[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 312-314]
[FR Doc No: 2020-29081]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2019-D-2105]

Mouse Embryo Assay for Assisted Reproduction Technology Devices;
Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff;
Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a final guidance entitled ``Mouse Embryo Assay for
Assisted Reproduction Technology Devices.'' This guidance document
provides recommendations on conducting the mouse embryo assay to
support premarket submissions and lot release of assisted reproduction
technology devices.

DATES: The announcement of the guidance is published in the Federal
Register on January 5, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit either electronic or written comments on
Agency guidances at any time as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2019-D-2105 for ``Mouse Embryo Assay for Assisted Reproduction
Technology Devices.'' Received comments will be placed in the docket
and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,''
publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets
Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 240-
402-7500.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for
download from the internet. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
for information on electronic access to the guidance. Submit written
requests for a single hard copy of the guidance document entitled
``Mouse Embryo Assay for Assisted Reproduction Technology Devices'' to
the Office of Policy, Guidance and Policy Development, Center for
Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903
New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5431, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002.
Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in
processing your request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pei-Hsuan (Chris) Hung, Center for
Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903
New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 2647, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
240-402-5928.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The majority of assisted reproduction technology (ART) devices
directly or indirectly contact gametes and/or embryos during use. The
mouse embryo assay (MEA) is used to assess the potential for
embryotoxicity of devices that contact gametes and/or embryos. Several
classification regulations under part 884 (21 CFR part 884) include
special controls that require MEA testing or information. MEA may also
be used by sponsors to support premarket submissions for other devices
that are intended to contact gametes and/or embryos during their use.
However, there are no voluntary consensus standards that describe how
to conduct the MEA. This guidance provides recommendations for
conducting the MEA to support premarket submissions and lot release for
ART devices that are intended to contact gametes and/or embryos and to
comply with the special controls for those devices classified under
part 884 that require MEA testing or information.
    A notice of availability of the draft guidance appeared in the
Federal Register of June 13, 2019 (84 FR 27637). FDA considered
comments received and revised the guidance as appropriate in response
to the comments, including minor technical edits and clarifications.
Specifically, the final guidance includes revisions to recommend that
liquid-based test articles should be prepared per the instructions for
use; clarify FDA's recommended exposure time for test articles
depending on their clinical use duration; include additional
specificity on the number of embryos that should be used; discuss how
accelerated aging can also be used to develop test articles at the end
of the proposed shelf-life; and when procedural modifications or
options should be justified in the test report. In addition, FDA made
editorial changes to the guidance for clarity.
    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
current thinking of FDA on ``Mouse Embryo Assay for Assisted
Reproduction Technology Devices.'' It does not establish any rights for
any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an
alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable
statutes and regulations.

II. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by
downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search capability
for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents
is available at https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/device-advice-comprehensive-regulatory-assistance/guidance-documents-medical-devices-and-radiation-emitting-products. This guidance document is also
available at https://www.regulations.gov and at https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents. Persons unable to
download an electronic copy of ``Mouse Embryo Assay for Assisted
Reproduction Technology Devices'' may send an email request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to receive an electronic copy of the document.
Please use the document number 16015 and complete title to identify the
guidance you are requesting.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does
refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. Therefore,
clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) is not
required for this guidance. The previously approved collections of
information are subject to review by OMB under the PRA. The collections
of information in the following FDA regulations have been approved by
OMB as listed in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            OMB control
            21 CFR part                     Topic               No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
807, subpart E....................  Premarket                  0910-0120
                                     Notification.
800, 801, and 809.................  Medical Device             0910-0485
                                     Labeling
                                     Regulations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: December 28, 2020.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-29081 Filed 1-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: December 20, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 244)]
[Notices]
[Page 76400-76404]
[DOCID:fr20de06-141]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54930; File No. SR-MSRB-2006-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Amendments
to Rule G-27, on Supervision, Rule G-8, on Recordkeeping, and Rule G-9,
on Record Retention

December 13, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 24, 2006, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(``MSRB'' or ``Board'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the MSRB. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The MSRB is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change
consisting of amendments to Rule G-27, on supervision, and the related
recordkeeping and record retention requirements of Rules G-8 and G-9.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's Web
site (http://www.msrb.org), at the MSRB's principal office, and at the

Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the MSRB 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 MSRB 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
    Over the past two years, NASD and the New York Stock Exchange
(``NYSE'') have adopted a series of rule changes designed to strengthen
the supervisory control procedures of their member firms. Specifically,
NASD amended its Rule 3010 (Supervision) to include more stringent
office inspection rules, and adopted new Rule 3012 (Supervisory Control
System) to require the testing and verification of a firm's supervisory
procedures.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The NASD and NYSE amendments are substantially similar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MSRB Rule G-27, on supervision, requires brokers, dealers and
municipal securities dealers (collectively referred to as ``dealers'')
to supervise their municipal securities activities by designating
individuals with supervisory responsibilities for municipal securities
activities, adopting written supervisory procedures, and reviewing
transactions and correspondence. Similarly, NASD Rule 3010 requires
dealers to establish a supervisory system, adopt written supervisory
procedures, review transactions and correspondence, and, most recently,
to conduct internal inspections with minimum inspection cycles. NASD
also recently adopted new Rule 3012 to require that dealers: (1) Test
and verify that its supervisory procedures are sufficient, and amend or
create additional supervisory procedures where the testing and
verification identify a need; and (2) establish procedures that are
reasonably designed to review and supervise, on a day-to-day basis, the
customer account activity conducted by the dealer's producing managers.
    In April 2006, the MSRB published for comment draft amendments to
Rule G-27, which incorporated most of the NASD requirements contained
in Rules 3010 and 3012 in order to promote regulatory consistency and
make these requirements specifically applicable to the municipal
securities activities of securities firms and bank dealers.\4\ The
Board received two comment letters in response to the notice, both of
which expressed support for the draft amendments, as more fully
described below.\5\ Based on the comment letters received, as well as
discussions with various industry participants and the relevant
regulatory agencies, the Board determined to adopt the draft amendments
with one substantive revision relating to the designation of
appropriate principal. Although the new supervisory activities required
under the proposed rule change are derived from NASD requirements,
these activities relate specifically to a dealer's municipal securities
activities and require in-depth knowledge of MSRB rules. Therefore, the
Board believes it is appropriate that these supervisory activities be
undertaken by a municipal securities principal (or a municipal fund
securities limited principal in the case of activities related to
municipal fund securities). The proposed rule change clarifies these
requirements by amending the ``Appropriate Principal'' provision in
Rule G-27(b)(ii)(C).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ MSRB Notice 2006-11 (April 21, 2006).
    \5\ Although the notice specifically requested comment from bank
dealers, particularly on their ability to comply with the new
requirements relating to tape recording of conversations, office
inspection, and the new supervisory control provisions, the Board
did not receive comment letters from bank dealers. Based on the
absence of comment letters from this segment of the industry, as
well as informal discussions with the bank regulatory agencies, the
Board has no reason to believe that bank dealers will be unable to
comply with the new requirements for supervision.
    \6\ This provision is also amended to make clear that
supervision with respect to correspondence under Rule G-27(e) is to
be undertaken by a municipal securities principal (or a municipal
fund securities limited principal in the case of correspondence
relating to municipal fund securities) or a municipal securities
sales principal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB believes that adopting most of the requirements of NASD
Rules 3010 and 3012 will help ensure a coordinated regulatory approach
in the area of supervision, and will facilitate inspection and
enforcement.\7\ The proposed amendments to Rule G-27 are described
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The MSRB notes that NASD Rule 3013 (Annual Certification of
Compliance and Supervisory Processes) requires NASD member firms to
designate a principal to serve as chief compliance officer and to
certify, on an annual basis, that the member has in place processes
to establish, maintain, review, test and modify written compliance
policies and written supervisory procedures designed to achieve
compliance with applicable NASD rules, MSRB rules and federal
securities laws and regulations. This requirement became fully
operative on April 1, 2006. Since all NASD member firms are subject
to this rule (which requires that firms have supervisory procedures
for compliance with MSRB rules), the Board has not incorporated this
requirement into amended Rule G-27. Bank dealers, however, are not
currently subject to this requirement since they are not NASD
members. Therefore, after the Rule G-27 amendments have been in
effect for approximately a year, the Board will seek feedback from
the bank regulators concerning bank dealers' ability to comply with
the new supervisory requirements over that time period. Assuming
there are no compliance problems or concerns in this area, the Board
will then consider the propriety of adopting an annual certification
requirement for bank dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of Proposed Amendments

    The proposed amendments modify section (b) of Rule G-27, on
supervisory system; add new subsection (c)(ii), on tape recording of
conversations; add new subsection (c)(iii) on updating written
supervisory procedures; add new section (d), on internal inspections;
add new section (f), on supervisory control system; and add new
definitions section (g). As a general principle, the requirements of
Rule G-27 apply only with respect to those registered persons who
engage in municipal securities activities and those offices in which
such municipal securities activities are undertaken (regardless of the
level or amount of such municipal securities activities).

Supervisory System

    The proposed amendments modify section (b) of Rule G-27, on
supervisory system, to include the following five provisions: \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ These provisions are based on NASD Rule 3010(a)(3)-(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Designation of certain locations as offices of supervisory
jurisdiction (``OSJ'') (G-27(b)(iii));
     Designation of one or more appropriately registered
principals in each OSJ, including the main office, and one or more
appropriately registered representatives or principals in each non-OSJ
branch office with authority to carry out the supervisory
responsibilities assigned to that office by the dealer (G-27(b)(iv));
     Assignment of each registered person to an appropriately
registered representative or principal who shall be responsible for
supervising that person's activities (G-27(b)(v));
     Reasonable efforts to determine that all supervisory
personnel are qualified by virtue of experience or training to carry
out their assigned responsibilities (G-27(b)(vi)); and
     Participation of each registered representative and
principal in an annual meeting to discuss compliance matters (G-
27(b)(vii)).
    The amendments also include a reference in Rule G-27(b)(ii)(C) to
``municipal fund securities limited principal'' that is added to
explicitly affirm the supervisory functions that such a principal may
undertake pursuant to Rule G-3, on professional qualifications.
Specifically, paragraph (b)(iv)(C) of Rule G-3 allows a municipal fund
securities limited

principal to ``undertake all actions required or permitted under any
Board rule to be taken by a municipal securities principal, but solely
with respect to activities related to municipal fund securities.''

Tape Recording of Conversations

    The amendments incorporate NASD Rule 3010(b)(2), on tape recording
of conversations, in Rule G-27(c)(ii). Subsection (c)(ii) requires
dealers to establish special supervisory procedures, including the tape
recording of conversations, when they have hired more than a specified
percentage of registered persons from certain firms that have been
expelled or have had their broker/dealer registrations revoked for
violations of sales practice rules. The requisite percentage varies
depending on the size of the dealer, from 40 percent for a small dealer
to 20 percent for a larger dealer. The dealer must establish the
required supervisory procedures within 30 days of receiving notice from
their registered securities association or bank regulator, or obtaining
actual knowledge that it is subject to this provision of the rule.
    Under this provision, if the requisite percentage of a dealer's
sales force previously was employed by a disciplined firm, the dealer
will be required to adopt special written procedures to supervise the
telemarketing activities of all its registered persons. The procedures
require, at a minimum, that the dealer tape record all telephone
conversations between all of its registered persons and both existing
and potential customers for a period of two years. The measures
required by this provision are designed to prevent a recurrence of
sales practice abuse or other customer harm that caused the disciplined
firm to have its registration revoked.
    This provision also requires dealers subject to the taping
requirement to establish reasonable procedures for reviewing tape
recordings to ensure compliance with securities laws and applicable
rules and regulations, to retain and catalog the tapes, and to submit
reports to the appropriate registered securities association or bank
regulator on their supervision of telemarketing.

Updating Written Supervisory Procedures

    Subsection (c)(iii) is added to replace existing section (e), which
currently requires a dealer to revise and update its written
supervisory procedures as necessary to respond to changes in Board or
other applicable rules. Proposed subsection (c)(iii) has language that
mirrors the language in NASD Rule 3010(b)(4), and requires each dealer
to keep a copy of procedures at each location where supervisory
activities are conducted and to amend its written supervisory
procedures within a reasonable time after changes occur.

Internal Inspections

    The amendments incorporate NASD Rule 3010(c), on internal
inspections, in new section (d) under Rule G-27. This new section
imposes office inspection requirements that establish minimum
inspection cycles and delineate the topics that must be covered during
such inspections as well as the manner in which inspections are
documented.\9\ In addition, the amendments include new section (g)
which defines the designations ``office of supervisory jurisdiction''
and ``branch office'' used in section (d), among other terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The stringency of the office inspection requirements is
graduated and based on designations of offices under specifically
defined categories, such as office of supervisory jurisdiction,
supervisory and non-supervisory branch offices, and non-branch
offices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mandatory Inspection Cycles. Section (d) obligates dealers to
inspect OSJs and supervisory branch offices on at least an annual
basis.\10\ It also requires dealers to inspect all non-supervisory
branch offices at least once every three years. It directs dealers,
however, to consider when it might be appropriate to conduct more
frequent inspection of non-supervisory branch offices. Further, Rule G-
27(d) requires dealers to inspect non-branch locations ``on a regular
periodic schedule.'' Each dealer must document, as part of its written
supervisory procedures, an explanation of how the dealer determined the
frequency of its examination schedule. In establishing the schedule,
dealers should consider the nature and complexity of the securities
activities for which each non-branch location is responsible, and the
frequency of customer contact at the non-branch location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ A ``branch office'' is defined in Rule G-27(g) as ``any
location where one or more associated persons of a dealer regularly
conducts the business of effecting any transactions in, or inducing
or attempting to induce the purchase or sale of any security, or is
held out as such, excluding [certain enumerated locations].'' A
``supervisory branch office'' is any non-OSJ branch office that is
responsible for supervising one or more non-branch offices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Independent Office Inspections. Section (d) places limits on who is
eligible to perform the required inspection function. This provision
prohibits office inspections from being performed by:
     The branch office manager;
     Any person within the office who has supervisory
responsibilities; or
     Any individual who is directly or indirectly supervised by
such person(s).
    However, an exception to this limitation is provided if the dealer
is so limited in size and resources that it cannot comply with it.
    Content of Inspections and Requirements for Inspection Reports.
Dealers must document each office inspection by preparing a written
report that documents when it conducted the inspection and the results
of its testing and verification in the following areas:
     Safeguarding customer funds and securities;
     Maintaining books and records;
     Supervising customer accounts services by branch office
managers;
     Transmitting funds between customer and registered
representative and between customers and third parties;
     Validating customer address changes; and
     Validating changes in customer account information.
    Heightened Inspection Requirements. Section (d) also requires
dealers to adopt, under certain circumstances, procedures that require
heightened inspections designed to avoid conflicts of interest arising
from economic, commercial or financial interests that the branch
manager's supervisor holds in the person or activities being inspected.
Such heightened inspection procedures are required if (1) the person
conducting the inspection reports to the branch office manager's
supervisor or works in an office supervised by the branch manager's
supervisor; and (2) the branch office manager generates 20% or more of
the revenue of the business units supervised by the branch office
manager's supervisor.\11\ Dealers must calculate the 20% threshold in
the same manner as when determining whether a producing manager must be
subject to heightened supervision, as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The 2004 NTM provides examples of such heightened
inspection procedures under NASD Rule 3010, including, without
limitation, unannounced office inspections; increasing the frequency
of inspections; broadening the scope of activities inspected; and/or
having one or more principals review or approve the inspection. The
MSRB would view these examples as equally applicable to the
heightened inspection procedures required under Rule G-27(d)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Supervisory Control System

    The amendments also include new section (f), derived from NASD Rule
3012, which incorporates the following new requirements:
    Testing and Verification of Supervisory Control Procedures. Section

(f) requires dealers to designate and identify one or more principals
charged with establishing, maintaining and enforcing a system of
``supervisory control policies and procedures'' that:
     Test and verify that a dealer's supervisory procedures are
reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the federal securities
laws and MSRB rules; and
     Create additional or amended supervisory procedures where
a need for such procedures is identified by such testing.
    Annual Submission of Report to Senior Management. At least once
annually, the principal(s) designated under section (f) must submit a
report to senior management that details the dealer's supervisory
control policies and procedures, summarizes the results of testing and
identifies significant weaknesses, and discusses additional or amended
procedures implemented in response to such testing.
    The Board recognizes that situations may arise where a dealer is
required under the rules of another self-regulatory organization to
produce a similar report. The Board does not intend for a dealer to
produce duplicative reports in such situations. Instead, for purposes
of this section (f), a dealer may prepare a single report so long as
there is coordination in the preparation and submission of such report
between any principal(s) designated by the dealer pursuant to the rules
of another self-regulatory organization and the principal designated
under Rule G-27(b)(ii)(C) or (f)(i). The dealer should adequately
document such coordination between or among the various principals.
    Supervision of Producing Manager's Customer Account Activity.
Section (f) requires dealers to adopt procedures to review and
supervise daily customer account activities of each branch office
manager, sales manager, regional or district sales manager, or any
person performing similar supervisory functions (``producing
managers''). These policies and procedures must include ``a means of
customer confirmation, notification, or follow-up that can be
documented.'' Specifically, the provision requires that policies and
procedures must be reasonably designed to review and monitor the
following activities:
     All transmittals of funds and securities to and from
customer accounts;
     Changes of customer's address, including procedures to
validate change of address; and
     Changes in customer investment objectives, including
validation of such changes.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ If a dealer does not engage in any of these activities,
then the dealer's supervisory control policies and procedures must
note that the dealer is not engaged in these activities and that the
supervisory control policies and procedures must be amended before
the dealer may engage in such activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Independent Review of Producing Manager. Section (f) requires an
independent review of the producing manager. This review must be
conducted by a person or persons who are senior to, or ``otherwise
independent'' of, the producing manager. To be considered ``otherwise
independent'' of the producing manager, the person performing the
review:
     Must not report, either directly or indirectly, to the
producing manager he or she is reviewing;
     Must be located at a different office than the producing
manager;
     Must not have supervisory authority over any of the
activity under review, including not being directly compensated in
whole or in part as a result of such activity; and
     Must alternate such review responsibility with another
person at least once every two years.
    Section (f) also requires dealers to adopt, under certain
circumstances, heightened supervisory procedures designed to avoid
conflicts of interest arising from economic, commercial or financial
interests that the supervisor holds in the person or activities being
supervised. Such heightened supervisory procedures are required with
respect to producing managers who are responsible for generating at
least 20% of the revenue of the business which is supervised by the
producing manager's supervisor.\13\ As noted above, the relevant
provisions of Rule G-27 would apply if any portion of the 20% threshold
is attributable to revenue generated through municipal securities
transactions. However, the heightened supervision requirement does not
apply where an otherwise independent person conducts the producing
manager's reviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The 2004 NTM provides examples of such heightened
supervisory procedures under NASD Rule 3012, including, without
limitation, unannounced supervisory reviews; increasing the
frequency of supervisory reviews by different reviewers within a
certain time period; broadening the scope of activities reviewed;
and/or having one or more principals approve the supervisory review
of such producing manager. The MSRB would view these examples as
equally applicable to the heightened supervisory procedures required
under Rule G-27(f)(ii)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, section (f) provides an exception from the independent
review requirement if a dealer is so limited in size and resources that
it is unable to identify anyone who is senior to or otherwise
independent of the producing manager to conduct the review (the
``limited size and resource'' exception).
* * * * *
    The MSRB intends generally that the provisions of Rule G-27 be read
consistently with the analogous NASD provisions, unless the MSRB
specifically indicates otherwise. Thus, relevant NASD interpretations
would be presumed to apply to the comparable MSRB provision, subject to
the MSRB's right to make distinctions when necessary and appropriate.
The MSRB recommends that dealers, including bank dealers, regularly
visit or link to the relevant portions of the NASD Web site on
supervision for current NASD interpretations of such analogous
provisions.\14\ Furthermore, the MSRB intends to continue coordinating
its requirements relating to supervision with those of the other
relevant self-regulatory organizations in the securities markets
whenever appropriate for dealers engaging in municipal securities
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ NASD's Web site on supervision is located at http://www.nasd.com/RulesRegulation/IssueCenter/SupervisoryControl/index.htm
.

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

    Finally, NASD Rule 3012 (Supervisory Control System) provides that
``Any member in compliance with substantially similar requirements of
the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. shall be deemed to be in compliance
with the provisions of this Rule.'' We note that the amendments to Rule
G-27 incorporate substantially all of NASD Rule 3012. Therefore, the
MSRB believes that any dealer in compliance with similar NASD or NYSE
requirements would be deemed in compliance with the comparable
requirements of Rule G-27(f), on supervisory control system, so long as
there is coordination between or among any principal(s) designated by
the dealer pursuant to the rules of NASD or the NYSE and the
appropriate principal designated pursuant to Rule G-27(b)(ii)(C).
2. Statutory Basis
    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act,\15\ which provides that the MSRB's
rules shall:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).

Be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect

to, and facilitating transactions in municipal securities, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market
in municipal securities, and, in general, to protect investors and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the public interest.

    The MSRB believes that by conforming Rule G-27 to the relevant NASD
rules on supervision and thereby making such requirements specifically
applicable to the municipal securities activities of securities firms
and bank dealers, the proposed rule change will promote regulatory
consistency by facilitating dealer compliance with such requirements,
as well as by facilitating the inspection and enforcement thereof.

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

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

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

    In April 2006 the MSRB published for comment draft amendments to
Rule G-27 which incorporated most of the NASD requirements contained in
Rules 3010 and 3012 in order to promote regulatory consistency and make
these requirements specifically applicable to the municipal securities
activities of securities firms and bank dealers. In response to its
notice, the Board received two comment letters, both of which expressed
support for the draft amendments. The Investment Company Institute
(``ICI'') noted that conforming MSRB requirements to those of the NASD
``will strengthen the current supervisory systems of municipal
securities dealers because NASD rules require a more structured and
formalized supervisory system than Rule G-27 in its current form.'' ICI
further stated that the proposal will ``facilitate compliance by those
dealers that are dually registered with the MSRB and the NASD * * *
[and that this] conformity should also enable the NASD to more
efficiently inspect those dealers that are subject to rules of both
self-regulatory organizations.''
    The other commentator--BSC Securities--was supportive of the draft
amendments but was concerned about ``unintended consequences of
rulemaking.'' BSC noted that, as a small firm, it is particularly
concerned with costs of compliance and therefore urged the Board to
adopt provisions that are ``identical (not `substantially similar') to
other SRO's rules to ensure the coordination of regulatory
approaches.'' While the Board is sensitive to the costs of compliance,
particularly in the case of smaller dealers, we believe that the
amendments are appropriate and will result, as ICI stated, in ``no
substantive difference in the supervisory systems imposed by the rules
of the MSRB and the NASD.''

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 such proposed rule change, or
    B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.
    The MSRB has proposed that the amendments become effective six
months after Commission approval of the proposed rule change.

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-MSRB-2006-10 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2006-10. 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 MSRB's
offices. 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-
MSRB-2006-10 and should be submitted on or before January 10, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-21779 Filed 12-19-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 34)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 7829-7832]
[DOCID:fr21fe07-6]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 70

[EPA-R07-OAR-2006-0803; FRL-8278-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Operating
Permits Program; State of Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to the Missouri State
Implementation Plan (SIP) and Operating Permits Program. The revisions
clarify the rule and streamline processes without negatively impacting
air quality. The approved revisions will ensure consistency between the
state and the Federally-approved rules.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective April 23, 2007, without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by March 23, 2007.
If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that
the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2006-0803, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail: Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City,
Kansas 66101.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to Amy Algoe-
Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development
Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2006-0803. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov
 or e-mail information that you consider to be CBI

or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an

``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are

available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in

hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and
Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. excluding Federal holidays. The interested
persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment
with the office at least 24 hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Algoe-Eakin at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This section provides
additional information by addressing the following questions:

What is a SIP?
What is the Federal approval process for a SIP?
What does Federal approval of a state regulation mean to me?
What is the part 70 operating permits program?
What is the Federal approval process for an operating permits
program?
What is being addressed in this document?
Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision and a Part 70
revision been met?
What action is EPA taking?

What is a SIP?

    Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to develop
air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that state
air quality meets the national ambient air quality standards
established by EPA. These ambient standards are established under
section 109 of the CAA, and they currently address six criteria
pollutants. These pollutants are: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide,
ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.
    Each state must submit these regulations and control strategies to
us for approval and incorporation into the Federally-enforceable SIP.
Each Federally-approved SIP protects air quality primarily by
addressing air pollution at its point of origin. These SIPs can be
extensive, containing state regulations or other enforceable documents
and supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring
networks, and modeling demonstrations.

What is the Federal approval process for a SIP?

    In order for state regulations to be incorporated into the
Federally-enforceable SIP, states must formally adopt the regulations
and control strategies consistent with state and Federal requirements.
This process generally includes a public notice, public hearing, public
comment period, and a formal adoption by a state-authorized rulemaking
body.
    Once a state rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the
state submits it to us for inclusion into the SIP. We must provide
public notice and seek additional public comment regarding the proposed
Federal action on the state submission. If adverse comments are
received, they must be addressed prior to any final Federal action by
us.
    All state regulations and supporting information approved by EPA
under section 110 of the CAA are incorporated into the Federally-
approved SIP. Records of such SIP actions are maintained in the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) at title 40, part 52, entitled ``Approval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plans.'' The actual state regulations
which are approved are not reproduced in their entirety in the CFR
outright but are ``incorporated by reference,'' which means that we
have approved a given state regulation with a specific effective date.

What does Federal approval of a state regulation mean to me?

    Enforcement of the state regulation before and after it is
incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP is primarily a state
responsibility. However, after the regulation is Federally approved, we
are authorized to take enforcement action against violators. Citizens
are also offered legal recourse to address violations as described in
section 304 of the CAA.

What is the part 70 operating permits program?

    The CAA Amendments of 1990 require all states to develop operating
permits programs that meet certain Federal criteria. In implementing
this program, the states are to require certain sources of air
pollution to obtain permits that contain all applicable requirements
under the CAA. One purpose of the part 70 operating permits program is
to improve enforcement by issuing each source a single permit that
consolidates all of the applicable CAA requirements into a Federally-
enforceable document. By consolidating all of the applicable
requirements for a facility into one document, the source, the public,
and the permitting authorities can more easily determine what CAA
requirements apply and how compliance with those requirements is
determined.
    Sources required to obtain an operating permit under this program
include ``major'' sources of air pollution and certain other sources
specified in the CAA or in our implementing regulations. For example,
all sources regulated under the acid rain program, regardless of size,
must obtain permits. Examples of major sources include those that emit
100 tons per year or more of volatile organic compounds, carbon
monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, or PM10;
those that emit 10 tons per year of any single hazardous air pollutant
(HAP) (specifically listed under the CAA); or those that emit 25 tons
per year or more of a combination of HAPs.
    Revision to the state and local agencies operating permits program
are also subject to public notice, comment, and our approval.

What is the Federal approval process for an operating permits program?

    In order for state regulations to be incorporated into the
Federally-enforceable Title V operating permits program, states must
formally adopt regulations consistent with state and Federal
requirements. This process generally includes a public notice, public
hearing, public comment period, and a formal adoption by a state-
authorized rulemaking body.
    Once a state rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the
state submits it to us for inclusion into the approved operating
permits program. We must provide public notice and seek additional
public comment regarding the proposed Federal action on the state
submission. If adverse comments are received, they must be addressed
prior to any final Federal action by us.
    All state regulations and supporting information approved by EPA
under section 502 of the CAA are incorporated into the Federally-
approved operating permits program. Records of such actions are
maintained in the CFR at Title 40, part 70, appendix A, entitled
``Approval Status of State and Local Operating Permits Programs.''

What is being addressed in this document?

    On January 3, 2006, Missouri requested that EPA approve a revision
to the SIP and Operating Permits Program to include revisions to the
Operating Permits rule, 10 CSR 10-6.065. The rule revisions streamline
the basic and intermediate operating permits, which will minimize
workload for both industry and state air program staff while
maintaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS). The rule revisions include the following:
     General reformatting of the rule,
     Added the definition of ``Air Pollutant'' and added a
statement that definitions specified in this rule may be found in the
Definitions and Common Reference Table Rule, 10 CSR 10-6.020,
     Added new Section (3), which describes the process for
issuance of single, multiple or general permits,
     Revised Section (4), which relates to the Basic State
Operating Permits, and we are not acting on this section pursuant to
the December 20, 2006, letter from MDNR.
     Revised Section (5), which relates to the Intermediate
State Operating Permits; these revisions include deleting references to
Section (4), revising procedures for permit notifications, including
rule language for standard permit content, clarifying the relationship
between single, multiple and general permits, and outlines permit
procedures for notifying the Administrator of state intermediate
operating permits. These changes to the intermediate program do not
affect the stringency of the SIP-approved program but merely make it
more consistent with the state's Title V program.
     Amended subsection (6)(B), Part 70 Operating Permit
Applications, to provide for a specific date by which an installation
must file a complete application and provide for a specific date when
an installation becomes subject to Part 70 operating permits. It should
be noted that this is the only change in the rule revisions which
specifically relates to Missouri's Title V operating permit program. It
does not change the applicability of the approved program but merely
makes it more explicit.
    Further information on specific changes made to this rule is
available in the Technical Support Documentation developed for this
action.

Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision and a Part 70
revision been met?

    The submittal satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part
51, appendix V. In addition, the state submittal has met the public
notice requirements for SIP submission in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102
and met the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA. Finally, the
submittal met the substantive requirements of Title V of the 1990 CAA
Amendments and 40 CFR part 70.

What action is EPA taking?

    We are approving the revisions to the Missouri Operating Permits
rule, 10 CSR 10-6.065, into the SIP and Operating Permit Program. Per
Missouri's request, we are not approving revisions to Section (4) into
the SIP or Part 70 as this section relates to the state's Basic
Operating Permit Program.
    We are processing this action as a direct final action because the
revisions make routine changes to the existing rules, which are
noncontroversial and make regulatory revisions required by state
statute. Therefore, we do not anticipate any adverse comments. Please
note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if
that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse
comment.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it 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).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does 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 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP and Title V submissions, EPA's role is to approve
state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a state
submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    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. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by April 23, 2007. 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 may not be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 70

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 9, 2007.
John B. Askew,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

0
Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart AA--Missouri

0
2. In Sec.  52.1320(c) the table is amended under Chapter 6 by revising
the entry for ``10-6.065'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    State
    Missouri citation            Title         effective date      EPA approval date           Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Missouri Department of Natural Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chapter 6--Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control
                                      Regulations for the State of Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-6.065................  Operating Permits..        09/30/05  02/21/07 [insert FR page  Section (4) Basic State
                                                                number where the          Operating Permits, has
                                                                document begins].         not been approved as
                                                                                part of the SIP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

PART 70--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:

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

Appendix A--[Amended]

0
2. Appendix A to part 70 is amended by adding paragraph (t) under
Missouri to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70--Approval Status of State and Local Operating
Permits Programs

* * * * *

Missouri

* * * * *
    (t) The Missouri Department of Natural Resources submitted
revisions to Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.065, ``Operating Permits'' on
January 3, 2006. We are approving this rule except for Section (4)
which relates to the State Basic Operating Permits. This approval is
effective April 23, 2007.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-2808 Filed 2-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 183 (Friday, September 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 53098]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20664]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4483-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Iowa; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Iowa (FEMA-4483-DR), dated March 23, 2020, and related
determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued August 5, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
dated March 23, 2020 for the State of Iowa is hereby amended to include
the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    All areas within the State of Iowa are eligible for assistance
under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-20664 Filed 9-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P