[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 73 (Monday, April 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16426-16428]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07828]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0003; Notice 1]

Forest River, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Forest River, Inc. (Forest River), has determined that certain
model year (MY) 2017-2018 Forest River buses and school buses do not
fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
205, Glazing Materials. Forest River filed two separate noncompliance
reports, both dated November 30, 2017. Forest River then petitioned
NHTSA on December 12, 2017, for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is May 16, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. The
Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except
Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Forest River has determined that certain MY 2017-2018
Forest River buses and school buses do not fully comply with FMVSS No.
205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). Forest River filed two
separate noncompliance reports, both dated November 30, 2017, pursuant
to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports. Forest River then petitioned NHTSA on December 12, 2017,
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, for an
exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    This notice of receipt of Forest River'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. Buses Involved: Approximately 544 MY 2017-2018 Forest River
school buses and approximately 2,121 MY 2017-2018 Forest River buses,
manufactured between June 26, 2017, and November 10, 2017, are
potentially involved. The following Forest River buses are involved:

School Buses
     Starcraft Allstar XL, Quest XL and Prodigy
Buses
     Starcraft Allstar XL, Allstar, Starlite, XLT, Starquest,
and Allstar MVP
     Startrans President, PS2, Senator, Senator II, Candidate,
and Candidate II
     Glaval Apollo, Commute, Concorde II, Entourage, Legacy,
Primetime, Sport, Titan II, Titan II LF and Universal
     Elkhart Coach ECII

    III. Noncompliance: Forest River explains that the noncompliance is
that the subject buses were equipped with curbside entry door glass
that does not fully comply with paragraph S6 of FMVSS No. 205.
Specifically, the curbside entry door glass has the AS3 privacy glazing
marking when it should have been marked with the AS2 solar glazing
marking.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraphs S6, S6.1(a)(b), S6.2, and
S6.3(a)(b) of FMVSS No. 205 include the requirements relevant to this
petition:
     A Prime glazing material manufacturer must certify, in
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30115, each piece of glazing material to
which this standard applies is designed as:
    A. A component of any specific motor vehicle or camper; or
    B. to be cut into components for use in motor vehicles or items of
motor vehicle equipment.
     A prime glazing manufacturer certifies its glazing by
adding to the marks required by section 7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, in
letters and numerals of the same size, the symbol ``DOT'' and a
manufacturer's code mark that NHTSA assigns to the manufacturer.
     NHTSA will assign a code mark to a manufacturer after the
manufacturer submits a written request to the Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The request
must include the company name, address, and a statement from the
manufacturer certifying its status as a prime glazing manufacturer as
defined in paragraph S4.
     A manufacturer or distributor who cuts a section of
glazing material to which this standard applies, for use in a motor
vehicle or camper, must:
    A. Mark that material in accordance with section 7 of ANSI/SAE
Z26.1-1996; and
    B. certify that its product complies with this standard in
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30115.
    V. Summary of Forest River's Petition: Forest River described the
subject noncompliance and stated its belief that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, Forest River submitted the following
reasoning:
    1. As an initial matter, the noncompliance does not present a
safety risk because it has no effect on the structure, performance, or
safety of the glass. That is, the noncompliance relates solely to the
glass' markings, specifically the use of the marking ``AS3,'' instead
of ``AS2.''

    2. The glass required for the subject buses and school buses must
meet the requirements of ANSI 26.1-1996 AS2. Forest River requested
that a sample of the glass be tested to ensure its compliance with all
applicable standards. The test results have affirmed that the glass
indeed meets ANSI 26.1-1996 AS2's requirements and is compliant for the
designed position in which it is applied.
    3. Forest River is enclosing copies of statements from the glass
manufacturer Cleer Vision, and test data confirming the glass'
compliance with ANSI and FMVSS No. 205's performance standards.
    4. Forest River stated that the agency has previously granted
numerous petitions for determinations of inconsequential noncompliance
in regard to FMVSS No. 205, including petitions involving mismarkings
similar to the instant matter. See the following recent examples:
    a. Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. Petition, 80 FR 72482
(November 19, 2015) (involving rear door windows marked with the model
number ``M66'' instead of the correct ``M131'');
    b. Custom Glass Solutions Upper Sandusky Corporation Petition, 79
FR 49833 (January 23, 2015) (involving laminated glass panes mistakenly
marked as ``tempered'' and with the incorrect manufacturer's DOT
number, model number, and manufacturer's trademark).
    c. Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. Petition, 79 FR 49833
(August 22, 2014) (involving rear door windows marked with the model
number ``M13l'' instead of the correct ``M129'');
    d. General Motors LLC Petition, 79 FR 23402 (April 28, 2014)
(involving quarter windows marked as ``AS2'' instead of the correct
``AS3'').
    Forest River concluded by expressing the belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    Forest River's complete petition and all supporting documents are
available by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)
website at: https://www.regulations.gov and following the online search
instructions to locate the docket number listed in the title of this
notice.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject buses that Forest River no
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve
vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer
for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant buses under their control after Forest
River 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.

Claudia W. Covell,
Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2018-07828 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 191 (Monday, October 3, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61057-61059]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25284]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0580; FRL-9468-2]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Sacramento
Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, Ventura County Air
Pollution Control District, and Placer County Air Pollution Control
District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD),
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD), and Placer
County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) portion of the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from organic chemical
manufacturing, soil decontamination, and polyester resin operations. We
are approving local rules that regulate these emission sources under
the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on December 2, 2011 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by November 2, 2011. If we
receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-0580, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While
all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be
publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Grounds, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3019<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules
    D. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the dates that they
were adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by the California
Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Local agency                  Rule No.              Rule title              Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SMAQMD..................................          464  Organic Chemical Manufacturing      09/25/08     09/15/09
                                                        Operations.
VCAPCD..................................        74.29  Soil Decontamination Operations     04/08/08     01/10/10
PCAPCD..................................          243  Polyester Resin Operations.....     04/10/03     12/07/10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On 01/21/10, EPA determined that the submittal for SMAQMD Rule 464
met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which must
be met before formal EPA review. On 02/04/10, EPA determined that the
submittal for VCAPCD Rule 74.29 met the completeness criteria, and on
01/13/11, EPA determined that the submittal for PCAPCD Rule 243 met the
completeness criteria.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    There are no previous versions of PCAPCD Rules 243 in the SIP. We
approved an earlier version of SMAQMD Rule 464 into the SIP on 04/19/00
(65 FR 20912). We approved an earlier version of VCAPCD Rule 74.29 into
the SIP on 07/16/02 (67 FR 46596). While we can act on only the most
recently submitted version, we have reviewed materials provided with
previous submittals.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?

    VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human
health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States
to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. SMAQMD Rule 464
limits VOC emissions from organic chemical plants. VCAPCD Rule 74.29
establishes procedures for the treatment of soil contaminated with
gasoline, diesel fuel or jet fuel. PCAPCD Rule 243 reduces the
emissions of VOC from polyester resin operations. EPA's technical

support documents (TSDs) have more information about these rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating these rules?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for
each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines
(CTG) document as well as each major source in nonattainment areas (see
sections 182(a)(2) and (b)(2)), and must not relax existing
requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). SMAQMD regulates an ozone
nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81). SMAQMD has no major sources
for this category but is covered by relevant CTGs. The stringency of
requirements in submitted Rule 464 is generally consistent with the
relevant guidance that help define RACT. VCAPCD and PCAPCD also
regulate ozone nonattainment areas, but have no relevant major sources
and no CTGs so RACT is not required for these rules.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the
following:
    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
    2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    3. ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Batch Processes--
Alternative Control Techniques Information Document'' (EPA-453-93-017,
02/94).
    4. ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of
Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products'' (EPA-450-2-78-029, 12/78).
    5. ``Control Techniques Guidelines for Industrial Cleaning
Solvents'' (EPA-453/R-06-001, 09/06).
    6. ``Control of VOC Emissions from Manufacture of High-Density
Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and Polystyrene Resins'' (EPA-450/3-83-
008, 11/83).
    7. ``Control of VOC Fugitive Emissions from Synthetic Organic
Chemical Polymer and Resin Manufacturing Equipment'' (EPA-450/3-83-006,
03/84).
    8. ``Control Techniques Guidelines for Fiberglass Boat
Manufacturing Materials'' (EPA-453/R-08-004, 09/08).

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. The TSDs
have more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules

    The TSDs for VCAPCD and PCAPCD describe additional rule revisions
that we recommend for the next time the local agency modifies the rule.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully
approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all
relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this
approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance.
However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are
simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we
receive adverse comments by November 2, 2011, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct
final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in
a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive
timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective
without further notice on December 2, 2011. This will incorporate these
rules into the Federally enforceable SIP.
    Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    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 disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, these rules do not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIPs are 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.
    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).
    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 December 2,
2011. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of
these final rules does not affect the finality of these actions 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 rules or actions. Parties with objections to
these direct final rules are encouraged to file a comment in response
to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published
in the Proposed Rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than
file an immediate petition for judicial review of these direct final
rules, so that EPA can withdraw these direct final rules and address
the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 16, 2011.
Keith Tekata,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(377)(i)(A)(5),
(c)(378)(i)(C)(2), and (c)(389)(i)(B) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (377) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (5) Rule 464, ``Organic Chemical Manufacturing Operations,''
adopted on September 25, 2008.
* * * * *
    (378) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) * * *
    (2) Rule74.29, ``Soil Decontamination Operations,'' adopted on
April 8, 2008.
* * * * *
    (389) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) Placer County Air Pollution Control.
    (1) Rule 243, ``Polyester Resin Operations,'' adopted on April 10,
2003.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-25284 Filed 9-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 159 (Wednesday, August 17, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54888-54891]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19583]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78553; File No. SR-FINRA-2016-030]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Amending
Rule 12504 of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes
and Rule 13504 of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry
Disputes Relating to Motions To Dismiss in Arbitration

August 11, 2016.
    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 August 3, 2016, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission

(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 12504 of the Code of
Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes (``Customer Code'') and
FINRA Rule 13504 of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry
Disputes (``Industry Code,'' and together with the Customer Code, the
``Codes''), to provide that arbitrators may act upon a motion to
dismiss a party or claim prior to the conclusion of a party's case in
chief if the arbitrators determine that the non-moving party previously
brought a claim regarding the same dispute against the same party, and
the dispute was fully and finally adjudicated on the merits and
memorialized in an order, judgment, award, or decision.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, 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
Background
    In 2009, FINRA amended the Codes to adopt new FINRA Rules 12504 and
13504 (Motions to Dismiss), and to amend FINRA Rules 12206 and 13206
(Time Limits), to establish procedures limiting motions to dismiss in
arbitration.\3\ A motion to dismiss is a request made to the
arbitrators to remove a party or some or all claims raised by a party
filing a claim. If the arbitrators grant a motion to dismiss before a
hearing is held (a prehearing motion), the party bringing the claim
loses the opportunity to have his or her arbitration case heard in
whole or in part by the arbitrators. FINRA limited motions to dismiss
because FINRA believed that respondents were filing prehearing motions
routinely and repetitively in an effort to delay scheduled hearing
sessions on the merits, increase investors' costs, and intimidate less
sophisticated investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Regulatory Notice 09-07 announcing Commission approval
of new FINRA Rules 12504 and 13504 (Motions to Dismiss) and
amendments to FINRA Rules 12206 and 13206 (Time Limits).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The procedures set forth in the Codes significantly limit the use
of motions to dismiss. Among other requirements, FINRA requires parties
to file prehearing motions to dismiss in writing, separately from the
answer, and only after they file the answer. The full panel of
arbitrators must decide a motion to dismiss, and the panel must hold a
hearing on the motion unless the parties waive the hearing. If a panel
grants a motion to dismiss, the decision must be unanimous, and must be
accompanied by a written explanation.
    Under the Codes, arbitrators cannot act upon a motion prior to the
conclusion of the non-moving party's case in chief unless the
arbitrators determine that: (1) The non-moving party previously
released the claim in dispute by a signed settlement or written
release, (2) the moving party was not associated with the account,
security, or conduct at issue,\4\ or (3) a claim is not eligible for
arbitration because it does not meet the six-year time limit for
submitting a claim.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See FINRA Rules 12504 and 13504 (Motions to Dismiss).
    \5\ See FINRA Rules 12206 and 13206 (Time Limits), which provide
that no claim shall be eligible for submission to arbitration where
six years have elapsed from the occurrence or event giving rise to
the claim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the procedures set forth in the Codes impose stringent
sanctions against parties for engaging in abusive practices. For
instance, under the motions to dismiss rules, if the arbitrators deny a
motion to dismiss prior to the conclusion of the non-moving party's
case in chief, the arbitrators must assess forum fees associated with
hearing the motion against the moving party, and if they find the
motion to be frivolous, they must award reasonable costs and attorneys'
fees to a party that opposed the motion. Moreover, the arbitrators may
issue other sanctions under the Codes if they determine that a party
filed a motion under the rule in bad faith.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See FINRA Rules 12212 and 13212 (Sanctions) relating to
available sanctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FINRA Dispute Resolution Task Force
    In 2014, FINRA formed the FINRA Dispute Resolution Task Force
(``Task Force'') to suggest strategies to enhance the transparency,
impartiality, and efficiency of FINRA's securities dispute resolution
forum for all participants. The Task Force reviewed the topic of
motions to dismiss and determined that the rule appears to be working
as intended to prevent frivolous motions to dismiss. However, the Task
Force reached a consensus that in instances where arbitrations involve
claims previously adjudicated by a court or arbitrated by an
arbitration panel, respondents should be able to seek early dismissal.
The Task Force recommended that FINRA amend the motions to dismiss rule
in customer cases to include one additional category for which motions
to dismiss may be made before the conclusion of the case in chief:
situations where the dispute was previously concluded through
adjudication or arbitration and memorialized in an order, judgment,
award, or decision.
Proposed Rule Change
    FINRA agrees with the Task Force recommendation, and believes that
it would be appropriate to add the additional ground for arbitrators to
act on motions to dismiss prior to the conclusion of the claimant's
case in chief in both customer and industry cases. Currently under the
Codes, the Director of Arbitration can deny use of the forum for
customer and industry claims if it is clear that a party is bringing
exactly the same claims against the same parties that were already
heard at the forum.\7\ However, if there are questions about whether
the matter concerns a different claim, the Director is likely to deny
the motion and allow the arbitration to proceed so that the arbitrators
can decide the merits of the parties' assertions. FINRA believes that
adding the additional ground for arbitrators to act on motions to
dismiss is appropriate because parties should not be subject to the
legal fees associated with arbitrating claims that have been fully
adjudicated in a prior proceeding. The proposed rule change

would also act as a deterrent to using repeated filings as a means of
leverage during settlement negotiations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See FINRA Rules 12203 and 13303 (Denial of the Forum), which
provide that the Director may decline to permit the use of the FINRA
arbitration forum if the Director determines that, given the
purposes of FINRA and the intent of the Code, the subject matter of
the dispute is inappropriate. The Director rarely invokes this
authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rules 12504(a)(6) and 13504(a)(6)
to add new paragraph (c) which would specify that arbitrators can also
act upon a motion to dismiss a party or claim if they determine that
the non-moving party previously brought a claim regarding the same
dispute \8\ against the same party that was fully and finally
adjudicated on the merits and memorialized in an order, judgment,
award, or decision. The proposed rule change would allow the
arbitrators to grant a motion to dismiss relating to a particular
controversy if they believe the matter was adjudicated fully even in
instances where a claimant adds a new cause of action, or adds
additional facts. For example, consider a case where a claimant
initiated a claim against a firm for $150,000 for suitability based on
a broker's investment in XYZ stock. The arbitrators dismiss the claim
after a full hearing. The proposed rule change would allow the
arbitrators to hear a motion to dismiss if the claimant subsequently
files an arbitration against the same firm relating to the investment
in XYZ but in the new case the claimant alleges fraud in inducing the
claimant to make the purchase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ FINRA Rules 12100 and 13100 provide that ``dispute'' means a
dispute, claim or controversy, and that it may consist of one or
more claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\9\ 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 proposed rule change would
enhance efficiency for forum participants because arbitrators would be
permitted to dismiss previously adjudicated cases at an earlier point
in an arbitration proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 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. Currently, the Codes impose
significant restrictions on motions to dismiss an arbitration. With
limited exceptions, in cases where the dispute has been permitted to go
forward by the Director of Arbitration and a party puts forward a
motion to dismiss, arbitrators cannot act upon the motion prior to the
conclusion of the non-moving party's case in chief. Both sides incur
additional costs related to making and defending the motion. However, a
successful motion to dismiss could end part or all of the case
resulting in reduced costs for parties.
    The Task Force reviewed arbitration case data from 2013 and 2014.
During that time period, the Office of Dispute Resolution (ODR) had an
average pending caseload of approximately 5,000 cases. ODR recorded 725
cases (both customer and industry disputes) in which a prehearing
motion to dismiss was filed by respondents. Of the 725 cases, 249 were
still pending at the time of the Task Force review, 310 settled or
closed for other reasons prior to any decision on the motion (i.e.,
bankruptcy, etc.), and 166 closed by award. FINRA reviewed the 166
cases closed by award to determine the arbitrators' decisions regarding
a motion to dismiss. The arbitrators granted a prehearing motion to
dismiss (in whole or part) in 64 of the 166 cases closed by award. In
addition, arbitrators granted a respondent's motion to dismiss after
the conclusion of claimant's case in chief in 12 of the 166 cases
closed by award. These figures suggest that motions to dismiss occur in
a small but significant number of cases.
    Where arbitrators have sufficient information to determine the
finding with respect to the motion to dismiss prior to hearing the non-
moving party's case, the proposed rule change will reduce both parties'
costs where the motion is granted. Where the motion is denied, the
proposed rule change may impose some costs on the non-moving party due
to the potential delay and the need to argue the dispute associated
with the motion prehearing. FINRA expects the costs to be limited
because hearings on narrow issues such as a single motion are generally
completed quickly. The rule would continue to permit the non-moving
party to present evidence and testimony to the arbitrators concerning
the merits of the motion prior to the decision on the motion, and thus
would limit the risk that the arbitrators might act on incomplete or
insufficient information.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2016-030 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2016-030. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing

also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal
office of 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-2016-030 and should be submitted on or before September 7, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-19583 Filed 8-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18019-18020]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08670]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC18-9-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725x); Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Comment request.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is submitting its information collection FERC-725X (Mandatory
Reliability Standards: Voltage and Reactive (VAR) Standards) to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information
collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments
directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the
Commission as explained below. The Commission previously issued a
Notice in the Federal Register requesting public comments. The
Commission received no comments on the FERC-725X and is making this
notation in its submittal to OMB.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by May 25,
2018.

ADDRESSES: Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No.
1902-0278, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs: [email protected]. Attention: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. The Desk Officer may also be
reached via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in
Docket No. IC18-9-000, by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's website: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support
by email at [email protected], or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
[email protected], by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by fax at
(202) 273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-725X, Mandatory Reliability Standards: Voltage and
Reactive (VAR) Standards.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0278.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-725X information
collection requirements with no changes to the reporting requirements.
    Abstract: Pursuant to Section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),
NERC established the Voltage and Reactive (VAR) group of Reliability
Standards, which consists of two continent-wide Reliability Standards,
VAR-001-4 and VAR-002-3.\1\ These two standards were designed to
maintain voltage stability on the Bulk-Power System, protect
transmission, generation, distribution, and customer equipment, and
support the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System. Voltage
stability is the ability of a power system to maintain acceptable
voltage levels throughout the system under normal operating conditions
and following a disturbance. Failure to maintain acceptable voltage
levels (i.e., voltage levels become too high or too low) may cause
violations of System Operating Limits (SOLs) and Interconnection
Reliability Operating Limits (IROLs), resulting in damage to Bulk-Power
System equipment, and thereby threaten the reliable operation of the
Bulk-Power System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FERC approved these standards in the Order in Docket No.
RD14-11-000 (issued on 8/1/2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reliability Standard VAR-001-4 \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Applies to generation operators only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reliability Standard VAR-001-4 contains the following requirements:
     Specify a system-wide voltage schedule (which is either a
range or a target value with an associated tolerance band) as part of
its plan to operate within SOLs and IROLs, and to provide the voltage
schedule to its Reliability Coordinator and adjacent Transmission
Operators upon request (Requirement R1);

     Schedule sufficient reactive resources to regulate voltage
levels (Requirement R2);
     Operate or direct the operation of devices to regulate
transmission voltage and reactive flows (Requirement R3);
     Develop a set of criteria to exempt generators from
certain requirements under Reliability Standard VAR-002-3 related to
voltage or Reactive Power schedules, automatic voltage regulations, and
notification (Requirement R4);
     Specify a voltage or Reactive Power schedule (which is
either a range or a target value with an associated tolerance band) for
generators at either the high or low voltage side of the generator
step-up transformer, provide the schedule to the associated Generator
Operator, direct the Generator Operator to comply with that schedule in
automatic voltage control mode, provide the Generator Operator the
notification requirements for deviating from the schedule, and, if
requested, provide the Generator Operator the criteria used to develop
the schedule (Requirement R5); and
     Communicate step-up transformer tap changes, the time
frame for completion, and the justification for these changes to
Generator Owners (Requirement R6).

Reliability Standard VAR-002-3 \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Applies to transmission operators only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reliability Standard VAR-002-3 contains the following requirements:
     Operate each of its generators connected to the
interconnected transmission system in automatic voltage control mode or
in a different control mode as instructed by the Transmission Operator,
unless the Generator Operator (1) is exempted pursuant to the criteria
developed under VAR-001-4, Requirement R4, or (2) makes certain
notifications to the Transmission Operator specifying the reasons it
cannot so operate (Requirement R1);
     Maintain the Transmission Operator's generator voltage or
Reactive Power schedule, unless the Generator Operator (1) is exempted
pursuant to the criteria developed under VAR-001-4, Requirement R4, or
(2) complies with the notification requirements for deviations as
established by the Transmission Owner pursuant to Requirement R5 in
VAR-001-4 (Requirement R2);
     Notify the Transmission Operator of a change in status of
its voltage controlling device within 30 minutes, unless the status is
restored within that time period (Requirement R3);
     Notify the Transmission Operator of a change in reactive
capability due to factors other than those described in VAR-002-3,
Requirement R3 within 30 minutes unless the capability has been
restored during that time period (Requirement R4).
     Provide information on its step-up transformers and
auxiliary transformers within 30 days of a request from the
Transmission Operator or Transmission Planner (Requirement R5); and
     Comply with the Transmission Operator's step-up
transformer tap change directives unless compliance would violate
safety, an equipment rating, or applicable laws, rules or regulations
(Requirement R6).
    Type of Respondents: Generator operators and transmission
operators.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \4\ The Commission estimates the annual
public reporting burden for the information collection as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For
further explanation of what is included in the information
collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.
    \5\ TOP = transmission operator; GOP = generator operators.
    \6\ The estimate for hourly cost is $68.12/hour. This figure is
the average salary plus benefits for an electrical engineer
(Occupation Code: 17-2071) from the Bureau of Labor Statistics at
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm.

                                    FERC-725X, Mandatory Reliability Standards: Voltage and Reactive (VAR) Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Annual  number
                                     Number of  respondents    of  responses   Total number     Average  Burden &   Total annual  burden     Cost per
                                               \5\                  per        of responses    Cost per  response      hours  & total     respondent ($)
                                                                respondent                             \6\               annual Cost
                                    (1).....................             (2)     (1) * (2) =  (4).................  (3) * (4) = (5).....       (5) / (1)
                                                                                (3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VAR-001-4 (Requirement R1-R6).....  181 (TOP)...............               1             181  160 hrs.; $10,899.20  28,960 hrs.;              $10,899.20
                                                                                $1,972,755.
VAR-002-3 (Requirement R1)........  944 (GOP)...............               1             944  80 hrs.; 5,449.60...  75,520 hrs.;                5,449.60
                                                                                $5,144,422.
VAR-002-3 (Requirement R2-R6).....  944 (GOP)...............               1             944  120 hrs.; $8,174.40.  113,280 hrs.;               8,174.40
                                                                                $7,716,634.
                                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................  ........................  ..............           2,069  ....................  217,760 hrs.;         ..............
                                                                                $14,833,811.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: April 19, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-08670 Filed 4-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 8)] [CORRECTIONS]                [Page 1579] [DOCID:fr12ja07-133]

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54995; File No. SR-Amex-2006-77]

  Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange, LLC;  Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto to  Amend Rules 918 and 918--Ante Regarding Trading Rotations, Halts and  Suspensions

Correction

    In notice document E6-22398 beginning on page 78474 in the issue of  Friday, December 29, 2006, make the following correction:     On page 78474, in the second column, footnote 31 should be footnote  3.

[FR Doc. Z6-22398 Filed 1-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


47 Table 8a. Annual Burden and Cost for the Federal Government to Implement ( First Year)

Proposed NESHAP for Existing Spandex Production Facilities A B C D E F Burden item Technical Technical Management Clerical Total cost hours per Occurrences hours per year hours per year hours per year per year occurrence per year ( C = A x B) ( C x 0.05) ( C x 0.1)

@ $ 34.00 @ $ 56.00 @ $ 17.00 1. Review reports a. Initial notification 2 2 4 0.2 0.4 $ 154 b. Performance test notification 4 6 24 1.2 2.4 $ 924 c. Compliance status notification 10 2 20 1 2 $ 770 d. Performance test reports 10 6 60 3 6 $ 2,310 e. Startup/ shutdown/ malfunction reports 2 4 8 0.4 0.8 $ 308 f. Semiannual summary reports 15 4 60 3 6 $ 2,310 2. Compliance inspections a. Select site and review permit file 4 0 0 0 0 $ 0 b. Travel to/ from site 8 0 0 0 0 $ 0 c. On site inspection 4 0 0 0 0 $ 0 d. Prepare inspection report 16 0 0 0 0 $ 0 3. Enforcement action a. Notice of non compliance NA b. Follow up compliance inspection NA c. Litigation NA Total hours 176 8.8 17.6 Total costs $ 6,776 NA  Not Applicable


From:  SINGLETON, KRIS E<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 2:43:06 PM To:  Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: BATTEN, KATIE M Subject:  Air Permit for SunCoke Gateway

Hello,

As requested in the Coke Ovens ICR, please see the attached current air permit for SunCoke Energy's Gateway facility in Granite City, IL.  Please let us know if you have questions or problems with the file. Thanks,

Kris

Kris Singleton Corporate Environmental Engineer

SunCoke Energy office:<PHONE_NUMBER> cell:<PHONE_NUMBER>

<< Granite City 2010 PSD Permit.pdf >>


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 22, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 3667]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00967]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP20-36-000]

Rover Pipeline LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on January 9, 2020, Rover Pipeline LLC (Rover),
1300 Main Street, Houston, Texas 77002, filed in the above referenced
docket an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act
(NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations for authorization to
increase the certificated mainline capacity on its pipeline system by
175 million cubic feet per day. Rover asserts that the proposed
increase in certificated capacity to 3.425 billion cubic feet per day
is supported by analysis of actual pipeline operating flow and pressure
conditions. Rover states that there will be no construction or
modifications to its existing facilities or services as part of this
proposal, all as more fully described in the application which is on
file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing is
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's website web at http://www.ferc.gov
using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last
three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Blair Lichtenwalter, Senior Director, Regulatory Affairs, Rover
Pipeline LLC, 1300 Main Street, Houston, Texas 77002, at (713) 989-
2605.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 3 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission
and must provide a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list and will be
notified of any meetings associated with the Commission's environmental
review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve
copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party
commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other
parties or issued by the Commission and will not have the right to seek
court review of the Commission's final order.
    As of the February 27, 2018 date of the Commission's order in
Docket No. CP16-4-001, the Commission will apply its revised practice
concerning out-of-time motions to intervene in any new NGA section 3 or
section 7 proceeding.\1\ Persons desiring to become a party to a
certificate proceeding are to intervene in a timely manner. If seeking
to intervene out-of-time, the movant is required to ``show good cause
why the time limitation should be waived,'' and should provide
justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d)(1) of
the Commission's Rules and Regulations.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C., 162 FERC 61,167 at
50 (2018).
    \2\ 18 CFR 385.214(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 3 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on February 3, 2020.

    Dated: January 13, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-00967 Filed 1-21-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 211 (Monday, November 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67483-67485]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27824]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0081; Notice 1]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming
2006 Mercedes-Benz SL Passenger Cars (Manufactured Before September 1,
2006) Are Eligible for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces receipt by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that

nonconforming 2006 Mercedes-Benz SL passenger cars (manufactured before
September 1, 2006) that were not originally manufactured to comply with
all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS), are
eligible for importation into the United States because they are
substantially similar to vehicles that were originally manufactured for
sale in the United States and that were certified by their manufacturer
as complying with the safety standards (the U.S.-certified version of
the 2006 Mercedes-Benz SL that was manufactured before September 1,
2006) and they are capable of being readily altered to conform to the
standards.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is December 2,
2015.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above
and be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: 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. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    How to Read Comments Submitted to the Docket: You may read the
comments received by Docket Management at the address and times given
above. You may also view the documents from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets. The docket ID number and title of this notice are shown at the
heading of this document notice. Please note that even after the
comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in
the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit
late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically search
the Docket for new material.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Stevens, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not
originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be
refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that
the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle
originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United
States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as
the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being
readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS.
    Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either
manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to
49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice
in the Federal Register of each petition that it receives, and affords
interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the
close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the
petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is
eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in
the Federal Register.
    J.K. Technologies, LLC of Baltimore (JK), Maryland (Registered
Importer 90-006) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether nonconforming
2006 Mercedes-Benz SL passenger cars (manufactured before September 1,
2006) are eligible for importation into the United States. The vehicles
which JK believes are substantially similar are 2006 Mercedes-Benz SL
passenger cars (manufactured before September 1, 2006) that were
manufactured for sale in the United States and certified by their
manufacturer as conforming to all applicable FMVSS.
    The petitioner claims that it compared non-U.S. certified 2006
Mercedes-Benz SL passenger cars (manufactured before September 1, 2006)
to their U.S.-certified counterparts, and found the vehicles to be
substantially similar with respect to compliance with most FMVSS.
    JK submitted information with its petition intended to demonstrate
that non-U.S. certified 2006 Mercedes-Benz SL passenger cars
(manufactured before September 1, 2006), as originally manufactured,
conform to many FMVSS in the same manner as their U.S. certified
counterparts, or are capable of being readily altered to conform to
those standards. Specifically, the petitioner claims that non-U.S.
certified 2006 Mercedes-Benz SL passenger cars (manufactured before
September 1, 2006) are identical to their U.S. certified counterparts
with respect to compliance with Standard Nos. 102 Transmission Shift
Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect, 103
Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems, 104 Windshield Wiping and
Washing Systems, 106 Brake Hoses, 109 New Pneumatic Tires, 113 Hood
Latch System, 116 Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, 124 Accelerator Control
Systems, 135 Light Vehicle Brake Systems, 201 Occupant Protection in
Interior Impact, 202 Head Restraints, 204 Steering Control Rearward
Displacement, 205 Glazing Materials, 206 Door Locks and Door Retention
Components, 207 Seating Systems, 210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, 212
Windshield Mounting, 214 Side Impact Protection, 216 Roof Crush
Resistance, 219 Windshield Zone Intrusion, 225 Child Restraint
Anchorage Systems, and 302 Flammability of Interior Materials.
    The petitioner also contends that the vehicles are capable of being
readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner
indicated:
    Standard No. 101 Controls and Displays: Replacement of the
instrument cluster with a U.S.-model component and reprogramming the
unit to activate required safety systems.
    Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated
Equipment: Replacement of the headlamps, side marker lamps, and tail
lamps with U.S.-model components.
    Standard No. 110 Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles with a
GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or Less: Installation of a tire
information placard.
    Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors: Replacement of the passenger
side rearview mirror with a U.S.-model component or inscription of the

required warning statement on the face of that mirror.
    Standard No. 114 Theft Protection and Rollaway Prevention:
Reprogramming the vehicle computer to activate safety systems.
    Standard No. 118 Power-Operated Window, Partition, and Roof Panel
Systems: Reprogramming of the vehicle computer.
    Standard No. 138 Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems: Addition of OEM
tire pressure monitoring system using OEM parts and programs.
    Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection: Reprogramming in order
to activate audible warning system. Installation of U.S.-Model front
cross member and knee bolsters.
    Standard No. 209 Seat Belt Assemblies: Installation of U.S.-model
passenger seat belt.
    Standard No. 301 Fuel System Integrity: Inspection of all vehicles
and replacement of any non U.S.-model fuel system components with U.S.-
model components as necessary to conform to the requirements of the
standard.
    Standard No. 401 Interior Trunk Release: Installation of U.S.-model
interior trunk release components.
    The petitioner additionally states that a vehicle identification
plate must be affixed to the vehicles near the left windshield post to
meet the requirements of 49 CFR part 565.
    All comments received before the close of business on the closing
date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for
examination in the docket at the above addresses both before and after
that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing
date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition
will be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated below.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B), and (b)(1); 49
CFR 593.7; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-27824 Filed 10-30-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 28 (Monday, February 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9701-9702]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02960]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-1182]

Draft Joint Food and Drug Administration/Health Canada
Quantitative Assessment of the Risk of Listeriosis From Soft-Ripened
Cheese Consumption in the United States and Canada

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the
availability of a draft ``Joint Food and Drug Administration/Health
Canada--Sant[eacute] Canada Quantitative Assessment of the Risk of
Listeriosis From Soft-Ripened Cheese Consumption in the United States
and Canada.'' This draft Quantitative Risk Assessment (the draft QRA)
includes an Interpretative Summary, a Technical Report, with
Appendixes, and a risk assessment model. The purpose of the draft QRA
is to evaluate the effect of factors such as the microbiological status
of milk, the impact of cheese manufacturing steps, and conditions
during distribution and storage on the overall risk of invasive
listeriosis to the consumer in the United States or Canada of soft-
ripened cheese. The draft QRA makes it possible to evaluate the
effectiveness of some process changes and intervention strategies in
reducing the risk of listeriosis. We are making the draft QRA available
for public comment.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft QRA by
April 29, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit written comments to Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305),
Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville,
MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sherri Dennis, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-005), Food and Drug Administration, 5100
Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Listeria monocytogenes (L. monocytogenes) is a widely occurring
pathogen that can be found in agricultural and food processing
environments. Ingestion of L. monocytogenes can lead to the development
of listeriosis, with consequences that may include septicemia,
meningitis, encephalitis, spontaneous abortion, and stillbirth.
Epidemiological data show that listeriosis has one of the highest
hospitalization rates and one of the highest case fatality rates among
foodborne diseases in the United States (Ref. 1). Serious illness may
occur in people considered to be more susceptible, such as the elderly,
individuals who have a preexisting illness that reduces the
effectiveness of their immune system, and pregnant women (Ref. 2).
    The United States and Canada have experienced sporadic illnesses
and outbreaks of listeriosis associated with the consumption of soft
cheese. Both FDA and Health Canada--Sant[eacute] Canada continue to
evaluate the safety of soft cheese, particularly soft cheese made from
unpasteurized milk.

II. Quantitative Risk Assessment

    The draft QRA (Refs. 3 to 6) provides a science-based analytical
approach to collate and incorporate available data into a mathematical
model. It provides risk managers with a decision-support tool to
evaluate the effectiveness of current and future interventions to
reduce or prevent listeriosis from consumption of soft-ripened cheeses.
The draft QRA also may be used to target risk communication messages,
identify and prioritize research needs, and provide a framework for
coordinating efforts with stakeholders. The draft QRA has undergone an
independent external peer review consistent with the requirements in
the Office of Management and Budget's ``Final Information Quality
Bulletin for Peer Review.'' FDA's response to the peer-review is
available electronically on the FDA Web site (Ref. 7).
    The draft QRA focuses on the sources of L. monocytogenes
contamination, the effects of individual manufacturing and/or
processing steps, and the effectiveness of various intervention
strategies on the levels of L. monocytogenes in the product as consumed
and the associated risk of invasive listeriosis. The draft QRA's scope
is:
     Pathogen of concern: L. monocytogenes;
     Food(s) of concern: Camembert, as an example of soft-
ripened cheese;
     Populations of interest: The general populations of the
United States and Canada, and subpopulations identified as at-risk in
both countries (i.e., pregnant women, immunocompromised individuals,
and the elderly population);
     Endpoint of concern: Invasive listeriosis; and
     Risk metric: The probability of invasive listeriosis per
soft-ripened cheese serving.
    The draft QRA uses a quantitative approach, using mathematical and
probabilistic modeling, to estimate the risk per serving of soft-
ripened cheese (using Camembert cheese as an example) in both
countries. The draft QRA tests the effects of some alternatives on
those risks. The draft QRA uses data from the literature, from
government nutrition surveys, from a specific survey on home storage
time and temperature practices, and from specific expert elicitations.
FDA invites comments that can help FDA and Health Canada--Sant[eacute]
Canada improve:
     The approach used;
     The assumptions made;
     The modeling techniques;
     The data used; and
     The clarity and the transparency of the draft QRA
documentation.
    When finalized, FDA intends to use this risk assessment (which is
limited to one pathogen in one type of cheese), along with other
information and scientific assessments that more comprehensively
consider the different pathogens that can be present in all types of
cheeses made from raw milk, in its reevaluation of the existing 60-day
aging requirements for cheeses made with raw milk (e.g., 21 CFR
133.182(a)).

III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to
send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

IV. Electronic Access

    The draft QRA is available electronically on the FDA Web site
http://www.fda.gov/food/scienceresearch/researchareas/

riskassessmentsafetyassessment/ and at http://www.regulations.gov.

V. References

    The following references have been placed on display in the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) and may be seen by
interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, and
are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov. (FDA has
verified the Web site addresses in this reference section, but FDA is
not responsible for any subsequent changes to the Web sites after this
document publishes in the Federal Register.)

1. Goulet, V., M. Hebert, C. Hedberg, et al., ``Incidence of
Listeriosis and Related Mortality Among Groups at Risk of Acquiring
Listeriosis.'' Clinical Infectious Diseases, 54(5): 652-660, 2012.
2. Scallan, E., R. M. Hoekstra, F. J. Angulo, et al., ``Foodborne
Illness Acquired in the United States--Major Pathogens,'' Emerging
Infectious Diseases, 17(1): 7-12, 2011.
3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Health Canada (2012).
``Joint Food and Drug Administration/Health Canada--Sant[eacute]
Canada Quantitative Assessment of the Risk of Listeriosis from Soft-
Ripened Cheese Consumption in the United States and Canada: Draft
Interpretative Summary.'' Accessible at http://www.fda.gov/Food/ScienceResearch/ResearchAreas/RiskAssessmentSafetyAssessment/default.htm.
4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Health Canada (2012).
``Joint Food and Drug Administration/Health Canada--Sant[eacute]
Canada Quantitative Assessment of the Risk of Listeriosis from Soft-
Ripened Cheese Consumption in the United States and Canada: Draft
Technical Report.'' Accessible at http://www.fda.gov/Food/ScienceResearch/ResearchAreas/RiskAssessmentSafetyAssessment/default.htm.
5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Health Canada (2012).
``Joint Food and Drug Administration/Health Canada--Sant[eacute]
Canada Quantitative Assessment of the Risk of Listeriosis from Soft-
Ripened Cheese Consumption in the United States and Canada: Draft
Technical Report Appendices.'' Accessible at http://www.fda.gov/Food/ScienceResearch/ResearchAreas/RiskAssessmentSafetyAssessment/default.htm.
6. U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Health Canada (2012).
``Joint Food and Drug Administration/Health Canada--Sant[eacute]
Canada Quantitative Assessment of the Risk of Listeriosis from Soft-
Ripened Cheese Consumption in the United States and Canada: Draft
Risk Assessment Model.'' Analytica file. Accessible at http://www.fda.gov/Food/ScienceResearch/ResearchAreas/RiskAssessmentSafetyAssessment/default.htm.
7. U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Health Canada (2012).
``Joint Food and Drug Administration/Health Canada--Sant[eacute]
Canada Quantitative Assessment of the Risk of Listeriosis from Soft-
Ripened Cheese Consumption in the United States and Canada: Answer
to the Peer Review.'' Accessible at http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/PeerReviewofScientificInformationandAssessments/ucm079120.htm.

    Dated: February 5, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-02960 Filed 2-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P