1981 90 . RM# 35903; Table 2 pg 8 river winyah warmouth age01 1981 90 . RM# 35903; Table 2 pg 8 river winyah southern. flounder age01 1981 30 . RM# 35903; Table 2 pg 8 river winyah hogchoker age01 1981 241 . RM# 35903; Table 2 pg 8 qc dummy lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer month year sample species imp qc Sum of imp september 1976 1 blue. crab 3 lefer species Total extrap. factor extrap. imp september 1976 1 mud. crab 1 lefer anchovy 1 2.191780822 46 september 1976 1 white. shrimp 4 lefer blue. crab 22 2.191780822 1,004 september 1976 1 grass. shrimp 3 lefer dollar. sunfish 1 2.191780822 46 september 1976 1 flounder 1 lefer fat. sleeper 3 2.191780822 137 september 1976 1 hogchoker 3 lefer flounder 1 2.191780822 46 september 1976 1 herring 1 lefer grass. shrimp 11 2.191780822 502 september 1976 2 grass. shrimp 6 lefer gray. snapper 2 2.191780822 91 september 1976 2 white. shrimp 15 lefer herring 1 2.191780822 46 september 1976 2 blue. crab 7 lefer hogchoker 4 2.191780822 183 september 1976 2 hogchoker 1 lefer mud. crab 1 2.191780822 46 september 1976 2 spotted. sunfish 1 lefer none 0 2.191780822  october 1976 1 white. shrimp 22 lefer slender. sleeper 1 2.191780822 46 october 1976 1 blue. crab 1 lefer spanish. sardine 3 2.191780822 137 october 1976 1 grass. shrimp 2 lefer spotted. sunfish 2 2.191780822 91 october 1976 1 anchovy 1 lefer threadfin. shad 1 2.191780822 46 october 1976 1 slender. sleeper 1 lefer white. shrimp 41 2.191780822 1,871 october 1976 1 spotted. sunfish 1 lefer Grand Total 95 october 1976 2 blue. crab 8 lefer october 1976 2 spanish. sardine 1 lefer october 1976 2 gray. snapper 2 lefer november 1976 1 blue. crab 2 lefer november 1976 1 fat. sleeper 2 lefer november 1976 1 dollar. sunfish 1 lefer november 1976 2 spanish. sardine 1 lefer december 1976 1 none 0 lefer december 1976 2 blue. crab 1 lefer december 1976 2 fat. sleeper 1 lefer december 1976 2 spanish. sardine 1 lefer december 1976 2 threadfin. shad 1 lefer source notes RM # 35903, Table D 3, pg 14 8 24 hr sampling periods= 192 hrs. Divided this by # hours in a year to get extrap. factor. RM # 35903, Table D 3, pg 14 8 24 hr sampling periods= 192 hrs. Divided this by # hours in a year to get extrap. factor. RM # 35903, Table D 3, pg 14 8 24 hr sampling periods= 192 hrs. Divided this by # hours in a year to get extrap. factor. RM # 35903, Table D 3, pg 14 8 24 hr sampling periods= 192 hrs. Divided this by # hours in a year to get extrap. factor. RM # 35903, Table D 3, pg 14 8 24 hr sampling periods= 192 hrs. Divided this by # hours in a year to get extrap. factor. RM # 35903, Table D 3, pg 14 8 24 hr sampling periods= 192 hrs. Divided this by # hours in a year to get extrap. factor. RM # 35903, Table D 3, pg 14 8 24 hr sampling periods= 192 hrs. Divided this by # hours in a year to get extrap. factor. RM # 35903, Table D 3, pg 14 8 24 hr sampling periods= 192 hrs. Divided this by # hours in a year to get extrap. factor. RM # 35903, Table D 3, pg 14 8 24 hr sampling periods= 192 hrs. Divided this by # hours in a year to get extrap. factor. RM # 35903, Table D 3, pg 14 8 24 hr sampling periods= 192 hrs. Divided this by # hours in a year to get extrap. factor. RM # 35903, Table D 3, pg 14 8 24 hr sampling periods= 192 hrs. Divided this by # hours in a year to get extrap. factor. RM # 35903, Table D 3, pg 14 8 24 hr sampling periods= 192 hrs. Divided this by # hours in a year to get extrap. factor. RM # 35903, Table D 3, pg 14 8 24 hr sampling periods= 192 hrs. Divided this by # hours in a year to get extrap. factor. RM # 35903, Table D 3, pg 14 8 24 hr sampling periods= 192 hrs. Divided this by # hours in a year to get extrap. factor. RM # 35903, Table D 3, pg 14 8 24 hr sampling periods= 192 hrs. Divided this by # hours in a year to get extrap. factor. RM # 35903, Table D 3, pg 14 8 24 hr sampling periods= 192 hrs. Divided this by # hours in a year to get extrap. factor. Losses data for Winyah Plant ( South Carolina). Cooling water source: North Santee River and Wadmacon Creek Intake 316( b) Phase III A. Gage, 12/ 1/ 2003 Notes: 1976: Impingement sampling was conducted over 24 hour periods 2x/ month from Sept Dec 1976. Impinged fish were washed from th 1981: Impingement sampling was conducted over 9 periods of varying duration from May 1982 April 1982. Impinged fish were washed 1976: Extrapolated based on 8 24 hr sampling periods= 192 hrs. Divided this by # hours in a year to get extrap. factor. Need to check extrapolation methods for 1976 data to see if we want to use data. Both years of data have low sampling event numbers QC performed by ensuring sums of numbers entered matched the sums presented in RM # 35903 1976 data not used.

QC Checked data entry against source documents. Confirmed losses totals agree with data entry totals. M. Lefer 12/ 9/ 03. the travelling screens and tallied. hed from the travelling screens and tallied.

ers.


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 10, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27485-27493]
[FR Doc No: E9-13581]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 387

[Docket No. FMCSA-2006-26262]
RIN 2126-AB05

Minimum Levels of Financial Responsibility for Motor Carriers

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
proposes amendments to its regulations concerning minimum levels of
financial responsibility for motor carriers to allow Canada-domiciled
carriers to maintain, as acceptable evidence of financial
responsibility, insurance policies issued by Canadian insurance
companies legally authorized to issue such policies in the Canadian
Province or Territory where the motor carrier has its principal place
of business. Currently, Canada-domiciled motor carriers operating in
the U.S. must maintain as evidence of financial responsibility,
insurance policies issued by U.S. insurance companies. The proposed
change would not affect the required minimum levels of financial
responsibility that carriers must now maintain under the regulations.
This action is in response to a petition for rulemaking filed by the
Government of Canada.

DATES: Public comments are requested on all aspects of this proposed
rule by August 10, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket No. FMCSA-2006-
26262 and/or RIN 2126-AB05, by any of the following methods--Internet,
facsimile, regular mail, or hand-deliver.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov. The FDMS is the
preferred method for submitting comments, and we urge you to use it. In
the Comment or Submission section, type Docket ID Number ``FMCSA-2006-
26262'', select ``Go'', and then click on ``Send a Comment or
Submission.'' You will receive a tracking number when you submit a
comment.
     Mail, Courier, or Hand-Deliver: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations (M-30), West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office
hours are between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Docket: Comments and material received from the public, as
well as background information and documents mentioned in this
preamble, are part of docket FMCSA-2006-26262, and are available for
inspection and copying on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
You may also view and copy documents at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's, Docket Operations Unit, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Ave SE., Washington, DC.
    Privacy Act: All comments will be posted without change including
any personal information provided to the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov. Anyone can search the
electronic form of all our dockets in FDMS, by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). The DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement was published in the Federal Register on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476), and can be viewed at http://docketsinfo.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver
and Carrier Operations. Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    Section 30 of the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 (1980 Act) (Pub. L. 96-
296, 94 Stat. 793, 820, July 1, 1980) authorized the Secretary of
Transportation (Secretary) to prescribe regulations establishing
minimum levels of financial responsibility covering public liability,
property damage, and environmental restoration for the transportation
of property for compensation by motor vehicles in interstate or foreign
commerce. Section 30(c) of the 1980 Act provided that motor carrier
financial responsibility may be established by evidence of one or a
combination of the following if acceptable to the Secretary: (1)
Insurance; (2) a guarantee; (3) a surety bond issued by a bonding
company authorized to do business in the United States; and (4)
qualification as a self-insurer (49 U.S.C. 31139(f)(1)). Section 30(c)
required the Secretary to establish, by regulation, methods and
procedures to assure compliance with these requirements.
    In June 1981, the Secretary issued regulations implementing section
30, which are codified at 49 CFR part 387, subpart A. The Form MCS-90

endorsement for motor carriers transporting property is entitled
``Endorsement for Motor Carrier Policies of Insurance for Public
Liability Under Sections 29 and 30 of the Motor Carrier Act of 1980.''
(See 49 CFR 387.15.)
    Section 18 of the Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982 (Bus Act) (Pub.
L. 97-261, 96 Stat. 1102, 1120, September 20, 1982) directed the
Secretary to prescribe regulations establishing minimum levels of
financial responsibility covering public liability and property damage
for the transportation of passengers for compensation by motor vehicle
in interstate or foreign commerce. Section 18(d) of the Bus Act
provided that such motor carrier financial responsibility may be
established by evidence of one or a combination of the following if
acceptable to the Secretary: (1) Insurance, including high self-
retention; (2) a guarantee; and (3) a surety bond issued by a bonding
company authorized to do business in the United States (49 U.S.C.
31138(c)(1)). Section 18(d) required the Secretary to establish, by
regulation, methods and procedures to assure compliance with these
requirements.
    In November 1983, the Secretary issued regulations implementing
section 18 of the Bus Act. The regulations implementing that law are
found at 49 CFR part 387, subpart B. The Form MCS-90B endorsement for
for-hire motor carriers of passengers is entitled ``Endorsement for
Motor Carrier Policies of Insurance for Public Liability Under Section
18 of the Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982.'' (See 49 CFR 387.39.)
    This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) is based on the
Secretary's authority to establish methods and procedures to ensure
that certain motor carriers of property and passengers maintain the
minimum financial responsibility liability coverage mandated by 49
U.S.C. 31138(c)(1) and 31139(f)(1). This authority was delegated to
FMCSA by the Secretary pursuant to 49 CFR 1.73(f).

Background

The Government of Canada (Canada) Petition for Rulemaking

    On September 29, 2005, Canada submitted a petition for rulemaking
to amend 49 CFR part 387. Canada specifically requested that FMCSA
amend Sec.  387.11, which provides that a policy of insurance or surety
bond does not satisfy FMCSA's financial responsibility requirements
unless the insurer or surety furnishing the policy or bond is--

    (a) Legally authorized to issue such policies or bonds in each
State in which the motor carrier operates; or
    (b) Legally authorized to issue such policies or bonds in the
State in which the motor carrier has its principal place of business
or domicile, and is willing to designate a person upon whom process,
issued by or under the authority of any court having jurisdiction of
the subject matter, may be served in any proceeding at law or equity
brought in any State in which the motor carrier operates; or
    (c) Legally authorized to issue such policies or bonds in any
State of the United States and eligible as an excess or surplus
lines insurer in any State in which business is written, and is
willing to designate a person upon whom process, issued by or under
the authority of any court having jurisdiction of the subject
matter, may be served in any proceeding at law or equity brought in
any State in which the motor carrier operates.

    Canada asked FMCSA to consider amending this provision to permit
insurance companies, licensed either provincially or Federally in
Canada, to write motor vehicle liability insurance policies for Canada-
domiciled motor carriers of property operating in the U.S. and to issue
the Form MCS-90 endorsement for public liability to meet FMCSA's
financial responsibility requirements. Form MCS-90 is the endorsement
for motor carrier policies of insurance for public liability, which
for-hire motor carriers of property must maintain at their principal
place of business. Motor carriers domiciled in Canada and Mexico must
also carry a copy of the Form MCS-90 on board each vehicle operated in
the United States.
    At present, the combined effects of Sec. Sec.  387.7 and 387.11
require Canada-domiciled motor carriers of property operating in the
United States to either: (1) Obtain insurance through a Canada-licensed
insurer, which enters into a ``fronting agreement'' with a U.S.-
licensed insurer, whereby the U.S. insurer permits the Canadian insurer
to sign the Form MCS-90 as its agent, and the entire risk is
contractually ``reinsured'' back to the Canadian insurer by the U.S.
insurer; or (2) obtain two separate insurance policies, one valid in
Canada written by a Canadian insurer and one valid in the United States
written by a U.S. insurer. Canada indicates that the first option is by
far the most common. It suggests that the result of these requirements
is an additional administrative burden, inconvenience, and cost not
faced by U.S.-domiciled motor carriers operating into Canada. FMCSA
estimates there are approximately 9,000 Canada-domiciled for-hire motor
carriers of property and passengers and freight forwarders actively
operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in the United States that
are subject to the current financial responsibility rules.
    Canada requested that FMCSA amend 49 CFR part 387 so that an
insurance policy issued by a Canadian insurance company satisfies the
financial responsibility requirements. The insurance company must be
legally authorized to issue such a policy in the Province or Territory
of Canada in which the Canadian motor carrier has its principal place
of business or domicile. The company must also be willing to designate
a person upon whom process, issued by or under the authority of any
court having jurisdiction of the subject matter, may be served in any
proceeding at law or equity brought in any State in which the motor
carrier operates.
    Canada's proposal, if adopted through this rulemaking, would
eliminate the need for Canadian insurance companies to link with a U.S.
insurance company to legally insure Canadian motor carriers of property
that operate in the United States. It should be noted that although
Canada's petition only seeks to amend 49 CFR 387.11, its proposal
necessarily implicates other sections of part 387, which would need to
be changed for the sake of consistency. Section 387.35 applies the
Sec.  387.11 requirements to motor passenger carriers, which must
obtain a Form MCS-90B endorsement. Furthermore, Sec.  387.315 imposes
the same requirements on motor carriers who must file evidence of
insurance with FMCSA, and Sec.  387.409 applies similar financial
responsibility requirements on freight forwarders. Therefore, FMCSA
proposes to amend those sections for consistency.
    Canada explained that, for many years, it has recognized and
accepted non-commercial motor vehicle liability policies issued in
either country as acceptable proof of financial responsibility. All
jurisdictions in Canada accept the signing and filing of a Power of
Attorney and Undertaking (PAU) by U.S.-licensed insurers as valid proof
of financial responsibility for U.S.-domiciled motor vehicles of all
categories. In essence, the PAU provides that the U.S. insurer will
comply with and meet the minimum coverage and policy limits required in
any Canadian jurisdiction in which a crash involving its insured
occurs. The PAU is similar to FMCSA's requirements under Sec. Sec.
387.11 and 387.15 (MCS-90 Form).

The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America

    The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) is
an effort to increase security and enhance prosperity among the Untied
States, Canada, and Mexico through greater cooperation and information
sharing. The President of the United States, the Prime Minister of
Canada, and the President of Mexico (the Leaders) announced this
initiative on March 23, 2005. Among other things, the initiative
reflects the goal of improving the availability and affordability of
insurance coverage for motor carriers engaged in cross-border commerce
in North America.
    On June 27, 2005, a Report to the Leaders was signed on behalf of
the United States by the Secretaries of Homeland Security, Commerce,
and State. See http://www.spp.gov, and click on link to ``2005 Report
to Leaders.'' One of the Prosperity Priorities of the SPP is to ``Seek
ways to improve the availability and affordability of insurance
coverage for carriers engaged in cross-border commerce in North
America.'' At http://www.spp-psp.gc.ca/progress/prosperity_08_06-en.aspx, the following key milestone is stated for this initiative:

    ``U.S. and Canada to work towards possible amendment of the U.S.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Regulation to allow
Canadian insurers to directly sign the MCS-90 form concerning
endorsement for motor carrier policies of insurance for public
liability: by June 2006.''

    Canada advocates a change to part 387 to assist in meeting the
stated goals of the SPP. Achieving a seamless motor vehicle liability
insurance policy between Canada and the United States for motor
carriers would contribute to enhancing the competitive and efficient
position of North American businesses. FMCSA recognized the importance
of considering these requests and granted the petition by initiating a
rulemaking proceeding to solicit public comment on Canada's proposal.

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    On December 15, 2006 (71 FR 75433), FMCSA published an advance
notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in response to Canada's petition
for rulemaking to amend 49 CFR part 387. The ANPRM also requested
public comment on a petition for rulemaking from the Property Casualty
Insurers of America (PCI) which requested that FMCSA make revisions to
the Forms MCS-90 and MCS-90B endorsements to clarify that language in
the endorsements imposing liability for negligence ``on any route or in
any territory authorized to be served by the insured or elsewhere''
does not include liability connected with transportation within Mexico.
    The PCI petition was the result of a Federal District Court
decision holding that the Form MCS-90B endorsement applied to a crash
that occurred in Mexico. As a result, PCI requested that the
endorsement be amended by inserting the phrase: ``Within the United
States of America, its territories, possessions, Puerto Rico, and
Canada'' following the words ``or elsewhere.''
    However, in September 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit issued a decision, Lincoln General Ins. Co. v. De La Luz
Garcia, 501 F.3d 436 (5th Cir., 2007), effectively overturning the
District Court decision that had prompted PCI to file its petition.
Because the Court of Appeals decision essentially provided PCI with the
relief requested in its petition, and because the issues raised in that
petition are different from the issues raised in Canada's petition,
FMCSA has decided that a regulatory change need not be considered at
this time, and this issue will not be addressed further in this NPRM.

Discussion of the Comments Received on the ANPRM

    FMCSA received comments on the ANPRM from the following parties:
The American Insurance Association (AIA), the Insurance Bureau of
Canada (IBC), the Canadian Trucking Alliance (CTA), the Holland America
Line, Inc. (HAL), the National Association of Professional Surplus
Lines Offices, Ltd. (NAPSLO), and the Public Utilities Commission of
Ohio (PUCO). The Canadian Government and the Property Casualty Insurers
of America submitted supplemental comments.
    Generally, the commenters agree with the amendments requested by
Canada. For example, AIA believes that ``* * * granting [Canada's]
petition is in the public interest.'' HAL believes that whatever rules
FMCSA adopts the Agency should apply the rules to both motor carriers
of property and motor carriers of passengers.
    One commenter opposed the granting of the petition. NAPSLO
expressed concerns that changes to the regulations may expose U.S.
carriers and motorists to ``a potential increase in risk in connection
with foreign carriers.''

Specific Concerns Raised by Commenters

    NAPSLO argues there is already a process for Canadian companies to
do business in the U.S. NAPSLO states:

    The [National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC)] has
adopted a streamlined application process for foreign companies in
its International Insurance Department [(IID)]. Through the
application process, the Canadian companies would become approved
surplus lines insurers, and thus, meet the existing criteria. By
obtaining approval from the NAIC's IID, a Canadian carrier would
become approved as a surplus lines writer in the vast majority of
states. The reason for this process is to streamline the approval
process. A Canadian insurer could become approved in the vast
majority of states through a single application process. The other
states have an established process for alien insurance companies
desiring to operate in their states. Thus, there is a long
established process for alien companies intending to operate in the
U.S.

    Although not opposed to the Canada petition for rulemaking, PUCO
believes FMCSA should ensure that policies of insurance maintained by
foreign motor carriers operating in the United States are as ``reliable
and comprehensive'' as those currently required. PUCO emphasizes that
the enforceability of the rules must be seamless and efficient.
    FMCSA Response:
    FMCSA acknowledges the commenters' concerns but does not, however,
believe maintaining the status quo is appropriate or necessary to
ensure financial protection for U.S. citizens in the event of a crash
involving a Canada-domiciled motor carrier.
    Currently, Canada-domiciled carriers have two options for
satisfying the U.S. insurance requirements. The first is to obtain two
separate insurance policies, one with a Canadian insurance company for
its operations in Canada and the other with a U.S. insurance company
for its operations in the U.S. The second option is to obtain insurance
from a Canadian insurer under contract with a U.S. insurer through a
fronting arrangement. Both options result in the imposition of costs on
Canada-based motor carriers that are significantly greater than the
costs for U.S.-based carriers operating in Canada. FMCSA estimates that
this rulemaking would result in discounted net benefits of
approximately $273 million over a 10-year period, or $30,000 for each
Canada-based motor carrier that conducts operations in the U.S. during
this period. As noted above, there are approximately 9,000 such
carriers.
    While the approach that NAPSLO supports may provide a solution, it
would require each Canadian insurance

company to essentially seek authority from State insurance
commissioners to issue policies in the U.S. Based on the information
provided by NAPSLO it is not clear that this approach would necessarily
provide the needed coverage for Canada-domiciled carriers in each State
in which the insured Canadian carrier intends to operate in the U.S. if
the NAIC's IID is not recognized in certain States.
    FMCSA believes the proposed rulemaking is needed to provide
reciprocity between the U.S. and Canada and that it is inappropriate to
impose on Canada-based carriers and insurance companies requirements
that Canada does not impose on U.S.-based motor carriers and insurance
companies.
    Under the current fronting arrangements between U.S. and Canadian
insurance companies, Canadian insurance companies are under contract to
pay claims against public liability policies that include the Form MCS-
90/MCS-90B endorsement executed by a U.S. insurance company. The fact
that the fronting arrangements exist is an indication that there are
sufficient legal processes in place to assure U.S. insurance companies
that their Canadian counterparts could be forced to honor their
contractual obligations in the event that the Canadian insurance
company attempted to avoid paying a claim for a crash that occurred in
the U.S. The continued use of these fronting arrangements over the
years also suggests that Canadian insurers typically honor their
contractual obligations without the need for legal actions--it is
unlikely that U.S. insurance companies would continue to sign such
arrangements if the Canadian insurance companies they were dealing with
exhibited a reluctance to honor their commitments. Therefore, FMCSA
believes the experience U.S. insurance companies have had with Canadian
insurance companies through fronting arrangements serves as proof
Canadian insurers have the financial ability and the corporate values
to honor their commitments without the need for legal action. The only
apparent need for the current fronting arrangements is to fulfill
FMCSA's insurance requirements, not because of problems obtaining
payments from Canadian insurance companies.
    With regard to PUCO's comments, FMCSA believes that the regulatory
change sought by Canada would not compromise the financial protection
provided under the current insurance regime. The legal processes
between the U.S. and Canada that support the fronting arrangements,
combined with the demonstrated willingness of Canadian insurance
companies to honor their financial obligations, suggests there will
continue to be financial protection for U.S. citizens who file claims
following a crash involving a commercial motor vehicle operated by a
Canada-domiciled motor carrier insured by a Canadian insurance company.

Discussion of Response to Specific Questions Included in the ANPRM

    FMCSA specifically requested that comments provide responses to
questions and issues raised in the ANPRM. The questions and the
responsive comments are set out below.
    Question 1:

     What has been the experience in collecting damage
claims filed with Canadian insurance companies for incidents that
occur in the United States, particularly as it relates to motorists
or other claimants for crashes involving passenger cars driven in
the United States but insured by Canadian firms?

    Comments (IBC and Canada): Canada and IBC indicated that U.S.
citizens and businesses that file claims against the drivers of
passenger cars insured by Canadian insurers receive the same quality of
claims service and settlement as from U.S. insurance companies. Both
stated that they were not aware of any cases where legitimate damage
claims involving passenger cars driven in the U.S. and insured by
Canadian insurance companies were not paid to U.S. citizens or
businesses.
    FMCSA Response:
    The comments suggest that claims involving Canada-domiciled
carriers would be honored by Canadian insurers. Although the commenters
discuss current experiences involving passenger cars operating under a
substantially lower threshold of financial responsibility than motor
carriers are required to maintain, the full cooperation of Canadian
insurers in these matters is a good indicator that the insurers would
provide comparable levels of cooperation in the event claims are filed
by U.S. citizens.
    In addition, the on-going practice of fronting arrangements between
U.S. insurers and Canadian insurers provides a strong indicator that
Canadian insurance companies are fully capable of providing the
required levels of financial responsibility for Canada-domiciled motor
carriers operating in the U.S. It is unlikely that U.S. insurers would
take financial risks of entering into a fronting agreement with
Canadian insurers without some assurances that the Canadian insurance
companies are willing and able to pay claims.
    Question 2:

     How does Canada's consumer protection system ensure
that claims filed by U.S. citizens and businesses receive proper
consideration?

    Comments (IBC): The IBC stated that legal and regulatory insurance
systems in Canada require that a Canadian insurance company that issues
an automobile insurance policy respond to a claim arising from an
incident in Canada or in the U.S. The Canadian provincial and
territorial Superintendents of Insurance are responsible under their
respective insurance laws for the market conduct of all insurers
licensed in their jurisdictions. Market conduct includes the fair and
prompt settlement of claims.
    FMCSA Response:
    FMCSA agrees with IBC that Canada's requirements for automobile
insurance provide protection for U.S. citizens in the event of an
automobile crash. Based on the information available to FMCSA and
included in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice,
there is no indication that Canadian insurance companies would be non-
responsive to claims filed by U.S. citizens or businesses against
Canadian-domiciled carriers. As indicated above, Canadian insurance
companies currently honor their commitments under their fronting
agreements with U.S. insurance companies and there is no reason to
conclude that these companies would be less likely to honor claims
filed directly with them.
    FMCSA is engaged in an on-going process with its Canadian
counterparts to identify opportunities for establishing reciprocity
arrangements, whenever practicable, concerning certain motor carrier
requirements. Based upon the information currently available and the
comments to the ANPRM, the Agency has preliminarily determined that the
Canadian processes for providing consumer protection in the event of a
crash between a commercial vehicle and a passenger car are comparable
to what is provided in the U.S. We believe U.S. entities would have
their claims processed in a timely manner in the event they obtain a
final judgment against a Canadian-insured, Canada-domiciled motor
carrier in a U.S. court.
    Question 3:

     Would it be more difficult to execute a U.S. court
judgment against a Canadian motor carrier insured by a Canadian
insurance company, as compared to a Canadian motor carrier insured
by a U.S. insurance company?

    Comments (IBC): The IBC believes it would not be more difficult
because Canadian insurers, as a normal business

practice, pay U.S. judgments against their policyholders. In insuring
Canadian motor carriers which operate in the U.S., Canadian insurance
companies know the insurance product they are selling to these motor
carriers includes a promise to pay U.S. judgments. IBC is not aware of
any instance where a Canadian-licensed insurer has refused or failed to
pay a judgment against its Canadian policy holder to a U.S. citizen, to
the full extent of its legal obligation.
    FMCSA Response:
    FMCSA agrees with IBC that Canadian insurers, as a normal business
practice, pay U.S. judgments against their policy holders. The Agency
is not aware of any instances in which a U.S. insurance company,
operating in a fronting arrangement with a Canadian insurance company,
has experienced problems with a Canadian partner fulfilling its
financial obligations to satisfy judgments against a Canada-domiciled
motor carrier. The extensive experience that U.S. insurers have had in
working with Canadian insurers provides significant assurance that in
the event of a judgment against a Canada-domiciled carrier, the
Canadian insurer will pay, up to the applicable limits on the Form MCS-
90 or MCS-90B, any legitimate claims filed by U.S. citizens or
businesses.
    Question 4:

     Under Canadian law, would Canadian insurance companies
be legally bound to make payment to U.S. claimants based on a final
judgment issued by a U.S. court?

    Comments (IBC): The IBC stated that a Canadian insurance company
would be legally bound to make payments to U.S. claimants based on a
final judgment issued by a U.S. court. It points out that legislation
pertaining to automobile insurance in each of Canada's provinces and
territories provides that coverage under automobile insurance policies
is provided when the vehicle is in Canada or the United States or while
being transported between those countries. It is therefore clear from
this wording of this legislation that it is intended that the liability
coverage under a Canadian automobile insurance policy will cover
crashes in the U.S.
    FMCSA Response:
    FMCSA believes that fronting arrangements between U.S. and Canadian
insurance companies would not exist unless there were sufficient legal
processes to ensure that U.S. insurance companies could take action to
receive payment from any Canadian company that refused to honor its
contractual obligations. While the specific legal processes to ensure
that Canadian insurance companies honor their contractual obligations
may differ from the legal processes that would be used by a U.S. entity
filing a claim directly against a Canadian insurance policy, the track
record of Canadian insurance companies does not suggest that U.S.
entities would need to resort to legal actions to have their claims
honored. Canadian insurance companies have been working cooperatively
with U.S. insurance companies for years and there is no reason to
believe that the Canadian companies would adopt new practices to avoid
paying claims if this rulemaking proceeds.
    Question 5:

     If Canadian insurance companies were allowed to write
coverage for Canadian motor carriers operating in the United States,
would there likely be economic impacts associated with a potential
increase in unpaid claims?

    Comments (IBC): The only change FMCSA is proposing would be the
name of the insurance company that signs the endorsement for Form MCS-
90 or Form MCS-90B. There would be no change in the payment of claims
because there would be no change in which insurance company has the
contractual obligation to pay claims. IBC does not foresee an increase
in unpaid claims, and it does not anticipate adverse economic impacts
on U.S. entities.
    FMCSA Response:
    FMCSA does not believe there would be an increased likelihood of
unpaid claims if Canada-domiciled carriers operating in the U.S. are
allowed to operate under insurance policies issued by Canadian
companies. The Forms MCS-90 and MCS-90B require that the insurer pay
any final judgment against the motor carrier. Therefore, if there is a
court decision against a Canada-domiciled motor carrier concerning a
commercial motor vehicle crash, the Canadian insurer must pay the
claim. Canadian insurance companies, through fronting arrangements
described above, are currently fulfilling the financial obligations
associated with satisfying U.S. judgments against Canada-domiciled
carriers. There is no reason to believe that they would be financially
unable to, or refuse to fulfill their financial obligations if they
execute the Forms MCS-90 or MCS-90B as the insurer rather than as an
agent of a U.S. insurer.
    Question 6:

     Although the petition proposes amending only Sec.
387.11, is there any reason why the rulemaking should not be
extended to include insurance policies issued to Canadian passenger
carriers and freight forwarders?

    Comments (CTA, HAL, AIA, and IBC): Generally, the commenters
support including Canadian passenger carriers and freight forwarders in
the proposed changes.
    FMCSA Response:
    FMCSA agrees with commenters that the rulemaking should not be
limited to insurance for motor carriers of property. Accordingly, this
proposal would permit Canada-domiciled motor carriers of passengers and
freight forwarders to operate in the U.S. under insurance policies
issued by Canadian insurance companies.

The Proposed Rule

    FMCSA proposes amendments to 49 CFR 387.11 to allow Canadian
insurance companies, licensed in the province or territory where the
motor carrier has its principal place of business, to issue proof of
financial responsibility for Canada-domiciled motor carriers by
executing the Forms MCS-90 and MCS-90B directly rather than as the
agent of a U.S. insurer. FMCSA also proposes amendments to other
sections of part 387 to ensure consistency within part 387. These
include Sec.  387.35, which applies the requirements of Sec.  387.11 to
motor passenger carriers; Sec.  387.315, which imposes the same
requirements on motor carriers that must file evidence of insurance
with FMCSA; and 49 CFR 387.409, which applies these requirements to
freight forwarders.
    In order to implement this proposal, FMCSA proposes to revise
Sec. Sec.  387.11 and 387.35 to add a new paragraph (d), that would
allow an insurance policy to satisfy the financial responsibility
requirements of the subpart if the insurer is:

     Legally authorized to issue a policy of insurance in
the Province or Territory of Canada in which a motor carrier has its
principal place of business or domicile, and is willing to designate
a person upon whom process, issued by or under the authority of any
court having jurisdiction of the subject matter, may be served in
any proceeding at law brought in any State in which the motor
carrier operates.

    The Agency would also revise Sec.  387.315 to add a new paragraph
(d) that would allow a certificate of insurance to be accepted by FMCSA
if issued by an insurance company that is authorized to issue insurance
policies:

     In the Province or Territory of Canada in which a motor
carrier has its principal place of business or domicile, and will
designate in writing upon request by FMCSA, a person upon whom
process, issued by or under the authority of a court of competent
jurisdiction, may be served in any proceeding at law brought in any
State in which the carrier operates.

    The Agency would also revise Sec.  387.409 to add a new paragraph
(d) that would allow a certificate of insurance to be accepted by FMCSA
if issued by an insurance company that is authorized to issue insurance
policies:

    (d) In the Province or Territory of Canada in which a freight
forwarder has its principal place of business or domicile, and will
designate in writing upon request by FMCSA, a person upon whom
process, issued by or under the authority of a court of competent
jurisdiction, may be served in any proceeding at law brought in any
State in which the freight forwarder operates.

    The conforming amendments to part 387 would enable Canadian
insurers to execute the Forms MCS-90 and MCS-90B endorsements, and
allow Canadian insurers to file certificates of insurance required
under part 387, to protect the public and to ensure that anyone injured
or killed by a Canada-domiciled motor carrier is compensated after a
claim is filed. In the event that the matter requires court action to
determine fault in the crash, the payment would typically be made after
a settlement agreement is reached, or a U.S. claimant receives a final
judgment issued by a U.S. court against the Canada-domiciled motor
carrier. Filing of the FMCSA insurance forms and endorsements by
Canadian insurers would subject Canada-domiciled motor carriers to all
applicable Federal laws and regulations that require minimum levels of
financial responsibility to cover public liability and property damage
for the transportation by commercial motor vehicle in the U.S.

Methods and Databases (Technologies) for Ensuring the Validity of
Canadian Insurers

    Before an insurance company can submit certificates of insurance or
other evidence of financial security to the FMCSA, it must first be
assigned a filer account number. The account number is also used to
bill a service fee to the insurance companies ($10 fee for each
filing).
    For example, procedures for assigning a Canadian insurance company
an account filer number would include the following:
     The Canadian insurance company must submit a request to
FMCSA in writing to open a filer account. The letter must include the
home office address of the insurance company. FMCSA will also need a
billing address if the address is different from the home office
address, the name of a contact person within that insurance company,
their telephone number, e-mail address and fax number.
     The Canadian insurance company must provide a copy of its
license to write insurance policies.
     FMCSA staff will verify with the Canadian Government point
of contact whether the Canadian insurance company is licensed or
admitted in Canada to write insurance policies for Canadian motor
carriers.
    After all the above information is received, FMCSA will then assign
the Canadian insurance company a filer account number.
    If the proposed rule is implemented, Canadian insurers would sign
the Forms MCS-90 and MCS-90B, including any other form or documentation
required under part 387 to be filed on behalf of motor carriers,
thereby satisfying the minimum public liability requirements of FMCSA.
Canada's Department of Finance has indicated that Canadian insurers are
all monitored for financial solvency by Provincial or Federal insurance
regulators, and the regulator can provide FMCSA with a short statement
confirming that the Canadian insurer seeking to sign the MCS-90 form,
or any other security authorized by part 387, is supervised for
financial solvency. A Canadian agency would: (a) Respond to
verification requests on demand when an insurer new to FMCSA seeks to
sign the MCS-90 form and all other MCS and BMC insurance forms required
by part 387; (b) on an annual basis, verify a list of Canadian insurers
that have signed the MCS-90 form and all other MCS and BMC forms
required by part 387 to ensure that the list is still accurate; and (c)
respond to re-verification requests on demand if there were a specific
concern (for example, a news article on the financial health of a
particular company). Canadian insurers would also assume responsibility
for insurance filings on behalf of their clients as a result of this
rulemaking.

Approaches Considered

    After reviewing the comments received in response to the ANPRM,
FMCSA considered two options: (1) Issue a proposed rule to amend part
387 to allow Canadian insurance companies to issue insurance policies
for Canada-domiciled carriers and freight forwarders, and (2) maintain
the status quo which would entail withdrawal of the ANPRM. The Agency
chose the option of publishing an NPRM amending part 387, including
changes to Sec. Sec.  387.11, 387.35, 387.315, and 387.409 to ensure
consistency throughout part 387 for the insurance requirements for
motor carriers of property and passengers and freight forwarders. Based
on the comments received, there was no discernible adverse impact on
U.S. entities that would likely result from proceeding with an NPRM, as
requested by the Canadian government in its petition.

Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Rule

Regulatory Impact Analyses

    In examining the economic impact of this rulemaking, FMCSA
considered two options: (1) The Agency's proposed amendments to 49 CFR
Part 387 that would permit Canadian insurance companies to issue
insurance policies for Canada-domiciled carriers and freight forwarders
operating CMVs in the U.S., and (2) the Agency's alternative of
maintaining the status quo which would entail withdrawal of the ANPRM.
Under the first option, FMCSA decided to include within the scope of
the proposal active Canada-domiciled for-hire motor carriers of
property and passengers and freight forwarders. It is assumed that a
small proportion of Canada-domiciled motor carriers and freight
forwarders may elect to continue with the status quo, at least in the
short term, and choose not to seek direct insurance representation by a
Canadian insurance company for their U.S. operations. Those carriers
and freight forwarders are assumed to be a negligible percentage of the
total affected entities and are thus not considered in the analysis.
    The RIA examines the direct costs of implementing the proposed rule
in terms of administrative costs incurred by the FMCSA and in forgone
revenue by U.S. insurance companies (of which there are approximately
five) currently representing Canadian motor carriers and freight
forwarders. In addition, the RIA examines the functional impact of rule
compliance under this option from the perspectives of the FMCSA's
Enforcement and Compliance Division and the Canadian motor carriers.
    Under the second option, the same population of Canadian motor
carriers is considered. The RIA examines the direct costs of
maintaining the status quo, which consist mainly of compliance costs
currently incurred by Canadian motor carriers. The RIA specifically
analyzes the comparative cost burden currently being borne by Canadian
motor carriers versus that currently being borne by U.S. motor
carriers. FMCSA will continue to seek information to refine its
estimates of the cost burden. FMCSA specifically requests comments from
U.S. insurers on these cost issues. Any additional information will be
included in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.

    FMCSA notes that cost information used in its analyses was obtained
from the Agency's data base, Canada Finance, the American Insurance
Association, the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America and
publicly available information.
    The RIA also examines the benefits of this rulemaking which are
largely the relief of a disproportional cost and administrative burden
and inconvenience currently being borne by Canada-domiciled motor
carriers in comparison to their U.S. counterparts. Other benefits
include the elimination of trade barriers (i.e., disproportionate cost
burden) in accordance with the goals of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA), and increased cooperation among the U.S. and Canada
pursuant to the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North
America.
    This analysis is conducted under the assumption that there are
approximately 9,000 \1\ active Canada-domiciled motor carriers and
freight forwarders conducting CMV operations in the U.S. The FMCSA
Licensing and Insurance (L&I) system provides up-to-date information
about authorized for-hire motor carriers who must register with FMCSA
under 49 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  13901 and 13902. The L&I database was the
primary database utilized in the analysis because it does not include
overlapping carrier data. Under MCMIS, a motor carrier may have
multiple carrier classifications and thus may be counted more than
once. The Agency did, however, use MCMIS as a source to obtain the
number of Canada-domiciled for-hire carriers exempt from registration
under 49 U.S.C. 13901 and 13902 since they are not found in the L&I
database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Licensing and Insurance database, at http://li-public.fmcsa.dot.gov, and the Motor Carrier Management Information
System (MCMIS) database, at http://MCMIS.fmcsa.dot.gov, as of
February 20, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RIA finds that the proposed rulemaking yields a positive
discounted net benefit of $273 million estimated over a 10-year period.
This amounts to approximately $30,000 per carrier over that period.
These quantified net benefits accrue to the Canada-domiciled for-hire
motor carriers and freight forwarders which are impacted by this
rulemaking, of which there are approximately 9,000 actively operating
CMVs in the U.S. The essential impact of this rulemaking would be the
relief of a disproportional cost burden which, in turn, is the expected
net benefit of approximately $273 million over a 10-year period.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    For purposes of Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review) and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034,
February 26, 1979), FMCSA has made a preliminary determination that
this action is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning
of that Executive Order from an economic standpoint or otherwise. While
the Agency estimates a positive discounted net benefit of approximately
$273 million over a 10-year period, the net benefits are for Canada-
domiciled motor carriers. Because the benefits pertain to foreign
entities, they are not considered for the purposes of determining
whether the rulemaking is significant under Executive Order 12866.
Therefore, the Agency has determined this action is not an economically
significant regulatory action under section 3(f), Regulatory Planning
and Review, because it would not have an annual effect on the United
States' economy of $100 million.
    FMCSA acknowledges that U.S. insurance companies would experience a
reduction in revenues because they would no longer receive payments for
the fronting arrangements with Canadian insurance companies. However,
the Agency believes that a significant portion of the payments they
received from Canadian insurance companies were used to offset the
legal and administrative costs the U.S. companies incurred to
participate in the fronting arrangement. Although there may be some
degree of financial loss to U.S. companies, the amount of the loss is
expected to be small, as evidenced by the fact that, except for NAPSLO,
the U.S. insurance industry has not expressed opposition to Canada's
petition. FMCSA requests comments on this issue.
    A full regulatory evaluation has been prepared in support of this
rulemaking. The regulatory evaluation is included in the docket
referenced at the beginning of this notice.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    FMCSA has considered whether this rulemaking action would have a
significant impact under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and
Fairness Act (RFA) (Pub. L. 104-121), and has preliminarily determined
this action would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This proposed action has been analyzed in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999). E.O. 13132 does not require a Federalism
assessment under any circumstances. We have determined that this
proposed action would not affect the States' ability to discharge
traditional State government functions.

International Trade and Investment

    The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2531-2533) prohibits
Federal agencies from establishing standards that create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate
domestic objectives such as safety are not considered unnecessary
obstacles. In developing rules, the Trade Act requires agencies to
consider international standards and where appropriate, that they be
the basis of U.S. standards. FMCSA has assessed the potential effect of
the proposed rule and determined that that the expected economic impact
of this rule is minimal and should not affect trade opportunities for
U.S. firms doing business in Canada or for Canadian firms doing
business in the United States.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4; 2
U.S.C. 1532) requires each agency to assess the effects of its
regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the
private sector. Any agency promulgating a final rule likely to result
in a Federal mandate requiring expenditures by a State, local, or
tribal government, or by the private sector of $136.1 million or more
in any one year, must prepare a written statement incorporating various
assessments, estimates, and descriptions that are delineated in the
Act. FMCSA has preliminarily determined that this proposal would not
have an impact of $136.1 million or more in any one year.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), a
Federal agency must obtain approval from the Office of Management and
Budget for each collection of information it conducts, sponsors, or
requires through regulations. FMCSA has determined this action would
not have an impact on OMB Control Number 2126-0008, ``Financial
Responsibility for Motor Carriers of Passengers and Motor Carriers of
Property,'' an information

collection burden which is currently approved at 4,529 annual burden
hours per year through March 31, 2010.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The Agency analyzed this proposed rule for the purpose of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations Implementing
NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500 to 1508), and FMCSA's NEPA Implementation Order
5610.1 (issued on March 1, 2004, 69 FR 9680). This action is
categorically excluded (CE) from further environmental documentation
under Appendix 2.6.v. of Order 5610.1, which contain categorical
exclusions for regulations prescribing the minimum levels of financial
responsibility required to be maintained by motor carriers operating in
interstate, foreign, or intrastate commerce. In addition, FMCSA
believes the proposed action would not involve extraordinary
circumstances that would affect the quality of the environment. Thus,
the proposed action does not require an environmental assessment or an
environmental impact statement.
    We have also analyzed this proposed rule under the Clean Air Act
(CAA), as amended, section 176(c), (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) and
implementing regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection
Agency. Approval of this proposed action is exempt from the CAA's
general conformity requirement since it involves policy development and
civil enforcement activities, such as investigations, inspections,
examinations, and the training of law enforcement personnel. See 40 CFR
93.153(c)(2). It would not result in any emissions increase or result
in emissions that are above the general conformity rule's de minimis
emission threshold levels, because the action merely relates to
insurance coverage across international borders between the U.S. and
Canada.

Environmental Justice

    FMCSA has considered the environmental effects of this proposed
rule in accordance with Executive Order 12898 and DOT Order 5610.2 on
addressing Environmental Justice for Minority Populations and Low-
Income Populations, published April 15, 1997 (62 FR 18377) and has
preliminarily determined that there are no environmental justice issues
associated with this proposed rule nor any collective environmental
impact resulting from its promulgation. Environmental justice issues
would be raised if there were ``disproportionate'' and ``high and
adverse impact'' on minority or low-income populations. None of the
regulatory alternatives considered in this proposed rulemaking would
result in high and adverse environmental impacts.

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    The Agency has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order
12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights. We do not anticipate that this proposed
action would effect a taking of private property or otherwise have
implications under Executive Order 12630.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding
intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do
not apply to this proposed rule.

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)

    FMCSA has analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order
13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use. The Agency has preliminarily determined
that it is not a significant energy action within the meaning of
section 4(b) of the Executive Order and would not likely have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. Therefore, the Agency would not anticipate that a Statement of
Energy Effects would be required.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    FMCSA has preliminarily determined that this proposed rulemaking
meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive
Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate
ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Privacy Impact Assessment

    FMCSA conducted a privacy impact assessment of this proposed rule
as required by section 522(a)(5) of the Transportation, Treasury,
Independent Agencies, and General Government Appropriations Act, 2005,
Public Law 108-447, div. H, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268, (December 8, 2004)
[set out as a note to 5 U.S.C. 552a]. The assessment considers any
impacts of the proposed rule on the privacy of information in an
identifiable form and related matters. FMCSA has preliminarily
determined this proposal contains no privacy impacts.

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    FMCSA has analyzed this proposal under Executive Order 13045,
entitled ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks.'' The Agency has preliminarily determined that this
proposed rulemaking would not cause any environmental risk to health or
safety that may disproportionately affect children.

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    FMCSA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13175, dated
November 6, 2000, and has preliminarily determined that the proposed
action would not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian
tribes; would not impose substantial compliance costs on Indian tribal
governments; and would not preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal
summary impact statement would not be required.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 387

    Buses, Freight, Freight forwarders, Hazardous materials
transportation, Highway safety, Insurance, Intergovernmental relations,
Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety, Moving of household goods,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.

    For the reasons discussed above, FMCSA proposes to amend title 49,
Code of Federal Regulations, chapter III, subchapter B, as set forth
below:

PART 387--MINIMUM LEVELS OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR MOTOR
CARRIERS

    1. The authority citation for part 387 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 13101, 13301, 13906, 14701, 31138, and
31139; and 49 CFR 1.73.

    2. In Sec.  387.11:
    a. In paragraph (c), in the last line, remove the period at the end
of the sentence, and add in its place ``; or''; and
    b. Add paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  387.11  State authority and designation of agent.

* * * * *
    (d) A Canadian insurance company legally authorized to issue a
policy of insurance in the Province or Territory of Canada in which a
Canadian motor carrier has its principal place of

business or domicile, and that is willing to designate a person upon
whom process, issued by or under the authority of any court having
jurisdiction of the subject matter, may be served in any proceeding at
law brought in any State in which the motor carrier operates.
    3. In Sec.  387.35:
    a. In paragraph (c), in the last line, remove the period at the end
of the sentence, and add in its place ``; or''; and
    b. Add paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  387.35   State authority and designation of agent.

* * * * *
    (d) A Canadian insurance company legally authorized to issue a
policy of insurance in the Province or Territory of Canada in which a
Canadian motor carrier has its principal place of business or domicile,
and that is willing to designate a person upon whom process, issued by
or under the authority of any court having jurisdiction of the subject
matter, may be served in any proceeding at law brought in any State in
which the motor carrier operates.
    4. In Sec.  387.315:
    a. In paragraph (c), in the last line, remove the period at the end
of the sentence, and add in its place ``; or''; and
    b. Add paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  387.315  Insurance and surety companies.

* * * * *
    (d) In the Province or Territory of Canada in which a Canadian
motor carrier has its principal place of business or domicile, and will
designate in writing upon request by FMCSA, a person upon whom process,
issued by or under the authority of a court of competent jurisdiction,
may be served in any proceeding at law brought in any State in which
the carrier operates.
    5. In Sec.  387.409:
    a. In paragraph (c), in the last line, remove the period at the end
of the sentence, and add in its place ``; or''; and
    b. Add paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  387.409  Insurance and surety companies.

* * * * *
    (d) In the Province or Territory of Canada in which a Canadian
freight forwarder has its principal place of business or domicile, and
will designate in writing upon request by FMCSA, a person upon whom
process, issued by or under the authority of a court of competent
jurisdiction, may be served in any proceeding at law brought in any
State in which the freight forwarder operates.

    Issued on: June 4, 2009.
Rose A. McMurray,
Acting Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9-13581 Filed 6-9-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 7442]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02699]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project 2426-000]

California Department of Water Resources and Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power; Notice of Authorization for Continued
Project Operation

    On January 30, 2020, the California Department of Water Resources
and Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, licensees for the South
SWP Hydroelectric Project No. 2426, filed an Application for a New
Major License for the South SWP Hydroelectric Project pursuant to the
Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Commission's regulations thereunder.
The South SWP Hydroelectric Project is located along the West Branch of
the California Aqueduct, and along Piru Creek and Castaic Creek,
tributaries to the Santa Clara River, in Los Angeles County,
California.
    The license for Project No. 2426 was issued for a period ending
January 31, 2022. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1),
requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue
from year-to-year an annual license to the then licensee(s) under the
terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is
issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section
15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior
license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based
on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c),
and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project
has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may
continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license
expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee
of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent
license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to
continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a
license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is
hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 2426 is issued to
the California Department of Water Resources and Los Angeles Department
of Water and Power, for a period effective February 1, 2022 through
January 30, 2023 or until the issuance of a new license for the project
or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. If issuance
of a new license (or other disposition) does not take place on or
before January 30, 2023, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18
CFR 16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is
renewed automatically without further order or notice by the
Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.
    If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is
hereby given that the California Department of Water Resources and Los
Angeles Department of Water and Power, is authorized to continue
operation of the South SWP Hydroelectric Project, until such time as
the Commission acts on its application for a subsequent minor license.

    Dated: February 3, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-02699 Filed 2-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P