[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30297-30301]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12754]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IC-31612; File No. 812-14465]

UBS AG, et al.; Notice of Application and Temporary Order

May 20, 2015.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'')

ACTION: Temporary order and notice of application for a permanent order
under section 9(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'').

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

Summary of Application: Applicants have received a temporary order
(``Temporary Order'') exempting them from section 9(a) of the Act, with
respect to a guilty plea entered on May 20, 2015, by UBS AG (``UBS AG''
or the ``Settling Firm'') in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut (the ``District Court'') in connection with a
plea agreement (``Plea Agreement'') between the Settling Firm and the
United States Department of Justice (``DOJ''), until the Commission
takes final action on an application for a permanent order (the
``Permanent Order,'' and with the Temporary Order, the ``Orders'').
Applicants also have applied for a Permanent Order.

Applicants: UBS AG (``UBS AG'' or the ``Settling Firm''), UBS IB Co-
Investment 2001 GP Limited (``ESC GP''), UBS Alternative and
Quantitative Investments LLC (``UBS Alternative''), UBS O'Connor LLC
(``UBS O'Connor''), UBS Global Asset Management (Americas) Inc. (``UBS
Global AM Americas''), and UBS Global Asset Management (US) Inc. (``UBS
Global AM US'') (each an ``Applicant'' and together, the
``Applicants'').

Filing Date: The application was filed on May 20, 2015.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving Applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on June 15, 2015, and should be accompanied by proof of service on
Applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or for lawyers, a certificate
of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should
state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the
desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request,
and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing
may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: UBS AG and ESC GP:
c/o UBS Investment Bank, 677 Washington Boulevard, Stamford, CT 06901;
UBS Alternative: 677 Washington Boulevard, Stamford, CT 06901; UBS
O'Connor and UBS Global AM Americas: One North Wacker Drive, Chicago,
IL 60606; UBS Global AM US: 1285 Avenue of the Americas, 12th Floor,
New York, NY 10019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Joire, Senior Counsel, Parisa
Haghshenas, Senior Counsel, or Holly Hunter-Ceci, Branch Chief, at
(202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's
Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a temporary order and a
summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained
via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicants' Representations

    1. As set forth below, the Applicants collectively serve as
investment adviser (as defined in section 2(a)(20) of the Act) to 90
investment management companies registered under the Act or series
thereof and to two employees' securities companies (``ESCs''), and as
principal underwriter (as defined in section 2(a)(29) of the Act) to
eight open-end registered investment companies under the Act (``Open-
End Funds'') (each a ``Fund,'' collectively, ``Funds'').
    2. UBS AG, a company organized under the laws of Switzerland, is a

Swiss-based global financial services firm. UBS AG and its subsidiaries
provide global wealth management, securities, and retail and commercial
banking services. UBS AG provides investment advisory services to two
ESCs.\1\ Other than the investment services provided to the two ESCs,
UBS AG does not engage in, and will not engage in, Fund Service
Activities (as hereinafter defined) and acknowledges that it may not
provide Fund Service Activities in reliance on the Orders without
seeking further relief from the Commission. ESC GP, a company
established under the laws of the Cayman Islands, is the general
partner of the two ESCs and provides investment advisory services to
the ESCs. The ESCs have completed their investment programs and only
hold cash pending final distribution and liquidation, which will occur
as soon as practicable. UBS AG and the ESC GP do not receive any
compensation for the investment advisory services provided to the ESCs.
ESC GP is a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of UBS AG. The two ESCs
were established to provide investment opportunities for highly
compensated key employees, officers, directors and current consultants
of UBS AG and its affiliates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the Matter of UBS AG, et al.; Notice of Application, Inv.
Co. Act Rel. No. 31019 (Apr. 17, 2014); Order, Inv. Co. Act Rel. No.
31042 (May 13, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. UBS Alternative, a Delaware limited liability company, is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of UBS AG and is registered as an investment
adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the ``Advisers
Act''). UBS Alternative is the investment adviser to the following
funds: A&Q Equity Opportunity Fund LLC, A&Q Event Fund LLC, A&Q
Alternative Fixed-Income Strategies Fund LLC, A&Q Long/Short Strategies
Fund LLC, A&Q Multi-Strategy Fund LLC, A&Q Technology Fund LLC, A&Q
Aggregated Alpha Strategies Fund LLC, and A&Q Masters Fund LLC. UBS
O'Connor, a Delaware limited liability company, is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of UBS AG and is registered as an investment adviser under
the Advisers Act. UBS O'Connor is the investment adviser to the
O'Connor Equus fund. UBS Global AM US and UBS Global AM Americas are
corporations organized under the laws of Delaware. UBS Global AM
Americas is registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act.
UBS Global AM US is registered under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Exchange Act'') as a broker-dealer. UBS Global AM US and
UBS Global AM Americas are each indirect, wholly owned subsidiaries of
UBS AG. UBS Global AM Americas provides investment advisory services to
the UBS Managed Municipal Trust, UBS RMA Money Fund Inc., UBS RMA Tax-
Free Fund Inc., Fort Dearborn Income Securities Inc., Global High
Income Fund Inc., Managed High Yield Plus Fund Inc., Strategic Global
Income Fund, Inc., UBS Funds, UBS Investment Trust, UBS Money Series,
UBS PACE Select Advisors Trust, UBS Relationship Funds, SMA
Relationship Trust, Master Trust funds and provides sub-advisory
services to the Curian Variable Series Trust, EQ Advisors Trust,
Lincoln Variable Insurance Products Trust, MFS Series Trust XIII,
Nationwide Mutual Funds Series, Pacific Life Funds, Pacific Select
Fund, and the VALIC Company II. UBS Global AM US serves as principal
underwriter to the UBS Investment Trust, UBS Money Series, UBS Managed
Municipal Trust, UBS RMA Money Fund, Inc., UBS RMA Tax-Free Fund, Inc.,
UBS PACE Select Advisors Trust, UBS Funds, and the SMA Relationship
Trust. While no existing company of which the Settling Firm is an
``affiliated person'' within the meaning of section 2(a)(3) of the Act
(``Affiliated Person'') (other than the Applicants) currently serves as
an investment adviser or depositor of any investment company registered
under the Act (``RIC''), ESC, or investment company that has elected to
be treated as a business development company under the Act (``BDC''),
or principal underwriter for any Open-End Fund, unit investment trust
registered under the Act (``UIT''), or face-amount certificate company
registered under the Act (``FACC'') (such activities, collectively
``Fund Service Activities''), Applicants request that any relief
granted by the Commission pursuant to the application also apply to any
existing company of which the Settling Firm is an Affiliated Person and
to any other company of which the Settling Firm may become an
Affiliated Person in the future (together with the Applicants, the
``Covered Persons'') with respect to any activity contemplated by
section 9(a) of the Act.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Applicants and other Covered Persons may, if the Orders
are granted, in the future act in any of the capacities contemplated
by section 9(a) of the Act subject to the applicable conditions of
the Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. On December 18, 2012, the Criminal Division, Fraud Section
(``DOJ Criminal Division'') of the DOJ and the Settling Firm entered
into a Non-Prosecution Agreement (``LIBOR NPA'') related to the LIBOR
Conduct, described and defined below.
    5. After identifying certain foreign exchange (``FX'') issues
resulting from an internal review, the Settling Firm notified the DOJ
Criminal Division (as well as the Antitrust Division of the DOJ and
other authorities) that it had identified evidence of potential FX
market trading coordination and thereafter provided extensive
cooperation to the DOJ Criminal Division and other relevant authorities
in connection with investigations into FX-related conduct. The DOJ
Criminal Division determined that the Settling Firm had breached the
LIBOR NPA. Relevant considerations in reaching that determination
included certain conduct, namely certain employees engaging in
fraudulent and deceptive currency trading and sales practices in
conducting certain FX market transactions with customers via telephone,
email, and/or electronic chat, to the detriment of UBS AG's customers,
and colluding with other participants in certain FX markets (the ``FX
Conduct'').
    6. Pursuant to the Plea Agreement, entered into on May 20, 2015, by
the Settling Firm and the DOJ Criminal Division, the Settling Firm
entered a plea of guilty (the ``Guilty Plea'') on May 20, 2015 in the
District Court to the offense charged in the one-count criminal
Information filed in District Court on May 20, 2015 (the
``Information''). The Information charges that between approximately
2001 and in or about 2010, the Settling Firm devised and engaged in a
scheme to defraud counterparties to interest rate derivatives
transactions by secretly manipulating benchmark interest rates to which
the profitability of those transactions was tied (the ``LIBOR
Conduct''). Specifically, the Information charges that the Settling
Firm committed wire fraud in furtherance of that scheme in violation of
Title 18, United States Code, Sections, 1343 and 2 on or about June 29,
2009 by transmitting or causing the transmission of certain electronic
communications.
    7. Pursuant to the Plea Agreement, the Settling Firm agreed to,
among other things, a fine of $203 million and a term of probation of
three years. The Applicants expect that the District Court will enter a
judgment against the Settling Firm (the ``Judgment'') that will require
remedies that are materially the same as set forth in the Plea
Agreement.
    8. The Settling Firm has entered into settlements with several
other authorities related to the FX Conduct and has agreed to a number
of undertakings to address the conduct. On November 12, 2014, the
Settling Firm

reached a settlement with the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(``CFTC'') to resolve certain findings by the CFTC (the ``CFTC Order'')
and with the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority (``FCA'') to resolve
certain findings by the FCA (the ``FCA Order''). On November 11, 2014,
the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (``FINMA'') issued an
order concluding its formal proceedings with respect to the FX Conduct
and precious metals (``PM'') trading (``FINMA Order''). Additionally,
on May 20, 2015, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
(``Fed'') and the State of Connecticut Department of Banking (``CT
DOB'') issued a cease and desist order and imposed a civil money
penalty upon consent of the Settling Firm related to the FX Conduct
(the ``Fed-CTDOB Order'').

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 9(a)(1) of the Act provides, in pertinent part, that a
person may not serve or act as an investment adviser or depositor of
any registered investment company or a principal underwriter for any
registered open-end investment company, registered unit investment
trust, or registered face-amount certificate company, if such person
within ten years has been convicted of any felony or misdemeanor,
including those arising out of such person's conduct as a bank or an
Affiliated Person of a bank. Section 2(a)(10) of the Act defines the
term ``convicted'' to include a plea of guilty. Section 9(a)(3) of the
Act extends the prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) to a company any
affiliated person of which has been disqualified under the provisions
of section 9(a)(1). Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines ``affiliated
person'' to include, among others, any person directly or indirectly
controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, the other
person. The Settling Firm is an Affiliated Person of each of the other
Applicants within the meaning of section 2(a)(3) of the Act. Therefore,
the Applicants state that the Guilty Plea would result in a
disqualification of each Applicant for ten years under section 9(a)(3)
were they to act in any of the capacities listed in section 9(a)
because the Settling Firm would become the subject of a conviction
described in section 9(a)(1).
    2. Section 9(c) of the Act provides that, upon application, the
Commission shall by order grant an exemption from the disqualification
provisions of section 9(a) of the Act, either unconditionally or on an
appropriate temporary or other conditional basis, to any person if that
person establishes that: (a) The prohibitions of section 9(a), as
applied to the person, are unduly or disproportionately severe; or (b)
the conduct of the person has been such as not to make it against the
public interest or the protection of investors to grant the exemption.
Applicants have filed an application pursuant to section 9(c) seeking a
Temporary Order and a Permanent Order exempting the Applicants and
other Covered Persons from the disqualification provisions of section
9(a) of the Act. The Applicants and other Covered Persons may, if the
relief is granted, in the future act in any of the capacities
contemplated by section 9(a) of the Act subject to the applicable terms
and conditions of the Orders.
    3. Applicants believe they meet the standards for exemption
specified in section 9(c). Applicants assert that (i) the scope of the
Conduct was limited and did not involve the Adviser Applicants (as
defined below), Fund Service Activities, or ESCs with respect to which
the Settling Firm engaged in Fund Service Activities, (ii) application
of the statutory bar would impose significant hardships on the Funds
and their shareholders, (iii) the prohibitions of section 9(a), if
applied to the Adviser Applicants and other Covered Persons, would be
unduly or disproportionately severe, and (iv) the Conduct did not
constitute conduct that would make it against the public interest or
protection of investors to grant the exemption from section 9(a).
    4. Applicants represent that both the LIBOR Conduct and the FX
Conduct (collectively, the ``Conduct'') did not involve any of the
Applicants acting as an investment adviser or depositor of any RIC or
ESC (including as general partner providing investment advisory
services to the ESCs), or principal underwriter for any Open-End Fund,
UIT or FACC (``Adviser Applicants''). The Settling Firm is an Adviser
Applicant only to the extent that it provides investment advisory
services to the two ESCs. The Conduct similarly did not involve any
RIC, Open-End Fund, UIT or FACC with respect to which the Applicants
engaged in Fund Service Activities. No traders identified by the
Settling Firm or any U.S. or non-U.S. regulatory or enforcement agency
as being responsible for the Conduct provided Fund Service Activities
to the Funds. Moreover, the FX Conduct that occurred after the LIBOR
NPA, and which is the basis for the breach of the LIBOR NPA, was
extremely limited in scope. The Applicants assert that the LIBOR
Conduct only involved approximately 14 of the approximately 65,000
total employees of the Settling Firm and its affiliates; similarly, the
FX Conduct involved less than ten employees. The Applicants assert that
of the individuals identified as having been responsible for the FX
Conduct who remain employees of Settling Firm, except as noted below,
all have been terminated.\3\ Applicants assert that, in light of the
limited scope of the Conduct, it would be unduly and disproportionately
severe to impose a section 9(a) disqualification on the Applicants.
Applicants further represent that Adviser Applicants did not engage in
the Conduct, and depriving the Funds of the Fund Service Activities
performed by an Adviser Applicant because of the activities of the
Settling Firm would be an unduly severe result, both for the Adviser
Applicant's financial position and for the shareholders of the Funds,
who would be deprived of the knowledge and expertise of a key service
provider. Similarly, Applicants assert that depriving the shareholders
of the ESCs of the Fund Service Activities of the Settling Firm would
be unduly severe given that none of the employees of the Settling Firm
who were responsible for the Conduct provide any Fund Service
Activities to the ESCs. Applicants assert that the conduct of the
Applicants has not been such to make it against the public interest or
the protection of investors to grant the exemption from section 9(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ All of the individuals at the Settling Firm and its
affiliates who were identified as being responsible for the LIBOR
Conduct have either resigned or have had their employment
terminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Applicants assert that the inability of the Adviser Applicants
to continue providing such services to the Funds (including as general
partner providing investment advisory services to ESCs) would result in
the Funds and their shareholders facing potential hardship, as
described in greater detail in the application. Applicants assert that
neither the protection of investors nor the public interest would be
served by permitting the section 9(a) disqualifications to apply to the
Adviser Applicants because those disqualifications would deprive the
Funds of the Fund Service Activities provided by the Adviser Applicants
(including as general partner providing investment advisory services to
ESCs) that shareholders expected the Funds would receive when they
decided to invest in the Funds. Applicants also outline a number of
other uncertainties, inefficiencies, and expenses that they submit
would result from the prohibitions of section 9(a) and operate to the
detriment of the financial

interests of the Funds and their shareholders.
    6. Applicants assert that if the Adviser Applicants were barred
under section 9(a) from providing Fund Service Activities to the Funds
and were unable to obtain the requested exemption, the effect on their
business and employees would be unduly and disproportionately severe.
Applicants state that the Adviser Applicants have committed substantial
capital and other resources to establishing expertise in advising, sub-
advising and underwriting Funds. Applicants further state that
prohibiting the Adviser Applicants from engaging in Fund Service
Activities would not only adversely affect their business, but would
also adversely affect their employees who are involved in these
activities. Many of these employees could experience significant
difficulties in finding alternative, fund-related employment.
Applicants assert that, with respect to the Settling Firm and ESC GP in
particular, their disqualification from providing advisory or sub-
advisory services to the ESCs would not be in the public interest or in
furtherance of the protection of investors in light of the fact that
the ESCs have completed their investment programs and only hold cash
pending final distribution and liquidation. In addition, Applicants
assert that if the Applicants or Covered Persons are unable to expand
their businesses in the future because of the imposition of the section
9(a) disqualification, it could also have an adverse impact on their
businesses.
    7. Applicants represent that: (i) None of the current or former
directors, officers or employees of Applicants (other than certain
personnel of the Settling Firm who were not involved in any of the
Applicants' Fund Service Activities) had any knowledge of, or had any
involvement in, the Conduct; (ii) no current or former employee of any
Applicant or of any other Covered Person who previously has been or who
subsequently may be identified by any Applicant, or any U.S. or non-
U.S. regulatory or enforcement agencies as having been responsible for
the Conduct will have any involvement in providing Fund Service
Activities on behalf of any Covered Person or will be an officer,
director, or employee of any Applicant or of any other Covered Person;
\4\ (iii) no employee of any Applicant or of any other Covered Person
who was involved in the Conduct had any, or will have any future,
involvement in the Covered Persons' activities in any capacity
described in section 9(a) of the Act; and (iv) because the personnel of
the Applicants (other than certain personnel of the Settling Firm who
were not involved in any of the Applicants' Fund Service Activities)
did not have any involvement in the Conduct, shareholders of those
Funds were not affected any differently than if those Funds had
received services from any other non-affiliated investment adviser or
principal underwriter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ However, in the case of three employees, UBS AG has delayed
taking final action to terminate such employees in order to ensure
their ongoing cooperation with governmental investigations and/or to
comply with applicable foreign labor laws. Subject to these issues,
UBS AG will terminate the employment of all of these employees
within four months of the entry of the Plea Agreement. Because of
foreign labor laws, UBS may be required to provide a notice of
termination which may delay the final termination of employment
beyond that four month period. In any event, however, the employment
of the employees will be terminated, and the employees will have no
further association with UBS or its affiliates in any capacity, no
later than eight months after the date of the Guilty Plea. The
Settling Firm will notify the Chief Counsel of the Division of
Investment Management when all employees of the Settling Firm
responsible for the FX Conduct have been terminated or are no longer
employed by the Settling Firm. UBS has already terminated several
employees of the Settling Firm who engaged in misconduct relating to
the FX business, including two employees who engaged in collusive
conduct at other institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Except as set forth in Section III.E. in the application,
Applicants have agreed that neither they nor any of the other Covered
Persons will employ any of the current or former employees of Settling
Firm or any other Covered Person who previously have been or who
subsequently may be identified by the Settling Firm or any U.S. or non-
U.S. regulatory or enforcement agency as having been responsible for
the Conduct without first making a further application to the
Commission pursuant to section 9(c).
    9. Applicants have also agreed that each Applicant and Covered
Person will adopt and implement policies and procedures reasonably
designed to ensure it will comply with the terms and conditions of the
Orders granted under section 9(c).
    10. In addition, the Settling Firm has agreed to comply in all
material respects with the material terms and conditions of the Plea
Agreement, the CFTC Order, the Fed-CTDOB Order, the FCA Order, the
FINMA Order or any other orders issued by regulatory or enforcement
agencies addressing the Conduct. Applicants further state that the
Settling Firm has undertaken certain remedial measures, as described in
greater detail in the application, related to the Conduct. These
include certain remedial measures as required by the Plea Agreement,
the CFTC Order, the Fed-CTDOB Order, the FCA Order, and the FINMA Order
including (but not limited to) developing and maintaining monitoring
systems and performing periodic internal audits and annual external
audits, conducting an audit of specific areas to ensure its culture,
governance arrangements, policies, procedures, systems, and controls
are appropriate and adequate to effectively manage specific risks with
respect to the FX business, and implementing and improving control
measures to avoid conflicts of interest between client trading and the
active proprietary trading. Specifically, Applicants represent that the
Settling Firm has taken a number of steps to enhance its internal
controls, policies and procedures relating to its FX activities. These
changes, include, but are not limited to the following: transitioning
its FX business to adopt principles, systems, and controls more akin to
that of regulated markets by, for example, introducing continuous
transaction monitoring and detailed time stamping of orders to ensure
it can conduct additional forensic analysis of trading activity,
improving compliance monitoring, intraday supervision and operational
risk management assessment to more swiftly detect inappropriate
activity, strengthened front office processes, and enhanced guidance
and training.
    11. As a result, Applicants submit that the conduct of the
Applicants has been such as not to make it against the public interest
or the protection of investors to grant the exemption from Section
9(a).
    12. To provide further assurance that the exemptive relief being
requested herein would be consistent with the public interest and the
protection of the investors, the Applicants agree that they will, as
soon as reasonably practical, distribute to the board of directors or
trustees (``Board'') of the Funds (excluding, for this purpose, the
ESCs) written materials describing the circumstances that led to the
Guilty Plea, any impact on the Funds and the application. The written
materials will include an offer to discuss the materials at an in-
person meeting with each Board for which the Applicants provide Fund
Service Activities, including the directors who are not ``interested
persons'' of the Funds as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act and
their independent legal counsel as defined in rule 0-1(a)(6) under the
Act. The Applicants undertake to provide the Funds' Boards with all
information concerning the Plea Agreement and the application necessary
for the Funds to fulfill their disclosure and other obligations under
the federal securities laws and will provide them a copy of

the Judgment as entered by the District Court.
    13. Applicants state that the Settling Firm and the other
Applicants have previously received exemptive orders under section 9(c)
of the Act, as the result of conduct that triggered section 9(a), as
described in greater detail in the application.

Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that any order granted by the Commission pursuant
to the application will be subject to the following conditions:
    1. Any temporary exemption granted pursuant to the application
shall be without prejudice to, and shall not limit the Commission's
rights in any manner with respect to, any Commission investigation of,
or administrative proceedings involving or against, Covered Persons,
including, without limitation, the consideration by the Commission of a
permanent exemption from section 9(a) of the Act requested pursuant to
the application or the revocation or removal of any temporary
exemptions granted under the Act in connection with the application.
    2. Except as set forth in Section III.E. of the application,
neither the Applicants nor any of the other Covered Persons will employ
any of the current or former employees of the Settling Firm or any
other Covered Person who previously have been or who subsequently may
be identified by the Settling Firm or any U.S. or non-U.S. regulatory
or enforcement agency as having been responsible for the Conduct,
without first making a further application to the Commission pursuant
to section 9(c).
    3. Each Applicant and Covered Person will adopt and implement
policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that it will
comply with the terms and conditions of the Orders within 60 days of
the date of the Permanent Order or, with respect to condition 4, such
date as may be contemplated by the Plea Agreement, or the CFTC Order,
the Fed-CTDOB Order, the FCA Order, the FINMA Order, or any other
orders issued by regulatory or enforcement agencies addressing the
Conduct.
    4. The Settling Firm will comply in all material respects with the
material terms and conditions of the Plea Agreement, with the material
terms of the CFTC Order, the Fed-CTDOB Order, the FCA Order, the FINMA
Order, or any other orders issued by regulatory or enforcement agencies
addressing the Conduct.
    5. Applicants will provide written notification to the Chief
Counsel of the Commission's Division of Investment Management with a
copy to the Chief Counsel of the Commission's Division of Enforcement
of a material violation of the terms and conditions of any of the
Orders within 30 days of discovery of the material violation.

Temporary Order

    The Commission has considered the matter and finds that Applicants
have made the necessary showing to justify granting a temporary
exemption.
    Accordingly,
    It is hereby ordered, pursuant to section 9(c) of the Act, that the
Applicants and any other Covered Persons are granted a temporary
exemption from the provisions of section 9(a), solely with respect to
the guilty plea entered into pursuant to the Plea Agreement, subject to
the representations and conditions in the application, from May 20,
2015 until the Commission takes final action on their application for a
permanent order.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-12754 Filed 5-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 56)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 15087-15092]
[DOCID:fr21mr08-15]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0967; FRL-8544-6]

Determination of Nonattainment and Reclassification of the Baton
Rouge 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area; State of Louisiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing its finding that the Baton Rouge
``marginal'' 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (hereinafter referred to
as the Baton Rouge area) did not attain the 8-hour ozone national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or standard) by June 15, 2007, the
attainment deadline set forth in the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) and
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for ``marginal'' nonattainment areas.
By operation of law, the Baton Rouge area is to be reclassified from a
``marginal'' to a ``moderate'' 8-hour ozone nonattainment area on the
effective date of this rule. The new attainment deadline for the
reclassified Baton Rouge nonattainment area is ``as expeditiously as
practicable'' but no later than June 15, 2010. In addition, EPA is
requiring Louisiana to submit State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
addressing the CAA's pollution control requirements for ``moderate'' 8-
hour ozone nonattainment areas no later than January 1, 2009.

DATES: This final rule is effective on April 21, 2008.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0967. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov, Web site. Although listed in the
index,

some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not
placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air
Planning Section (6PD-L), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made
available by appointment for public inspection between the hours of
8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays. Contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below to
make an appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least
two working days in advance of your visit.
    The State submittal is also available for public inspection at the
State Air Agency listed below during official business hours by
appointment: Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), the
Galvez Building, 602 N. Fifth Street, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra Rennie, Air Planning Section,
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    A complete description of the 8-hour designation process for the
Baton Rouge area can be found in the proposal for this rulemaking at 72
FR 61315, October 30, 2007. In addition, under Sec.  51.908 of the Code
of Federal Regulations, states containing areas classified as
``marginal'' non-attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard were not
required to submit attainment demonstration SIPs. However, states were
required to submit other SIP elements, as required by Subpart 2 of the
Act, that included the following: submitting an emission inventory
within two years and periodic inventories every three years thereafter,
reasonably available control technology corrections, and retaining a
vehicle inspection and maintenance program that may have previously
been in place. Baton Rouge has met these requirements for a
``marginal'' nonattainment area under the 8-hour standard and the 1-
hour standard.

Table of Contents

I. What Does This Action Do?
II. What Does the CAA Say About Determination of Nonattainment and
Reclassification, and How Does It Apply to the Baton Rouge Area?
III. What Is the Area's New Classification?
IV. What Is the New Attainment Date for the Baton Rouge Area?
V. When Must Louisiana Submit SIP Revisions Fulfilling the
Requirements for 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas?
VI. What Comments Were Received on the Proposed Rule?
VII. Final Action
VIII. Administrative Requirements

I. What Does This Action Do?

    On October 30, 2007, EPA proposed its finding that the Baton Rouge
ozone nonattainment area did not attain the 8-hour NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date (72 FR 61315). The proposed finding was
based upon ambient air quality data from the years 2004-2006. These
data showed that the 8-hour NAAQS of 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when
rounding is considered) had been exceeded based on the 3-year average
of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air
quality ozone concentration and that the area did not qualify for an
attainment date extension under section 181(a)(5) of the Act. We also
proposed to determine that the appropriate reclassification of the area
was to ``moderate.''
    This action finalizes our finding that the Baton Rouge area did not
attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by June 15, 2007, as prescribed in
section 181 of the Act, and as detailed in EPA's final designations
rule published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857). It also fulfills EPA's
duty pursuant to section 181(b)(2) of the Act. In addition, this action
sets the dates by which Louisiana must submit SIP revisions addressing
the CAA's pollution control requirements for ``moderate'' ozone
nonattainment areas and attain the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone. EPA's
rulemaking actions are to be effective [30] days from publication in
the Federal Register.

II. What Does the CAA Say About Determination of Nonattainment and
Reclassification, and How Does it Apply to the Baton Rouge Area?

    Under sections 107(d)(1)(c) and 181(a) of the Act, the Baton Rouge
area was designated nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and
classified as ``marginal'' based on its design value of 0.086 ppm in
2004. These nonattainment designations and classifications are codified
in 40 CFR Part 81 (See 69 FR 23857, April 30, 2004). In addition,
states containing areas that were classified as ``marginal''
nonattainment were required to submit SIPs to provide for certain
controls and submit emission inventories. The Baton Rouge area met
these requirements by submitting an updated emission inventory. As a
``severe'' nonattainment area under the 1-hour standard, the area was
already implementing ``marginal'' area requirements in Subpart 2 of the
Act. No attainment demonstrations were required, but attainment of the
standard was required to be achieved by June 15, 2007.
    Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the Act specifies that:
    Within 6 months following the applicable attainment date (including
any extension thereof) for an ozone nonattainment area, the
Administrator shall determine, based on the area's design value (as of
the attainment date), whether the area attained the standard by that
date. Except for any Severe or Extreme areas, any area that the
Administrator finds has not attained the standard by that date shall be
reclassified by operation of law in accordance with table 1 of
subsection (a) to the higher of--
    a. The next higher classification for the area, or
    b. The classification applicable to the area's design value as
determined at the time of the notice required under subparagraph (B).
    No area shall be reclassified as Extreme under clause (ii).
    Furthermore, section 181(b)(2)(B) of the Act provides that:
    The Administrator shall publish a notice in the Federal Register no
later than 6 months following the attainment date, identifying each
area that the Administrator has determined under subparagraph (A) as
having failed to attain and identifying the reclassification, if any,
described under subparagraph (A).
    On October 30, 2007, EPA proposed its finding that the Baton Rouge
area did not attain the 8-hour ozone standard by the applicable date
(72 FR 61315). The proposed finding was based upon ambient ozone
concentration data for the period 2004-2006, from monitoring sites in
the Baton Rouge area that recorded a 3-year average of the annual
fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone
concentration that exceeded the standard. You may refer to the proposal
to review these values which are presented in ``Table 1.--Baton Rouge
Area Fourth Highest 8-Hour Ozone Concentrations and Design Values
(ppm).''
    The air quality data in Table 1 were available for comment in our
October 30, 2007, proposed finding of the area's failure to attain the
ozone NAAQS. We

received no comments pertaining to these data. Therefore, pursuant to
section 181(b)(2)(B) of the CAA, we hereby finalize our determination
that the Baton Rouge area did not attain the 8-hour standard by the
June 15, 2007, attainment date.

III. What Is The Area's New Classification?

    Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the Act requires that, when an area is
reclassified for failure to attain, its reclassification be the higher
of either the next higher classification or the classification
applicable to the area's ozone design value at the time the notice of
reclassification is published in the Federal Register. Section
181(b)(2)(B) requires EPA to publish in the Federal Register a notice
identifying the appropriate reclassification for the area in accordance
with section 181(b)(2)(A). The classification that would be applicable
to the Baton Rouge area's design value at the time of today's final
rule is ``marginal'' because the area's 2006 calculated design value,
based on quality-assured ozone monitoring data from 2004-2006, is 0.091
ppm. By contrast, the next higher classification for the Baton Rouge
area is ``moderate.'' As EPA explained in the proposal, because
``moderate'' is a higher classification than ``marginal'' under the CAA
statutory scheme, upon the effective date of this final rulemaking, the
Baton Rouge area is reclassified by operation of law as ``moderate.''

IV. What is the New Attainment Date for the Baton Rouge Area?

    Under section 181(a)(1) of the Act, the new attainment deadline for
``marginal'' ozone nonattainment areas, reclassified to ``moderate''
under section 181(b)(2), would generally be as ``expeditious as
practicable'' but no later than the date applicable to the new
classification, i.e., June 15, 2010. The ``as expeditiously as
practicable'' attainment date will be determined as part of the action
on the required SIP submittal demonstrating attainment of the 8-hour
ozone standard.

V. When Must Louisiana Submit SIP Revisions Fulfilling the Requirements
for 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas?

    Under section 181(a)(1) of the Act, the attainment deadline for
``marginal'' ozone nonattainment areas reclassified to ``moderate''
under section 181(b)(2) is as ``expeditiously as practicable'' but no
later than June 15, 2010. Under section 182(i) of the Act, such areas
are required to submit SIP revisions addressing the ``moderate'' area
requirements for 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.908(d), for
each nonattainment area, a state must provide for the implementation of
all control measures needed for attainment no later than the beginning
of the attainment year ozone season. The attainment year ozone season
is the ozone season immediately preceding a nonattainment area's
attainment date, in this case 2009 (40 CFR 51.900(g)). The ozone season
is the ozone monitoring season defined in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D,
section 4.1, Table D-3 (71 FR 61236, October 17, 2006). For the purpose
of reclassification of the Baton Rouge nonattainment area, January 1,
2009, is the beginning of the ozone monitoring season. As a result, EPA
is requiring that the required SIP revisions be submitted by Louisiana
as ``expeditiously as practicable,'' but no later than January 1, 2009.
This timeline also calls for implementation of applicable controls no
later than January 1, 2009. (See 72 FR 61318).
    The area was previously required to submit the requirements for
``marginal'' areas and under section 182(b) of the Act, remains
required to meet them, and now must meet the requirements for
``moderate'' areas as well.
    A revised SIP must include, among other things, the following
``moderate'' area requirements: (1) An attainment demonstration (40 CFR
51.908), (2) provisions for reasonably available control technology and
reasonably available control measures (40 CFR 51.912), (3) reasonable
further progress reductions in volatile organic compound (VOC) and
nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions (40 CFR 51.910), (4)
contingency measures to be implemented in the event of failure to meet
a milestone or attain the standard (CAA 172(c)(9)). See also the
requirements for ``moderate'' ozone nonattainment areas set forth in
CAA section 182(b). Since the Baton Rouge area also is a 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area, the anti-backsliding requirements of the 8-hour
ozone implementation rule at 40 CFR 51.900 and 51.905 apply too. See
also S. Coast Air Quality Management District v. Environmental
Protection Agency, 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006), reh'g denied, 489 F.3d
1245 (DC Cir. 2007).

VI. What Comments Were Received on the Proposed Rule?

    EPA received no comments from the public on the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking published on October 30, 2007 (72 FR 61315), Determination
of Nonattainment and Reclassification of the Baton Rouge 8-Hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area; State of Louisiana.

VII. Final Action

    Pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2), EPA is making a final
determination that the Baton Rouge ``marginal'' 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area failed to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by June 15,
2007. Upon the effective date of this rule, the Baton Rouge
``marginal'' 8-hour ozone nonattainment area will be reclassified by
operation of law as a ``moderate'' 8-hour ozone nonattainment area.
Pursuant to section 182(i) of the CAA, EPA is establishing the schedule
for submittal of the SIP revisions required for ``moderate'' areas once
the area is reclassified. The required SIP revision for Baton Rouge
must be submitted as ``expeditiously as practicable,'' but no later
than January 1, 2009.

VIII. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order. The Agency
has determined that the finding of nonattainment would result in none
of the effects identified in the Executive Order. Under section
181(b)(2) of the CAA, determinations of nonattainment are based upon
air quality considerations and the resulting reclassifications must
occur by operation of law.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
This action to reclassify the Baton Rouge area as a ``moderate'' ozone
nonattainment area and to adjust applicable deadlines does not
establish any new information collection burden. Burden means the total
time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions;
develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information,
processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing
information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to
respond to a collection of information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedures Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this action on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is a
small industrial entity as defined in the U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA) size standards (see, 13 CFR part 121); (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field. Determinations of nonattainment and the
resulting reclassification of nonattainment areas by operation of law
under section 181(b)(2) of the CAA do not in and of themselves create
any new requirements. Instead, this rulemaking only makes a factual
determination, and does not directly regulate any entities. After
considering the economic impacts of today's action on small entities, I
certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, sections 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation to why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
    This action does not include a Federal mandate within the meaning
of UMRA that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any
one year by either State, local, or Tribal governments in the aggregate
or to the private sector, and therefore, is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. Also, EPA has
determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments and therefore,
is not subject to the requirements of sections 203. EPA believes, as
discussed previously in this document, that the finding of
nonattainment is a factual determination based upon air quality
considerations and that the resulting reclassification of the area must
occur by operation of law. Thus, EPA believes that the finding does not
constitute a Federal mandate, as defined in section 101 of the UMRA,
because it does not impose an enforceable duty on any entity.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132, this action merely determines
that the Baton Rouge area had not attained by its applicable attainment
date, and to reclassify the Baton Rouge area as a ``moderate'' ozone
nonattainment area and to adjust applicable deadlines. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``A Consultation and Coordination
With Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure a meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications. This action does not have
Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action
merely determines that the Baton Rouge area has not attained by its
applicable attainment date, and to reclassify the Baton Rouge area as a
``moderate'' ozone nonattainment area and to adjust applicable
deadlines. The CAA and the Tribal Authority Rule establish the
relationship of the Federal government and Tribes in developing plans
to attain the NAAQS, and this rule does nothing to modify that
relationship. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have
disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children,
and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by the Agency. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it is not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866,
and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the
environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this rule
present a disproportionate risk to children. This action merely
determines that the Baton Rouge area has not attained by its applicable
attainment date, and to reclassify the Baton Rouge area as a
``moderate'' ozone nonattainment area and to adjust applicable
deadlines.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-
113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA
directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the
Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS. This action
merely determines that the Baton Rouge area has not attained by its
applicable attainment date, and to reclassify the Baton Rouge
``marginal'' Nonattainment Area as a ``moderate'' ozone nonattainment
area and to adjust applicable deadlines. Therefore, EPA did not
consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this rule will not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment. This action
merely determines that the Baton Rouge area has not attained by its
applicable attainment date, and to reclassify the Baton Rouge area as a
``moderate'' ozone nonattainment area and to adjust applicable
deadlines.

K. Congressional Review Act

    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 rule 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. This rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 20, 2008. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action to reclassify the Baton Rouge area as a
``moderate'' ozone nonattainment area and to adjust applicable
deadlines may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 7, 2008.
Richard E. Greene,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

0
Part 81, chapter 1, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
2. In Sec.  81.319 the table entitled ``Louisiana--Ozone (8-Hour
Standard)'' is amended by revising the entry for the Baton Rouge area
to read as follows:

Sec.  81.319.  Louisiana.

* * * * *

                                                           Louisiana--Ozone (8-Hour Standard)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Designation \a\                                     Category/classification
             Designated area             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Date \1\                      Type                      Date \1\                      Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baton Rouge Area:
    Ascension Parish....................  ...........  Nonattainment............................      4/21/08  Subpart 2/Moderate.
    East Baton Rouge Parish.............  ...........  Nonattainment............................      4/21/08  Subpart 2/Moderate.
    Iberville Parish....................  ...........  Nonattainment............................      4/21/08  Subpart 2/Moderate.
    Livingston Parish...................  ...........  Nonattainment............................      4/21/08  Subpart 2/Moderate.
    West Baton Rouge Parish.............  ...........  Nonattainment............................      4/21/08  Subpart 2/Moderate.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

 [FR Doc. E8-5663 Filed 3-20-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16217-16218]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06006]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-D-3462]

Verification Systems Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act for
Certain Prescription Drugs; Draft Guidance for Industry; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice
entitled ``Verification Systems Under the Drug Supply Chain Security
Act for Certain Prescription Drugs; Draft Guidance for Industry'' that
appeared in the Federal Register of March 10, 2022. The document
omitted the date by which comments on the draft guidance should be
submitted to FDA. This error is corrected in this document for clarity.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Venti, Office of Compliance,
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of March 10, 2022
(87 FR 13738), appearing on page 13738, in FR Doc. 2022-05018, in the
second column, the DATES section is corrected to read as follows:

DATES: The announcement of the guidance is published in the Federal
Register on March 10, 2022. Although you can comment on any guidance at
any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers
your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final
version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments
on the draft guidance by May 9, 2022.

    Dated: March 17, 2022.
Andi Lipstein Fristedt,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Legislation, and International Affairs,
U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
[FR Doc. 2022-06006 Filed 3-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P