[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 26, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28275-28277]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11165]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0319; FRL-10023-71-Region 3]

Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 1997 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard Second Maintenance Plan for the York-Adams
Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. This revision pertains to the Commonwealth's plan,
submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
(PADEP), for maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS) (referred to as the ``1997 ozone NAAQS'') for
the York-Adams Area of Pennsylvania. EPA is approving these revisions
to the Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with the requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on June 25, 2021.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0319. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the  For Further Information Contact section for additional
availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keila M. Pag[aacute]n-Incle, Planning
& Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-
2926. Ms. Pag[aacute]n-Incle can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On February 9, 2021 (86 FR 8736), EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM). In the NPRM, EPA proposed approval of
Pennsylvania's plan for maintaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the York-
Adams Area through February 13, 2028, in accordance with CAA section
175A. The formal SIP revision was submitted by PADEP on March 10, 2020.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    On January 14, 2008 (73 FR 2163, effective February 13, 2008), EPA
approved a redesignation request (and maintenance plan) from PADEP for
the York-Adams Area. Per CAA section 175A(b), at the end of the eighth
year after the effective date of the redesignation, the state must also
submit a second maintenance plan to ensure ongoing maintenance of the
standard for an additional 10 years, and in South Coast Air Quality
Management District v. EPA,\1\ the D.C. Circuit held that this
requirement cannot be waived for areas, like the York-Adams Area, that
had been redesignated to attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS prior to
revocation and that were designated attainment for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. CAA section 175A sets forth the criteria for adequate
maintenance plans. In addition, EPA has published longstanding guidance
that provides further insight on the content of an approvable
maintenance plan, explaining that a maintenance plan should address
five elements: (1) An attainment emissions inventory; (2) a maintenance
demonstration; (3) a commitment for continued air quality monitoring;
(4) a process for verification of continued attainment; and (5) a
contingency plan.\2\ PADEP's March 10, 2020 SIP submittal fulfills
Pennsylvania's obligation to submit a second maintenance plan and
addresses each of the five necessary elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 882 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
    \2\ ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992 (Calcagni Memo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the February 9, 2021 NPRM, consistent with
longstanding EPA's guidance,\3\ areas that meet certain criteria may be
eligible to submit a limited maintenance plan (LMP) to satisfy one of
the requirements of CAA section 175A. Specifically, states may meet CAA
section 175A's requirements to ``provide for maintenance'' by
demonstrating that the area's design value \4\ are well below the NAAQS
and that it has had historical stability attaining the NAAQS. EPA
evaluated PADEP's March 10, 2020 submittal for consistency with all
applicable EPA guidance and CAA requirements. EPA found that the
submittal met CAA section 175A and all CAA requirements, and proposed
approval of the LMP for the York-Adams Area as a revision to the
Pennsylvania SIP. The effect of this action makes certain commitments
related to the maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS federally
enforceable as part of the Pennsylvania SIP. Other specific
requirements of PADEP's March 10, 2020 submittal and the rationale for
EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPRM and will not be
restated here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable
Ozone Nonattainment Areas'' from Sally L. Shaver, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), dated November 16, 1994;
``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO
Nonattainment Areas'' from Joseph Paisie, OAQPS, dated October 6,
1995; and ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate
PM10 Nonattainment Areas'' from Lydia Wegman, OAQPS,
dated August 9, 2001.
    \4\ The ozone design value for a monitoring site is the 3-year
average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentrations. The design value for an ozone nonattainment
area is the highest design value of any monitoring site in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA's Response to Comments Received

    EPA received one comment on the February 9, 2021 NPRM and a summary
of the comment and EPA's response is provided herein. The comment
received is in the docket for this rulemaking action.
    Comment: The commenter asserts that the LMP should not be approved
because ``Pennsylvania identifies no actual contingency measures.''
According to the commenter, a ``contingency measure is supposed to be a
known measure that can be quickly implemented by a state in order to
prevent the violation of the NAAQS.'' The comment asserts that current
contingency measures are defective because they allegedly will not be
evaluated and determined until after an exceedance of the NAAQS has
occurred.

The comment claims that EPA is aware Pennsylvania has a history of not
meeting its CAA requirements on time, and that it can take Pennsylvania
more than two years to implement a regulation, which would be too long
to prevent a violation of the NAAQS.
    Response: The commenter asserts that Pennsylvania identifies no
actual contingency measures because the measures are not yet
``evaluated'' and ``determined'' and cannot be implemented before a
violation of the NAAQS occurs. Because Pennsylvania identifies two
regulatory and six non-regulatory contingency measures in general
terms, EPA understands the comment's use of the term ``evaluated'' and
``determined'' must mean something like the specific measures
identified by PADEP have not been fully promulgated and are not in
effect at this time. If EPA's understanding is correct, EPA agrees with
this fact, but does not agree that this has any bearing on the
approvability of the particular contingency measures or of the overall
LMP.
    PADEP identifies six non-regulatory measures and two regulatory
measures. The two regulatory measures are ``additional controls'' on
consumer products and portable fuel containers. The six non-regulatory
measures are: Voluntary diesel engine ``chip reflash;'' diesel retrofit
for public or private local onroad or offroad fleets; idling reduction
technology for Class 2 yard locomotives; idling technologies or
strategies for truck stops, warehouses, and other freight-handling
facilities; accelerated turnover of lawn and garden equipment;
additional promotion of alternative fuel for home heating and
agriculture use. As stated in the Calcagni memo, EPA's long-standing
interpretation is that contingency measures for maintenance of the
NAAQS are not required to be fully adopted in order to be approved. The
commenter refers to a recent court case vacating, among other things,
the contingency measure provisions in EPA's rule for implementing the
2015 ozone NAAQS, Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 15-1465 (D.C. Cir. January
29, 2021). It is possible that the commenter has conflated the
contingency measure provisions at issue in that case, which pertained
to attainment plans, and those at issue in this LMP, which pertain to
maintenance plans. The contingency measure provisions for maintenance
and attainment are found in two different sections of the CAA, with
substantially different wording and requirements. The attainment plan
contingency measures provisions in CAA Section 172(c)(9) require that
the attainment plan have ``specific measures'' that can ``take effect
in any such case without further action by the State or the
Administrator'' if the area fails to make reasonable further progress
or attain the NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(9). Section 175A of the CAA sets
forth the contingency measure requirements for maintenance areas.
Section 175A(d) requires that the maintenance plan contain ``such
contingency provisions as the Administrator deems necessary to assure
that the State will promptly correct any violation of the standard
which occurs after the redesignation of the area as an attainment
area.'' 42 U.S.C. 7505a(d). Unlike Section 172(c)(9) there is no
requirement under section 175A that the contingency measures be set
forth with specificity or that they be able to take effect without
further action by EPA or the State.
    With this statutory background in mind, EPA does not agree that the
plan should be disapproved due to PADEP's ability to promulgate a
contingency measure in sufficient time to avert a violation of the
NAAQS. As noted previously, CAA section 175A(d) mandates that a
maintenance plan must contain ``such contingency provisions as the
Administrator deems necessary to assure that the State will promptly
correct any violation of the standard which occurs after the
redesignation of the area as an attainment area.'' (emphasis added).
The statute therefore does not include any requirement that a
maintenance plan's contingency measures prevent a violation of the
NAAQS, but rather only that those selected measures be available to
address a violation of the NAAQS after it already occurs. Pennsylvania
also elected to adopt a ``warning level response,'' which states that
PADEP will consider adopting contingency measures if, for two
consecutive years, the fourth highest eight-hour ozone concentrations
at any monitor in the area are above 84 parts per billion (ppb). But
this warning level response is not required under the CAA, and
therefore we do not agree with the commenter that the plan should be
disapproved based on the commenter's concern over the timeliness of the
warning level response implementation.
    Moreover, as a general matter, we do not agree that the schedules
for implementation of contingency provisions in the LMP are
insufficient. As noted, the CAA provides some degree of flexibility in
assessing a maintenance plan's contingency measures--requiring that the
plan contain such contingency provisions ``as the Administrator deems
necessary'' to assure that any violations of the NAAQS will be
``promptly'' corrected. EPA's longstanding guidance for redesignations,
the Calcagni Memo, also does not provide precise parameters for what
strictly constitutes ``prompt'' implementation of contingency measures,
noting that, for purposes of CAA section 175A, ``a state is not
required to have fully adopted contingency measures that will take
effect without further action by the state in order for the maintenance
plan to be approved.'' Calcagni memo at 12. However, the guidance does
state that the plan should ensure that the measures are adopted
``expediently'' once they are triggered, and should provide ``a
schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation, and a specific
time limit for action by the state.'' Id. We think the State's plan,
which provides specific lists of regulatory and non-regulatory measures
that the state would consider after evaluating and assessing what it
believed to be the cause of increased ozone concentrations, and the
specific timeframes it would use to expediently implement the various
measures, meets the requirements of CAA section 175A.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving the 1997 ozone NAAQS limited maintenance plan for
the York-Adams Area as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 CAA. 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 Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     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 CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by July 26, 2021. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action.
    This action pertaining to Pennsylvania's limited maintenance plan
for the York-Adams Area may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 19, 2021.
Diana Esher,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
52 as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

0
2. In Sec.  52.2020, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding
an entry for ``1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard
Second Maintenance Plan for the York-Adams Area'' at the end of the
table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2020  Identification of plan.

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

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

                                                  * * * * * * *
1997 8-Hour Ozone National      York-Adams Area...........         3/10/20   5/26/21, [insert   The York-Adams
 Ambient Air Quality Standard                                                 Federal Register   area consists
 Second Maintenance Plan for                                                  citation].         of York and
 the York-Adams Area.                                                                            Adams Counties.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-11165 Filed 5-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 204 (Thursday, October 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64031-64033]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26820]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76183; File No. S7-04-09]

Order Extending Temporary Conditional Exemption for Nationally
Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations From Requirements of Rule
17g-5(A)(3) Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Request for
Comment

October 16, 2015.

I. Introduction

    On May 19, 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') conditionally exempted, with respect to certain credit
ratings and until December 2, 2010, nationally recognized statistical
rating organizations (``NRSROs'') from certain requirements in Rule
17g-5(a)(3) \1\ under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange
Act''), which had a compliance date of June 2, 2010.\2\ Pursuant to the
Order, an NRSRO is not required to comply with Rule 17g-5(a)(3) until
December 2, 2010 with respect to credit ratings where: (1) The issuer
of the structured finance product is a non-U.S. person; and (2) the
NRSRO has a reasonable basis to conclude that the structured finance
product will be offered and sold upon issuance, and that any arranger
linked to the structured finance product will effect transactions of
the structured finance product after issuance, only in transactions
that occur outside the U.S. (``covered transactions'').\3\ On November
23, 2010, the Commission extended the conditional temporary exemption
until December 2, 2011.\4\ On November 16, 2011, the Commission
extended the conditional temporary exemption until December 2, 2012.\5\
On November 26, 2012, the Commission extended the conditional temporary
exemption until December 2, 2013.\6\ On November 22, 2013, the
Commission extended the conditional temporary exemption until December
2, 2014.\7\ On November 19, 2014, the Commission extended the
conditional temporary exemption until December 2, 2015.\8\ The
Commission is extending the temporary conditional exemption exempting
NRSROs from complying with Rule 17g-5(a)(3) with respect to rating
covered transactions until December 2, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 17 CFR 240.17g-5(a)(3).
    \2\ See Exchange Act Release No. 62120 (May 19, 2010), 75 FR
28825 (May 24, 2010) (``Order'').
    \3\ See id. at 28827-28 (setting forth conditions of relief).
    \4\ See Exchange Act Release No. 63363 (Nov. 23, 2010), 75 FR
73137 (Nov. 29, 2010) (``First Extension Order'').
    \5\ See Exchange Act Release No. 65765 (Nov. 16, 2011), 76 FR
72227 (Nov. 22, 2011) (``Second Extension Order'').
    \6\ See Exchange Act Release No. 34-68286 (Nov. 26, 2012), 77 FR
71201 (Nov. 29, 2012) (``Third Extension Order'').
    \7\ See Exchange Act Release No. 34-70919 (Nov. 22, 2013), 78 FR
70984 (Nov. 27, 2013) (``Fourth Extension Order'').
    \8\ See Exchange Act Release No. 34-73649 (Nov. 19, 2014), 79 FR
70261 (Nov. 25, 2014) (``Fifth
    Extension Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    Rule 17g-5 identifies, in paragraphs (b) and (c) of the rule, a
series of conflicts of interest arising from the business of
determining credit ratings.\9\ Paragraph (a) of Rule 17g-5 \10\
prohibits an NRSRO from issuing or maintaining a credit rating if it is
subject to the conflicts of interest identified in paragraph (b) of
Rule 17g-5 unless the NRSRO has taken the steps prescribed in paragraph
(a)(1) (i.e., disclosed the type of conflict of interest in Exhibit 6
to Form NRSRO in accordance with Section 15E(a)(1)(B)(vi) of the
Exchange Act \11\ and Rule 17g-1) \12\ and paragraph (a)(2) (i.e.,
established and is maintaining and enforcing written policies and
procedures to address and manage conflicts of interest in accordance
with Section 15E(h) of the Exchange Act).\13\ Paragraph (c) of Rule
17g-5 specifically prohibits eight types of conflicts of interest.
Consequently, an NRSRO is prohibited from issuing or maintaining a
credit rating when it is subject to these conflicts regardless of
whether it had disclosed them and established procedures reasonably
designed to address them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.17g-5(b) and (c).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17g-5(a).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-7(a)(1)(B)(vi).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17g-1.
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-7(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In November 2009, the Commission adopted paragraph (a)(3) of Rule
17g-5. This provision requires an NRSRO that is hired by an arranger to
determine an initial credit rating for a structured finance product to
take certain steps designed to allow an NRSRO that is not hired by the
arranger to nonetheless determine an initial credit rating--and
subsequently monitor that credit rating--for the structured finance
product.\14\ In particular, under Rule 17g-5(a)(3), an NRSRO is
prohibited from issuing or maintaining a credit rating when it is
subject to the conflict of interest identified in paragraph (b)(9) of
Rule 17g-5 (i.e., being hired by an arranger to determine a credit
rating for a structured finance product) \15\ unless it has taken the
steps prescribed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of Rule 17g-5 (discussed
above) and the steps prescribed in paragraph (a)(3) of Rule 17g-5.\16\
Rule 17g-5(a)(3), among other things, requires that the NRSRO must:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 17 CFR 240.17g-5(a)(3); see also Exchange Act Release
No. 61050 (Nov. 23, 2009), 74 FR 63832 (Dec. 4, 2009) (``Adopting
Release'') at 63844-45.
    \15\ Paragraph (b)(9) of Rule 17g-5 identifies the following
conflict of interest: Issuing or maintaining a credit rating for a
security or money market instrument issued by an asset pool or as
part of any asset-backed securities transaction that was paid for by
the issuer, sponsor, or underwriter of the security or money market
instrument. 17 CFR 240.17g-5(b)(9).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.17g-5(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Maintain on a password-protected Internet Web site a list
of each structured finance product for which it currently is in the
process of determining an initial credit rating in chronological order
and identifying the type of structured finance product, the name of the
issuer, the date the rating process was initiated, and the Internet Web
site address where the arranger represents the information provided to
the hired NRSRO can be accessed by other NRSROs;
     Provide free and unlimited access to such password-
protected Internet Web site during the applicable calendar year to any
NRSRO that provides it with a copy of the certification described in
paragraph (e) of Rule 17g-5 that covers that calendar year; \17\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Paragraph (e) of Rule 17g-5 requires that an NRSRO seeking
to access the hired NRSRO's Internet Web site during the applicable
calendar year must furnish the Commission with the following
certification:
     The undersigned hereby certifies that it will access the
Internet Web sites described in 17 CFR 240.17g-5(a)(3) solely for
the purpose of determining or monitoring credit ratings. Further,
the undersigned certifies that it will keep the information it
accesses pursuant to 17 CFR 240.17g-5(a)(3) confidential and treat
it as material nonpublic information subject to its written policies
and procedures established, maintained, and enforced pursuant to
section 15E(g)(1) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78o-7(g)(1)) and 17 CFR
240.17g-4. Further, the undersigned certifies that it will determine
and maintain credit ratings for at least 10% of the issued
securities and money market instruments for which it accesses
information pursuant to 17 CFR 240.17g-5(a)(3)(iii), if it accesses
such information for 10 or more issued securities or money market
instruments in the calendar year covered by the certification.
Further, the undersigned certifies one of the following as
applicable: (1) In the most recent calendar year during which it
accessed information pursuant to 17 CFR 240.17g-5(a)(3), the
undersigned accessed information for [Insert Number] issued
securities and money market instruments through Internet Web sites
described in 17 CFR 240.17g-5(a)(3) and determined and maintained
credit ratings for [Insert Number] of such securities and money
market instruments; or (2) The undersigned previously has not
accessed information pursuant to 17 CFR 240.17g-5(a)(3) 10 or more
times during the most recently ended calendar year.

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

     Obtain from the arranger a written representation that can
reasonably be relied upon that the arranger will, among other things,
disclose on a password-protected Internet Web site the information it
provides to the hired NRSRO to determine the initial credit rating (and
monitor that credit rating) and provide access to the Web site to an
NRSRO that provides it with a copy of the certification described in
paragraph (e) of Rule 17g-5.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ In particular, under paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of Rule 17g-5,
the arranger must represent to the hired NRSRO that it will:
    (1) Maintain the information described in paragraphs
(a)(3)(iii)(C), (a)(3)(iii)(D), and (a)(3)(iii)(E) of Rule 17g-5
available at an identified password-protected Internet Web site that
presents the information in a manner indicating which information
currently should be relied on to determine or monitor the credit
rating; (2) provide access to such password-protected Internet Web
site during the applicable calendar year to any NRSRO that provides
it with a copy of the certification described in paragraph (e) of
Rule 17g-5 that covers that calendar year, provided that such
certification indicates that the nationally recognized statistical
rating organization providing the certification either: (i)
Determined and maintained credit ratings for at least 10% of the
issued securities and money market instruments for which it accessed
information pursuant to paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of Rule 17g-5 in the
calendar year prior to the year covered by the certification, if it
accessed such information for 10 or more issued securities or money
market instruments; or (ii) has not accessed information pursuant to
paragraph (a)(3) of Rule 17g-5 10 or more times during the most
recently ended calendar year; (3) post on such password-protected
Internet Web site all information the arranger provides to the
NRSRO, or contracts with a third party to provide to the NRSRO, for
the purpose of determining the initial credit rating for the
security or money market instrument, including information about the
characteristics of the assets underlying or referenced by the
security or money market instrument, and the legal structure of the
security or money market instrument, at the same time such
information is provided to the NRSRO; (4) post on such password-
protected Internet Web site all information the arranger provides to
the NRSRO, or contracts with a third party to provide to the NRSRO,
for the purpose of undertaking credit rating surveillance on the
security or money market instrument, including information about the
characteristics and performance of the assets underlying or
referenced by the security or money market instrument at the same
time such information is provided to the NRSRO; and (5) post on such
password-protected Internet Web site, promptly after receipt, any
executed Form ABS Due Diligence-15E containing information about the
security or money market instrument delivered by a person employed
to provide third-party due diligence services with respect to the
security or money market instrument.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission stated in the Adopting Release that Rule 17g-5(a)(3)
is designed to address conflicts of interest and improve the quality of
credit ratings for structured finance products by making it possible
for more NRSROs to rate structured finance products.\19\ For example,
the Commission noted that when an NRSRO is hired to rate a structured
finance product, some of the information it relies on to determine the
rating is generally not made public.\20\ As a result, structured
finance products frequently are issued with ratings from only the one
or two NRSROs that have been hired by the arranger, with the attendant
conflict of interest that creates.\21\ The Commission stated that Rule
17g-5(a)(3) was designed to increase the number of credit ratings
extant for a given structured finance product and, in particular, to
promote the issuance of credit ratings by NRSROs that are not hired by
arrangers.\22\ The Commission's goal in adopting the rule was to
provide users of credit ratings with more views on the creditworthiness
of structured finance products.\23\ In addition, the Commission stated
that Rule 17g-5(a)(3) was designed to reduce the ability of arrangers
to obtain better than warranted ratings by exerting influence over
NRSROs hired to determine credit ratings for structured finance
products.\24\ Specifically, by opening up the rating process to more
NRSROs, the Commission intended to make it easier for the hired NRSRO
to resist such pressure by increasing the likelihood that any steps
taken to inappropriately favor the arranger could be exposed to the
market through the credit ratings issued by other NRSROs.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Adopting Release at 63844.
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ Id.
    \22\ Id.
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ Id.
    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17g-5(a)(3) became effective on February 2, 2010, and the
compliance date for Rule 17g-5(a)(3) was June 2, 2010.

III. Extension of Conditional Temporary Extension

    In the Order, the Commission requested comment generally, but also
on a number of specific issues.\26\ The Commission received six comment
letters in response to this solicitation of comment.\27\ The commenters
expressed concern that the extraterritorial application of Rule 17g-
5(a)(3) could, in the commenter's view, among other things, disrupt
local securitization markets,\28\ inhibit the ability of local firms to
raise capital,\29\ and conflict with local laws.\30\ Several commenters
also requested that the conditional temporary exemption be extended or
made permanent.\31\ The First Extension Order again solicited public
comment on issues raised in connection with the extra-territorial
application of Rule 17g-5(a)(3).\32\ One commenter requested that the
Order be made permanent, citing many of the same reasons set forth in
prior comment letters.\33\ The Second Extension Order again solicited
public comment on issues raised in connection with the extra-
territorial application of Rule 17g-5(a)(3).\34\ Commenters supported
the exemption regarding the extra-territorial application of the
rule,\35\ with one of those commenters again requesting that the Order
be made permanent.\36\ The Third Extension Order again solicited public
comment on issues raised in connection with the extra-territorial
application of Rule 17g-5(a)(3). No comments were received. The Fourth
Extension Order again solicited public comment on issues raised in
connection with the extra-territorial application of Rule 17g-5(a)(3).
Two comments were received and the commenters supported the exemption
regarding the extra-territorial application of the rule.\37\ The Fifth

Extension Order again solicited public comment on issues raised in
connection with the extra-territorial application of Rule 17g-5(a)(3).
No comments were received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Order at 28828.
    \27\ Letter from Masamichi Kono, Vice Commissioner for
International Affairs, Financial Services Agency, Japan, dated Nov.
12, 2010 (``Japan FSA Letter''); Letter from Masaru Ono, Executive
Director, Securitization Forum of Japan, dated Nov. 12, 2010 (``SFJ
Letter''); Letter from Rick Watson, Managing Director, Association
for Financial Markets in Europe/European Securitisation Forum, dated
Nov. 11, 2010 (``AFME Letter''); Letter from Jack Rando, Director,
Capital Markets, Investment Industry Association of Canada, dated
Sep. 22, 2010 (``IIAC Letter''); Letter from Christopher Dalton,
Chief Executive Officer, Australian Securitisation Forum, dated Jun.
27, 2010 (``AuSF Letter''); Letter from Takefumi Emori, Managing
Director, Japan Credit Rating Agency, Ltd. (``JCR''), dated Jun. 25,
2010 (``JCR Letter'').
    \28\ See Japan FSA Letter; SFJ Letter; AFME Letter; JCR Letter;
AuSF Letter.
    \29\ See AFME Letter; JCR Letter; AuSF Letter.
    \30\ See Japan FSA Letter; AFME Letter; JCR Letter; AuSF Letter;
IIAC Letter.
    \31\ See Japan FSA Letter; SFJ Letter; AFME Letter; JCR Letter.
    \32\ See Letter from Tom Deutsch, Executive Director, American
Securitization Forum, and Chris Dalton, Chief Executive Officer,
Australian Securitisation Forum, dated Aug. 9, 2011 (``ASF/AuSF
Letter 1''); Letter from Jack Rando, Director, Capital Markets,
Investment Industry Association of Canada, dated Nov. 2, 2011
(``IIAC Letter 2'').
    \33\ See ASF/AuSF Letter 1.
    \34\ Letter from Chris Barnard to the Commission, dated Nov. 23,
2011 (``Barnard Letter''); Letter from Tom Deutsch, Executive
Director, American Securitization Forum, and Chris Dalton, Chief
Executive Officer, Australian Securitisation Forum, dated Aug. 28,
2012 (``ASF/AuSF Letter 2'').
    \35\ See Barnard Letter; ASF/AuSF Letter 2.
    \36\ See ASF/AuSF Letter 2.
    \37\ See Letter from Chris Barnard to the Commission, dated Nov.
26, 2013; Letter from Richard Hopkin,
    Managing Director, Association for Financial Markets in Europe,
dated Nov. 10, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the continued concerns about potential disruptions of local
securitization markets, and because the Commission's consideration of
the issues raised will benefit from additional time to engage in
further dialogue with interested parties and to monitor market and
regulatory developments, the Commission believes extending the
conditional temporary exemption until December 2, 2017 is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, and is consistent with the
protection of investors.

IV. Request for Comment

    The Commission believes that it would be useful to continue to
provide interested parties opportunity to comment. Comments may be
submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/exorders.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number S7-04-09 on the subject line; or
     Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov). Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number S7-04-09. This file number
should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us
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/exorders.shtml). Comments
are also available for Web site viewing and printing in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F St. NE., Washington, DC 20549
on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. 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.

V. Conclusion

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission believes it would be
necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the
protection of investors to extend the conditional temporary exemption
exempting NRSROs from complying with Rule 17g-5(a)(3) with respect to
rating covered transactions until December 2, 2017.
    Accordingly,
    It is hereby ordered, pursuant to Section 36 of the Exchange Act,
that a nationally recognized statistical rating organization is exempt
until December 2, 2017 from the requirements in Rule 17g-5(a)(3) (17
CFR 240.17g-5(a)(3)) for credit ratings where:
    (1) The issuer of the security or money market instrument is not a
U.S. person (as defined under Securities Act Rule 902(k)); and
    (2) The nationally recognized statistical rating organization has a
reasonable basis to conclude that the structured finance product will
be offered and sold upon issuance, and that any arranger linked to the
structured finance product will effect transactions of the structured
finance product after issuance, only in transactions that occur outside
the U.S.

    By the Commission.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-26820 Filed 10-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 13 (Friday, January 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6641-6642]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01349]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC11-119-003.
    Applicants: Gabelli, Mario J., GGCP, Inc., GGCP Holdings, LLC,
GAMCO Investors, Inc., Associated Capital Group, Inc.
    Description: Request for Reauthorization and Extension of Blanket
Authorizations Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request
for Expedited Consideration of Mario J. Gabelli, et al.
    Filed Date: 1/13/21.
    Accession Number: 20210113-5165.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/21.

    Docket Numbers: EC21-43-000.
    Applicants: Indiana Crossroads Wind Farm LLC, Indiana Crossroads
Wind Generation LLC.
    Description: Joint Application for Authorization Under Section 203
of the Federal Power Act of Indiana Crossroads Wind Farm LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 1/13/21.
    Accession Number: 20210113-5140.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/21.

    Docket Numbers: EC21-44-000.
    Applicants: Wheelabrator Shasta Energy Company Inc.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act of Wheelabrator Shasta Energy Company Inc.
    Filed Date: 1/13/21.
    Accession Number: 20210113-5168.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/21.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG21-70-000.
    Applicants: Western Trail Wind, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Western Trail Wind, LLC.
    Filed Date: 1/13/21.
    Accession Number: 20210113-5155.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/21.

    Docket Numbers: EG21-71-000.
    Applicants: Helena Wind, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Helena Wind, LLC.
    Filed Date: 1/13/21.
    Accession Number: 20210113-5156.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/21.

    Docket Numbers: EG21-72-000.
    Applicants: Sparta Solar, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Sparta Solar, LLC.
    Filed Date: 1/13/21.
    Accession Number: 20210113-5158.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/21.

    Docket Numbers: EG21-73-000.
    Applicants: Old 300 Solar Center, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Old 300 Solar Center, LLC.
    Filed Date: 1/13/21.
    Accession Number: 20210113-5176.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/21.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1818-025; ER10-1817-022; ER10-1819-029 ER10-
1820-032.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado, Northern States
Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, Northern States Power Company,
a Wisconsin corporation, Southwestern Public Service Company.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Public Service Company
of Colorado, et al.
    Filed Date: 1/13/21.
    Accession Number: 20210113-5166.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1429-015.
    Applicants: Versant Power.
    Description: Compliance filing: Joint Offer of Settlement--ER15-
1429 (Corrected TOFC) to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 1/14/21.
    Accession Number: 20210114-5016.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1610-002.
    Applicants: Lone Tree Wind, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Lone Tree
Wind, LLC.
    Filed Date: 1/13/21.
    Accession Number: 20210113-5162.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-293-002.
    Applicants: Horizon West Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Horizon West Transmission, LLC
December 31 Letter Order Compliance Filing to be effective 1/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 1/14/21.
    Accession Number: 20210114-5095.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-470-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 3675 Doniphan Electric Cooperative
Assn, Inc. NITSA NOA to be effective 9/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 1/14/21.
    Accession Number: 20210114-5051.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-483-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 3620R1 Kansas City Board of Public
Utilities NITSA NOA to be effective 9/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 1/13/21.
    Accession Number: 20210113-5119.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-880-000.
    Applicants: Northern Indiana Public Service Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of an Amended CIAC
Agreement to be effective 1/5/2021.
    Filed Date: 1/13/21.
    Accession Number: 20210113-5133.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-881-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Termination City of
Corona IFA & DSA SA Nos. 1077-1078 to be effective 1/16/2021.
    Filed Date: 1/14/21.
    Accession Number: 20210114-5045.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-882-000.
    Applicants: Outlaw Wind Project, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancelling section 10 to be
effective 1/15/2021.
    Filed Date: 1/14/21.
    Accession Number: 20210114-5063.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/4/21.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES21-25-000; ES21-26-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc., South Carolina
Generating Company, Inc.
    Description: Application under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act
for Authorization to Issue Securities for Dominion Energy South
Carolina, Inc. et al.
    Filed Date: 1/14/21.
    Accession Number: 20210114-5118.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/4/21.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but

intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 15, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-01349 Filed 1-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 23 (Friday, February 3, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 5398]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2387]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket Number USCG-2012-0022]

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

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Rock Island Railroad and Highway Drawbridge across the Upper
Mississippi River, mile 482.9, at Rock Island, Illinois. The deviation
is necessary to allow the Quad City Marathon to cross the bridge. This
deviation allows the bridge to be maintained in the closed-to-
navigation position for four hours.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 7:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on
September 23, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2012-0022 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2012-0022 in the
``Keyword'' box and then clicking ``Search''. They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Army Rock Island Arsenal requested
a temporary deviation for the Rock Island Railroad and Highway
Drawbridge, across the Upper Mississippi River, mile 482.9, at Rock
Island, Illinois to remain in the closed-to-navigation position for a
four-hour period from 7:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., September 23, 2012,
while a marathon is held between the cities of Davenport, IA and Rock
Island, IL. The Rock Island Railroad and Highway Drawbridge currently
operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, which states the general
requirement that drawbridges shall open promptly and fully for the
passage of vessels when a request to open is given in accordance with
the subpart.
    There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section
of the Upper Mississippi River.
    The Rock Island Railroad and Highway Drawbridge, in the closed-to-
navigation position, provides a vertical clearance of 23.8 feet above
normal pool. Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of
commercial tows and recreational watercraft. This temporary deviation
has been coordinated with waterway users. No objections were received.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: January 12, 2012.
Eric A. Washburn,
Bridge Administrator, Western Rivers.
[FR Doc. 2012-2387 Filed 2-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 234 (Thursday, December 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 85360-85361]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27000]

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

UNIFIED CARRIER REGISTRATION PLAN

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: December 8, 2023, 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Central time.

PLACE: This meeting will take place at the Hyatt Place San Antonio/
Riverwalk Hotel, 601 S St. Mary's Street, San Antonio, TX 78205. The
meeting will also be accessible via conference call and via Zoom
Meeting and Screenshare. Any interested person may call (i) 1-929-205-
6099 (U.S. Toll) or 1-669-900-6833 (U.S. Toll), Meeting ID: 934 8621
6961, to listen and participate in this meeting. The website to
participate via Zoom Meeting and Screenshare is https://kellen.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJcpf--qrz0jHNWJD7And5d9JryuJmFkf-nH.

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Unified Carrier Registration Plan
Enforcement Subcommittee (the ``Subcommittee'') will continue its work
in developing and implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan
and Agreement. The subject matter of this meeting will include:

Proposed Agenda

I. Call to Order--UCR Enforcement Subcommittee Chair

    The Subcommittee Chair will welcome attendees, call the meeting to
order, call roll for the Subcommittee, confirm whether a quorum is
present, and facilitate self-introductions.

II. Verification of Publication of Meeting Notice--UCR Executive
Director

    The UCR Executive Director will verify the publication of the
meeting notice on the UCR website and distribution to the UCR contact
list via email followed by the subsequent publication of the notice in
the Federal Register.

III. Review and Approval of Subcommittee Agenda and Setting of Ground
Rules--UCR Enforcement Subcommittee Chair

For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action
    The Subcommittee Agenda will be reviewed, and the Subcommittee will
consider adoption.
Ground Rules
[rtarr8] Subcommittee action only to be taken in designated areas on
agenda

IV. Review and Approval of Subcommittee Minutes From the March 2, 2023
Meeting--UCR Enforcement Subcommittee Chair

For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action
    Draft minutes from the March 2, 2023 Subcommittee meeting via
teleconference will be reviewed. The Subcommittee will consider action
to approve.

V. Discussion on Awarding of Annual UCR Enforcement Awards and Award
Criteria--UCR Enforcement Subcommittee Chair, UCR Enforcement
Subcommittee Vice-Chair

For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action
    The Subcommittee Chair will lead a discussion on the prospect of
awarding

annual UCR Enforcement Awards. Award criteria could include best
enforcement efficiency rate, most violations issued overall, and an
annual award to the inspector who issues the most UCR violations. The
Subcommittee may take action to recommend the implementation of an
awards program to the Board of Directors.

VI. Discussion of Biannual Enforcement Blitzes--UCR Enforcement
Subcommittee Chair and UCR Enforcement Subcommittee Vice-Chair

For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action
    The Subcommittee Vice-Chair will lead a discussion concerning the
possible implementation of a biannual enforcement blitz. The blitz
would target UCR enforcement in both participating and non-
participating states, with a weeklong voluntary blitz to occur at the
beginning of each registration year. Those states/agencies who issue
UCR violations but do not upload inspections to the NRS would be
provided forms to submit enforcement data. The subcommittee may take
action to recommend an enforcement blitz to the Board of Directors.

VII. Discussion of Roadside Enforcement for Carriers Who Are Under-
Registered--UCR Enforcement Subcommittee Chair, UCR Enforcement
Subcommittee Vice-Chair, and Representatives From Seikosoft

    The Subcommittee Vice-Chair will lead a discussion on the
possibility of roadside enforcement for motor carriers who are
identified as under-registered.

VIII. Enforcement Training PowerPoint Development--UCR Enforcement
Subcommittee Chair, UCR Enforcement Subcommittee Vice-Chair

    The Subcommittee Chair will provide an update on the progress of
the creation of the enforcement training PowerPoint.

IX. Other Business--UCR Enforcement Subcommittee Chair

    The Subcommittee Chair will call for any other items Subcommittee
members would like to discuss.

X. Adjournment--UCR Enforcement Subcommittee Chair

    The Subcommittee Chair will adjourn the meeting.
    The agenda will be available no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern time,
November 30, 2023 at: https://plan.ucr.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Elizabeth Leaman, Chair, Unified
Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

Alex B. Leath,
Chief Legal Officer, Unified Carrier Registration Plan.
[FR Doc. 2023-27000 Filed 12-5-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-YL-P


[Federal Register: June 4, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 106)]
[Notices]
[Page 30898-30900]
[DOCID:fr04jn07-109]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55818; File No. SR-NYSE-2007-48]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Proposed
Amendments to Rule 600 to Provide Guidance Regarding New and Pending
Arbitration Claims in Light of the Consolidation of NYSE Regulation
into NASD DR

May 25, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on May 23, 2007, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''
or the ``Exchange'') 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 substantially prepared by the
NYSE. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on
the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The NYSE proposes to amend current Rule 600 and adopt a new Rule
600A.
    As part of the consolidation of the member firm regulation function
of NYSE Regulation, Inc. (``NYSE Regulation'') with the National
Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD''), NYSE Regulation
will cease to provide an arbitration program, and its existing
arbitration department (``NYSE Arbitration'') will be consolidated with
that of NASD Dispute Resolution, Inc. (``NASD DR''). The proposed
amendments provide that the arbitration rules of the Exchange shall
apply only to NYSE arbitration cases pending prior to the effective
date of the consolidation, and that, thereafter, claims involving
member organizations, and/or associated persons, and/or other related
parties will be arbitrated under the Codes of Arbitration Procedure of
NASD DR. The text of the proposed rule is set forth below. Proposed new
language is underlined.
* * * * *

Rule 600 Arbitration

* * * * *

Supplementary Material

    Rules 600 through 639, with the exception of Rule 600A, apply only
to arbitrations commenced prior to [insert effective date of the
consolidation] and are otherwise of no force or effect. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, arbitrations filed with NYSE Arca on or prior to January
31, 2007 continue to be governed by the NYSE Arca Rule 12 in effect on
or prior to January 31, 2007, and arbitrations filed with NYSE Arca
Equities on or prior to January 31, 2007 continue to be governed by the
NYSE Arca Equities Rule 12 in effect on or prior to January 31, 2007.
On and after [insert effective date of the consolidation] all such
arbitrations shall, until concluded, be administered by NASD Dispute
Resolution, Inc. (``NASD DR'') pursuant to a Regulatory Services
Agreement with the Exchange.
* * * * *

Rule 600A

    (a) Duty to Arbitrate. (i) Any dispute, claim or controversy
between a member organization and another member organization shall be
arbitrated pursuant to the Codes of Arbitration Procedure of NASD DR;
and, (ii) any dispute, claim or controversy between a customer or non-
member and a member organization and/or associated person and/or other
related party, or between an associated person and a member
organization and/or an associated person arising in connection with the
business of such member organization and/or associated person in
connection with his or her activities as an associated person, shall be
arbitrated pursuant to NASD DR Codes of Arbitration Procedure as
provided by any duly executed and enforceable written agreement, or
upon the demand of the customer or non-member. However, such obligation
to arbitrate shall not extend to any controversy that is not permitted
to be arbitrated under NASD DR Codes of Arbitration Procedure.
    (b) Referrals. The Exchange may receive, investigate and take
disciplinary action with respect to any referral it receives from an
NASD DR arbitrator of any matter which comes to the attention of such
arbitrator during and in connection with the arbitrator's participation
in a proceeding, either from the record of the proceeding or from
material or communications related to the proceeding, that the
arbitrator has reason to believe may constitute a violation of the
Exchange's Rules or the federal securities laws.
    (c) Failure to Arbitrate or to Pay an Arbitration Award. Any member
organization or associated person who fails to submit to arbitration a
matter required to be arbitrated pursuant to this Rule, or that fails
to honor an arbitration award made pursuant to the Codes of Arbitration
Procedure of NASD DR, or made under the auspices of any other self-
regulatory organization, shall be subject to disciplinary proceedings
in accordance with Exchange Rule 476.
    (d) Other Actions. The submission of any matter to arbitration as
provided for under this Rule shall in no way limit or preclude any
right, action or determination by the Exchange that it would otherwise
be authorized to adopt, administer or enforce.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the NYSE included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The NYSE 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
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to provide guidance
regarding both new and pending arbitration claims in light of the
consolidation of NYSE Regulation into NASD DR. NYSE

Arbitration currently administers an arbitration program for NYSE
Regulation, governed by NYSE Regulation Rules 600 through 639. NYSE
Arbitration also administers a program for NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE
Arca'') and NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (``NYSE Arca Equities''), governed
by what is referred to as ``Rule 12.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NYSE Arca and NYSE Arca Equities have two separate rules
that govern arbitrations, one for Equity Trading Permit (``ETP'')
holders, and one for Option Trading Permit (``OTP'') holders and OTP
firms; both rules are known as ``Rule 12.'' Although Rule 12 has
subsequently been amended, for purposes of administering NYSE Arca
and NYSE Arca Equities arbitrations filed on or prior to January 31,
2007, NYSE Arbitration follows Rule 12 as it was in effect on that
date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the consolidation of NYSE Regulation with NASD,\5\ NYSE
Regulation will cease to administer an arbitration program, and its
existing arbitration department will be consolidated with NASD DR. As a
result, on or after the date of the consolidation, all arbitration
claims filed prior to the date of the consolidation and previously
subject to NYSE Regulation rules and administration will be
administered by NASD DR pursuant to a Regulatory Services Agreement
with the NYSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Additional information regarding the consolidation may be
found in: SR-NASD-2007-23 (March 19, 2007) concerning proposed
amendments to the By-Laws of NASD to implement governance and
related changes to accommodate the consolidation of the member firm
regulatory functions of NASD and NYSE Regulation, Inc.; and SR-NYSE-
2007-22 (February 27, 2007) concerning proposed amendments to
several NYSE rules which, among other matters, harmonize the rules
with corresponding NASD regulatory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the rules governing the administration of any particular
arbitration will depend on the date the case was filed. This will
ensure that any person that commenced arbitration under a particular
set of arbitration rules will continue to have the case administered
pursuant to those rules through to the case's conclusion. There are two
categories of cases. First, NYSE arbitration cases filed before the
effective date of the consolidation will continue to be governed by
existing NYSE Regulation arbitration rules, as would pending NYSE Arca
and NYSE Arca Equities cases filed on or after February 1, 2007.\6\
Second, those NYSE Arca and NYSE Arca Equities cases filed on or prior
to January 31, 2007 are (and will continue to be) governed by Rule 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Release No. 34-55142 (January 19, 2007), 72 FR 3898
(January 26, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-54) and Release No. 34-55141
(January 19, 2007), 72 FR 3897 (January 26, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
55).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Exchange Rule 600A provides detailed guidance concerning
claims involving member organizations, and/or associated persons and/or
other related parties, that are asserted on and after the date of the
consolidation. First, any dispute, claim or controversy between a
member organization and another member organization shall be arbitrated
pursuant to the Codes of Arbitration Procedure of NASD DR. Second, any
dispute, claim or controversy between a customer or a non-member and a
member organization, and/or associated person and/or other related
party shall be arbitrated pursuant to NASD DR Codes of Arbitration
Procedure as provided by any duly executed and enforceable written
agreement, or upon the demand of the customer or non-member. Third, any
dispute, claim or controversy between an associated person and a member
organization and/or an associated person arising in connection with the
business of such member organization and/or associated person in
connection with his or her activities as an associated person, shall be
arbitrated pursuant to NASD DR Codes of Arbitration Procedure as
provided by any duly executed and enforceable written agreement.
    In almost all cases the change from NYSE to NASD DR arbitration
rules should not result in material, substantive differences to persons
participating in the arbitration process. However, one difference is
the treatment of employment discrimination claims. NASD DR rules
provide that any claim alleging employment discrimination, including
any sexual harassment claims, in violation of a statute, will be
eligible for arbitration pursuant to either a pre-dispute or a post-
dispute agreement to arbitrate. In contrast, Exchange Rule 600(f)
permits claims to be arbitrated only when the parties have agreed to
arbitrate the claim after it has arisen.
    Rule 600A will explicitly retain the Exchange's enforcement
authority related to arbitration. In appropriate cases, arbitrators
refer to the Exchange potential violations of the Exchange's Rules or
the federal securities laws that come to their attention during and in
connection with a proceeding. Rule 600A will specify that the Exchange
will retain the ability to take action based on such referrals that may
come from arbitrators in cases being arbitrated at NASD DR.
    Rule 600A will also retain the substance of current Exchange Rule
637, regarding the obligation to honor arbitration awards. It will
provide that any Exchange member organization, or associated person of
any Exchange member organization, that fails to honor an award of
arbitrators rendered under the NASD DR Codes of Arbitration Procedure,
or under the auspices of any other self-regulatory organization, shall
be subject to disciplinary proceedings in accordance with Exchange Rule
476. It will also specify that failure to submit a matter to
arbitration as required by Rule 600A will also subject the member
organization to Exchange disciplinary action.
    Rule 600A will also specify that the submission of any matter to
arbitration as provided for under the Rule shall in no way limit or
preclude any right, action or determination by the Exchange that it
would otherwise be authorized to adopt, administer or enforce.
    Finally, Supplementary Material added to existing Rule 600, and to
become effective on the effective date of the consolidation, will
specify that the current NYSE arbitration rules, Rules 600 through 639,
will thereafter apply only to arbitrations commenced prior to the
effective date of the consolidation and will be otherwise of no force
or effect. The Supplementary Material will also specify that
arbitrations filed with NYSE Arca or NYSE Arca Equities on or prior to
January 31, 2007 will continue to be governed by Rule 12. This will
ensure that those who commenced arbitrations under a particular set of
arbitration rules will continue to have their cases administered
pursuant to those same rules through to the cases' conclusion. The
Supplementary Material will also note that from and after the effective
date of the consolidation, all outstanding arbitrations shall, until
concluded, be administered by NASD DR pursuant to a Regulatory Services
Agreement with the Exchange.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) \7\ of the Act, which
requires, among other things, that the rules of an Exchange be designed
to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect
investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change will
streamline the arbitration process and provide for a unified and more
efficient arbitration forum with one set of arbitration rules and
administrative procedures. This will allow resources to be devoted to
maintaining and improving the NASD DR program, rather than splitting
resources between two mainly duplicative programs. As a result of these
improvements, the proposed rule change will better protect investors
and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Within 35 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 the 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NYSE-2007-48 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-48. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the NYSE. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File number SR-NYSE-2007-48 and should be submitted on or before June
25, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-10661 Filed 6-1-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: July 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 140)]
[Notices]
[Page 36483-36484]
[DOCID:fr23jy09-34]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-1269-001]

Escondido Energy Center, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

July 16, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Escondido Energy Center, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is July 27, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission,

888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-17499 Filed 7-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION SAN 4845 Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA / Office of Air and Radiation, OTAQ 2.

OMB control number b. G None a. 2060 0287 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b.

Revision of a currently approved collection c. G Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a.

Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes

No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. G Three years from approval date b. X Other Specify: 3/ 31/ 08 7. Title In Use Testing of On Road Heavy Duty Diesel Engines and Vehicles ( Final Rule)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) 1684.08 9. Keywords Environmental protection; diesel testing, in use testing 10. Abstract The information collection contained in this ICR is necessary to ensure compliance with the associated emission standards. Heavy duty diesel engine manufacturers will need to comply with information collection requirements.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ G Voluntary b. __ G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P G Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 81 b. Total annual responses 1,006 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 95 % c. Total hours requested 147,218 d. Current OMB inventory 143,604 e. Difference 3,614 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 3,614 2. Adjustment 0 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs $ 1,332 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) $ 5,490 c. Total annualized cost requested $ 6,822 d. Current OMB inventory $ 5,485 e. Difference $ 1,337 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change $ 1,337 2. Adjustment 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. _ P_ Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a.

Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c.

Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4.

Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe) 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes

No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Alan Stout Phone: 734 214 4805 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Chet France, Director, Assessment and Standards Division Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Information Collection Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95